On 3/4/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 9:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> About like pickup trucks, the #1 vehicle sold in the US of
>> A year after year:
>>
>> https://ktla.com/news/local-news/child-critically-injured-when-truck-crashes-into-long-beach-apartment-building/
>>
>>
>> Some large number of your fellow citizens think pickups
>> have great utility, despite ridiculously high prices. You
>> do not. Some of your fellow citizens ought not to have
>> one, as they harm others with their pickup trucks. That's
>> not the fault of Ford or the truck designers or all the
>> other pickup owners.
>
> Pickup trucks are purposely styled to look aggressive. By
> doing that, designers promote an aggressive mindset. That IS
> the fault of Ford and truck designers.
>
> "“Trucks could look less tough, but you don’t want to be
> the one to make your truck look soft,” says Tyson Jominy,
> vice president for data and analytics at J.D. Power. He
> estimates that an automaker might make four to five times
> more money on a pickup than a sedan, partly because
> manufacturing a truck is simpler and because buyers will pay
> more for a pickup. “You can charge a lot for the
> capability, for the image.”
>
> "Automakers are also selling a lifestyle, says Angie
> Schmitt, founder and principal at 3MPH Planning and
> Consulting, a firm focused on pedestrian safety. She points
> to ads with trucks at construction sites, hauling massive
> trailers, and racing over sand dunes. “They’re not
> hiding the fact that they’re marketing these trucks as
> being really macho and a display of masculinity or
> prowess,” she says. “That’s a big part of the
> marketing, and I think that it works.”
>
> More at
> https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/
>
>
> or
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/
>
>
> or
> https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/blind-spots-on-pickup-trucks-are-killing-pedestrians-says-consumer-reports
>
>

OK. You don't like pickup trucks. No problem, suit yourself.

(Can't say I'm a fan either. I much prefer small light and
zippy. Then again I don't haul things which require a pickup
bed either)

Using the last normal sales year before the communist
takeover (2019), US vehicle sales were something like 17
million[1] with pickups about 3 million. That's a
significant slice of your neighbors and new pickups are not
cheap.

Applying the 'large number' rule and a little humility, one
ought to pause before generalizing about that population IMHO.

[1]There are some reporting differences between 'light'
'medium' and 'heavy' pickups.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/4/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 9:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 8:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons.
>>>>> You've alluded to
>>>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists,
>>>>> then the owners of
>>>>> one type of gun.
>>>>
>>>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply
>>>> demonstrating that
>>>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are
>>>> actually
>>>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply
>>>> "Oh! I wanna
>>>> do dat!"
>>>
>>> You're off by a factor of over 40.
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>>>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a
>>>> bicycle, a
>>>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your
>>>> "must have
>>>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an
>>>> adult - Oh, I
>>>> want to do that - toy.
>>>>
>>>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to
>>>> work,
>>>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the
>>>> population.
>>>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
>>>
>>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm
>>> retired, so no longer commute by bike; but I still use the
>>> bike to get groceries, library books, visit friends and yes,
>>> just ride for exercise and fun.
>>>
>>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must
>>> perceive _some_ benefit from that activity.
>>>
>>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take
>>> this very seriously have determined the benefits of
>>> bicycling are real, and greatly outweigh its risks.
>>>
>>> 20:1 benefit:Â Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of
>>> Health," Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states
>>> that the years of life gained through cycling exceeds the
>>> years of life lost through cycling by "around 20 to one."
>>> Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still
>>> benefitting from reduced pollution, reduced risk of being
>>> struck by a car, etc.
>>>
>>> 7:1 benefit:Â Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits
>>> of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health
>>> Perspectives, 118(8), Aug. 2010 found a benefit to risk
>>> ratio of seven to one for cyclists themselves in Britain,
>>> and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>>>
>>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and
>>> benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car
>>> use", British Medical Journal 2011: 343: d4512Â Â Â found
>>> years of life gained outweighed years of life lost by a 77
>>> to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's bike
>>> share system instead of using a car.
>>>
>>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to
>>> active transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131
>>> computed benefits versus risks in terms of "mortality cost"
>>> in Euros for the person cycling. Cycling was found to confer
>>> an average of 1310 € per year due to health gains,
>>> versus
>>> 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash
>>> risk.
>>> Â Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>>>
>>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll
>>> ignore those and change the subject.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, people who feel any given item has benefit? I can do
>> that too
>>
>> https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/07/08/former-cnn-anchor-nothing-to-debate-having-a-gun-saved-my-life/
>
>
> Wow. Let's back up and look at the quality of evidence here,
> OK?
>
> I've cited four scientific studies specifically constructed
> to answer the question about whether bicycling's benefits
> exceed its risks. Although each used different methods and
> metrics, they all concluded the benefits of bicycling
> greatly outweighed its risks. And it goes without saying,
> but any detriments of bicycling are never externalized. That
> is, as opposed to guns, bicycling almost never harms others.
>
> To counter that, you linked one anecdote in which a couple
> was attacked WITH THE WEAPON YOU'RE DEFENDING and ask us to
> accept the belief of the woman that her gun saved her life.
> IOW, you're discounting the fact that the thug could have
> simply left with the couple's money.
>
> Have you not considered that if the attacker had no access
> to his gun, the entire incident would not have taken place?
> And that by promoting the free distribution of AR rifles and
> other guns, you're all but guaranteeing more such attacks?
>
> To put this in more scientific terms: Is that really all
> you've got for a disciplined study of overall benefits and
> detriments of American gun policy?
>
>
>

'Benefit' is a squishy term with fluid definition as you
wade through this argument. I know of only one man whose
life was saved[1] by his bicycle (and I know a LOT of
cyclists).

I cited one specific incontrovertibly lifesaving firearm
incident and linked yesterday to the overall large number of
those annually.

What's the value of a life? I suppose it didn't benefit
_you_, but still...

