|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#431
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/11/2017 6:23 AM, Duane wrote: Nobody is stupid enough to think all 11 speed CF bikes are useful only for TDF riders. Both 11 speed and CF frames are pretty much the standard offering at most bike shops around here. Of course, people are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I see that "standard offering at most bike shops" as somewhat weird. Think about it. Most people who go into most bike shops are never going to race. Most are almost never going to try to ride fast. But it sounds like that "standard offering" is optimized for fast riding in many ways. I know some CF 11-speed bikes make it possible to (say) fit racks and fenders and lights and decent-sized bags and wider tires and low gears. But if your shops are like ours, the ones that have 11 speed CF as "standard" tend to reject those ideas. "28mm tires? Sorry, not on these bikes. The brakes won't allow them." That's what a friend of mine heard. People are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I think a lot of people are convinced to "prefer" something that's ill-suited to their real world riding. Just think about 11 speeds! With 10 speed you seldom shift a single gear. You almost always shift multiple gears at one time. When the number of gears got to 8 that was the number in which you had sufficient gears and you only had to shift once at a time and also had the maximum wear characteristics since the 5 speeds. On my Pinarello that I'm restoring I just installed Campy skeleton brakes and there is more than sufficient clearance to install 28 mm tires. I'm been using 23 mm tires but I will be changing to 25's since they have the same rolling resistance and a lower pressure according to Michelin. |
Ads |
#432
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 1:49:23 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 6:23 AM, Duane wrote: Nobody is stupid enough to think all 11 speed CF bikes are useful only for TDF riders. Both 11 speed and CF frames are pretty much the standard offering at most bike shops around here. Of course, people are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I see that "standard offering at most bike shops" as somewhat weird. Think about it. Most people who go into most bike shops are never going to race. Most are almost never going to try to ride fast. But it sounds like that "standard offering" is optimized for fast riding in many ways.. I know some CF 11-speed bikes make it possible to (say) fit racks and fenders and lights and decent-sized bags and wider tires and low gears. But if your shops are like ours, the ones that have 11 speed CF as "standard" tend to reject those ideas. "28mm tires? Sorry, not on these bikes. The brakes won't allow them." That's what a friend of mine heard. People are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I think a lot of people are convinced to "prefer" something that's ill-suited to their real world riding. He said "standard offering" -- not the "only offering." BTW, my CF 11sp Norco Search gravel bike will take 35mm knobbies and fenders -- but alas, no rack. It is the softest riding road bike I have ever owned, yet it is stiffer than a steel touring bike through the BB and front end and weighs about four pounds less. If I wanted to use a rack, I'd put it on my aluminum CAADX. The Norco doesn't purport to be a touring bike. Go into ANY bike store around here, and you'll find a variety of road bikes capable of taking big tires, fenders and racks. Take a tour of River City Bikes, for example: https://tinyurl.com/ycodvjcx They're common as fleas.. In some shops, its all they carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5vtm4pd2I That's just the front showroom. The back is where I got my dyno mood light -- but not from this chipper guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8iThtyViVI Be a true hipster at yet another steel-is-real (heavy) shop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSMp6f-9z4 Or maybe a recumbent! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvG51TC3gOA&t=39s For Joerg, a shop with beer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwNwBcu8t18 Classic randonneur bikes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15JHdp092qg We have steel bikes coming out our a**** up here in Portland! One of my faves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NYDcJQyAAg... Next time you're looking for a gravel bike take a look at the aluminum Redline cyclocross bikes. |
#434
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/12/2017 9:06 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 1:49:23 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 12:25:17 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 6:23 AM, Duane wrote: Nobody is stupid enough to think all 11 speed CF bikes are useful only for TDF riders. Both 11 speed and CF frames are pretty much the standard offering at most bike shops around here. Of course, people are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I see that "standard offering at most bike shops" as somewhat weird. Think about it. Most people who go into most bike shops are never going to race. Most are almost never going to try to ride fast. But it sounds like that "standard offering" is optimized for fast riding in many ways. I know some CF 11-speed bikes make it possible to (say) fit racks and fenders and lights and decent-sized bags and wider tires and low gears. But if your shops are like ours, the ones that have 11 speed CF as "standard" tend to reject those ideas. "28mm tires? Sorry, not on these bikes. The brakes won't allow them." That's what a friend of mine heard. People are allowed to buy what they prefer. But I think a lot of people are convinced to "prefer" something that's ill-suited to their real world riding. He said "standard offering" -- not the "only offering." BTW, my CF 11sp Norco Search