xcott
-
Posts
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by xcott
-
It's actually a stroke benefit for every 6 difference in HI. So it could be 3 strokes in your example. This all may or may not be fair, but the point being that low handicaps shouldn't complain about being at a disadvantage to higher handicaps because it's not true.
-
Well that's what they're doing.
-
The part where you multiply the average differential by .96 to get to the HI. This is a benefit to lower handicap golfers built into the system.
-
Are you a Better Golfer than a Year Ago?
xcott replied to iacas's topic in Instruction and Playing Tips
avg score last year at this time 109.92 avg score since: 105.36 Yes, better. But still not good. Dear god I hope I'm better a year from now -
But a low handicapper will also likely get strokes on like 5 holes if he's a 5 handicap and can strike on those harder holes. Not to mention the benefit low handicappers get on the HI equation which gives benefit to the lower handicaps, so they actually get strokes on more holes than they should if there wasn't that benefit. I'm not buying that a low handicapper will get screwed in a skins game. The high handicapper playing with 20 low handicappers wouldn't be any less likely than a low handicapper playing with 20 high handicappers.
-
ANYONE is going to be at a significant advantage against a significant number of golfers period. The more people you play against the less likely you will win a skin, regardless of handicap.
-
played 18 yesterdday in 100+ heat with 103+ heat index. Wasn't that bad.
-
49/55 today, which was disappointing because I typically play the back under 50 and it's the front that gets me. a 4 put on a GIR certainly doesn't help. Iron striking was awesome, just could not get off the tee. Every other part of my game was working at a mid 90s level, but trouble off the tee put me in the hole to start. I really need to warm up the driver/5w before I hit the course. Just didn't have time.
-
I won't.
-
minute...miss-type. "10 is not a large capacity. People also have rifle competitions. It's a hobby like golf." Yes, I've been in shooting competitions, it's fun. But it would be fun to have grenade or dynamite competitions too. I don't think that a fun activity is justificaiton enough for allowing the sale of items whose sole purpose is the destruction of as many humans as possible. I've shot rapid fire weapons on many, many occasions.
-
Gary johnson
-
" In NY you can't have an AR-15 with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, semi automatic pistols can carry the same number of rounds and they both can fire up to 3 per second max so are they both assault weapons or is neither? " The question here is whether 10 is a "large" capacity or not. NY has seemed to define it as the breakpoint, it seems relatively reasonable as a break point on what is and is not a large capacity. I think 5 seems reasonable as a max capacity from a hunting perspective. But if 10 is an agreed upon capacity which is large, then certainly you are defining an assault weapon. Not an assault rifle as it isn't a rifle. I'm still wondering about the legitimate purpose of shooting even 45 rounds a second from a gun with a capacity over 30 or even 10 bullets.
-
To be fair, the fact that Lyle Alzado came back from the dead would likely be the most uncomfortable part.
-
And the answer is to avoid playing with people like that. Life's too short to let other people ruin a good time by acting like poorly parented children.
-
bolt action is nowhere near as rapid-fire as a magazine. I can't see the top picture to know well enough if it's capable of holding a magazine or not. The material a stock is made out of or looks are irrelevant. What is relevant is 1. how fast can bullets be shot 2. how large of a bullet capacity can it hold if it's fast and a lot, it's an assault rifle regardless of the look. "Stop watching CNN and HBO Real Sports for your information on the AR-15." I don't have cable, so I dont watch either of those. I've personally shot an AR-15 and other assault rifles on many occasions, along with numerous other types of hand guns, rifles and shotguns. " At best 180 rounds a minute by an experienced user." There is no legitimate hunting reason for firing off 180 rounds a minute, so the only reason is for fun on the range. Which I will admit is fun, but does the right to have that fun trump the negatives? I say no.
-
The people with 100k or 1m on the line don't throw temper tantrums on the course when they struggle. Maybe there is a correlation with better play and attitude.
-
It provides a massage after you've been kicked in them by turning a GIR into a bogey.
-
Nobody complains more about being screwed more than low handicap golfers. They usually don't even realize that the formula for the HI actually gives them more strokes the lower their handicap is. If you play in a group of 30 and you rarely win, then that make sense, there are 30 people in it. Everybody rarely wins. And I'm sure these players are entering their scores when they win into their handicap and thus lower their handicap when it happens. The biggest issue is the low handicappers are better at golf (by definittion) and they feel like they should win more because they are better. I actually don't think they truly understand the point of a handicap ironically.
-
Also the "Assault Rifle Ban" defined Assault rifles differently, so I'm more of a descriptivist than prescrptive linquist. How words are used is extremely important.
-
The AR-15 is specifically designed to kill the maximum number of humans as fast as possible. IT has no legitimate hunting purpose and is specifically outlawed for such activities in many states. It is no different than a mine which would be a good home protection device but has no purpose other than killing humans. I can more easily wrap my head around someone who says people should have grenades AND ar-15s rather than just the AR-15. There is no real difference in their intended use.
-
" Even your definition doesn't match the AR-15, as it's not designed for use by the military. " The AR-15 became the m-16. It was designed for military use. I've shot an AR-15 on many occasions, if you don't think it's an assault rifle, you're confused.
-
"Been there, done that. From 1994-2004. No measurable impact on gun murders. Indeed, gun murders have declined since the ban sunsetted. What's your next suggestion?" To understand the difference between correlation and causation.
-
your dictionary matters... assault rifle noun TRENDING! SEE WHY Simple Definition of assault rifle : a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary Full Definition of assault rifle : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use " Disagree, not everyone hunting is a good under pressure" Some people suck at hunting does not really mean we should be legalizing assault weapons. A few more maimed deer or a few more empty handed hunters is a small price to pay. They could probably land that deer for sure with a grenade.
-
An ar15 can fire about 700 rounds a minute. Is that rapid fire? Yes Does an ar 15 magazine fed? Yes The AR15 is a branded name for a gun which was originally the m-16 designed for infantry use. So.... I get the feeling you don't know what an AR-15 is. You seem to believe that it is a style of look, rather than an actual thing.
-
Assault rifles are defined by the speed at which rounds can be fired off and the capacity of rounds in a gun. The look or material in the stock is irrelevant. There is no reason to use an assault rifle in hunting. The only "legitimate: use of an assault rifle is for having fun shooting it at targets. I say it would be fun to blow up a stick of dynamite, but I'm not allowed to have one. In that vein an assault rifle is exactly the same as dynamite or a grenade. It's long precedence that not all arms should be available to all people. that's not debateable. The question is whether the legitimate use of that assault rifle outweigh the potential harm, and I dont know how anyone could argue that it is. How many homes and people have been saved by assault rifles used in "home protection"? is that number greater than those killed by assault rifles? If you mistakenly beieve you need a gun for home protection, then you can do so with anything out there and be as effective. Your home is much more dangerous with an easy to get to loaded assault rifle than with nothing.
