BOLO pervert cyclist

[AMuzi]

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter

But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.

A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing
tool of war made him do it.

Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to
charge the mother of a black juvenile criminal.

You're welcome.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing
tool of war made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to
charge the mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

You know, I can't remember what I was doing when I was 12 years old
but I think I might have been noticing that girls were different then
boys although they certainly weren't something one wanted to associate
with yet.
I might have been thinking about sneaking a cigarette once in a while
but certainly not shooting someone.

[zen cycle]

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

- Was the 11 year old and his mother previously investigated for making
threats?
- Did the mother - after being questioned about her childs threats -
then subsequently go out and buy her child a high capacity weapon for
his birthday?

The answer to both questions is no. It's context, not race, idiot.

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:02:01 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

Is telling the truth "raciest". Blacks who make up about 12% of the
U.S. population committed some 59% of firearm homicides and Whites who
make up about 59% of the population committed 19% of firearm
homicides.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:02:01 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

Is telling the truth "raciest". Blacks who make up about 12% of the
U.S. population committed some 59% of firearm homicides and Whites who
make up about 59% of the population committed 19% of firearm
homicides.

Young black men certainly do have a serious problem, and yes, it needs
to be fixed. (People here never present solutions.)

But my impression is that the bulk of black murderer victims are other
blacks who also have guns, typically engaged in territorial or
gang-related disputes.

How many of America's mass school murders (or church murders, or concert
murders, or night club murders) were committed by blacks? Anyone?

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:02:01 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

Is telling the truth "raciest". Blacks who make up about 12% of the
U.S. population committed some 59% of firearm homicides and Whites who
make up about 59% of the population committed 19% of firearm
homicides.

Young black men certainly do have a serious problem, and yes, it needs
to be fixed. (People here never present solutions.)
But my impression is that the bulk of black murderer victims are other
blacks who also have guns, typically engaged in territorial or
gang-related disputes.
How many of America's mass school murders (or church murders, or concert
murders, or night club murders) were committed by blacks? Anyone?

They only use the term "mass shooting" but you might try
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/mass-shootings-2020-gun-violence-black-neighborhoods/

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:19:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:02:01 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

Is telling the truth "raciest". Blacks who make up about 12% of the
U.S. population committed some 59% of firearm homicides and Whites who
make up about 59% of the population committed 19% of firearm
homicides.

Young black men certainly do have a serious problem, and yes, it needs
to be fixed. (People here never present solutions.)
But my impression is that the bulk of black murderer victims are other
blacks who also have guns, typically engaged in territorial or
gang-related disputes.
How many of America's mass school murders (or church murders, or concert
murders, or night club murders) were committed by blacks? Anyone?

They only use the term "mass shooting" but you might try
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/mass-shootings-2020-gun-violence-black-neighborhoods/

Why no long firearms? I thought they were agents of death?

[zen cycle]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:02:01 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

Is telling the truth "raciest". Blacks who make up about 12% of the
U.S. population committed some 59% of firearm homicides and Whites who
make up about 59% of the population committed 19% of firearm
homicides.

Too bad that isn't what Andrew was referring to. Try reading the rest of
the post before making a fool of yourself before you respond next time.

[John B.]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:22:58 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 08:02:01 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

One has to learn the modern US news lingo.
A black kid killing two people is a failure of society.
A white kid killing four is because the magic lead spewing tool of war
made him do it.
Naturally, white kid's father is charged. It's unfair to charge the
mother of a black juvenile criminal.
You're welcome.

That's really fucking stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist.

Is telling the truth "raciest". Blacks who make up about 12% of the
U.S. population committed some 59% of firearm homicides and Whites who
make up about 59% of the population committed 19% of firearm
homicides.

Too bad that isn't what Andrew was referring to. Try reading the rest of
the post before making a fool of yourself before you respond next time.

No, not Andrew's post, it was yours I believe " That's really fucking
stupid, and I would go so far as to call it racist" and I was
questioning whether the truth is "racist"?

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

[John B.]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto crashes?
I get some 2883 teenagers, i.e. School kids.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/teenagers

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto crashes?
I get some 2883 teenagers, i.e. School kids.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/teenagers

So far this year in Chicago, 376 dead. Almost no long
firearms, 20 stabbings, two strangled.

Chicago is roughly 1/3 each black, white, Hispanic.
Victims= 321 black, 13 white non Hispanic.
Killers are nearly all black, not white- 35:1


Running score as of this morning:
https://heyjackass.com/

We have actual data, not that it ever informs policy.
But hey AR15.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto crashes?

Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.

Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship of
guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such murders.
And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.

Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept that
absolutely baffles you!

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:53:06 -0500, AMuzi

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-
police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in
custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were
used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As
usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto  crashes?

Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the
use of cars for transportation. And cars are so beneficial
for transportation that American society would cease to
function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the
worship of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such murders. And I'll note that you have _still_
never managed to state a practical societal benefit of ARs
in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be
better off by far. Just the tax savings from not having to
"harden" public schools would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A
concept that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius
drivers less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles.

Why would anyone want to talk to you about something else that you
know nothing about?

Post by Frank Krygowski
Books have been written on
that topic.

Books about pickup trucks most likely written by people who never
owned a pickup truck.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/

Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html

or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/

"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."

I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-market-in-the-world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
Loading Image...&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-market-in-the-world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume

Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".

"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>

"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)

"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."

"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

My wife insists that sitting up high in your vehicle is an advantage,
especially in stop and go traffic. Having owned several low slung
sports cars in the past. I now see her point and agree with her.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

A great example of why calls for 'new regulations right now'
quickly become a saga of unintended consequences and endless
cyclic 'corrective' revisions, each with the usual graft,
kickbacks and elbow twisting of legislators. Their
mistresses get new cars but little else positive comes of
regulation.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

A great example of why calls for 'new regulations right now'
quickly become a saga of unintended consequences and endless
cyclic 'corrective' revisions, each with the usual graft,
kickbacks and elbow twisting of legislators. Their
mistresses get new cars but little else positive comes of
regulation.

Yep. Another aspect is that if there's government revenue involved,
the responsible agency will soon becomes addicted to the revenue
generated by the regulations. For the Energy Tax Act, the revenue
generated from failure to comply with impossible standards is
substantial. For the Gas Guzzler Tax, it was at one time a
substantial tax source, but after consumers discovered that by simply
buying a tax-free overweight and oversized monster light duty pickup
truck, they could save thousands of dollars on the purchase. Just
follow the money.

In the light duty pickup class, my favorite abomination is the 4 door
monster pickup truck:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=4+door+pickup+truck&udm=2>
It's a 4 door sedan with a short (or long) pickup bed grafted onto the
tail end, which magically converts it into a gas guzzler tax exempt
light duty pickup truck[1]. There was some discussion if the city
should repaint some downtown parking spaces so that such a 21 ft (6.4
meter) long vehicle could safely park. The opposing recommendation
was to ban all such vehicles from the downtown area.

[1] I predict that the next generation will have a "bolt-on"
removable pickup truck bed solely to meet the "light duty truck" tax
exemption requirements. If it's on an EV, stuff the extension full of
batteries, a camper or both and attach the extension for long trips.
Extra points for an attachment hinge to help it negotiate sharp turns
and road bumps.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the manufacturing
companies to make and promote the trucks. The buyers don't say "I'm
buying a grossly huge pickup because it bypasses the gas guzzler tax."
They certainly don't buy them to save money, given their inflated costs.
They buy them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the relatively few
ladies that buy them feel either more "cool," or safer - by imposing the
danger externalities on others, in a size and mass arms race.

Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare exceptions,
people are not buying these trucks to do the special things that trucks
can do.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:18:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the manufacturing
companies to make and promote the trucks.

True. The manufacturers find a market and produce a machine that
sells in that market. Promotion (mostly based on the image the buyer
is trying to emulate) is automatic for every type of vehicle. You may
have bought an EV because you believe that you're environmentally
conscious and want everyone who sees you in your EV to know it.

Post by Frank Krygowski
The buyers don't say "I'm
buying a grossly huge pickup because it bypasses the gas guzzler tax."

Correct. Nobody admits to hidden motivations. You ran into that when
you repeatedly asked if owning a gun has a practical purpose in our
society. You got silence for an answer. Nobody replied. I watched
it develop and finally got sick of your repetitious questions. So, I
provided a real answer. They want to have a gun in case something
goes wrong while praying they have to use it. The gun buyer doesn't
know when or how he may eventually be forced into using a gun. He
just doesn't want to be the only person in the room that can't defend
himself. If that's paranoia or irrational fear, that fine. This
country was founding on our (irrational) fear of British domination.
The problem is that's not an acceptable justification for owning a
gun, so you don't hear that from many gun owners.

