new bike lane hazard

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/5/2020 4:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 16:41:26 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, 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: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.

--
- 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.

And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious
problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest.

Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My
understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a
reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy
one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house.

But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1,
Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified
as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995..
Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported
except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited
firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons
banned under this order."

I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how
about that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

The law I was talking about came out AFTER I LEGALLY purchased my L1A1 which was a semi-automatic rifle at the time of purchase. There are a few parts that are changed or missing in the semi-automatic version that prevented it from being used in a full-auto mode.

Cheers


It's very fashionable to bemoan AR15 (.223) and other modern
lightweight rifles as magic and more deadly than bigger more
powerful (.308) classic formats. Fashion is a weird force.

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

I just went over to the match shooting group to see what they were saying after listening to John pass his bull**** off. They made John look almost honest.

Match shooting isn't at 1,000 yards as I remember, but 1,200. That is almost 7/10ths of a mile and some horses ass like john is talking about using a carbine on that. The target center is 44". At that distance you can't even see the huge target behind your sights. The way I got my TI off of my ass in basic is by being able to HIT the target at that distance with a carbine. And the way I did it was by forgetting the sights and firing by instinct on a dead calm day.

As I said, the bullet is a pistol bullet and was used by Ruger and S&W I think. Out of a carbine they had about half of the velocity of a 30-06. At 50 yards they hit about as hard as a Ruger.

On 3/5/2020 7:16 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/5/2020 4:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 16:41:26 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, 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: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.

--
- 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.

And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious
problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest.

Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My
understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a
reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy
one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house.

But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1,
Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified
as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995.
Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported
except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited
firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons
banned under this order."

I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how
about that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

The law I was talking about came out AFTER I LEGALLY purchased my L1A1 which was a semi-automatic rifle at the time of purchase. There are a few parts that are changed or missing in the semi-automatic version that prevented it from being used in a full-auto mode.

Cheers


It's very fashionable to bemoan AR15 (.223) and other modern
lightweight rifles as magic and more deadly than bigger more
powerful (.308) classic formats. Fashion is a weird force.


I just went over to the match shooting group to see what they were saying after listening to John pass his bull**** off. They made John look almost honest.

Match shooting isn't at 1,000 yards as I remember, but 1,200. That is almost 7/10ths of a mile and some horses ass like john is talking about using a carbine on that. The target center is 44". At that distance you can't even see the huge target behind your sights. The way I got my TI off of my ass in basic is by being able to HIT the target at that distance with a carbine. And the way I did it was by forgetting the sights and firing by instinct on a dead calm day.

As I said, the bullet is a pistol bullet and was used by Ruger and S&W I think. Out of a carbine they had about half of the velocity of a 30-06. At 50 yards they hit about as hard as a Ruger.


I know one woman (now about 75 years old) who can still
consistently hit a target 'cowboy'- without sights. She says
she grey up a middle child in a large family with never
enough meat (counting squirrel as meat). It's a rare knack
which I for one certainly do not have. Hat's off to you, sir.

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

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.

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

On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:16:17 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/5/2020 4:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 5 March 2020 16:41:26 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/5/2020 2:36 PM, 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: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.

--
- 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.

And let me shock you by mostly agreeing with you. I have no serious
problem with most of those guns, especially the ones of historic interest.

Obviously, I do approve of restrictions on things like the AR-15. My
understanding is you can still own one; you just have to go through a
reasonable permitting process. That's unlike the U.S. where you can buy
one to shoot down the flying pink elephants that are attacking your house.

But I wonder about your interpretation of the law. About the L1A1,
Wikipedia claims "In Canada, all variants of the FN-FAL are classified
as prohibited firearms, under Weapons Prohibition Order No. 13 in 1995.
Being a variant of the FAL, the L1A1 cannot be legally owned or imported
except under limited circumstances. Those who owned a 12.5 prohibited
firearm prior to prohibition can continue to possess and acquire weapons
banned under this order."

I notice what you say about pistols smuggled in from the USA. Yeah, how
about that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

The law I was talking about came out AFTER I LEGALLY purchased my L1A1 which was a semi-automatic rifle at the time of purchase. There are a few parts that are changed or missing in the semi-automatic version that prevented it from being used in a full-auto mode.

Cheers


It's very fashionable to bemoan AR15 (.223) and other modern
lightweight rifles as magic and more deadly than bigger more
powerful (.308) classic formats. Fashion is a weird force.

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

I just went over to the match shooting group to see what they were saying after listening to John pass his bull**** off. They made John look almost honest.

Match shooting isn't at 1,000 yards as I remember, but 1,200. That is almost 7/10ths of a mile and some horses ass like john is talking about using a carbine on that. The target center is 44". At that distance you can't even see the huge target behind your sights. The way I got my TI off of my ass in basic is by being able to HIT the target at that distance with a carbine. And the way I did it was by forgetting the sights and firing by instinct on a dead calm day.

You are an ignorant ass. So you went and asked some match shooters
about 1,000 matches? And they told you...

Now read the references below that clearly and in words of few
syllables tell you about the National Rifle Matches and their "held at
800, 900 and 1,000 yards"

And that "Awards will be given in match rifle/any sights, service,
rifle and Palma rifle categories".

https://tinyurl.com/r2nydyr
https://tinyurl.com/uum6owe

What kind of "match shooters did you talk to? Tiddlywinks matches?


As I said, the bullet is a pistol bullet and was used by Ruger and S&W I think. Out of a carbine they had about half of the velocity of a 30-06. At 50 yards they hit about as hard as a Ruger.

Gee you did it again, dummy. The 30 cal carbine cartridge is a
descendent, of sorts, of the .32 Winchester Self-Loading cartridge,
which was a rife cartridge. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_Wi...r_Self-Loading

The Standard military load for the .30 carbine had a muzzle velocity
of (1,990 ft/s and 967 ft\lb energy)
U.S. Army specifications for the new cartridge mandated the caliber to
be greater than .27, with an effective range of 300 yards or more, and
a midrange trajectory ordinate of 18 inches (460 mm) or less at 300
yards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine
In comparison the .357 magnum has a muzzle velocity of 1,340 ft/sec
and 538 ft/lbs energy.A .44 magnum has a muzzle velocity of 1,250
ft/sec and 1,041 ft/lbs energy

Care to stand up at 50 yards and let us shoot at you with the less
powerful .44 magnum?

The latest government loading for the 30-06 seems to be the caliber
..30, ball, M2, achieved a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s and muzzle
energy of 2,656 ft/lb.

So about 800 ft/sec faster and about twice the muzzle energy.

--
cheers,

John B.

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.

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.

On Friday, 6 March 2020 07:17:47 UTC-5, 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.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

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.

Barrel length without a flash hider/suppressor could only be a certain length. I forget what is was back then but my Snider Enfield was a cavalry or artillery model and had a much shorter barrel that did the regular Snider Enfield. The L1A1 and the M1 carbine too both had barrel lengths that were under the length mandated by the new law. They were both only capable of semi-auto fire.

Cheers

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

On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:58:43 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
Bike lane destroys intellectual capacity of all involved:

https://nypost.com/2020/03/02/watch-...lane-argument/

Not to mention civility.

You are, of course, presuming intellectual capacity to begin with. ;-)