[1] Dr Jerome Klotz, featured in January 1971 Cycling Magazine

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:12:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 11:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 3/3/2022 9:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/3/2022 8:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons.
> >>>>> You've alluded to
> >>>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists,
> >>>>> then the owners of
> >>>>> one type of gun.
> >>>>
> >>>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply
> >>>> demonstrating that
> >>>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are
> >>>> actually
> >>>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply
> >>>> "Oh! I wanna
> >>>> do dat!"
> >>>
> >>> You're off by a factor of over 40.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
> >>>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a
> >>>> bicycle, a
> >>>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your
> >>>> "must have
> >>>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an
> >>>> adult - Oh, I
> >>>> want to do that - toy.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to
> >>>> work,
> >>>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the
> >>>> population.
> >>>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
> >>>
> >>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm
> >>> retired, so no longer commute by bike; but I still use the
> >>> bike to get groceries, library books, visit friends and yes,
> >>> just ride for exercise and fun.
> >>>
> >>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must
> >>> perceive _some_ benefit from that activity.
> >>>
> >>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take
> >>> this very seriously have determined the benefits of
> >>> bicycling are real, and greatly outweigh its risks.
> >>>
> >>> 20:1 benefit:Â Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of
> >>> Health," Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states
> >>> that the years of life gained through cycling exceeds the
> >>> years of life lost through cycling by "around 20 to one."
> >>> Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
> >>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still
> >>> benefitting from reduced pollution, reduced risk of being
> >>> struck by a car, etc.
> >>>
> >>> 7:1 benefit:Â Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits
> >>> of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health
> >>> Perspectives, 118(8), Aug. 2010 found a benefit to risk
> >>> ratio of seven to one for cyclists themselves in Britain,
> >>> and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
> >>>
> >>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and
> >>> benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car
> >>> use", British Medical Journal 2011: 343: d4512Â Â Â found
> >>> years of life gained outweighed years of life lost by a 77
> >>> to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's bike
> >>> share system instead of using a car.
> >>>
> >>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to
> >>> active transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131
> >>> computed benefits versus risks in terms of "mortality cost"
> >>> in Euros for the person cycling. Cycling was found to confer
> >>> an average of 1310 € per year due to health gains,
> >>> versus
> >>> 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash
> >>> risk.
> >>> Â Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
> >>>
> >>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll
> >>> ignore those and change the subject.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Oh, people who feel any given item has benefit? I can do
> >> that too
> >>
> >> https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/07/08/former-cnn-anchor-nothing-to-debate-having-a-gun-saved-my-life/
> >
> >
> > Wow. Let's back up and look at the quality of evidence here,
> > OK?
> >
> > I've cited four scientific studies specifically constructed
> > to answer the question about whether bicycling's benefits
> > exceed its risks. Although each used different methods and
> > metrics, they all concluded the benefits of bicycling
> > greatly outweighed its risks. And it goes without saying,
> > but any detriments of bicycling are never externalized. That
> > is, as opposed to guns, bicycling almost never harms others.
> >
> > To counter that, you linked one anecdote in which a couple
> > was attacked WITH THE WEAPON YOU'RE DEFENDING and ask us to
> > accept the belief of the woman that her gun saved her life.
> > IOW, you're discounting the fact that the thug could have
> > simply left with the couple's money.
> >
> > Have you not considered that if the attacker had no access
> > to his gun, the entire incident would not have taken place?
> > And that by promoting the free distribution of AR rifles and
> > other guns, you're all but guaranteeing more such attacks?
> >
> > To put this in more scientific terms: Is that really all
> > you've got for a disciplined study of overall benefits and
> > detriments of American gun policy?
> >
> >
> >
> 'Benefit' is a squishy term with fluid definition as you
> wade through this argument. I know of only one man whose
> life was saved[1] by his bicycle (and I know a LOT of
> cyclists).
>
> I cited one specific incontrovertibly lifesaving firearm
> incident and linked yesterday to the overall large number of
> those annually.
>
> What's the value of a life? I suppose it didn't benefit
> _you_, but still...
>
> [1] Dr Jerome Klotz, featured in January 1971 Cycling Magazine

The fear of guns by Frank is reaching proportions where it may have physical origins. That is, he may have an illness that is causing him to become unhinged. This is plainly Jeff's problem.

On 3/4/2022 2:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 11:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 9:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> About like pickup trucks, the #1 vehicle sold in the US of
>>> A year after year:
>>>
>>> https://ktla.com/news/local-news/child-critically-injured-when-truck-crashes-into-long-beach-apartment-building/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Some large number of your fellow citizens think pickups
>>> have great utility, despite ridiculously high prices. You
>>> do not. Some of your fellow citizens ought not to have
>>> one, as they harm others with their pickup trucks. That's
>>> not the fault of Ford or the truck designers or all the
>>> other pickup owners.
>>
>> Pickup trucks are purposely styled to look aggressive. By
>> doing that, designers promote an aggressive mindset. That IS
>> the fault of Ford and truck designers.
>>
>> "“Trucks could look less tough, but you don’t want to be
>> the one to make your truck look soft,” says Tyson Jominy,
>> vice president for data and analytics at J.D. Power. He
>> estimates that an automaker might make four to five times
>> more money on a pickup than a sedan, partly because
>> manufacturing a truck is simpler and because buyers will pay
>> more for a pickup. “You can charge a lot for the
>> capability, for the image.”
>>
>> "Automakers are also selling a lifestyle, says Angie
>> Schmitt, founder and principal at 3MPH Planning and
>> Consulting, a firm focused on pedestrian safety. She points
>> to ads with trucks at construction sites, hauling massive
>> trailers, and racing over sand dunes. “They’re not
>> hiding the fact that they’re marketing these trucks as
>> being really macho and a display of masculinity or
>> prowess,” she says. “That’s a big part of the
>> marketing, and I think that it works.”
>>
>> More at
>> https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/
>>
>>
>>
>> or
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/
>>
>>
>>
>> or
>> https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/blind-spots-on-pickup-trucks-are-killing-pedestrians-says-consumer-reports
>>
>>
>>
>
> OK. You don't like pickup trucks. No problem, suit yourself.
>
> (Can't say I'm a fan either. I much prefer small light and zippy. Then
> again I don't haul things which require a pickup bed either)

I agree about light and zippy. And as I've mentioned, back in about 1978
or so, I solved the occasional need to haul things by building a 4' x 6'
trailer. It's still used occasionally, but lives most of its life stored
vertically in my garage. While I can't prove it, I think this strategy
would work at least as well for most pickup owners. (Non-empty pickup
beds are a tiny percentage.) But of course, it doesn't have the same
manly image.

> Using the last normal sales year before the communist takeover (2019),
> US vehicle sales were something like 17 million[1] with pickups about 3
> million. That's a significant slice of your neighbors and new pickups
> are not cheap.

Meh. A fashionable choice is rarely an intelligent choice. Often it's
the opposite. Are you still in bell bottoms?

As a guess, I'd say half the people who bought pickups saw a commercial
with a "Ram Tough!!" pickup sliding sideways, raising desert dust. That
made them think it was "Just the thing!" for driving from their suburban
postage stamp lot to their job at the insurance company - in their
cowboy hat, of course. Mentally they justify it by hauling ten bags of
mulch a year.
> Applying the 'large number' rule and a little humility, one ought to
> pause before generalizing about that population IMHO.
>
> [1]There are some reporting differences between 'light' 'medium' and
> 'heavy' pickups.

FWIW, my complaints have been about huge pickups, and especially the
tricked out, jacked up ones with oversized protruding wheels and tires,
light bars, loud exhausts and (especially) "rolling coal" equipment.

Both my kids chose a compact pickup for a time. They never went back to
one. Another family member always has one, but she actually does deal
with cows, hay bales and a barn load of other stuff, and hers doesn't
have the trendy intimidation styling.