Now, back to the monster trucks. There are few rational reasons for
buying a monster truck. One reason is money. When they first started
to appear, the dealers were having problems clearing their inventory.
You could buy one of these trucks at a substantial discount on good
terms. The prospective buyer was faced with a difficult choice. He
could buy a more conventional and practical new car and pay the tax,
or he could buy a discounted gas guzzler for about the same price. The
monster truck seems like the best value (in the short run). Add to
that the promotional advertising portraying the buyer as being very
macho, hard working, etc exactly like the now dead lumberjack look.
Perception is everything and for those who are perceived as lacking
they will do almost anything, including buying impractical pickup
trucks, to change how they are perceived.

Post by Frank Krygowski
They certainly don't buy them to save money, given their inflated costs.

I'm not sure, but I think that price inflation started after Covid
officially ended. Prior to that, you could price such pickup trucks
by their price divided by their curb weight. I'll need to do the math
before I'm claim that with certainty.

Post by Frank Krygowski
They buy them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the relatively few
ladies that buy them feel either more "cool," or safer - by imposing the
danger externalities on others, in a size and mass arms race.

Yep. That's a fair summary of what I wrote. Saving a few thousand on
the tax was an added bonus, but also one of the few tangible bonus's.
If you want how it really works, read anything by Vance Packard:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard>
Start here:
<https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X>
Ouch, that's expensive.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare exceptions,
people are not buying these trucks to do the special things that trucks
can do.

Duly noted. Also note that most surveys do not even being to scratch
the surface of the buyers real motivations and through processes. My
favorite example was running a survey of whomever I could convince to
answer my questions just after the Watergate mess became an
embarrassment. Mixed into the questions was "Did you vote for Nixon
in the Nov 1972 election". I asked about 60(?) people, mostly from
the neighborhood where I was living. Everyone claimed that they voted
in that election and nobody admitted to voting for Nixon. So much for
the validity of opinion polls.

If you also ask a random mob of monster truck buyers why they bought
such an impractical vehicle, I suspect you won't get any honest
answers. Same with asking the same random mob why they own a gun.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:18:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the manufacturing
companies to make and promote the trucks.

True. The manufacturers find a market and produce a machine that
sells in that market. Promotion (mostly based on the image the buyer
is trying to emulate) is automatic for every type of vehicle. You may
have bought an EV because you believe that you're environmentally
conscious and want everyone who sees you in your EV to know it.

Post by Frank Krygowski
The buyers don't say "I'm
buying a grossly huge pickup because it bypasses the gas guzzler tax."

Correct. Nobody admits to hidden motivations. You ran into that when
you repeatedly asked if owning a gun has a practical purpose in our
society. You got silence for an answer. Nobody replied. I watched
it develop and finally got sick of your repetitious questions. So, I
provided a real answer. They want to have a gun in case something
goes wrong while praying they have to use it. The gun buyer doesn't
know when or how he may eventually be forced into using a gun. He
just doesn't want to be the only person in the room that can't defend
himself. If that's paranoia or irrational fear, that fine. This
country was founding on our (irrational) fear of British domination.
The problem is that's not an acceptable justification for owning a
gun, so you don't hear that from many gun owners.
Now, back to the monster trucks. There are few rational reasons for
buying a monster truck. One reason is money. When they first started
to appear, the dealers were having problems clearing their inventory.
You could buy one of these trucks at a substantial discount on good
terms. The prospective buyer was faced with a difficult choice. He
could buy a more conventional and practical new car and pay the tax,
or he could buy a discounted gas guzzler for about the same price. The
monster truck seems like the best value (in the short run). Add to
that the promotional advertising portraying the buyer as being very
macho, hard working, etc exactly like the now dead lumberjack look.
Perception is everything and for those who are perceived as lacking
they will do almost anything, including buying impractical pickup
trucks, to change how they are perceived.

Post by Frank Krygowski
They certainly don't buy them to save money, given their inflated costs.

I'm not sure, but I think that price inflation started after Covid
officially ended. Prior to that, you could price such pickup trucks
by their price divided by their curb weight. I'll need to do the math
before I'm claim that with certainty.

Post by Frank Krygowski
They buy them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the relatively few
ladies that buy them feel either more "cool," or safer - by imposing the
danger externalities on others, in a size and mass arms race.

Yep. That's a fair summary of what I wrote. Saving a few thousand on
the tax was an added bonus, but also one of the few tangible bonus's.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard>
<https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X>
Ouch, that's expensive.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare exceptions,
people are not buying these trucks to do the special things that trucks
can do.

Duly noted. Also note that most surveys do not even being to scratch
the surface of the buyers real motivations and through processes. My
favorite example was running a survey of whomever I could convince to
answer my questions just after the Watergate mess became an
embarrassment. Mixed into the questions was "Did you vote for Nixon
in the Nov 1972 election". I asked about 60(?) people, mostly from
the neighborhood where I was living. Everyone claimed that they voted
in that election and nobody admitted to voting for Nixon. So much for
the validity of opinion polls.
If you also ask a random mob of monster truck buyers why they bought
such an impractical vehicle, I suspect you won't get any honest
answers. Same with asking the same random mob why they own a gun.

If a pollster asked me who I voted for or why I did something and I'd
probably tell them to go f*** themselves. (censorship is because
someone on RBT has indicated they are offended by obscenities)

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:18:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the manufacturing
companies to make and promote the trucks.

True. The manufacturers find a market and produce a machine that
sells in that market. Promotion (mostly based on the image the buyer
is trying to emulate) is automatic for every type of vehicle. You may
have bought an EV because you believe that you're environmentally
conscious and want everyone who sees you in your EV to know it.

Post by Frank Krygowski
The buyers don't say "I'm
buying a grossly huge pickup because it bypasses the gas guzzler tax."

Correct. Nobody admits to hidden motivations. You ran into that when
you repeatedly asked if owning a gun has a practical purpose in our
society. You got silence for an answer. Nobody replied. I watched
it develop and finally got sick of your repetitious questions. So, I
provided a real answer. They want to have a gun in case something
goes wrong while praying they have to use it. The gun buyer doesn't
know when or how he may eventually be forced into using a gun. He
just doesn't want to be the only person in the room that can't defend
himself. If that's paranoia or irrational fear, that fine. This
country was founding on our (irrational) fear of British domination.
The problem is that's not an acceptable justification for owning a
gun, so you don't hear that from many gun owners.
Now, back to the monster trucks. There are few rational reasons for
buying a monster truck. One reason is money. When they first started
to appear, the dealers were having problems clearing their inventory.
You could buy one of these trucks at a substantial discount on good
terms. The prospective buyer was faced with a difficult choice. He
could buy a more conventional and practical new car and pay the tax,
or he could buy a discounted gas guzzler for about the same price. The
monster truck seems like the best value (in the short run). Add to
that the promotional advertising portraying the buyer as being very
macho, hard working, etc exactly like the now dead lumberjack look.
Perception is everything and for those who are perceived as lacking
they will do almost anything, including buying impractical pickup
trucks, to change how they are perceived.

Post by Frank Krygowski
They certainly don't buy them to save money, given their inflated costs.

I'm not sure, but I think that price inflation started after Covid
officially ended. Prior to that, you could price such pickup trucks
by their price divided by their curb weight. I'll need to do the math
before I'm claim that with certainty.

Post by Frank Krygowski
They buy them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the relatively few
ladies that buy them feel either more "cool," or safer - by imposing the
danger externalities on others, in a size and mass arms race.

Yep. That's a fair summary of what I wrote. Saving a few thousand on
the tax was an added bonus, but also one of the few tangible bonus's.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard>
<https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X>
Ouch, that's expensive.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare exceptions,
people are not buying these trucks to do the special things that trucks
can do.

Duly noted. Also note that most surveys do not even being to scratch
the surface of the buyers real motivations and through processes. My
favorite example was running a survey of whomever I could convince to
answer my questions just after the Watergate mess became an
embarrassment. Mixed into the questions was "Did you vote for Nixon
in the Nov 1972 election". I asked about 60(?) people, mostly from
the neighborhood where I was living. Everyone claimed that they voted
in that election and nobody admitted to voting for Nixon. So much for
the validity of opinion polls.
If you also ask a random mob of monster truck buyers why they bought
such an impractical vehicle, I suspect you won't get any honest
answers. Same with asking the same random mob why they own a gun.

If a pollster asked me who I voted for or why I did something and I'd
probably tell them to go f*** themselves. (censorship is because
someone on RBT has indicated they are offended by obscenities)

An excellent point.
I often wonder nowadays who exactly responds to polls and
surveys. No one I know wants to volunteer for the Lois
Lerner list du jour.

