Build it and they won't come

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:42:56 -0700 (PDT), 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.

No, not walking of in a snit. Merely waving good-bye. But I notice
that you have snipped the part of the post where the other poster
wrote that he was no longer communicating with me.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:01:19 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:


Exactly. My Tarmac won’t take real fenders but i could have purchased a
Roubaix that would. Or a Sector that I could turn into a touring bike.
But hell, I had a Bianchi Volpe that was an excellent touring bike.

But that’s what was dumb about the original comment. 11 speed or Cf frames
don’t really define anything. An 11 speed Roubaix can be a decent commuter
as you already know.

I'm sure the current illegal owner is enjoying my pre-pogo Roubaix.

BTW, my insurer paid replacement cost less my deductible. I took that money and a 20% credit for my roof-rack crashed SuperSix and got a new Synapse 11sp disc, which will be my Roubaix replacement. I don't like active suspension on road bikes and didn't want to get a 2018 Roubaix. I'm waiting for the Synapse to arrive at Western Bikeworks. The 2018 Cannondales are slow to get to the shops.

I'm a 60 year old guy with two 11sp CF bikes, but I AM training for the TdF.. My chances of getting a pro contract are slim, but I want to have the right equipment in case I get the call. I'll probably get rid of the Norco because it overlaps too much with the Synapse, but it may become my son's bike when he visits. I need him on something slow. I will also let the air out of the tires -- or remove them altogether.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 5:01:19 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:


Exactly. My Tarmac won’t take real fenders but i could have purchased a
Roubaix that would. Or a Sector that I could turn into a touring bike.
But hell, I had a Bianchi Volpe that was an excellent touring bike.

But that’s what was dumb about the original comment. 11 speed or Cf frames
don’t really define anything. An 11 speed Roubaix can be a decent commuter
as you already know.

I'm sure the current illegal owner is enjoying my pre-pogo Roubaix.

BTW, my insurer paid replacement cost less my deductible. I took that
money and a 20% credit for my roof-rack crashed SuperSix and got a new
Synapse 11sp disc, which will be my Roubaix replacement. I don't like
active suspension on road bikes and didn't want to get a 2018 Roubaix.
I'm waiting for the Synapse to arrive at Western Bikeworks. The 2018
Cannondales are slow to get to the shops.

I'm a 60 year old guy with two 11sp CF bikes, but I AM training for the
TdF. My chances of getting a pro contract are slim, but I want to have
the right equipment in case I get the call. I'll probably get rid of the
Norco because it overlaps too much with the Synapse, but it may become my
son's bike when he visits. I need him on something slow. I will also let
the air out of the tires -- or remove them altogether.


I just became a previously 60 year old guy today and celebrated by busting
it to old Montreal with some friends on my 11 sp Tarmac Pro. Nice ride but
6c is nippy. 50 PRs according to Strava. Tomorrow it’s back to work,
commuting on the same bike.

Sadly, it’s been some years since I entertained ideas of riding in the
Tour. Maybe I should trade my bike in for a Walmart beater to make John
happy. Or maybe not...

--
duane

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%.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:25:12 -0400, 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.

While I agree with you in principal I wonder but what the bike shops
aren't offering "what sells". At the shop I usually patronize I have
often seen the sales people suggesting a sort of mundane middle of the
range bike to people who quite obviously do not have any idea what
they are doing and almost universally the buyer will say something
like "Oh, only 9 gears? But that one has 11".

I wonder whether Andrew might comment here?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:34:34 PM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:

Thanks to the previous president we now have a $5k deductible, per
person, plus over $11k/year in premiums and the ER is I believe $200 min
charge just to say hi. The handshake with the family physician is
cheaper, "only" $70.


I pay $4200 per year. My deductible is similar to you. $11,000 per year? What are you buying? Platinum, gold plated, diamond encrusted insurance where the doctors visit your house every week? Why you choose to buy such expensive and foolish insurance is your choice. Wow. Don't know what the Emergency Room costs on my plan since I don't go to the ER. Ambulances are $250, not covered by my insurance unless admitted to the ER. My plan provides several specialists such as endocrinologists, podiatrists, opthamologists for just $5 copay. General exam each year is $5 too. I think you need to do a much better job of investigating your insurance options. You seem to be a sucker who bends over and reaches back and spreads them for whomever wants to put it in.


Like a
couple months ago when I had another bad case of poison oak, went
online, went in same day. I knew exactly what I needed but the law and
medical turf protection requires the doc has to see you or you won't get
the ointment.


Why do you need special medicine for poison oak? Cortisone treats it very effectively. Cortisone costs $2 per tube at the pharmacy. You seem to be one of those people who deliberately drives up medical costs. Don't waste money and medical resources by going to the doctor for frivolous stuff. Just go to the local pharmacy and get a $2 tube of cortisone.

On 10/11/2017 4:49 PM, 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."

I understood that. But when the average North American bicyclist comes
in, should they really be shown a CF, 11 speed, close clearance, narrow
saddle, low handlebar racing bike and told "This is standard"?

Keep in mind, the average North American cyclist is probably well over
40 both in age and in pounds of excess body weight. He's probably going
to truck his bike to the rail-trail, ride out five miles then ride back.
Why is he worried about bike weight? Why does he need more than five cogs?

I know not all shops fit that pattern. I know Portland has lots and lots
of variety in both shops and bikes. But apparently where Duane lives,
the "standard offering" is not very versatile and not well suited to the
typical bicyclist. I think that's a shame.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/11/2017 8:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm a 60 year old guy...

Geez. When I was in high school or college, I wouldn't even have talked
to such a little kid.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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. To make a very broad statement I
suggest that crime, of all kinds, and economic conditions.
particularly poverty, are associated, probably closely.

Here, during a previous administration jobs just seemed to evaporate
and crime increased to the point that women no longer wore their gold
neck chains. Then another coup and the economy grew and crime
decreased, and the neck chains reappeared :-)

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. At the
gun fight at the O.K. Corral" at least one individual was armed with a
double barrel shotgun, which is commonly used to hunt with. The so
called "Bump Stock" is legal as the federal definition of a machine
gun is any weapon that fires more than once when the trigger is
pulled.

I might add that the original "Bowie knife" probably had a blade in
the neighborhood of 9 or 10 inches long. You can buy a Chef's knife
from Amazon that is 10 inches long.


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 as without very much effort I seem to find
a considerable amount of official data regarding shootings.

But some of the NRA's propaganda is accurate. The numbers of people
with Concealed Carry Permits and the number of them that commit a "gun
crime", for example, seems to provide a pretty good argument to the
"guns = gun crime" theory.

I think that the real point is that some people, nations, or races, or
economic condition, or whatever, are just more aggressive then others,
and will commit more murders with whatever is available.

The Japanese, where ownership of a weapon by the average citizen has
first banned in the 1600's, seem quite adapt at killing people with a
knife. Most of the African massacres have been carried out with
machetes.

If you've got your mind made up to do it you can find something to
accomplish the task.

A couple of references:
for the U.S. see http://tinyurl.com/yb98o45z

and for the effects of the Australian gun ban see
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c...00/cfi095.html
--
Cheers,

John B.