My wife and I just returned from a neighborhood walk. We were passed in
quick succession by two gleaming 4x4 "Off Road Tough" trucks whose faux
radiator caps were at the level of my head. That's just manly fashion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:44:48 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons. You've alluded to
> >>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists, then the owners of
> >>>> one type of gun.
> >>>
> >>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply demonstrating that
> >>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are actually
> >>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply "Oh! I wanna
> >>> do dat!"
> >>
> >> You're off by a factor of over 40.
> >>
> >> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
> >>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a bicycle, a
> >>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your "must have
> >>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an adult - Oh, I
> >>> want to do that - toy.
> >>>
> >>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to work,
> >>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the population.
> >>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
> >>
> >> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
> >> no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
> >> library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.
> >>
> >> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
> >> benefit from that activity.
> >>
> >> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
> >> seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
> >> greatly outweigh its risks.
> >
> > Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that get you up
> > off the couch, even walking to the front door to check for mail has
> > some "bennies".
> >
> > As for most of your assertions - you ride to the library, etc., while,
> > yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking chair but they
> > aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another way, they could
> > be greater for the time spent.
> >
> > So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice day. I guess
> > I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the car or the
> > motorcycle"
> >
> >> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
> >> Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
> >> gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
> >> "around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
> >> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
> >> reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.
> >
> > Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
> > "Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to
> > increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the protective effect
> > of helmets. This seems unlikely."
> >
> > Which you have posted innumerable times that you disagree with.
> >
> >> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
> >> Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
> >> 2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
> >> themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
> >>
> >> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
> >> cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
> >> Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
> >> life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
> >> bike share system instead of using a car.
> >>
> >> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
> >> transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
> >> risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
> >> Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
> >> gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
> >> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
> >>
> >> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
> >> and change the subject.
> >
> > All of which say essentially the same thing that bicycling is better
> > then nothing.
> >
> > Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
> > morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
> > morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
> > measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
> > the same period.
> We may bicycle to get groceries later today. We frequently do that. It's
> a 6.2 mile round trip.
>
> Would you walk or run six miles to carry home 20-something pounds of
> groceries? Of course not. You'd drive.

Where I used to live, I walked 1.5 miles round trip to the grocery store. Carrying heavy groceries home was unpleasant. Many times I carried home 2 liter bottles of soda pop. 6 or 8 bottles total. 25 to 35 pounds roughly. My arms were longer when I got home. I have a touring bike with panniers and a rack bag. So I could have easily used that bike and bags to carry 9 bottles home. But that seemed like too much work to get that bike and bags out and use it for such a short walk.

>
> That illustrates that for many trips, bicycling can replace driving in
> ways that walking or running cannot. In fact, I doubt you've ever run to
> and from a store to buy anything weighing even a pound. Running is
> exercise, but it's as unproductive for practical purposes as spinning on
> an exercise bike.
>
> Bicycling can replace car use for certain trips, giving health and
> economic benefits to the rider, plus safety and health benefits to
> others who are less subject to the physical and environmental dangers
> imposed by cars. And it builds healthy exercise into daily life as a
> normal event, not an "I gotta..." add on discipline.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>
>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>
>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>
>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>
>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>
>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>
>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>
>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>> developed solely for hunting,
>
>Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>want something well over 20 inches.
>
>Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>
>How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>didn't take down that rabbit?
>
>Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>
>I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>evasions.

You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?

But o.k. Barrel lengths:

Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
(1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
powder charge.
This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
weapons. And:

(2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
front and rear sight to produce accuracy.

Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
fire, and charge with the bayonet.
This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.

Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
"large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.

Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
accurately then with the so called "iron sights".

But more to the point.
Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:44:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons. You've alluded to
>>>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists, then the owners of
>>>>> one type of gun.
>>>>
>>>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply demonstrating that
>>>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are actually
>>>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply "Oh! I wanna
>>>> do dat!"
>>>
>>> You're off by a factor of over 40.
>>>
>>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>>>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a bicycle, a
>>>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your "must have
>>>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an adult - Oh, I
>>>> want to do that - toy.
>>>>
>>>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to work,
>>>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the population.
>>>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
>>>
>>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
>>> no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
>>> library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.
>>>
>>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
>>> benefit from that activity.
>>>
>>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
>>> seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
>>> greatly outweigh its risks.
>>
>> Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that get you up
>> off the couch, even walking to the front door to check for mail has
>> some "bennies".
>>
>> As for most of your assertions - you ride to the library, etc., while,
>> yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking chair but they
>> aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another way, they could
>> be greater for the time spent.
>>
>> So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice day. I guess
>> I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the car or the
>> motorcycle"
>>
>>> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
>>> Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
>>> gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
>>> "around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
>>> reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.
>>
>> Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
>> "Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to
>> increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the protective effect
>> of helmets. This seems unlikely."
>>
>> Which you have posted innumerable times that you disagree with.
>>
>>> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
>>> Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
>>> 2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
>>> themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>>>
>>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
>>> cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
>>> Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
>>> life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
>>> bike share system instead of using a car.
>>>
>>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
>>> transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
>>> risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
>>> Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
>>> gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
>>> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>>>
>>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
>>> and change the subject.
>>
>> All of which say essentially the same thing that bicycling is better
>> then nothing.
>>
>> Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
>> morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
>> morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
>> measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
>> the same period.
>
>We may bicycle to get groceries later today. We frequently do that. It's
>a 6.2 mile round trip.
>

But Frank We were talking about benefits. Remember? And, I can assure
you that walking 6.2 miles, half way carrying your groceries would,
from a medical point of view be more beneficial to your body then a
leisurely ride on a bike.
Good Lord! Some people walk the Appalachian Trail which now extends
from Maine to Georgia, more then 2,000 miles and you are complaining
about a tiny little 6 mile walk?

But, perhaps a bit more to the point I walked a mile to school and a
mile home from the 1st grade through high school... See Frank, that's
what kids did in those years.

That is 2 miles a day for 5 days a week or a 6 year old kid and 10
miles a week which makes a 6 mile walk, once a week, for an adult seem
a bit puny.

>Would you walk or run six miles to carry home 20-something pounds of
>groceries? Of course not. You'd drive.
>
>That illustrates that for many trips, bicycling can replace driving in
>ways that walking or running cannot. In fact, I doubt you've ever run to
>and from a store to buy anything weighing even a pound. Running is
>exercise, but it's as unproductive for practical purposes as spinning on
>an exercise bike.
>
>Bicycling can replace car use for certain trips, giving health and
>economic benefits to the rider, plus safety and health benefits to
>others who are less subject to the physical and environmental dangers
>imposed by cars. And it builds healthy exercise into daily life as a
>normal event, not an "I gotta..." add on discipline.