[Frank Krygowski]

I often wonder nowadays who exactly responds to polls and surveys. No
one I know wants to volunteer for the Lois Lerner list du jour.

To turn to the flip side: You may know lots of people who have responded
to surveys. Knowing your views, they may have chosen not to admit to you
that they've done so.

Obviously, lots of people do respond to surveys.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
The manufacturers find a market and produce a machine that
sells in that market. Promotion (mostly based on the image the buyer
is trying to emulate) is automatic for every type of vehicle. You may
have bought an EV because you believe that you're environmentally
conscious and want everyone who sees you in your EV to know it.

:-) Hardly! I've never had a single person notice that my car was an EV.
The car is very generic looking. In fact, at the end of Thursday's club
ride, another rider and I ended the ride by heading to the wrong cars.
Her car (gasoline powered) looks that similar to mine. Different make,
but ~identical color, shape and size.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
They want to have a gun in case something
goes wrong while praying they have to use it. The gun buyer doesn't
know when or how he may eventually be forced into using a gun. He
just doesn't want to be the only person in the room that can't defend
himself. If that's paranoia or irrational fear, that fine.

For almost everybody, it is paranoia and irrational fear. And given the
consequences for society, I don't think it's fine. As I've said, just
the added security costs at schools, churches, etc. are a detriment.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:18:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope. The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes." (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs, minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the manufacturing
companies to make and promote the trucks.

More likely, the manufacturing companies are motivated to make them
becaue there's a demand for them.

The buyers don't say "I'm

Post by Frank Krygowski
buying a grossly huge pickup because it bypasses the gas guzzler tax."
They certainly don't buy them to save money, given their inflated costs.
They buy them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the relatively few
ladies that buy them feel either more "cool," or safer - by imposing the
danger externalities on others, in a size and mass arms race.
Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare exceptions,
people are not buying these trucks to do the special things that trucks
can do.

Studies are paid to serve the agenda of the people who put up the
money. I suspect that in this case, those people are people like
Krygowski, who hate the thought of people being comfortable with
themselves.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-
size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant
portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities.
According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck
for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent
of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in
the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope.  The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light
duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not
meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger
cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered
because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and
were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes."   (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs,
minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger
vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty
trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax
collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity
of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a
loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory
agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by
the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the
manufacturing companies to make and promote the trucks. The
buyers don't say "I'm buying a grossly huge pickup because
it bypasses the gas guzzler tax." They certainly don't buy
them to save money, given their inflated costs. They buy
them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the
relatively few ladies that buy them feel either more "cool,"
or safer - by imposing the danger externalities on others,
in a size and mass arms race.
Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare
exceptions, people are not buying these trucks to do the
special things that trucks can do.

And yet they remain insanely popular.
People like what they like. For any reason or no reason.

A list of 'advantages/disadvantages' spelling out what is
important to you will not dissuade anyone.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-
size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant
portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities.
According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck
for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent
of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in
the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Nope.  The reason Americans buy such trucks is that "light
duty"
trucks are exempt from the "gas guzzler tax".
"Energy Tax Act"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax>
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The Gas Guzzler Tax is assessed on new cars that do not
meet required
fuel economy levels. These taxes apply only to passenger
cars. Trucks,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUV) are not covered
because
these vehicle types were not widely available in 1978 and
were rarely
used for non-commercial purposes."   (hah-hah-hah)
"Navigating the Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.supermoney.com/encyclopedia/gas-guzzler-tax>
"The gas guzzler tax does not apply to trucks, SUVs,
minivans, or
other vehicle types that were not prevalent as passenger
vehicles when
the law was enacted in 1978. The exemption for “light-duty
trucks” has
been exploited by manufacturers, impacting the overall tax
collection.
This exemption has contributed to the continued popularity
of these
vehicle types among consumers."
"Gas Guzzler Tax"
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gasguzzlertax.asp>
"Auto manufacturers were keen to take advantage of a
loophole in the
gas guzzler tax and its interpretation through regulatory
agencies
like the EPA that exempted "light-duty trucks" from the law.
Consequently, the amount of gas guzzler tax collected by
the U.S. in
the fiscal year 2019 was under $43 million."

The (absence of) the gas guzzler tax motivated the
manufacturing companies to make and promote the trucks. The
buyers don't say "I'm buying a grossly huge pickup because
it bypasses the gas guzzler tax." They certainly don't buy
them to save money, given their inflated costs. They buy
them because they're in fashion, and that fashion makes the
dudes buying them feel a bit more masculine. Or makes the
relatively few ladies that buy them feel either more "cool,"
or safer - by imposing the danger externalities on others,
in a size and mass arms race.
Note the survey results in the top paragraph. With rare
exceptions, people are not buying these trucks to do the
special things that trucks can do.

And yet they remain insanely popular.
People like what they like. For any reason or no reason.
A list of 'advantages/disadvantages' spelling out what is
important to you will not dissuade anyone.

But it's dandy entertainment.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by AMuzi
People like what they like. For any reason or no reason.

Which does not mean that all choices are optimum, or even correct.
Believe it or not, some people do make mistakes!

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-market-in-the-world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Many organizations with an agenda will finance "studies" intended, and
designed so as to promote their agenda. There are also many ignorant
people who suck up that misleading data and make it their own.

*****************************************

I'm stating mathematical facts. Data
and correlation are extremely powerful tools and are not ignored by
any
but the mathematically ignorant. But nobody with mathematical sense
claims that there are zero exemptions to strong correlations.

Having a gun in the home is not a guarantee someone will get killed.
And
having a gun in the home is not a guarantee it will be effective at
"protection." But there's plenty of data indicating the first is more
likely than the second; IOW for most people, having a gun for
"protection" is probably a bad idea.

Read about it:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

**********************************************


--Frank Krygowski

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 07:52:37 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 23:32:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-market-in-the-world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See
https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of truck
owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to
Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one
time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners
go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck
owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its
ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Many organizations with an agenda will finance "studies" intended, and
designed so as to promote their agenda. There are also many ignorant
people who suck up that misleading data and make it their own.
*****************************************
I'm stating mathematical facts. Data
and correlation are extremely powerful tools and are not ignored by
any
but the mathematically ignorant. But nobody with mathematical sense
claims that there are zero exemptions to strong correlations.
Having a gun in the home is not a guarantee someone will get killed.
And
having a gun in the home is not a guarantee it will be effective at
"protection." But there's plenty of data indicating the first is more
likely than the second; IOW for most people, having a gun for
"protection" is probably a bad idea.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
**********************************************
--Frank Krygowski

O.K. I read the above and Yup it sounds rather scary... except:

I've pointed out a number of times that in some states with very many
guns in the house that homicides in the house was very small while in
other states with even lower guns in house had resulted in higher
levels of in home homicides.

Your reports appear to be missing some data. Why does the difference
between guns in homes versus homicides in homes vary?

Or is this just more anti gun propaganda?

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect
of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars
could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect
of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never
managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would
be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden"
public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments,
John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or
Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs.
disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have
been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-
pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-
huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-
ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill
effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-
pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter.
Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller
and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside
the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I
have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate
hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the
owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who
get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many
times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-
market-in-the-world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references
just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=Loading Image...&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a
few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/
news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need-
a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant
portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these
capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of
truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or
less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go
off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of
truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something
in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably half
of all upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in
garages as we speak.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a- pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy- huge-deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck- market-in-the-
world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/ news/26907/you-
dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of
truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According
to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for
towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of
truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something
in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably half of all
upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is probably
sitting in his garage at any given moment.

It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are never raced.
Which should be a strong clue that a race bike is probably far from the
best choice for most bicyclists.

But hey, they're fashionable!

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:23:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a- pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy- huge-deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck- market-in-the-
world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/ news/26907/you-
dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of
truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According
to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for
towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of
truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something
in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably half of all
upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is probably
sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are never raced.
Which should be a strong clue that a race bike is probably far from the
best choice for most bicyclists.

...as if you're qualified to say what's the best choice for most
bicyclists.

Post by Frank Krygowski
But hey, they're fashionable!

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect
of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars
could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side
effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never
managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public
possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America
would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to
"harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments,
John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta
or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs.
disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have
been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-
pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-
huge-deadly- dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-
ridiculously- huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill
effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a
6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter.
Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten
taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside
the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I
have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate
hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the
owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who
get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many
times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-
market-in-the- world/
And the article pretty well says that your two
references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a
few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/
news/26907/you- dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-
need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant
portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these
capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of
truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year
or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck
owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—
putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison
d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably
half of all upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in
garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is
probably sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are
never raced. Which should be a strong clue that a race bike
is probably far from the best choice for most bicyclists.
But hey, they're fashionable!