gravel bike will take 35mm knobbies and fenders -- but alas, no rack. It is the softest riding road bike I have ever owned, yet it is stiffer than a steel touring bike through the BB and front end and weighs about four pounds less. If I wanted to use a rack, I'd put it on my aluminum CAADX. The Norco doesn't purport to be a touring bike. Go into ANY bike store around here, and you'll find a variety of road bikes capable of taking big tires, fenders and racks. Take a tour of River City Bikes, for example: https://tinyurl.com/ycodvjcx They're common as fleas. In some shops, its all they carry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5vtm4pd2I That's just the front showroom. The back is where I got my dyno mood light -- but not from this chipper guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8iThtyViVI Be a true hipster at yet another steel-is-real (heavy) shop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TSMp6f-9z4 Or maybe a recumbent! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvG51TC3gOA&t=39s For Joerg, a shop with beer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwNwBcu8t18 Classic randonneur bikes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15JHdp092qg We have steel bikes coming out our a**** up here in Portland! One of my faves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NYDcJQyAAg... Next time you're looking for a gravel bike take a look at the aluminum Redline cyclocross bikes. in 2013 maybe. They were nice but it's a discontinued product line: http://redlinebicycles.com/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#435
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in the U.S. and homicides. Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%) 1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000 2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0 3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7 6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1 9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8 States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000 41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1 42. California - 21.3% 4.8 42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6 44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8 45. New York - 18% 3.1 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3 Homicide rate from http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000) and gun ownership of 30%. I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging deeper, here is what I think it shows: States with lower population density, and especially with a greater percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint" control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from mixed cultures in dense cities. Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the people are the major problem area. Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people have very little crime! But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about reducing the number of guns in general. Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all of those are intended as people killers. The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8 people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today. From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases, he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five seconds would have made a difference. In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.) So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of gun deaths. But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely. I'm not so sure about that... Really? See http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html ... as without very much effort I seem to find a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings. Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#436
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/12/2017 9:50 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:29:03 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? By all means compare a mixed race area in the US with a very wide economic spread with another country with a large majority of one race with a narrow economic spread because it makes your point. Tom, if you don't like comparing the U.S. to Canada, then pick some other economically advanced country for comparison of murder rates. Britain? France? Germany? Netherlands? Italy? Or how about the U.S. vs. Europe as a whole? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#437
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
|
#438
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in the U.S. and homicides. Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%) 1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000 2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0 3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7 6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1 9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8 States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000 41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1 42. California - 21.3% 4.8 42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6 44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8 45. New York - 18% 3.1 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3 Homicide rate from http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000) and gun ownership of 30%. I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging deeper, here is what I think it shows: States with lower population density, and especially with a greater percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint" control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from mixed cultures in dense cities. Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the people are the major problem area. Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people have very little crime! But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about reducing the number of guns in general. Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all of those are intended as people killers. The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8 people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today. From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases, he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five seconds would have made a difference. In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.) So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of gun deaths. But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely. I'm not so sure about that... Really? See http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html ... as without very much effort I seem to find a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings. Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-) But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot a human for five generations. Read http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396857 Which says in part "In 2012, there were eight murders there - just two of which involved firearms." This in a state that has, essentially no gun control laws. It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35 years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide. https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ Guns are the preferred method of suicide and about half of all suicides are by firearms as opposed to about 27% suffocation, the next preferred method. Is shooting oneself really more horrifying then hanging oneself? Or jumping off bridges or driving into a bridge abutment at 100 mph? Or drinking bug spray which used to be rather common in Thailand. -- Cheers, John B. |
#439
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On 10/12/2017 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:59:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/12/2017 4:46 AM, John B. wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:49:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:38 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:29:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 10/11/2017 9:42 AM, wrote: On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 4:54:17 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote: It seems unlikely, at best, to believe that you didn't understand the content of the original posts between Frank and I where he commented that punching holes in a paper target with a gun and thinking you were a big, bad, man was childish. I then replied "like a 60 year old guy on a CF racing bike". I can only assume that you are interjecting your off topic remarks deliberately. So yes, goodbye. Walking off in a snit again John? Really, get over yourself. You're beginning to sound like Frank who denies that where the strongest guns laws are we have the highest rates of gun crimes and where the least gun laws are in effect the murder rates are insignificant. You mean like Canada vs. the U.S.? Or like Windsor vs. Detroit? Got numbers? Even a casual look shows little correlation between gun ownership in the U.S. and homicides. Gun ownership http://tinyurl.com/ybnxnu8x States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners (more than 50%) 1. Wyoming - 59.7% Homicide rate 2.7/100,000 2. Alaska - 57.8% 8.0 3. Montana - 57.7% 3.5 4. South Dakota - 56.6% 3.7 5. West Virginia - 55.4% 3.8 6. Mississippi - 55.3% 8.7 6. Idaho - 55.3% 1.9 6. Arkansas - 55.3% 6.1 9. Alabama - 51.7% 7.2 10. North Dakota - 50.7% 2.8 States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners 40. Delaware - 25.5% Homicide rate 6.7/100,000 41. Florida - 24.5% 5.1 42. California - 21.3% 4.8 42. Maryland - 21.3% 8.6 44. Illinois - 20.2% 5.8 45. New York - 18% 3.1 46. Connecticut - 16.7% 3.3 47. Rhode Island - 12.8% 2.7 48. Massachusetts - 12.6% 1.9 49. New Jersey - 12.3% 4.1 50. Hawaii - 6.7% 1.3 Homicide rate from http://tinyurl.com/gp9usuy The State with the lowest homicide rate is New Hampshire (1.1/100,000) and gun ownership of 30%. I've been generally aware of that data for quite a while. Digging deeper, here is what I think it shows: States with lower population density, and especially with a greater percentage of their population living in rural areas, tend to have more people who own rifles and shotguns used for hunting and "varmint" control. They also have much less of the social stress derived from mixed cultures in dense cities. Whether it is lower density or whatever I'm fairly sure that the people are the major problem area. Well, I'm sure that's true. As I understand it, places with no people have very little crime! But please note: I'm strongly in favor of hunting with guns. I'm strongly in favor of most varmint control. I'm not talking about reducing the number of guns in general. Instead, I'm talking about reducing (or ideally, eliminating) the number of guns specifically designed for killing other people. Those would include guns designed or modified to shoot rapidly and to shoot many rounds without reloading. And to further infuriate the gun nuts, I'd be in favor of eventually reducing the number of handguns, since almost all of those are intended as people killers. The problem is, as I tried to point out, is that any configuration of a "gun" can be used to kill people. Wild Bill Hickok kill at least 8 people with a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver, which is classified as an antique and can be legally owned by anyone today. From what I've just read, Hickok did kill several people, during a time when lawlessness and drunken shootings were quite common. In most cases, he killed them as a law officer acting in self defense, although several of those seem to be questionable. But they were almost always one-on-one situations. I don't see that having a gun that fired only once in five seconds would have made a