A typical USian decision... "I'll just buy this $10,000 bicycle and By
Gorry! I'll ride it sometimes."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:16:44 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 11:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:16:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 12:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 10:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 8:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:40:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>>>>>>>>>> pistols are
>>>>>>>>>>>> revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40). Those all
>>>>>>>>>>>> fire at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same speed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the past year
>>>>>>>>>>>> in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for home
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds
>>>>>>>>>>> at two rounds
>>>>>>>>>>> per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters don't do
>>>>>>>>>>> that. Target
>>>>>>>>>>> shooters do that only if they're pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>>>>>>>>>> relative or
>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A)Â This common crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary,
>>>>>>>>>>> at least to me
>>>>>>>>>>> and mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> household to be armed
>>>>>>>>>>> for protection? Why is it not necessary in Canada,
>>>>>>>>>>> Britain, Norway,
>>>>>>>>>>> Portugal...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>>>>>>>> devices which always
>>>>>>>>>>>> hit the intended target such as the bad guy's wrist when
>>>>>>>>>>>> wielded by good
>>>>>>>>>>>> guy. Bad guy firearms also spray huge quantities just
>>>>>>>>>>>> over good guy's
>>>>>>>>>>>> head with magic sound effects.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I read that from 1949 to 2021 there were some 512
>>>>>>>>>> homicides in
>>>>>>>>>> mass shootings and from 1949 until 2018 there were 51,403
>>>>>>>>>> killed on
>>>>>>>>>> bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I
>>>>>>>>> can list the benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary.
>>>>>>>>> They've repeatedly been shown to tremendously outweigh the
>>>>>>>>> detriments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What are the practical benefits of letting any macho nutcase
>>>>>>>>> buy things like AR rifles? I don't believe you've ever
>>>>>>>>> answered that question!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You also haven't answered the closely related question of
>>>>>>>>> how you manage to get by without owning one. ISTM that's
>>>>>>>>> proof these guns are far from essential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a roughly similar price range and a roughly similar installed base
>>>>>>>> of both products ( bicycles and firearms) your personal bias seems at
>>>>>>>> least out of step with general USA opinion. Which is fine, but you're
>>>>>>>> not the arbiter and a large number of people see the problem differently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That statement avoided answering the question. What are the practical
>>>>>>> benefits of letting any macho nutcase by things like AR rifles? After
>>>>>>> all, we can count the detriments, starting with body counts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, what is the benefit???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a TV?
>>>>>> For living room furniture?
>>>>>> For a bed?
>>>>>> For a pet dog?
>>>>>> For a bottle of beer
>>>>>> or a glass of whiskey
>>>>>> Or even a wife
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
>>>>>
>>>>> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
>>>>> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
>>>>
>>>> Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
>>>> benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
>>>> posts.
>>>>
>>>> I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
>>>> another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
>>>> things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
>>>>
>>>> But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
>>>>
>>> I'm with you generally but it seems to have been a long
>>> while since you were buying 'girlfriend food' for an
>>> American woman. A '$30 handbag' is something one finds at a
>>> thrift store. A '$30 handbag' is not suitable as a gift.
>>>
>>
>> I'm going to go way out on a limb and say you are WRONG Andy. Wrong about $30 handbags at thrift stores. I have been in thrift stores. Salvation Army store. Never looked at the handbag section of course. But $30 for a handbag at a thrift store seems outrageously expensive. Crazy expensive. Now belts I do look at in thrift stores. Men's belts. I buy them for a $1 in the thrift store. Great, great belts. Almost like brand new. I have 5 or 6 in reserve now. Belts that probably cost $20 or $30 new. But only $1 at the thrift store. Yeah!!! I am going to bet women's handbags are just like men's belts at the thrift store. They get lots of them and sell them for a buck or two to get rid of them fast. No $30 handbags at the thrift store.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+fendi+bag&t=h_&ia=web
>>>
>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+prada+handbag&t=h_&ia=web
>
>I'm with Ms Slocumb on this. No man in his right mind would
>give a woman a $30 handbag.

On 3/4/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:16:44 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 11:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:16:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 12:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 10:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 8:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:40:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pistols are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40). Those all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same speed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the past year
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for home
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds
>>>>>>>>>>>> at two rounds
>>>>>>>>>>>> per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters don't do
>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Target
>>>>>>>>>>>> shooters do that only if they're pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A)Â This common crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary,
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least to me
>>>>>>>>>>>> and mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> household to be armed
>>>>>>>>>>>> for protection? Why is it not necessary in Canada,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Britain, Norway,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Portugal...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices which always
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit the intended target such as the bad guy's wrist when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wielded by good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guy. Bad guy firearms also spray huge quantities just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over good guy's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> head with magic sound effects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I read that from 1949 to 2021 there were some 512
>>>>>>>>>>> homicides in
>>>>>>>>>>> mass shootings and from 1949 until 2018 there were 51,403
>>>>>>>>>>> killed on
>>>>>>>>>>> bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I
>>>>>>>>>> can list the benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary.
>>>>>>>>>> They've repeatedly been shown to tremendously outweigh the
>>>>>>>>>> detriments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are the practical benefits of letting any macho nutcase
>>>>>>>>>> buy things like AR rifles? I don't believe you've ever
>>>>>>>>>> answered that question!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You also haven't answered the closely related question of
>>>>>>>>>> how you manage to get by without owning one. ISTM that's
>>>>>>>>>> proof these guns are far from essential.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For a roughly similar price range and a roughly similar installed base
>>>>>>>>> of both products ( bicycles and firearms) your personal bias seems at
>>>>>>>>> least out of step with general USA opinion. Which is fine, but you're
>>>>>>>>> not the arbiter and a large number of people see the problem differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That statement avoided answering the question. What are the practical
>>>>>>>> benefits of letting any macho nutcase by things like AR rifles? After
>>>>>>>> all, we can count the detriments, starting with body counts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, what is the benefit???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a TV?
>>>>>>> For living room furniture?
>>>>>>> For a bed?
>>>>>>> For a pet dog?
>>>>>>> For a bottle of beer
>>>>>>> or a glass of whiskey
>>>>>>> Or even a wife
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
>>>>>> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
>>>>> benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
>>>>> posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
>>>>> another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
>>>>> things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm with you generally but it seems to have been a long
>>>> while since you were buying 'girlfriend food' for an
>>>> American woman. A '$30 handbag' is something one finds at a
>>>> thrift store. A '$30 handbag' is not suitable as a gift.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to go way out on a limb and say you are WRONG Andy. Wrong about $30 handbags at thrift stores. I have been in thrift stores. Salvation Army store. Never looked at the handbag section of course. But $30 for a handbag at a thrift store seems outrageously expensive. Crazy expensive. Now belts I do look at in thrift stores. Men's belts. I buy them for a $1 in the thrift store. Great, great belts. Almost like brand new. I have 5 or 6 in reserve now. Belts that probably cost $20 or $30 new. But only $1 at the thrift store. Yeah!!! I am going to bet women's handbags are just like men's belts at the thrift store. They get lots of them and sell them for a buck or two to get rid of them fast. No $30 handbags at the thrift store.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+fendi+bag&t=h_&ia=web
>>>>
>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+prada+handbag&t=h_&ia=web
>>
>> I'm with Ms Slocumb on this. No man in his right mind would
>> give a woman a $30 handbag.
>
>
> The difference between the U.S. and Thailand.
>
> I just told my wife what you said - I had to explain the "Ms" - and
> she sort of "got her back up" as the saying goes, and rather
> indignantly said, (I'm translating here) "What's this "Ms"? I'm a
> married woman! Do you want people to think I'm just shacked up with
> you?
> (:-)
>