Not unlike large pickups. What ever do you care about
either? I'm happy that people are happy. meh.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect
of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars
could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side
effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never
managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public
possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America
would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to
"harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments,
John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta
or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs.
disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have
been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-
pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-
huge-deadly- dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-
ridiculously- huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill
effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a
6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter.
Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten
taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside
the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I
have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate
hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the
owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who
get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many
times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-
market-in-the- world/
And the article pretty well says that your two
references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a
few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/
news/26907/you- dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-
need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant
portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these
capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of
truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year
or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck
owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—
putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison
d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably
half of all upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in
garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is
probably sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are
never raced. Which should be a strong clue that a race bike
is probably far from the best choice for most bicyclists.
But hey, they're fashionable!

Not unlike large pickups. What ever do you care about
either? I'm happy that people are happy. meh.

+1 ..and why does anyone care what kind of bikes other people buy?

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect
of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars
could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side
effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never
managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public
possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America
would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to
"harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments,
John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta
or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs.
disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have
been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-
pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-
huge-deadly- dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-
ridiculously- huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill
effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a
6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter.
Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten
taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside
the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I
have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate
hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the
owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who
get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many
times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-
market-in-the- world/
And the article pretty well says that your two
references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a
few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/
news/26907/you- dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-
need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant
portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these
capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of
truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year
or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck
owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—
putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison
d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably
half of all upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in
garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is
probably sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are
never raced. Which should be a strong clue that a race bike
is probably far from the best choice for most bicyclists.
But hey, they're fashionable!

Not unlike large pickups. What ever do you care about
either? I'm happy that people are happy. meh.

+1 ..and why does anyone care what kind of bikes other people buy?

For a person who doesn't care about so many things, you post an AWFUL
lot of complaints!

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably half of all
upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is probably
sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are never raced.
Which should be a strong clue that a race bike is probably far from
the best choice for most bicyclists.
But hey, they're fashionable!

Not unlike large pickups.  What ever do you care about either?  I'm
happy that people are happy. meh.

:-) Yet you were the one who raised the point about them not being used!

Is a person who bought a race bike but doesn't ride it really happy with
it?

Might he not be happier if he instead had a bike that better suited his
potential uses?

Does that not hint that his subjective choice turned out to be a mistake?

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a- pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy- huge-deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck- market-in-the-
world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/ news/26907/you-
dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of
truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According
to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for
towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of
truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something
in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably half of all
upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is probably
sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are never raced.
Which should be a strong clue that a race bike is probably far from the
best choice for most bicyclists.
But hey, they're fashionable!

I believe that’s been one of the trends for Endurance vs Race bikes ie just
because a racer be that Pro or Amateur can hold such a position doesn’t
mean mortals can!

And likewise stuff like Gravel Bikes that can handle big road climbs or
follow MTB’s down trails and generally have wide performance
characteristics.

This said I’d be surprised if high end bikes did sit in sheds unused, as in
my experience folks who bother to buy such bikes do tend to be into the
sport, ie not someone’s first adult bike which they buy but never use bar
perhaps a few weekends in summer.

Absolutely folks lives change and bikes don’t get used anymore and so on.

But the stuff in the shed seems mid end at best.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a- pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy- huge-deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500- pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck- market-in-the-
world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?
q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

America is different. See https://www.thedrive.com/ news/26907/you-
dont-need-a-full-size-pickup-truck-you-need- a-cowboy-costume
Among other points the author makes, "...a significant portion of
truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According
to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for
towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of
truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35
percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something
in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less."

Same argument applies to 95% of race bikes and probably half of all
upper end bicycles. They are mostly sitting in garages as we speak.

Correct, of course, but even the most avid rider's bike is probably
sitting in his garage at any given moment.
It would be more accurate to say that most race bikes are never raced.
Which should be a strong clue that a race bike is probably far from the
best choice for most bicyclists.
But hey, they're fashionable!

I believe that’s been one of the trends for Endurance vs Race bikes ie just
because a racer be that Pro or Amateur can hold such a position doesn’t
mean mortals can!
And likewise stuff like Gravel Bikes that can handle big road climbs or
follow MTB’s down trails and generally have wide performance
characteristics.
This said I’d be surprised if high end bikes did sit in sheds unused, as in
my experience folks who bother to buy such bikes do tend to be into the
sport, ie not someone’s first adult bike which they buy but never use bar
perhaps a few weekends in summer.
Absolutely folks lives change and bikes don’t get used anymore and so on.
But the stuff in the shed seems mid end at best.

We should ask Tom about that, and about his current inventory. ISTM he
buys an endless string of bikes that turn out to be not what he hoped,
one way or another.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I can't say for the U.S. but here pickups are used, many times for
(probably) then they were intended to haul.
https://www.hotcars.com/thailand-largest-pickup-truck-market-in-the-world/
And the article pretty well says that your two references just aren't
true... at least here.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=thailand+pickup+trucks&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.hotcarsimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F01%2Fpthai3.jpg&t=lm
The multitude of used of pickups here. There are even a few home made
pickups shown.

The next vehicle for us will be a full size pickup. WE'll be going
down to one vehicle and My Nissan Frontier is not big enough to
comfortably carry passengers and things we need the truck bed for,
such as the Catrikes. Besides, my wife insists on such... I doubt
it's because of her need to boost her testosterone.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
The next vehicle for us will be a full size pickup. WE'll be going
down to one vehicle and My Nissan Frontier is not big enough to
comfortably carry passengers and things we need the truck bed for,
such as the Catrikes. Besides, my wife insists on such... I doubt
it's because of her need to boost her testosterone.

She may be wanting to boost yours.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:23:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
The next vehicle for us will be a full size pickup. WE'll be going
down to one vehicle and My Nissan Frontier is not big enough to
comfortably carry passengers and things we need the truck bed for,
such as the Catrikes. Besides, my wife insists on such... I doubt
it's because of her need to boost her testosterone.

She may be wanting to boost yours.

I'm 80 years old in a few weeks, dumbass. She's ten years younger, and
for what it's worth, she hasn't complained about any testosterone
issues.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:23:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
The next vehicle for us will be a full size pickup. WE'll be going
down to one vehicle and My Nissan Frontier is not big enough to
comfortably carry passengers and things we need the truck bed for,
such as the Catrikes. Besides, my wife insists on such... I doubt
it's because of her need to boost her testosterone.

She may be wanting to boost yours.

I'm 80 years old in a few weeks, dumbass. She's ten years younger...

There's her motivation! ;-)

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 06:26:36 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...

Frank's first reference above was written by a fellow named Dan Kois
hardly an expert on pickup trucks but apparently a magazine writer
churning out an article every month. One of his previous articles Sept
4 2024, titled "Our Toddler Has Figured Out How to Keep Us Trapped in
Our House" a lament that his 3 year old daughter seems to have
problems retaining urine.

So an "expert on a three year olds' "potty"schedule is Frank's expert
on pickup trucks?

As an aside, when my daughter was 3 years old my wife took care of all
the "potty" stuff for the daughter while the boys were my
responsibility.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I’d be frankly staggered if he was, such vehicles used as they are ie
attempted status symbols see the Tesla Truck for in someways the pinnacle
of such stuff.

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation?or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I’d be frankly staggered if he was, such vehicles used as they are ie
attempted status symbols see the Tesla Truck for in someways the pinnacle
of such stuff.
Roger Merriman

I don't think that Tesla truck is a status thing. If someone gave me
one I'd trade it on something more practical before anyone knew I had
it and that I'd been dumb enough to buy it. Same with an electric car
or bicycle.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation?or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I’d be frankly staggered if he was, such vehicles used as they are ie
attempted status symbols see the Tesla Truck for in someways the pinnacle
of such stuff.
Roger Merriman

I don't think that Tesla truck is a status thing. If someone gave me
one I'd trade it on something more practical before anyone knew I had
it and that I'd been dumb enough to buy it. Same with an electric car
or bicycle.

It very much is a status symbol and arguably the worst of Tesla ie Musk
seems to have had way too much influence with this over other Teslas.

If one really wants to and I’d suggest not! whole loads of influencers with
their Tesla truck, all over the socials, it appears to be at best mediocre
off road, most of the tracks showing how good it is, look easily driven by
a French farmer in a Citroen!