difference. In any case, "Other things can kill so don't ban guns specially designed for killing people" seems a specious argument. We do ban other things specially designed for killing people, and no sane person thinks it's an attack on their second amendment rights. (Thank God the National Hand Grenade Association isn't as flush with money as the NRA.) So: If we could correlate the number of non-hunting guns with gun homicide rates, I suspect we'd see much different results. I think the number of people-killing guns correlates pretty well with the rate of gun deaths. But I doubt that information is out there. The NRA has successfully purchased laws that prohibit studying gun violence too closely. I'm not so sure about that... Really? See http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...nap-story.html ... as without very much effort I seem to find a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings. Find me the data I asked about: the correlation between the number of guns designed specifically for killing people vs. homicide rates. The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. Ah Frank, now you are down to one shot per second :-) But more to the point, why should I - a law abiding citizen - be deprived of my right to use a pistol to shoot deer with? Or woodchucks for that matter? To my personal knowledge no one in my family has shot a human for five generations. Why should you be deprived of that "right"? For the same reason that an avid admirer of explosives of all kinds is not allowed to possess hand grenades. Heck, it's getting really difficult to find a place to buy C-4 plastic explosive material, just because of the oppressive and unjust anti-explosive laws! (Fun fact: I have a friend who bought some C-4 from a local guy as part of a sting operation, which sent the seller to prison. After his release, in a completely unrelated event, I got to meet the guy with the prison time. He remarked at one time "These things are so strong you couldn't even blow them up!" My friend said "Yep. He would know.") Getting back to the point: Why should handguns, grenades and explosives and rapid-fire people killers be highly controlled? It's a matter of benefits vs. detriments. Regarding the handgun, the benefit is some dude gets to brag "I took that buck with a handgun!" (IOW "Wow, I am highly skilled and manly!") the detriment is thousands of handgun deaths per year, far more per capita than any other advanced westernized country. The detriment is far greater than the benefit. It might also be noted that of the large "gun death" numbers quoted in many articles about the dangers of gun ownership, that for the past 35 years (as of 2015) the majority of the "gun deaths" have been suicide. Yes, depending on the article. Some data counts gun deaths, some data counts homicides. I suppose some might say "If someone wants to shoot themselves, that's no problem." But society as a whole tends to disagree. Much work is done to prevent suicide. Lots of money is spent on 911 operator training, counseling centers, psychiatry and psychology etc. A lot of that is employed after a failed suicide attempt, and the near-victims are often glad they got a second chance to avoid the "permanent solution to a temporary problem." But with guns, there usually is no second chance. It seems odd we spend so much on other methods of suicide prevention, but we refuse to really control the most effective suicide tool. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
Build it and they won't come
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:59:37 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Big SNIP The types of guns I'm thinking of are rapid fire (say, more than one round per second) and/or high capacity (say, more than 20 rounds), plus handguns. Yes, I understand that a very few handguns are used for hunting, but that's a very small percentage of handgun use. -- - Frank Krygowski I can fire a bolt action Lee-Enfield rifle at 10 rounds per 10 seconds. The standard magazine capacity for that rifle is 10 rounds. If I wanted to I could get another magazine or two forit, cut those magazines apart and then weld the three of them together to form a 30 rounds capacity magazine. That would allow me to fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. If I wanted more accurate aimed fire I could support the fore-end of the rifle on a sand bag. Actually, at close range a shotgun with a wide spread of shiot can be better than a rifle since the shotgun can hit more than one person with each shot fired. Watch a video of the Big Sandy Shoot and marvel at the number of people with .30 caliber General Purpose Machine Guns, .50 caliber heavy machine guns, 7.62mm Electric Gatling-type machine guns, 37mm anti-tank cannons, etcetera. One guy even had a 76mm Hellcat tank destroyer with a working 76mm main gun. All those weapons had the primary purpose of killing people. A lot of people,dare I say most people with rapid-fire high-rounds capacity shoot for fun. Btw, when hunting if you wound an animal, 5 seconds is a long time and you'd better be really good at tracking because other wise that animal will be long gone by the time you're ready to take that second shot. If it's an large angry wounded animal that charges you them your 5 seconds delay getting off a second shot could have you either dead or severely injured. Cheers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Can Women Build Big Muscles? Why Women Cant Build Big Muscles Easily | [email protected] | UK | 0 | February 16th 08 09:41 PM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 5 | September 14th 06 09:59 AM |
Anyone looking to build a bc? Free hazard hub with a Stockton build! | Evan Byrne | Unicycling | 0 | August 25th 06 11:05 PM |
Disc Wheel Build Build Suggestions | osobailo | Techniques | 2 | October 5th 04 01:55 PM |
? - To build or not to build -- a bike - ? | Andrew Short | Techniques | 16 | August 4th 03 04:12 AM |