On 3/4/2022 6:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:44:48 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons. You've alluded to
>>>>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists, then the owners of
>>>>>> one type of gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply demonstrating that
>>>>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are actually
>>>>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply "Oh! I wanna
>>>>> do dat!"
>>>>
>>>> You're off by a factor of over 40.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>>>>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a bicycle, a
>>>>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your "must have
>>>>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an adult - Oh, I
>>>>> want to do that - toy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to work,
>>>>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the population.
>>>>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
>>>>
>>>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
>>>> no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
>>>> library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.
>>>>
>>>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
>>>> benefit from that activity.
>>>>
>>>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
>>>> seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
>>>> greatly outweigh its risks.
>>>
>>> Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that get you up
>>> off the couch, even walking to the front door to check for mail has
>>> some "bennies".
>>>
>>> As for most of your assertions - you ride to the library, etc., while,
>>> yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking chair but they
>>> aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another way, they could
>>> be greater for the time spent.
>>>
>>> So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice day. I guess
>>> I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the car or the
>>> motorcycle"
>>>
>>>> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
>>>> Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
>>>> gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
>>>> "around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>>>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
>>>> reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.
>>>
>>> Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
>>> "Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to
>>> increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the protective effect
>>> of helmets. This seems unlikely."
>>>
>>> Which you have posted innumerable times that you disagree with.
>>>
>>>> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
>>>> Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
>>>> 2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
>>>> themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>>>>
>>>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
>>>> cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
>>>> Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
>>>> life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
>>>> bike share system instead of using a car.
>>>>
>>>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
>>>> transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
>>>> risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
>>>> Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
>>>> gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
>>>> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>>>>
>>>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
>>>> and change the subject.
>>>
>>> All of which say essentially the same thing that bicycling is better
>>> then nothing.
>>>
>>> Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
>>> morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
>>> morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
>>> measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
>>> the same period.
>> We may bicycle to get groceries later today. We frequently do that. It's
>> a 6.2 mile round trip.
>>
>> Would you walk or run six miles to carry home 20-something pounds of
>> groceries? Of course not. You'd drive.
>
> Where I used to live, I walked 1.5 miles round trip to the grocery store. Carrying heavy groceries home was unpleasant. Many times I carried home 2 liter bottles of soda pop. 6 or 8 bottles total. 25 to 35 pounds roughly. My arms were longer when I got home. I have a touring bike with panniers and a rack bag. So I could have easily used that bike and bags to carry 9 bottles home. But that seemed like too much work to get that bike and bags out and use it for such a short walk.

The last bike I built up was specifically made to be super easy to use,
so no ride is too short. Three speed hub, front Dynohub, upright bars,
flat pedals work even with my hiking boots, front basket, handlebar
mirror so I don't even have to clip on an eyeglass mirror, an old 52
tooth chainring with teeth removed to use as a chainguard so I don't
have to clip my pants cuffs. I carry it up ~5 steps out the back
basement door and jump on.

I think in marketing terms, this is called "reducing friction" - i.e.
making an operation as easy as possible.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>
>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>
>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>
>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>
>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>
>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>
>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>
>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>
>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>
>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>
>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>
>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>
>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>> evasions.
>
> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>
> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>
> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> powder charge.
> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
> weapons. And:
>
> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>
> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>
> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>
> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>
> But more to the point.
> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.

John, you carefully avoided answering each question.

Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
your hunting guns.

Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/4/2022 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:44:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> That illustrates that for many trips, bicycling can replace driving in
>> ways that walking or running cannot. In fact, I doubt you've ever run to
>> and from a store to buy anything weighing even a pound. Running is
>> exercise, but it's as unproductive for practical purposes as spinning on
>> an exercise bike.
>>
>> Bicycling can replace car use for certain trips, giving health and
>> economic benefits to the rider, plus safety and health benefits to
>> others who are less subject to the physical and environmental dangers
>> imposed by cars. And it builds healthy exercise into daily life as a
>> normal event, not an "I gotta..." add on discipline.
>
> A typical USian decision... "I'll just buy this $10,000 bicycle and By
> Gorry! I'll ride it sometimes."

Nice try, but I have no $10,000 bicycles. The one I ride to get
groceries (my former commuter bike) I got by trade from a friend. I got
a Raleigh Super Course (pretty nice bike) that was in such bad shape I
spent a week of vacation rehabilitating it. He got my first 10 speed, a
low-end German built "Staiger" that was much lower quality but in
perfect running order.

I used to joke that Staiger was the German word for Stone. But I gather
they made some fairly nice bikes, in addition to my "stone."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 15:30:50 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:44:48 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons. You've alluded to
>> >>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists, then the owners of
>> >>>> one type of gun.
>> >>>
>> >>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply demonstrating that
>> >>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are actually
>> >>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply "Oh! I wanna
>> >>> do dat!"
>> >>
>> >> You're off by a factor of over 40.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>> >>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a bicycle, a
>> >>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your "must have
>> >>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an adult - Oh, I
>> >>> want to do that - toy.
>> >>>
>> >>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to work,
>> >>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the population.
>> >>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
>> >>
>> >> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
>> >> no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
>> >> library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.
>> >>
>> >> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
>> >> benefit from that activity.
>> >>
>> >> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
>> >> seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
>> >> greatly outweigh its risks.
>> >
>> > Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that get you up
>> > off the couch, even walking to the front door to check for mail has
>> > some "bennies".
>> >
>> > As for most of your assertions - you ride to the library, etc., while,
>> > yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking chair but they
>> > aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another way, they could
>> > be greater for the time spent.
>> >
>> > So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice day. I guess
>> > I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the car or the
>> > motorcycle"
>> >
>> >> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
>> >> Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
>> >> gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
>> >> "around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>> >> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
>> >> reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.
>> >
>> > Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
>> > "Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to
>> > increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the protective effect
>> > of helmets. This seems unlikely."
>> >
>> > Which you have posted innumerable times that you disagree with.
>> >
>> >> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
>> >> Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
>> >> 2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
>> >> themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>> >>
>> >> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
>> >> cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
>> >> Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
>> >> life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
>> >> bike share system instead of using a car.
>> >>
>> >> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
>> >> transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
>> >> risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
>> >> Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
>> >> gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
>> >> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>> >>
>> >> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
>> >> and change the subject.
>> >
>> > All of which say essentially the same thing that bicycling is better
>> > then nothing.
>> >
>> > Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
>> > morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
>> > morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
>> > measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
>> > the same period.
>> We may bicycle to get groceries later today. We frequently do that. It's
>> a 6.2 mile round trip.
>>
>> Would you walk or run six miles to carry home 20-something pounds of
>> groceries? Of course not. You'd drive.
>
>Where I used to live, I walked 1.5 miles round trip to the grocery store. Carrying heavy groceries home was unpleasant. Many times I carried home 2 liter bottles of soda pop. 6 or 8 bottles total. 25 to 35 pounds roughly. My arms were longer when I got home. I have a touring bike with panniers and a rack bag. So I could have easily used that bike and bags to carry 9 bottles home. But that seemed like too much work to get that bike and bags out and use it for such a short walk.