And yes in comparison to the F150 EV Ford apparently knowing their
customers has all the stuff that folks do with pickup trucks or at least
aspire to do so, but either way beyond being a EV it’s a pickup truck
though Riven and other startups don’t seem to have made same mistakes as
Tesla ie extending testing a prototype to do what it’s claimed to do.

Post by Catrike Ryder
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation?or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I?d be frankly staggered if he was, such vehicles used as they are ie
attempted status symbols see the Tesla Truck for in someways the pinnacle
of such stuff.
Roger Merriman

I don't think that Tesla truck is a status thing. If someone gave me
one I'd trade it on something more practical before anyone knew I had
it and that I'd been dumb enough to buy it. Same with an electric car
or bicycle.

It very much is a status symbol and arguably the worst of Tesla ie Musk
seems to have had way too much influence with this over other Teslas.
If one really wants to and I’d suggest not! whole loads of influencers with
their Tesla truck, all over the socials, it appears to be at best mediocre
off road, most of the tracks showing how good it is, look easily driven by
a French farmer in a Citroen!
And yes in comparison to the F150 EV Ford apparently knowing their
customers has all the stuff that folks do with pickup trucks or at least
aspire to do so, but either way beyond being a EV it’s a pickup truck
though Riven and other startups don’t seem to have made same mistakes as
Tesla ie extending testing a prototype to do what it’s claimed to do.

Post by Catrike Ryder
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Roger Merriman

Electric trucks, pickups or 18 wheelers, are even more ridiculous than
electric bicycles. I can understand someone having electric car if all
they do is make short trips and have charging capability at their
home. I once saw Tesla (they're the only ones that stand out) here in
Florida with New York plates, and I wondered how much falderal the
trip required. (falderal as in checking ahead and changing plans to
get to a charging station at the right time.)

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:47:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or
https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation?or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound,
22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no problem
with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting rifles.
But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to
AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone
level, by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed. And
the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

I susppect that way down deep Krygowski is jealous of the people who
drive big pickup trucks...
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I?d be frankly staggered if he was, such vehicles used as they are ie
attempted status symbols see the Tesla Truck for in someways the pinnacle
of such stuff.
Roger Merriman

I don't think that Tesla truck is a status thing. If someone gave me
one I'd trade it on something more practical before anyone knew I had
it and that I'd been dumb enough to buy it. Same with an electric car
or bicycle.

It very much is a status symbol and arguably the worst of Tesla ie Musk
seems to have had way too much influence with this over other Teslas.
If one really wants to and I’d suggest not! whole loads of influencers with
their Tesla truck, all over the socials, it appears to be at best mediocre
off road, most of the tracks showing how good it is, look easily driven by
a French farmer in a Citroen!
And yes in comparison to the F150 EV Ford apparently knowing their
customers has all the stuff that folks do with pickup trucks or at least
aspire to do so, but either way beyond being a EV it’s a pickup truck
though Riven and other startups don’t seem to have made same mistakes as
Tesla ie extending testing a prototype to do what it’s claimed to do.

Post by Catrike Ryder
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Roger Merriman

Electric trucks, pickups or 18 wheelers, are even more ridiculous than
electric bicycles. I can understand someone having electric car if all
they do is make short trips and have charging capability at their
home. I once saw Tesla (they're the only ones that stand out) here in
Florida with New York plates, and I wondered how much falderal the
trip required. (falderal as in checking ahead and changing plans to
get to a charging station at the right time.)
--
C'est bon
Soloman

Probably fine, Teslas tend to have on the upper end for EV ranges, though
like all EV unlike ICE vehicles you’ll get the worse range at higher speeds
on longer distances than slower speeds around time, but considering Tesla
charging network and the population density down the East coast, don’t
expect that to be a problem.

And certainly newer EV’s can charge fairly quickly and have enough range,
but yes absolutely longer the distance per day the more of time penalty a
EV can be, as they will need to charge 200/300 miles depending on the car
and so on, not necessarily for that long but longer than someone having a
quick coffee break.

But absolutely doable.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of
the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could
not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect
of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never
managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be
better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden"
public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments,
John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or
Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs.
disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been
written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge-
deadly-dont-buy-em.html
or https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-
ridiculously-huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill
effects of mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a
6,500-pound, 22-foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery-
getter. Pedestrian deaths have reached 40-year highs and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research shows that
as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier, they
likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the
vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have
no problem with what were always considered normal and
legitimate hunting rifles. But bloated, oversized modern
pickup trucks are a close parallel to AR-style guns. They
are bought mostly to raise the owners' testosterone level,
by providing capabilities that are essentially never needed.
And the detriments are externalities, imposed on others who
get none of the minuscule benefits.

That's well composed and expresses nicely why a large pickup
truck has little to any advantage or benefit _for you_.

They do remain the #1 and #2 most popular vehicle in US
sales year after year* and add significant sustaining profit
to the auto industry, who bleed cash on other models:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a60621256/ford-ev-revenue-losses-q1-2024/

Similarly no matter how beautiful, comfortable and
affordable a pair of Italian pumps may be:

https://www.macys.com/shop/product/bandolino-womens-gayel-dress-pumps?ID=12733231

neither of us will wear them (although I do buy such for
girlfriend who prefers that brand).


*GM and Ford trade the #1 spot regularly

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge- deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound, 22-
foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery- getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no
problem with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting
rifles. But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners'
testosterone level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And the detriments are externalities, imposed on others
who get none of the minuscule benefits.

That's well composed and expresses nicely why a large pickup truck has
little to any advantage or benefit _for you_.
They do remain the #1 and #2 most popular vehicle in US sales year after
year* and add significant sustaining profit to the auto industry ...

Of course. IOW, huge pickups are fashionable now. Fashion is weird and
powerful.

I remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most fashionable
vehicle to own was about 20 feet long, had mushy tires and suspension,
bench seats front and back, and a huge trunk preferably ornamented with
large fins.

I also remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most fashionable
vehicle to own was a very large boxy van. Preferably with extra fancy
seats, mood lighting, maybe even a TV.

I remember when the _obviously_ the best and most fashionable vehicle to
own was a "mini van," so much more logical than the big vans!

Through those and other vehicle fashion transitions, the nature of
American driving did not change. Only the fashion changed.

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect
of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for
transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars
could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect
of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never
managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would
be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden"
public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments,
John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or
Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs.
disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have
been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-
pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-
huge- deadly- dont-buy-em.html
or https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks-
ridiculously- huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill
effects of mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of
using a 6,500-pound, 22- foot-long vehicle mainly as a
grocery- getter. Pedestrian deaths have reached 40-year
highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller
and heavier, they likewise have posed greater risks to
those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I
have no problem with what were always considered normal
and legitimate hunting rifles. But bloated, oversized
modern pickup trucks are a close parallel to AR-style
guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners'
testosterone level, by providing capabilities that are
essentially never needed. And the detriments are
externalities, imposed on others who get none of the
minuscule benefits.

That's well composed and expresses nicely why a large
pickup truck has little to any advantage or benefit _for
you_.
They do remain the #1 and #2 most popular vehicle in US
sales year after year* and add significant sustaining
profit to the auto industry ...

Of course. IOW, huge pickups are fashionable now. Fashion is
weird and powerful.
I remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most
fashionable vehicle to own was about 20 feet long, had mushy
tires and suspension, bench seats front and back, and a huge
trunk preferably ornamented with large fins.
I also remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most
fashionable vehicle to own was a very large boxy van.
Preferably with extra fancy seats, mood lighting, maybe even
a TV.
I remember when the _obviously_ the best and most
fashionable vehicle to own was a "mini van," so much more
logical than the big vans!
Through those and other vehicle fashion transitions, the
nature of American driving did not change. Only the fashion
changed.

Be those as they may, pickups have held the #1 and #2 volume
of sales for about 50 years.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:36:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge- deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound, 22-
foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery- getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no
problem with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting
rifles. But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners'
testosterone level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And the detriments are externalities, imposed on others
who get none of the minuscule benefits.

That's well composed and expresses nicely why a large pickup truck has
little to any advantage or benefit _for you_.
They do remain the #1 and #2 most popular vehicle in US sales year after
year* and add significant sustaining profit to the auto industry ...

Of course. IOW, huge pickups are fashionable now. Fashion is weird and
powerful.
I remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most fashionable
vehicle to own was about 20 feet long, had mushy tires and suspension,
bench seats front and back, and a huge trunk preferably ornamented with
large fins.
I also remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most fashionable
vehicle to own was a very large boxy van. Preferably with extra fancy
seats, mood lighting, maybe even a TV.
I remember when the _obviously_ the best and most fashionable vehicle to
own was a "mini van," so much more logical than the big vans!
Through those and other vehicle fashion transitions, the nature of
American driving did not change. Only the fashion changed.

