|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 6:16:57 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 11:35:01 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 11:25:43 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 14:07:13 UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Sorry Old Boy but that's absolutely false (what else is new?)about the accuracy of the M1 carbine. I had an M1 carbine made by Rockola and that carbine could hit a tin can bouncing down a steep embankment, in a gravel pit, at 100 yards without problem. Are you sure that the standard RIFLE wasn't the M1 GARAND which is a totally different weapon and cartridge from the M1 Carbine? Cheers Firstly I would like to know how you could hit a damn thing with an M1 carbine since they used a .30 caliber pistol round 7.62 x 33mm that had no range and a trajectory like a rainbow? The M1 Garand was a 30-06 that was good up to 200 yards with match ammo.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjy6FRWOmhc I own a M-1 carbine, which makes me super-macho. I can't recall who made my particular gun -- maybe IBM or the Sheinhardt Wig Company. It's pretty wimpy compared to a 30.06, but plenty of firepower to push back the invading hordes of Girl Scouts trying to sell me cookies. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. It was made for people who weren't normally engaged in combat. Officers would carry them as would truck drivers and Air Force personnel on air bases who would not normally be engaged in combat but might have to be pressed into service. It is perfectly OK for a 100 yard plinking but you have to be very good to hit anything since the accuracy of it varied so much from gun to gun that you had to get used to each one. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 6:26:17 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/5/2020 8:16 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 11:35:01 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 11:25:43 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 14:07:13 UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Sorry Old Boy but that's absolutely false (what else is new?)about the accuracy of the M1 carbine. I had an M1 carbine made by Rockola and that carbine could hit a tin can bouncing down a steep embankment, in a gravel pit, at 100 yards without problem. Are you sure that the standard RIFLE wasn't the M1 GARAND which is a totally different weapon and cartridge from the M1 Carbine? Cheers Firstly I would like to know how you could hit a damn thing with an M1 carbine since they used a .30 caliber pistol round 7.62 x 33mm that had no range and a trajectory like a rainbow? The M1 Garand was a 30-06 that was good up to 200 yards with match ammo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjy6FRWOmhc I own a M-1 carbine, which makes me super-macho. I can't recall who made my particular gun -- maybe IBM or the Sheinhardt Wig Company. It's pretty wimpy compared to a 30.06, but plenty of firepower to push back the invading hordes of Girl Scouts trying to sell me cookies. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. Embrace (figuratively only, of course) the Girl Scouts! I just love this time of year. Every day incrementally brings a minute and a half more sunlight. Hardly noticeable until one day it's light when one awakes. Then the always surprising announcement 'Pitchers and Catchers' on the radio, then Girl Scouts appear in grocery and restaurant parking lots. Within just a few weeks the snow will melt and we enjoy a change of season. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 I don't want to get anywhere near them while my dust allergies might be something more serious. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/6/2020 6:17 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:36:43 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, 5 March 2020 11:45:34 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/5/2020 8:42 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/4/2020 8:19 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/4/2020 7:16 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:42:30 -0800 (PST), " wrote: According to Business Insider (why is a business website/magazine writing about mass shootings?) there were 340 mass shootings and 373 deaths from said shootings in 2018 in the USA. The definition of mass shooting is not exactly settled. Roughly its 4 or more people killed or wounded at about the same time in about the same location. Roughly. Everyone defines it differently. Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone has to die. Shot and injured is good enough. Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass shooting fatalities. Drunk driving deaths are probably 250 times mass shooting deaths. Mass shootings always get lots of attention. But they are really pathetic when it comes to killing people. Cigarettes were/are killing ten or a hundred times more people. Suicides are the number one use of guns for killing people every year. But that is a good use for guns I guess. Yes ciggies killed a lot of people and as a result there is a move to ban smoking. Mass shootings are vilified and the concept that "if we ban guns there will be no more mass killings" seems to be quite popular. Straw man arguments are also popular. But AFACT, nobody has ever said we should ban all guns, or that banning guns optimized for rapidly firing in combat situations will stop all mass killings. I am merely applying exactly the same reasoning to bicycle deaths, which you admit are even greater than mass shooting deaths, some 250% greater, and yet you leap to defend bicycles. How can that be? Ciggies kill people so cigarettes are bad. Guns kill people so guns are bad. Bicycles kill people so bicycles are good? The logic seems a bit awkward.... to say the least. Logic comes with different levels of sophistication. For a step up, try listing benefits vs. detriments. Regarding benefits of free sale of guns optimized for killing people (as opposed to hunting for meat or trophies, protecting gardens from pests, etc.) what exactly are the benefits? (And how do other countries manage without them?) Benefits: The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid to try for the Reserves. The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people to shoot that way. The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your own mind. The guns are a sales gimmick for an industry that sees fewer hunters buying real long guns every year. (And really, that's probably the big one.) Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms. They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun. You're paying for features that have no real practical use. They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once. The benefit to detriment balance for bicycling is far different. AFAICT there has never been a study that found bicycling was a net detriment to health. Cigarettes fail badly at any benefit vs. detriment tests, which is why there are serious restriction on who can buy them, how they can be advertised, where they can be used. There's also massive publicity against their use. Motoring deaths? Yes, they are very regrettable. And partly because of that, weeks of instruction and passing a couple tests are required before you're allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. And there is constant work done to reduce those death counts - an endless succession of design changes and laws. Finally, like it or not, all deaths are not treated equally. If grandma dies of a stroke at 95 in a nursing home, the family is typically sad but accepting. If the same grandma at the same age has her throat slit in a nursing home, there will be hell to pay, and rightly so. Every rational person should understand that, although some gun fans do not. Getting blown away with several other congregation members or fellow students tends to rank very low on the scale of acceptable deaths. sigh. I'll try once more even though you seem willfully in denial based on your fashion sense. Nobody has ever accused me of "fashion" anything. Its not how my mind works. [snip irrelevant matters I did not raise] A perusal of our founding era from original documents will make clear to even the most resistant that our beloved 2d is not written for tin can plinking nor for hunting. The world is miserably and devastatingly full of examples of tyranny over unarmed populations which we will never be. Well, having lots more combat-optimized guns per person sure has stopped those aggressive Canadians massed at our northern border! But regarding well armed populations and tyranny, I recommend _Call Me American_ by Abdi Nor Iftin. It's an autobiography of a guy growing up in Somalia, in the conditions that are still current there. A truly horrifying account of what it's like when there are plenty of unrestricted guns and not enough government. Details on request. -- - Frank Krygowski Okay, I'll bite just this one time on this which will quickly degenerate into yet another anti-gun rant by others. When I was younger I had a LEGITIMATE collection of British Long Guns that spanned the time from the Breech Loading Snider Enfield, a Martini Henry as used in the Boer War, a Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk V rifle (very rare) and a lee Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine, plus a Lee Enfield No.4 sniper rifle from WW2, and a match-grade .22 caliber Lee-Enfield target rifle plus a .22 caliber Lee Enfield training rifle (used a lot in armoury basements for target shooting) all the way to the L1A1 rifle. I also had a legitimate M1 carbine made by Rockola, an AR-15 and few other rifles of historical interest. Then one day the Federal Government of Canada decided to change the rules and a lot of LEGITIMATELY PURCHASED firearms became illegal. They included my Snider Enfield, my Lee-Enfield No. V Jungle Carbine,my M1 carbine, my Ar-15 and my L1A1. Yet it was NOT long guns that were the source of most shootings in Canada, it was pistols smuggled in from the USA and still is. Gun Control is hitting what you aim at. Cheers What was the reasoning behind making some guns illegal? The AR-15 and the L1A1, and the M1 I suppose might have had full auto capability, depending on the model, but the Snider? But then, California used to/maybe still do, have a list of acceptable pistols and on another group someone was bitching because the blued version was legal but his stainless, or maybe chromed, version was illegal :-) -- cheers, John B. Fashion. As I noted yesterday. The blue finish makes it a magic deadly weapon. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 5:04:23 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 6 March 2020 07:06:14 UTC-5, John B. wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:15:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:15:07 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:07:10 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich wrote: On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 3:03:26 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: Actually not. The AR-15 type is used in target shooting. BCM sells an AR-15 type that shoots Minute of angle groups at 100 yards right out of the box, and they sell a little better model that shuts sub MOA groups. I'm a shooter and I will say this outright - there's no day on Earth that you were ever able to hold one minute of angle. Even with a telescopic sight the crosshairs cover the V ring at 100 yards. Tom, you must be hallucinating. I had a part time business while in the A,F. building precision varmint rifles and I would guarantee, and provide a target and reloading data, for a maximum of 1 MOA for every gun I built, When you were in the Air Force the standard rifle was an M1A1 carbine which might be able to hit the target at 50 yards. Nope. Again you just don't know what you were talking about. True, when I enlisted we "qualified" with the M-1 but certainly by the time Vietnam came along the standard was the M-16. And how do I know? Well they issued me one when I cleared into Nha Trang AFB. (eyes rolling) the AF standard arm until half way through Vietnam was the M1A1 carbine. Keep up making it deeper. I was out of the AF before they changed over. Air Force Vice Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay, who had documented the need for a more effective small arms weapon. When he became Air Force Chief of Staff in the summer of 1961, he applied his $2-million budget to an order of 80,000 AR-15 rifles to be procured over the next five years. Vietnam War " a conflict in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975." Half way through would be 1965, and by that time the A.F. had approximately 14,000 M-16/AR-15 rifles in hand. -- cheers, John B. IIRC, there technically was no such thing as the Vietnam WAR sine war was never declared. Thus it was known for years as the Vietnam Conflict. Cheers You're correct but tell that to someone who was flying on a B52 with SAMs bursting all around you. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/6/2020 11:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/6/2020 6:17 AM, John B. wrote: But then, California used to/maybe still do, have a list of acceptable pistols and on another group someone was bitching because the blued version was legal but his stainless, or maybe chromed, version was illegal :-) -- cheers, John B. Fashion. As I noted yesterday. The blue finish makes it a magic deadly weapon. A) I may be wrong, but John's anecdote sounds like someone's overactive imagination. A citation of the law would be helpful, if it could be found. B) Andrew's comment is precisely backwards, based on the anecdote John related. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/6/2020 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/6/2020 11:57 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/6/2020 6:17 AM, John B. wrote: But then, California used to/maybe still do, have a list of acceptable pistols and on another group someone was bitching because the blued version was legal but his stainless, or maybe chromed, version was illegal :-) -- cheers, John B. Fashion. As I noted yesterday. The blue finish makes it a magic deadly weapon. A) I may be wrong, but John's anecdote sounds like someone's overactive imagination. A citation of the law would be helpful, if it could be found. B) Andrew's comment is precisely backwards, based on the anecdote John related. I may have been wrong, can't recall the statute clearly. Is it chrome which makes the magic juju? California Attorney General's page on this: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs Gives me 'access denied' when I click the link to defined weapons list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist So not only magic killer features, it's a secret! Meanwhile although I haven't seen the figures in a few years it used to be that the #1 round for death by firearm was .22LR. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Fri, 06 Mar 2020 13:17:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/6/2020 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/6/2020 11:57 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/6/2020 6:17 AM, John B. wrote: But then, California used to/maybe still do, have a list of acceptable pistols and on another group someone was bitching because the blued version was legal but his stainless, or maybe chromed, version was illegal :-) -- cheers, John B. Fashion. As I noted yesterday. The blue finish makes it a magic deadly weapon. A) I may be wrong, but John's anecdote sounds like someone's overactive imagination. A citation of the law would be helpful, if it could be found. B) Andrew's comment is precisely backwards, based on the anecdote John related. I may have been wrong, can't recall the statute clearly. Is it chrome which makes the magic juju? California Attorney General's page on this: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs Gives me 'access denied' when I click the link to defined weapons list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist So not only magic killer features, it's a secret! Meanwhile although I haven't seen the figures in a few years it used to be that the #1 round for death by firearm was .22LR. Well it wasn't exactly an anecdote, rather a mention of something I read. and yes, the California state law does specify a listing of all pistols legal to be sold in the state. To quote: "As of January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. " For further detail read: https://tinyurl.com/uft5cbo -- cheers, John B. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On 3/6/2020 4:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Mar 2020 13:17:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 3/6/2020 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/6/2020 11:57 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/6/2020 6:17 AM, John B. wrote: But then, California used to/maybe still do, have a list of acceptable pistols and on another group someone was bitching because the blued version was legal but his stainless, or maybe chromed, version was illegal :-) -- cheers, John B. Fashion. As I noted yesterday. The blue finish makes it a magic deadly weapon. A) I may be wrong, but John's anecdote sounds like someone's overactive imagination. A citation of the law would be helpful, if it could be found. B) Andrew's comment is precisely backwards, based on the anecdote John related. I may have been wrong, can't recall the statute clearly. Is it chrome which makes the magic juju? California Attorney General's page on this: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs Gives me 'access denied' when I click the link to defined weapons list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist So not only magic killer features, it's a secret! Meanwhile although I haven't seen the figures in a few years it used to be that the #1 round for death by firearm was .22LR. Well it wasn't exactly an anecdote, rather a mention of something I read. and yes, the California state law does specify a listing of all pistols legal to be sold in the state. To quote: "As of January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. " For further detail read: https://tinyurl.com/uft5cbo -- cheers, John B. found this banned list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/de-certified-handguns Which does indeed list some models in certain finishes(chrome, stainless, blued) but not in other finishes. Need to use 'search in page' because the list isn't in any particular order. Entries seem to indicate it's current through early this year. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
new bike lane hazard
On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 3:12:26 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/6/2020 4:51 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2020 13:17:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote: On 3/6/2020 11:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/6/2020 11:57 AM, AMuzi wrote: On 3/6/2020 6:17 AM, John B. wrote: But then, California used to/maybe still do, have a list of acceptable pistols and on another group someone was bitching because the blued version was legal but his stainless, or maybe chromed, version was illegal :-) -- cheers, John B. Fashion. As I noted yesterday. The blue finish makes it a magic deadly weapon. A) I may be wrong, but John's anecdote sounds like someone's overactive imagination. A citation of the law would be helpful, if it could be found. B) Andrew's comment is precisely backwards, based on the anecdote John related. I may have been wrong, can't recall the statute clearly. Is it chrome which makes the magic juju? California Attorney General's page on this: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs Gives me 'access denied' when I click the link to defined weapons list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist So not only magic killer features, it's a secret! Meanwhile although I haven't seen the figures in a few years it used to be that the #1 round for death by firearm was .22LR. Well it wasn't exactly an anecdote, rather a mention of something I read. and yes, the California state law does specify a listing of all pistols legal to be sold in the state. To quote: "As of January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. " For further detail read: https://tinyurl.com/uft5cbo -- cheers, John B. found this banned list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/de-certified-handguns Which does indeed list some models in certain finishes(chrome, stainless, blued) but not in other finishes. Need to use 'search in page' because the list isn't in any particular order. Entries seem to indicate it's current through early this year. Nothing prohibits a person from owning any of those guns. They are not certified safe for sale in Ca., but you can buy them somewhere else. The banned weapons are explained he https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#1 The finish may correspond to mechanical differences -- or may just represent another revenue opportunity. Who knows. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cop Blocks Bike Lane To Ticket Cyclists For Not Using Lane | Jens Müller[_3_] | Social Issues | 14 | November 6th 10 12:41 AM |
Re. VicRoads bike hazard - an update | Halcyon | Australia | 8 | October 2nd 07 04:02 PM |
New bike hazard- courtesy of VicRoads | Halcyon | Australia | 41 | September 30th 07 09:41 PM |
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane | AndrewJ | Australia | 8 | March 30th 06 10:37 AM |
Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS? | [email protected] | Techniques | 29 | June 8th 05 10:07 PM |