Not to denigrate your effort at all, but walking was what people used
to do. My grandmother in her late 50's, early 60's, used to walk "down
town", I'm guessing about 3/4 of a mile, and back on a Saturday.
And she wasn't unique at all. You used to see people walking.
In fact men used to walk to work. the "Car" was for Sunday drives, "No
one but a fool would spend all that money for gas just to go to work."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:08:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/4/2022 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:44:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That illustrates that for many trips, bicycling can replace driving in
>>> ways that walking or running cannot. In fact, I doubt you've ever run to
>>> and from a store to buy anything weighing even a pound. Running is
>>> exercise, but it's as unproductive for practical purposes as spinning on
>>> an exercise bike.
>>>
>>> Bicycling can replace car use for certain trips, giving health and
>>> economic benefits to the rider, plus safety and health benefits to
>>> others who are less subject to the physical and environmental dangers
>>> imposed by cars. And it builds healthy exercise into daily life as a
>>> normal event, not an "I gotta..." add on discipline.
>>
>> A typical USian decision... "I'll just buy this $10,000 bicycle and By
>> Gorry! I'll ride it sometimes."
>
>Nice try, but I have no $10,000 bicycles. The one I ride to get
>groceries (my former commuter bike) I got by trade from a friend. I got

Ah but Frank, you are unique. I mean after all not everyone has a
auto, a motorcycle AND a bicycle. What's next? Roller skates?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/4/2022 6:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 6:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:44:48 AM UTC-6, Frank
>> Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2022 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have set up a couple of weird
>>>>>>> comparisons. You've alluded to
>>>>>>> all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists,
>>>>>>> then the owners of
>>>>>>> one type of gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply
>>>>>> demonstrating that
>>>>>> there are less then a million people in the U.S. who
>>>>>> are actually
>>>>>> benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are
>>>>>> simply "Oh! I wanna
>>>>>> do dat!"
>>>>>
>>>>> You're off by a factor of over 40.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>>>>>> You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you
>>>>>> own a bicycle, a
>>>>>> motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not
>>>>>> your "must have
>>>>>> it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an
>>>>>> adult - Oh, I
>>>>>> want to do that - toy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get
>>>>>> to work,
>>>>>> benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of
>>>>>> the population.
>>>>>> (That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike
>>>>> commuters. I'm retired, so
>>>>> no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to
>>>>> get groceries,
>>>>> library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for
>>>>> exercise and fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore
>>>>> must perceive _some_
>>>>> benefit from that activity.
>>>>>
>>>>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who
>>>>> take this very
>>>>> seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are
>>>>> real, and
>>>>> greatly outweigh its risks.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that
>>>> get you up
>>>> off the couch, even walking to the front door to check
>>>> for mail has
>>>> some "bennies".
>>>>
>>>> As for most of your assertions - you ride to the
>>>> library, etc., while,
>>>> yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking
>>>> chair but they
>>>> aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another
>>>> way, they could
>>>> be greater for the time spent.
>>>>
>>>> So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice
>>>> day. I guess
>>>> I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the
>>>> car or the
>>>> motorcycle"
>>>>
>>>>> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion
>>>>> of Health,"
>>>>> Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that
>>>>> the years of life
>>>>> gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost
>>>>> through cycling by
>>>>> "around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not
>>>>> only the cyclists
>>>>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still
>>>>> benefitting from
>>>>> reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a
>>>>> car, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
>>>> "Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would
>>>> have to
>>>> increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the
>>>> protective effect
>>>> of helmets. This seems unlikely."
>>>>
>>>> Which you have posted innumerable times that you
>>>> disagree with.
>>>>
>>>>> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health
>>>>> Benefits of Cycling
>>>>> Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health
>>>>> Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
>>>>> 2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for
>>>>> cyclists
>>>>> themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in
>>>>> Holland.
>>>>>
>>>>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and
>>>>> benefits of
>>>>> cycling in urban environments compared with car use",
>>>>> British Medical
>>>>> Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained
>>>>> outweighed years of
>>>>> life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to
>>>>> use Barcelona's
>>>>> bike share system instead of using a car.
>>>>>
>>>>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to
>>>>> active
>>>>> transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed
>>>>> benefits versus
>>>>> risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the
>>>>> person cycling.
>>>>> Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per
>>>>> year due to health
>>>>> gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution
>>>>> exposure and crash risk.
>>>>> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know
>>>>> you'll ignore those
>>>>> and change the subject.
>>>>
>>>> All of which say essentially the same thing that
>>>> bicycling is better
>>>> then nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles
>>>> every
>>>> morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I
>>>> walk every
>>>> morning and the number of calories expended - I don't
>>>> know how to
>>>> measure the work done any other way - is greater then
>>>> bicycling for
>>>> the same period.
>>> We may bicycle to get groceries later today. We
>>> frequently do that. It's
>>> a 6.2 mile round trip.
>>>
>>> Would you walk or run six miles to carry home
>>> 20-something pounds of
>>> groceries? Of course not. You'd drive.
>>
>> Where I used to live, I walked 1.5 miles round trip to the
>> grocery store. Carrying heavy groceries home was
>> unpleasant. Many times I carried home 2 liter bottles of
>> soda pop. 6 or 8 bottles total. 25 to 35 pounds
>> roughly. My arms were longer when I got home. I have a
>> touring bike with panniers and a rack bag. So I could
>> have easily used that bike and bags to carry 9 bottles
>> home. But that seemed like too much work to get that bike
>> and bags out and use it for such a short walk.
>
> The last bike I built up was specifically made to be super
> easy to use, so no ride is too short. Three speed hub, front
> Dynohub, upright bars, flat pedals work even with my hiking
> boots, front basket, handlebar mirror so I don't even have
> to clip on an eyeglass mirror, an old 52 tooth chainring
> with teeth removed to use as a chainguard so I don't have to
> clip my pants cuffs. I carry it up ~5 steps out the back
> basement door and jump on.
>
> I think in marketing terms, this is called "reducing
> friction" - i.e. making an operation as easy as possible.
>
>

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>>
>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>
>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>
>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>
>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>
>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>
>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>
>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>>
>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>
>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>>
>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>>> evasions.
>>
>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>>
>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>
>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>> powder charge.
>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>> weapons. And:
>>
>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>
>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>
>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>
>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>
>> But more to the point.
>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>
>John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>
>Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>your hunting guns.
>
>Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.

Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
red dot things which I'm not familiar with.

You don't seem to realize, or perhaps deliberately misunderstood, that
my response applied to firearms. Not hunting, target shooting,
military, whatever,type of firearms, but all firearms.

The problem seems to be this irrational fear that you exhibit
regarding AR type rifles. I have a great deal of difficulty in
understanding this.