Too bad that the current EV fashion hasn't caught on enough for there
to be a substantial number of charging stations.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:36:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

https://slate.com/business/2022/02/suvs-pickups-heavy-huge- deadly-
dont-buy-em.html
or https://reason.com/2024/02/02/why-are-pickup-trucks- ridiculously-
huge-blame-government/
"... critics aren't entirely wrong to point out the ill effects of
mega-truck proliferation—or the oddity of using a 6,500-pound, 22-
foot-long vehicle mainly as a grocery- getter. Pedestrian deaths have
reached 40-year highs and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
research shows that as trucks and SUVs have gotten taller and heavier,
they likewise have posed greater risks to those outside the vehicle."
I have no problem with compact pickup trucks, just as I have no
problem with what were always considered normal and legitimate hunting
rifles. But bloated, oversized modern pickup trucks are a close
parallel to AR-style guns. They are bought mostly to raise the owners'
testosterone level, by providing capabilities that are essentially
never needed. And the detriments are externalities, imposed on others
who get none of the minuscule benefits.

That's well composed and expresses nicely why a large pickup truck has
little to any advantage or benefit _for you_.
They do remain the #1 and #2 most popular vehicle in US sales year after
year* and add significant sustaining profit to the auto industry ...

Of course. IOW, huge pickups are fashionable now. Fashion is weird and
powerful.
I remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most fashionable
vehicle to own was about 20 feet long, had mushy tires and suspension,
bench seats front and back, and a huge trunk preferably ornamented with
large fins.
I also remember the times when _obviously_ the best and most fashionable
vehicle to own was a very large boxy van. Preferably with extra fancy
seats, mood lighting, maybe even a TV.
I remember when the _obviously_ the best and most fashionable vehicle to
own was a "mini van," so much more logical than the big vans!
Through those and other vehicle fashion transitions, the nature of
American driving did not change. Only the fashion changed.

Too bad that the current EV fashion hasn't caught on enough for there
to be a substantial number of charging stations.

Or enough for the retail price to bump up over manufacturing
cost...

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:36:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship
of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such
murders. And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical societal benefit of ARs in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept
that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius drivers
less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

We could certainly talk about advantages vs. disadvantages of huge
pickup trucks and other similar vehicles. Books have been written on
that topic.

Like
https://www.truckaddons.com/pros-and-cons-of-owning-a-pickup/
Notice I provide a reference, you don't.

Didn't know you had any desire to read one. There are many
and here's an example:

https://gunsmagazine.com/discover/pros-and-cons-of-the-ar/

As with any item (clothing, steel roofing material, tablet
computers, gravel bicycles) people do seem to like
expressing their opinions as in your link above. Which is
fine. People also seem to like reading others' opinions,
which is also fine.

As with any opinion, facts are one thing but relative
importance of various criteria, or omitting some criteria
altogether, is quite another.

You likely will not find the positive features of black
pickups or AR platform firearms compelling no matter how
well expressed. We see similar in bicycle reviews in that
one of the few objective measures, weight, is prominent.
This implies that what follows has some validity. Then
there's the guy who says that glitzy finish is so beautiful
he won't mind the extra grams. Or who feels that the top
tube length is outside his comfort range despite other
aspects. etc etc.

[Frank Krygowski]

As with any item (clothing, steel roofing material, tablet computers,
gravel bicycles) people do seem to like expressing their opinions as in
your link above. Which is fine. People also seem to like reading others'
opinions, which is also fine.
As with any opinion, facts are one thing but relative importance of
various criteria, or omitting some criteria altogether, is quite another.

At the same time, it's not correct to say any opinion is as correct as
any other one.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:53:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

As with any item (clothing, steel roofing material, tablet computers,
gravel bicycles) people do seem to like expressing their opinions as in
your link above. Which is fine. People also seem to like reading others'
opinions, which is also fine.
As with any opinion, facts are one thing but relative importance of
various criteria, or omitting some criteria altogether, is quite another.

At the same time, it's not correct to say any opinion is as correct as
any other one.

A person's opinion is always correct in that, like it or not, it's
their opinion.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi
As with any item (clothing, steel roofing material, tablet
computers, gravel bicycles) people do seem to like
expressing their opinions as in your link above. Which is
fine. People also seem to like reading others' opinions,
which is also fine.
As with any opinion, facts are one thing but relative
importance of various criteria, or omitting some criteria
altogether, is quite another.

At the same time, it's not correct to say any opinion is as
correct as any other one.

It absolutely is.

If I claim, 'My bike is lighter than yours', we can quantify
that. It's either true or it is not.

But if you claim, 'Pickups are too expensive and even more
costly per mile for fuel so you ought not buy one', that
mixes provable statements (cost, mpg) with opinion which is
not. Your typical pickup owner will respond, 'Yes,
expensive and worth it to me'. He's as right as you are.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:53:06 -0500, AMuzi

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-
police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in
custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were
used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As
usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto  crashes?

Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the
use of cars for transportation. And cars are so beneficial
for transportation that American society would cease to
function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the
worship of guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of
choice for such murders. And I'll note that you have _still_
never managed to state a practical societal benefit of ARs
in public possession.
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be
better off by far. Just the tax savings from not having to
"harden" public schools would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A
concept that absolutely baffles you!

By that logic, are fatal car crashes by Ford Fiesta or Prius
drivers less tragic than those by scary black pickups?

Or perhaps (God Forbid) if one of Frank's kids or his wife were killed
by a drunk driver he'd be skipping down the street shouting, "I'm so
happy! The weren't killed by one of those nasty AR's.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or
such. Tools are merely tools not actors.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or
such. Tools are merely tools not actors.

<chuckle> societal benefit is a subjective evaluation.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[Frank Krygowski]

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.  Tools
are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for hand
grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.

(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament, largely
because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi
Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or
such.  Tools are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
Ditto for hand grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such
armament, largely because it has no legitimate use on the
streets.

I made no suggestion of prohibition or regulation.

But since you mention it, our neighbor Mexico incorporated
the measures often advocated here. One firearm only, single
shot only, rimfire only. A citizen needs a permit which is
complex and expensive and is issued after a background check
for prior criminality and assurance of good moral character.
Permit in hand, the citizen is then allowed to buy a firearm
at the nation's only outlet, a State owned facility inside a
large military base. Assuming we all lose our minds and
repeal the 2d Amendment, would all that prevent firearm
violence?


When?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/317056/mexico-number-of-homicides-by-municipality/

Adjusted for population, that's a significantly higher rate
than in USA.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.
Tools are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for
hand grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament,
largely because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

I made no suggestion of prohibition or regulation.
But since you mention it, our neighbor Mexico incorporated the measures
often advocated here. One firearm only, single shot only, rimfire only.
A citizen needs a permit which is complex and expensive and is issued
after a background check for prior criminality and assurance of good
moral character. Permit in hand, the citizen is then allowed to buy a
firearm at the nation's only outlet, a State owned facility inside a
large military base.  Assuming we all lose our minds and repeal the 2d
Amendment, would all that prevent firearm violence?
When?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/317056/mexico-number-of-homicides-
by-municipality/
Adjusted for population, that's a significantly higher rate than in USA.

And how about our neighbor to the north? They seem to do far better than
we do.

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi
Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90
or such. Tools are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
Ditto for hand grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such
armament, largely because it has no legitimate use on the
streets.

I made no suggestion of prohibition or regulation.
But since you mention it, our neighbor Mexico incorporated
the measures often advocated here. One firearm only,
single shot only, rimfire only. A citizen needs a permit
which is complex and expensive and is issued after a
background check for prior criminality and assurance of
good moral character. Permit in hand, the citizen is then
allowed to buy a firearm at the nation's only outlet, a
State owned facility inside a large military base.
Assuming we all lose our minds and repeal the 2d
Amendment, would all that prevent firearm violence?
When?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/317056/mexico-number-
of-homicides- by-municipality/
Adjusted for population, that's a significantly higher
rate than in USA.

And how about our neighbor to the north? They seem to do far
better than we do.

Hmmmm. So perhaps culture matters, beyond regulation.
Such a startling insight!

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.
Tools are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for
hand grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament,
largely because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

I made no suggestion of prohibition or regulation.
But since you mention it, our neighbor Mexico incorporated the
measures often advocated here. One firearm only, single shot only,
rimfire only. A citizen needs a permit which is complex and expensive
and is issued after a background check for prior criminality and
assurance of good moral character. Permit in hand, the citizen is
then allowed to buy a firearm at the nation's only outlet, a State
owned facility inside a large military base. Assuming we all lose our
minds and repeal the 2d Amendment, would all that prevent firearm
violence?
When?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/317056/mexico-number- of-
homicides- by-municipality/
Adjusted for population, that's a significantly higher rate than in USA.

