new bike lane hazard

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 12:43:41 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:

Great potential for a sticker!
"Bicycles don't kill people. Bicycle pilots kill people."

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

"Things to be banned" is an area of human endeavour subject to politics and its accompanying hypocrisies, perversions and corruption. -- AJ

On Thursday, 5 March 2020 06:03:26 UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 21:19:05 -0500, 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.


No one here, but in other places it is touted as a great idea.


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?)

I believe that your prejudices are showing.

Benefits: The guns look cool, especially to flabby guys who are afraid
to try for the Reserves.

"Look cool"? Perhaps in your mind but take a look at a pistol
specifically designed and built for Olympic shooting, see:
https://www.pardiniguns.com/fpe/ a far cooler gun. and Cheap too. Only
US$3,195 too :-)


The guns can shoot lots of bullets really fast. It's fun for some people
to shoot that way.

Yup. That's why the Chinese braid hundreds of firecrackers into a long
string. Particularly good when you launch a new boat. That long burst
of noise is certain to scare any evil spirits away from the boat,

The guns are easy to customize so you can make them even cooler, in your
own mind.

Frank, any gun can be customized and I had a pretty good business
going doing just that. If you really want to get into the gun
customizing talk to some trap shooters. We had one customer that
brought his shotgun in every Monday and we, make the modification and
he'd pick it up on Saturday, He'd shoot Sunday and have it back in the
shop the next Monday.

Ever hear of a gun modified so that the gun fires when the trigger is
released? Not when it is pulled but when it is released? Called
(surprisingly) a "release trigger", and not at all rare in the trap
shooting field.

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.)

I believe that you are way off the truth in making that statement.
Read "Soldier of Fortune" to understand what these "whacko's" are
thinking.


Detriments: They tend to be less accurate than many true hunting arms.

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.

They're not as reliable as a bolt action long gun.

You are playing with words. I don't know whether you remember but in
the Vietnam days there was a lot of hullabaloo about AR-15's
malfunction. I asked a Special Forces Armorer about it - they did the
final tests - and he told me that they had never, and he emphasized
"never" had a malfunction.

A study made by the Army some after all the newspapers had print the
:news" that the AR malfunctioned found that in every case of
malfunction the rifle had not been cleaned. In several cases, even
after a malfunction in a combat situation the gun was not cleaned.


You're paying for features that have no real practical use.

They regularly get used to kill bunches of people at once.


So is dynamite, and for that matter I believe that the largest mass
killing in the U.S., disregarding 9/11, was accomplished with diesel
oil and fertilizer.


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.

While running a red light, or stop sign and being crushed by a 10
wheel truck would be?

But isn't this a lot of verbiage simply to obscure the fact bicycle
deaths outnumber mass shootings deaths by a factor of 250%?
--

Cheers,

John B.

There are a lot of law abiding citizens who own and fire Ar-15 or other rapid fire long rifles, and who have never given trouble to anyone else. Id go as far to say that those long rifle owners whom are law abiding with their multi-rounds rifles are in the majority and that criminals are a majority but like bicycling accidents the criminals are the ones who get all the publicity.

BTW, when I was in t he Canadian Military, we were taught that our FNL1A1 was a RIFLE not a gun. Woe betide anyone who called it a gun.

Cheers

Cheers

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.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted in USA since
1937. And events entailing auto firearms are vanishingly
rare. As I noted previously, modifying a semi to full auto
is not all that difficult (on my 1911 it would be just a few
passes of a file, which I haven't done and don't plan to BTW).

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.

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

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.Â* The definition of mass
shooting is not exactly settled.Â* Roughly its 4 or more
people killed or wounded at about the same time in about
the same location.Â* Roughly.Â* Everyone defines it
differently.Â* Note, a mass shooting does not mean anyone
has to die.Â* Shot and injured is good enough.

Bicycle deaths are about 2.5 times more than mass
shooting fatalities.Â* Drunk driving deaths are probably
250 times mass shooting deaths.Â* Mass shootings always
get lots of attention.Â* But they are really pathetic when
it comes to killing people.Â* Cigarettes were/are killing
ten or a hundred times more people.Â* 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
isÂ* 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 areÂ* even greater than mass shooting
deaths, some 250%
greater,Â* and yetÂ* youÂ* 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:Â* 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.Â* 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

On 3/5/2020 10:45 AM, 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:Â 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.


I don't know any Somalis well enough to have discussed that
but I believe you.

OTOH I do know (or mostly 'knew' now) a good number of Poles
and East Germans who experienced both National Socialism and
International Socialism and found that was a distinction
without a difference to an unarmed population.

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

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 1:09:10 PM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

BTW, when I was in t he Canadian Military, we were taught that our FNL1A1 was a RIFLE not a gun. Woe betide anyone who called it a gun.

Too right. A "gun" is a cannon, as on a ship or in an embrasure in a castle or other defensive position. Cannon start surprisingly small: in most airforces the machine guns, if they are mounted at all (jets rarely become involved in dogfights, instead settling matters from a great distance with rockets), are called "cannon" from about 15mm up. Personal fashion-wear in firearms are called, according to cases, revolvers, pistols, rifles, and so on..

There is also a sense of "a gun" as a person firing a shotgun on the glorious 12th of August when the grouse season opens, as in "Pray tell the lower guns to leave something of us at this end, eh." (I heard it said once, and always wanted to see how it would look on the page.

Andre Jute
"An armed society is a polite society." -- my ever-informed source on all kinds of firearms, R. Doug

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.

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 5:42:27 AM UTC-8, 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.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted in USA since
1937. And events entailing auto firearms are vanishingly
rare. As I noted previously, modifying a semi to full auto
is not all that difficult (on my 1911 it would be just a few
passes of a file, which I haven't done and don't plan to BTW).

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.

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

It should also be stated that fully automatics are about as accurate as throwing a rock at a 50 yard target. If you have an enemy stupid enough to charge you all in a group perhaps you can hit at least one of them in fully auto.

This is the source of that BS that it takes 6,000 rds to make one kill. A sniper using single firing mode can hit target after target in fairly rapid succession.

Today I can't shoot anything like I did and plus my eyesight is a handicap. But I can guarantee you I could outshoot anyone on this group. When you start at 7 years old it becomes instinctual. In Arizona they had an indoor fake range using laser rifles. I was there with a friend that has to qualify with pistol every year and he couldn't believe how much more moving targets I could hit than him. He finally gave up and I shot all the targets on his side of the range.

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

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.