After all rifles, in general, are used in very few firearm homicides -
hands and feet are used in about twice as many murders as rifles - so
it can't be logic. And your fear seems centered on the AR.

But perhaps your were frightened as a small child with an AR type
firearm? No. can't be that as you are too old and the AR hadn't
been"invented" when you were a small child.

So, not much is left other then dementia. But, of course everyone buys
pickup trucks because they are big and brutal looking and every one
buys AR's because they are so scary to look at, and no one should
waste money buying their "Sweety" a hand bag that costs more then $30.

Sorry Frank but I have to say that your "arguments", or should I be
honest and use the term "delusions" have now exceeded even our very
own Tommy and you can now claim the crown for "Chief Loony". Right
here on RBT.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 18:56:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/4/2022 6:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:16:44 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/3/2022 11:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:16:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 12:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 10:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 8:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:40:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pistols are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40). Those all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same speed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the past year
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for home
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-defense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at two rounds
>>>>>>>>>>>>> per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters don't do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Target
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shooters do that only if they're pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A)Â This common crime?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least to me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> household to be armed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for protection? Why is it not necessary in Canada,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Britain, Norway,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Portugal...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devices which always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit the intended target such as the bad guy's wrist when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wielded by good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guy. Bad guy firearms also spray huge quantities just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over good guy's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head with magic sound effects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I read that from 1949 to 2021 there were some 512
>>>>>>>>>>>> homicides in
>>>>>>>>>>>> mass shootings and from 1949 until 2018 there were 51,403
>>>>>>>>>>>> killed on
>>>>>>>>>>>> bicycles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I
>>>>>>>>>>> can list the benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>> They've repeatedly been shown to tremendously outweigh the
>>>>>>>>>>> detriments.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What are the practical benefits of letting any macho nutcase
>>>>>>>>>>> buy things like AR rifles? I don't believe you've ever
>>>>>>>>>>> answered that question!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You also haven't answered the closely related question of
>>>>>>>>>>> how you manage to get by without owning one. ISTM that's
>>>>>>>>>>> proof these guns are far from essential.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a roughly similar price range and a roughly similar installed base
>>>>>>>>>> of both products ( bicycles and firearms) your personal bias seems at
>>>>>>>>>> least out of step with general USA opinion. Which is fine, but you're
>>>>>>>>>> not the arbiter and a large number of people see the problem differently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That statement avoided answering the question. What are the practical
>>>>>>>>> benefits of letting any macho nutcase by things like AR rifles? After
>>>>>>>>> all, we can count the detriments, starting with body counts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup, what is the benefit???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a TV?
>>>>>>>> For living room furniture?
>>>>>>>> For a bed?
>>>>>>>> For a pet dog?
>>>>>>>> For a bottle of beer
>>>>>>>> or a glass of whiskey
>>>>>>>> Or even a wife
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
>>>>>>> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
>>>>>> benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
>>>>>> another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
>>>>>> things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with you generally but it seems to have been a long
>>>>> while since you were buying 'girlfriend food' for an
>>>>> American woman. A '$30 handbag' is something one finds at a
>>>>> thrift store. A '$30 handbag' is not suitable as a gift.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to go way out on a limb and say you are WRONG Andy. Wrong about $30 handbags at thrift stores. I have been in thrift stores. Salvation Army store. Never looked at the handbag section of course. But $30 for a handbag at a thrift store seems outrageously expensive. Crazy expensive. Now belts I do look at in thrift stores. Men's belts. I buy them for a $1 in the thrift store. Great, great belts. Almost like brand new. I have 5 or 6 in reserve now. Belts that probably cost $20 or $30 new. But only $1 at the thrift store. Yeah!!! I am going to bet women's handbags are just like men's belts at the thrift store. They get lots of them and sell them for a buck or two to get rid of them fast. No $30 handbags at the thrift store.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+fendi+bag&t=h_&ia=web
>>>>>
>>>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+prada+handbag&t=h_&ia=web
>>>
>>> I'm with Ms Slocumb on this. No man in his right mind would
>>> give a woman a $30 handbag.
>>
>>
>> The difference between the U.S. and Thailand.
>>
>> I just told my wife what you said - I had to explain the "Ms" - and
>> she sort of "got her back up" as the saying goes, and rather
>> indignantly said, (I'm translating here) "What's this "Ms"? I'm a
>> married woman! Do you want people to think I'm just shacked up with
>> you?
>> (:-)
>>
>
>Please convey my apology, no offense intended.

On 3/4/2022 8:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Not to denigrate your effort at all, but walking was what people used
> to do. My grandmother in her late 50's, early 60's, used to walk "down
> town", I'm guessing about 3/4 of a mile, and back on a Saturday.
> And she wasn't unique at all. You used to see people walking.
> In fact men used to walk to work. the "Car" was for Sunday drives, "No
> one but a fool would spend all that money for gas just to go to work."

My wife and I have a little quip we use often. If we see someone
walking, we say "Look! He must be a European!"

She and I walk a lot, and our suburban village is pretty pedestrian
friendly. But walkers are still rare around here, certainly compared to
motorists. We're unusual enough that people we've met have said things
like "Oh, I know who you are! You're the ones who walk and ride bikes!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>>>>>
>>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>>>>>
>>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>>>>>
>>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>>>>
>>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>>>>
>>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>>>>
>>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>>>>
>>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>>>>
>>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>>>> evasions.
>>>
>>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>>>
>>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>>>
>>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>>> powder charge.
>>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>>> weapons. And:
>>>
>>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>>>
>>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>>>
>>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>>>
>>> But more to the point.
>>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>>
>> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>>
>> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>> your hunting guns.
>>
>> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>
> Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
> red dot things which I'm not familiar with.

You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?

> The problem seems to be this irrational fear that you exhibit
> regarding AR type rifles. I have a great deal of difficulty in
> understanding this.

Your difficulty understanding things is obvious, including the fact that
I have no personal fear of such guns. (Disgust =/= fear.) Abetting mass
murder is disgusting to me. Grown ups pretending to be Rambo inspire
scorn and disgust, not fear.

At the same time, I recognize that you are only in this for the
argument. By your responses, it's obvious you do not now own an AR or
similar weapon, so you're a counterargument to the common "I need
personal defense" excuse. And in the days you hunted, you did so
successfully using a gun without the combat-oriented design features I
described.

For you, it's fun to argue in favor of the weapon that's been repeatedly
used for mass murder. But losing the argument on logical points takes
away your fun, so you've switch to insults.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >>>>
> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
> >>>>
> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you..
> >>>>
> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
> >>>> evasions.
> >>>
> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
> >>>
> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >>>
> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >>> powder charge.
> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
> >>> weapons. And:
> >>>
> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >>>
> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >>>
> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >>>
> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >>>
> >>> But more to the point.
> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm..
> >>
> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >>
> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
> >> your hunting guns.
> >>
> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations..
> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >
> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?

Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>> >>>> evasions.
>> >>>
>> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>> >>>
>> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>> >>>
>> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>> >>> powder charge.
>> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>> >>> weapons. And:
>> >>>
>> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>> >>>
>> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>> >>>
>> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>> >>>
>> >>> But more to the point.
>> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>> >>
>> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>> >>
>> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>> >> your hunting guns.
>> >>
>> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>> >
>> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>
>Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.

On 3/5/2022 11:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Frank, of course rants and raves from a position of ignorance,
> particularly regarding firearms. The short barrel rifles that he
> screams about are perfectly legal...

John, a minute's thought should have stopped you from typing that
paragraph. I'm not ignorant of the firearm laws. This long argument
began when I said I'd like U.S. laws to be closer to Canadian laws. Or
British laws. Or Irish laws, and so on.

If you've somehow forgotten that, go back and re-read.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
> >> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
> >> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
> >> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
> >> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
> >> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
> >> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
> >> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
> >> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
> >> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
> >> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> >> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
> >> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
> >> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
> >> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
> >> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
> >> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> >> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
> >> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
> >> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
> >> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
> >> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
> >> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
> >> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
> >> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
> >> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
> >> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
> >> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
> >> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
> >> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
> >> >>>> evasions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
> >> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things..
> >> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
> >> >>> powder charge.
> >> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
> >> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
> >> >>> weapons. And:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
> >> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
> >> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
> >> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
> >> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
> >> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
> >> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
> >> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
> >> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
> >> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
> >> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
> >> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
> >> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
> >> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
> >> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But more to the point.
> >> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
> >> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
> >> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
> >> >>
> >> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
> >> >> your hunting guns.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
> >> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
> >> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
> >> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
> >> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
> >> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
> >> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
> >
> >Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
> of the gun that they are using.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 11:17:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/5/2022 11:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Frank, of course rants and raves from a position of ignorance,
>> particularly regarding firearms. The short barrel rifles that he
>> screams about are perfectly legal...
>
>John, a minute's thought should have stopped you from typing that
>paragraph. I'm not ignorant of the firearm laws. This long argument
>began when I said I'd like U.S. laws to be closer to Canadian laws. Or
>British laws. Or Irish laws, and so on.
>
>If you've somehow forgotten that, go back and re-read.

No Frank, that just isn't true. You initially stated that Canada gun
crimes were far fewer then the U.S.

Then as the discussion progressed you interjected more and more
irrational and bizarre statements.

I particularly like the one about folks only buying pickup trucks
because it makes them feel just Sooooo Macho! Which is akin to the old
story, much enjoyed by dirty minded little boys, about women only
riding horses because it makes them feel so wonderful to have that
big, strong, creature between their legs.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 14:28:46 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:09:32 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2022 17:17:01 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:54:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 3/4/2022 8:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 20:02:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 3/4/2022 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:58:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>> >> >>>>>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>> >> >>>>>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>> >> >>>>>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>> >> >>>>>>>>> that restriction.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>> >> >>>>>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>> >> >>>>>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>> >> >>>>>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>> >> >>>>>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>> >> >>>>>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
>> >> >>>>> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
>> >> >>>>> and you start talking about hunting.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
>> >> >>>>> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
>> >> >>>>> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
>> >> >>>>> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
>> >> >>>>> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
>> >> >>>>> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
>> >> >>>>> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
>> >> >>>>> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
>> >> >>>>> developed solely for hunting,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
>> >> >>>> length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
>> >> >>>> Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
>> >> >>>> want something well over 20 inches.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
>> >> >>>> got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
>> >> >>>> the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
>> >> >>>> rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
>> >> >>>> ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
>> >> >>>> didn't take down that rabbit?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
>> >> >>>> which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
>> >> >>>> evasions.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You know Frank, I believe that you have really "gone right round the
>> >> >>> bend" as they used to say. A 15" barrel is great for street fighting?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But o.k. Barrel lengths:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Barrel length, from a technical view point, is based on two things.
>> >> >>> (1) the necessary length to allow for burning the majority of the
>> >> >>> powder charge.
>> >> >>> This is the reason that slow burning black powder weapons had a much
>> >> >>> long barrel then is necessary for modern fast burning smokeless powder
>> >> >>> weapons. And:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> (2) to provide, with "iron sights", the necessary length between the
>> >> >>> front and rear sight to produce accuracy.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Oh yes, I forget, with a military weapon a longer barrel was thought
>> >> >>> to make a better weapon when the bayonet was attached as in years gone
>> >> >>> by the basic Infantry tactic was to march, in formation, up to,
>> >> >>> perhaps 50 yards, or even closer, to the enemy. Present the musket,
>> >> >>> fire, and charge with the bayonet.
>> >> >>> This was highly successful in wars from about 1420 until the invention
>> >> >>> of the Minne Bullet, in the mid 1800's.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Next question, big magazines... Well, rifles and pistols have had
>> >> >>> "large" magazines for years and years. .22 rifles have had magazines
>> >> >>> that extended the full length of the barrel, certainly as ling as I've
>> >> >>> been around. And, as I have repeatedly mentioned 30 round magazines
>> >> >>> have been available for the German Luger, since WW I days.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Lets see... Red Dot sights. That is a subject abut which I have no
>> >> >>> personal knowledge but optical sights, in general were first made
>> >> >>> because it allowed the shooter to see better and thus aim more
>> >> >>> accurately then with the so called "iron sights".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But more to the point.
>> >> >>> Why this irrational terror regarding modern firearms? After all you
>> >> >>> are, statistically, in twice as much danger from a Black man with
>> >> >>> his fist clenched then you are from the terrifying AR type of firearm.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John, you carefully avoided answering each question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Based on that, I assume not one of the features I asked about was on
>> >> >> your hunting guns.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which is not surprising. Those features, common on ARs, are rarely worth
>> >> >> having on a gun used for hunting. Their value is for combat situations.
>> >> >> Or for pretending to be in a combat situation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, you did state "hunting rifles" and I replied to you giving you
>> >> > the technically answers to your questions - with the exception of the
>> >> > red dot things which I'm not familiar with.
>> >> You replied by assiduously evading my direct questions about your
>> >> specific guns. Can't you be man enough to own up to it?
>> >
>> >Not to take John's side or your side in this rousing argument. But I do not think wise, intelligent, thinking people talk about their own personal guns in public. That is something only done by YouTube idiots and other senseless braggarts. There are some things, like your social security number, or your favorite sex positions, that should not be talked about in public. Detailed gun ownership is one of them.
>> Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It is quite common for, target
>> shooters, for example to extol the advantages or bemoan the decencies
>> of the gun that they are using.
>
>Yes in certain situations, a person can and does brag about his equipment. As you state, sharp shooting rifles with twelve different scopes and lenses on them and various adjustable weights hanging on them to counter balance the rotation of the earth and gravity. Used exclusively by target shooters in competitions. Or Revolutionary war or Daniel Boone recreators. They may wax eloquently about their flintlock rifle and authentic hand made black powder and hand cast lead bullets they fire out of their beloved rifles. But for the average, general public citizen, it is very unwise to publicly discuss and disclose the guns they own. And for your target shooters, they are carrying on their conversations exclusively with other target shooters.