And how about our neighbor to the north? They seem to do far better
than we do.

Hmmmm.  So perhaps culture matters, beyond regulation.
Such a startling insight!

And I'm all in favor of moving American culture past gun mania!

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:40:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.  Tools
are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for hand
grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament, largely
because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

Re Guns you are wrong (again)
National Firearms Act
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority
to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue
collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its
underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in
NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant
crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the
gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre


Re Bombs - Nope
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/illegal-explosives
including grenades which are bombs.

You state that " largely because it has no legitimate use on the
streets" while, notably in the NFA it was an effort to control crime.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:40:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.  Tools
are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for hand
grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament, largely
because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

Re Guns you are wrong (again)
National Firearms Act
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority
to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue
collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its
underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in
NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant
crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the
gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre
Re Bombs - Nope
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/illegal-explosives
including grenades which are bombs.
You state that " largely because it has no legitimate use on the
streets" while, notably in the NFA it was an effort to control crime.

You're making even less sense than usual. I said our society puts
regulations on such armament. You say I'm wrong, then you give links to
the regulations that our society puts on that armament.

Are you sure you're OK?

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:51:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:40:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.  Tools
are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for hand
grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament, largely
because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

Re Guns you are wrong (again)
National Firearms Act
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority
to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue
collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its
underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in
NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant
crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the
gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre
Re Bombs - Nope
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/illegal-explosives
including grenades which are bombs.
You state that " largely because it has no legitimate use on the
streets" while, notably in the NFA it was an effort to control crime.

You're making even less sense than usual. I said our society puts
regulations on such armament. You say I'm wrong, then you give links to
the regulations that our society puts on that armament.
Are you sure you're OK?

Frank you didn't read what you wrote. Look above you stated ">> Our
society puts effective regulations on such armament, largely >>
because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

I pointed out that the National Firearms Act, in it's own post said,
"Congress found these firearms to pose a significant
crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the
gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre"

Or will you now try to tell us that "no legitimate use on the streets"
equates to "the murder of seven people".

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by John B.
Or will you now try to tell us that "no legitimate use on the streets"
equates to "the murder of seven people".

Legitimate use on the streets (or dirt roads) of the 1920's:
<Loading Image...>

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by John B.
Or will you now try to tell us that "no legitimate use on the streets"
equates to "the murder of seven people".

<https://gunmagwarehouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Thompson-Rancher-Ad.jpg>

Legal semi-auto version.

https://www.auto-ordnance.com/thompson-sbr/

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[AMuzi]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 13:40:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or such.  Tools
are merely tools not actors.

"When bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs." Ditto for hand
grenades, mustard gas, etc. etc.
(Even) Our society puts effective regulations on such armament, largely
because it has no legitimate use on the streets.

Re Guns you are wrong (again)
National Firearms Act
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority
to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue
collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its
underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in
NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant
crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the
gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre
Re Bombs - Nope
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/illegal-explosives
including grenades which are bombs.
You state that " largely because it has no legitimate use on the
streets" while, notably in the NFA it was an effort to control crime.

nice effort

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-year-hundreds-of-bombs-went-off-in-new-york-city

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Had Mr Stoner never lived, they would be AK or FN PS90 or
such. Tools are merely tools not actors.

Although people do try to ignore the fact but it is true that, "guns
don't shoot people, people shoot people".

Every time someone like Frank starts bitching about someone with an AR
doing this or that I wonder why he forgets to mention the 19,999,999
AR owners that didn't do this or that.

[John B.]

On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:24:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Ah but I did reply, saying (ands providing a reference) that 60-some
percent of auto deaths were due to drunk driving and/or speeding and
asked him to supply the practical societal benefit for that.

He hasn't responded.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:24:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Ah but I did reply, saying (ands providing a reference) that 60-some
percent of auto deaths were due to drunk driving and/or speeding and
asked him to supply the practical societal benefit for that.
He hasn't responded.

You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively saying "but
cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."

I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the benefits of cars
outweigh the detriments - something not true of the type of firearm you
passionately worship. (Despite not owning an example!)

And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving and speeding.
But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to restrict use of guns.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:55:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:24:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Ah but I did reply, saying (ands providing a reference) that 60-some
percent of auto deaths were due to drunk driving and/or speeding and
asked him to supply the practical societal benefit for that.
He hasn't responded.

You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively saying "but
cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."
I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the benefits of cars
outweigh the detriments -

In your opinion (subjective)

Post by Frank Krygowski
something not true of the type of firearm you
passionately worship. (Despite not owning an example!)

Ridiculous fallacious argument... "You don't own one so that prove
they're bad."

Post by Frank Krygowski
And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving and speeding.
But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to restrict use of guns.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 06:29:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 22:55:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:24:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing that. It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Ah but I did reply, saying (ands providing a reference) that 60-some
percent of auto deaths were due to drunk driving and/or speeding and
asked him to supply the practical societal benefit for that.
He hasn't responded.

You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively saying "but
cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."
I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the benefits of cars
outweigh the detriments -

In your opinion (subjective)

Post by Frank Krygowski
something not true of the type of firearm you
passionately worship. (Despite not owning an example!)

Ridiculous fallacious argument... "You don't own one so that prove
they're bad."

Post by Frank Krygowski
And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving and speeding.
But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to restrict use of guns.

Certainly tries? Frankie's got to be joking if "certainly trying"
results in 32% of the total vehicle traffic fatalities in 2022.

In Singapore, for example:
If you are convicted of drink-driving, you are liable to a fine of
between $2,000 and $10,000 and/or up to 1 year’s jail for a first-time
offence. Repeat offenders face fines of between $5,000 and $20,000 and
up to 2 years’ jail.
Nature and degree of actual/potential harm resulting from the offence
In cases where no personal or property harm has occurred, the
following sentencing is applied for first-time offenders:
(mg per 100ml of breath)
Range of fines Range of disqualification
36-54 $2,000 – $4,000 24 – 30 months
55-69 $4,000 – $6,000 30 – 36 months
70-89 $6,000 – $8,000 36 – 48 months
More than 90 $8,000 – $10,000 48 – 60 months (or longer)
Failing to provide a specimen of breath or blood under section 70(4)

Reckless Driving Singapore Punishment
Punishments for Causing Death of Another
If the offender causes the death of another person while driving a
motor vehicle, the offender will face the following penalties if
convicted:
1) For first time offenders – imprisonment for a period between 2 to 8
years.
2) For repeat offenders – imprisonment for a period between 4 to 15
years.

And.. they are talking about increasing the penalties.

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:24:22 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a
practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

That might be because he wasn't interested in doing
that.  It's not as
though your opinions are significant enough to address.

Ah but I did reply, saying (ands providing a reference)
that 60-some
percent of auto deaths were due to drunk driving and/or
speeding and
asked him to supply the practical societal benefit for that.
He hasn't responded.

You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively
saying "but cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."
I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the
benefits of cars outweigh the detriments - something not
true of the type of firearm you passionately worship.
(Despite not owning an example!)
And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving
and speeding. But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to
restrict use of guns.

Nonsense.

We live among citizens who truly and sincerely want to
abolish personal autos and trucks. You are not among them
but that's a difference in degree rather than general outlook.

Many view the NFAs (1936, 1968 et seq) as unconstitutional
considering the plain language of the 2d Amendment, but that
is a political dead end. Just as dead as 'banning autos'.

That said, present restrictions are many, punitive,
Byzantine, expensive and largely to little effect on crime,
especially murder, given the significant number of firearms
crimes by 'prohibited persons' with stolen weapons and no
paperwork whatsoever. Automatic weapons have been severely
regulated since 1936, but the current supply of auto sears
for popular pistols from the PLA to US criminals is rampant.

https://www.thetrace.org/2024/09/glock-switch-lawsuits-pistol-design/

p.s. The AR platform requires significant modification for
auto operation and as such is a rarity.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively saying "but
cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."
I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the benefits of
cars outweigh the detriments - something not true of the type of
firearm you passionately worship. (Despite not owning an example!)
And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving and
speeding. But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to restrict use
of guns.

Nonsense.
We live among citizens who truly and sincerely want to abolish personal
autos and trucks.  You are not among them but that's a difference in
degree rather than general outlook.

Banning cars and trucks is a tangential point, one I did not address;
and in raising it you are yet again focusing on a minuscule portion of
the population. I've absolutely never met anyone who wanted to abolish
personal cars and trucks.

Post by AMuzi
Many view the NFAs (1936, 1968 et seq)  as unconstitutional considering
the plain language of the 2d Amendment, but that is a political dead
end.  Just as dead as 'banning autos'.

Yes, there are far more who consider _any_ restriction on guns to be
unconstitutional. (Far more than the ~zero who want to ban personal cars
and trucks.) Those people were rightfully considered nut cases from
roughly the 1790s until the well financed takeover of the court system
within the past 20 or so years. I say that because there were reasonable
restrictions on firearms right from the nation's beginning.

Post by AMuzi
That said, present restrictions are many, punitive, Byzantine, expensive ...

They haven't bothered me a bit; nor any member of my extended family;
nor any of my close friends, including those who hunt.

Post by AMuzi
and largely to little effect on crime, especially murder,  given the
significant number of firearms crimes by 'prohibited persons' with
stolen weapons and no paperwork whatsoever.

The gun industry has successfully saturated the nation with their wares.
Gun fetishists are constantly adding to the supply, making it far too
easy for "prohibited persons" to grab a gun in a moment of anger.
Further increasing the supply, and the firepower, is worsening the
problem, not helping it.

Post by AMuzi
Automatic weapons have been
severely regulated since 1936, but the current supply of auto sears for
popular pistols from the PLA to US criminals is rampant.

Right. And gun fetishists are responsible for the very existence of
Glock switches. And they argue against legal efforts to reduce the problem.

Post by AMuzi
p.s. The AR platform requires significant modification for auto
operation and as such is a rarity.

Really? Bump stocks no longer exist?

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 15:12:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi

Post by Frank Krygowski
You've made such statments dozens of times - effectively saying "but
cars kill more people and we don't ban cars."
I've rebutted that over and over, pointing out that the benefits of
cars outweigh the detriments - something not true of the type of
firearm you passionately worship. (Despite not owning an example!)
And society certainly does _try_ to curtail drunk driving and
speeding. But gun worshipers rail against any attempt to restrict use
of guns.

Nonsense.
We live among citizens who truly and sincerely want to abolish personal
autos and trucks.  You are not among them but that's a difference in
degree rather than general outlook.

Banning cars and trucks is a tangential point, one I did not address;
and in raising it you are yet again focusing on a minuscule portion of
the population. I've absolutely never met anyone who wanted to abolish
personal cars and trucks.

Post by AMuzi
Many view the NFAs (1936, 1968 et seq)  as unconstitutional considering
the plain language of the 2d Amendment, but that is a political dead
end.  Just as dead as 'banning autos'.

Yes, there are far more who consider _any_ restriction on guns to be
unconstitutional. (Far more than the ~zero who want to ban personal cars
and trucks.) Those people were rightfully considered nut cases from
roughly the 1790s until the well financed takeover of the court system
within the past 20 or so years. I say that because there were reasonable
restrictions on firearms right from the nation's beginning.

No there weren't. Years later, some localities insisted on "no guns in
town" but it was as unconstitutional then as it is now.

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi
That said, present restrictions are many, punitive, Byzantine, expensive ...

They haven't bothered me a bit; nor any member of my extended family;
nor any of my close friends, including those who hunt.

...and? It's not all about you. Really!

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi
and largely to little effect on crime, especially murder,  given the
significant number of firearms crimes by 'prohibited persons' with
stolen weapons and no paperwork whatsoever.

The gun industry has successfully saturated the nation with their wares.

...due to consumer demand. What are you going to do?

Post by Frank Krygowski
Gun fetishists are constantly adding to the supply, making it far too
easy for "prohibited persons" to grab a gun in a moment of anger.
Further increasing the supply, and the firepower, is worsening the
problem, not helping it.

Post by AMuzi
Automatic weapons have been
severely regulated since 1936, but the current supply of auto sears for
popular pistols from the PLA to US criminals is rampant.

Right. And gun fetishists are responsible for the very existence of
Glock switches. And they argue against legal efforts to reduce the problem.

A autofire handgun is ridiculous. Only a rapid fire handgun expert
(are there such people) could keep the thing under control. More
dangerous to birds, than humans.

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by AMuzi
p.s. The AR platform requires significant modification for auto
operation and as such is a rarity.

Really? Bump stocks no longer exist?

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[John B.]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto crashes?

Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship of
guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such murders.
And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

I see... killing kids is O.K.... as long as you use a car?

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/car-accident-statistics/
61% of auto fatalities were caused by either speeding or drunk
drivers.

I particularly liked your statement "state a practical
societal benefit of "... can you offer a practical social benefit for
accepting 61% of all auto deaths being due to drunks or speeding?

Cheer up Frankie, it's called "rationalizing" an attempt to
demonstrate that your viewpoint is right.

Post by Frank Krygowski
Unlike cars, if ARs could not be used, America would be better off by
far. Just the tax savings from not having to "harden" public schools
would be worth the change.
Or to summarize yet again: Benefits vs. detriments, John! A concept that
absolutely baffles you!

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:04:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(2000%E2%80%93present)
shows 40 killed in school shootings in 2022
Care to offer the number of kids killed in auto crashes?

Auto crash fatalities are a regrettable side effect of the use of cars
for transportation. And cars are so beneficial for transportation that
American society would cease to function if cars could not be used.
Mass murders in schools are a regrettable side effect of the worship of
guns, especially AR-style rifles, the weapon of choice for such murders.
And I'll note that you have _still_ never managed to state a practical
societal benefit of ARs in public possession.

I see... killing kids is O.K.... as long as you use a car?

Show me where anyone said that. Direct quote, please.

For you and your buddy, who are both confused on this point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Catrike Ryder]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

Wrong, not "as usual."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[zen cycle]

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

Wrong, not "as usual."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

The claim was "school mass murder", not murder in general, dumbass.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

Wrong, not "as usual."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Oh I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the words "_school_ mass murder"?

Perhaps you needed a better reading teacher?

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

Wrong, not "as usual."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Oh I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the words "_school_ mass murder"?
Perhaps you needed a better reading teacher?

No, but I was aware of the fact that school mass murders are a very
small percentage of mass murders, and likely not a very big percentage
of murders of children.

I'm curious as to why you seem to think that murders in schools is
more significant than murders in other places.

That was a rhetorical question, of course, because it's clear that
you're only parroting what you hear from your anti-gun politicians and
their media enablers.

--
C'est bon
Soloman

[zen cycle]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

Wrong, not "as usual."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Oh I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the words "_school_ mass murder"?
Perhaps you needed a better reading teacher?

No, but I was aware of the fact that school mass murders are a very
small percentage of mass murders, and likely not a very big percentage
of murders of children.
I'm curious as to why you seem to think that murders in schools is
more significant than murders in other places.
That was a rhetorical question, of course, because it's clear that
you're only parroting what you hear from your anti-gun politicians and
their media enablers.

So you're OK with kids being murdered in schools as long as people get
to keep their high-capacity assault weapons with no restrictions....got it.

Have another cognac and a chuckle when you read about the dead kids, didja?

[John B.]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:31:14 -0400, zen cycle

Post by zen cycle

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:06:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.
On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 21:25:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

Wrong, not "as usual."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Oh I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the words "_school_ mass murder"?
Perhaps you needed a better reading teacher?

No, but I was aware of the fact that school mass murders are a very
small percentage of mass murders, and likely not a very big percentage
of murders of children.
I'm curious as to why you seem to think that murders in schools is
more significant than murders in other places.
That was a rhetorical question, of course, because it's clear that
you're only parroting what you hear from your anti-gun politicians and
their media enablers.

So you're OK with kids being murdered in schools as long as people get
to keep their high-capacity assault weapons with no restrictions....got it.
Have another cognac and a chuckle when you read about the dead kids, didja?

So tell me more.How many kids killed in school shootings? And how many
by drunk drivers on the road?

You rant about the AR's but not a peep about the drunks.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by John B.
You rant about the AR's but not a peep about the drunks.

Part of the difference is that we don't have posters here regularly
praising drunk driving. We do have about three posters regularly
praising the public use of ARs, and the great value of owning one.

Even though two of those posters don't themselves own one!

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:53:06 -0500, AMuzi

Post by AMuzi
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/park-ridge-police-
seek-suspect-accused-of-grabbing-2-girls/3541072/

On the same page as the above: 11-year-old boy in custody
accused of
killing former Louisiana mayor and his daughter
But thankfully not the deadly AR. " two handguns were used
and that
their magazines were emptied".

The recent Georgia school mass murder was with an AR. As usual.

The father and daughter pistol victims are equally dead.