Someone said something about my penis
Didn’t they? You leave the penis out of this! Michael Scott said “That’s what she said”. Really, that’s a low blow. Ooops! Jeez this is a hard one to get out. I mean, uh never mind. If I had a penis right now I would shoot you with it. There you go, I finally got it out. All penis owners are gun owners who will shoot you.
I’ll try again…
“I didn’t see an impartial entity mentioned, if such an entity exists.”
Here’s the state by state statistics:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=127 The source is the National Cener for Health Statistics. The NRA just has the info available on their website.
And the page I got the info from in my last post:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/ Click on Firearm Safety/Kids and Guns
Also, feel free to check out the other issues mentioned on this page. You may come away with a slightly different perspective, or not.
“I personally have known 2 families whose members were accidentally killed by other family members with firearms in the home.”
That is very tragic and terrible. Do you know the circumstances under which these situations occured? Were firearm safety guidelines being followed? (Treat every gun as a loaded weapon? Never point a gun in an unsafe direction? Be sure of your target and what is beyond it?..) Had these people been properly trained by a responsible party? Was a responsible party there and being responsible? Were the individuals involved mentally and physically competent to be handling a firearm at that point in time?
I have a relative who died many years ago from a firearm accident as well. It was tragic. But I don’t blame the gun. The gun is a tool and most tools that are not properly used with proper training may cause great harm.
Technology is neither good nor bad. It is the choices that humans make in how to use technology that is at the core of the issue.
The kayak is a tool as well and can and has gotten many people who were not properly trained and or did not make wise choices, killed. Even if you have made all the ‘right’ choices, mother nature can still throw a curve ball that you can’t adjust for.
I’ve seen the aftermath many times of folks that made unwise choices and decided to drive while drunk or suicidal and took some pills and decided to go drive, or got high on who knows what and cause a major incident, etc. The list goes on and on in the bad choices humans make. Should we take the technology away? Do I feel less safe on the road knowing some of these folks are out there? Yes. Am I not going to use a car because of that? No. Will a gun protect me from that? Obviously, no. Some folks make bad choices about guns and sometimes there are consequences regarding that just like any other form of technology.
‘After studying gun laws and crime in 27 foreign countries, the Library of Congress concluded, "From available statistics, among countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes.’
“I personally know noone who has prevented any incident of theft or violence with a weapon.”
There are quite a few things that I have no personal knowledge of that still exist. There are a tremendous number of testimonials to that effect:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/ Search away by state and word. ‘During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times.’
‘In my lifetime, guns have gone from just another tool around the house to objects of obsession and adoration.’
Anything can be an object of obsession and adoration if we let it. Choices…
‘When I was a kid, most handguns were owned by law enforcement. The rest of us used long guns for hunting and plinking.’
When you were a kid, perhaps you weren’t fully aware. I know I wasn’t and there’s a great deal that I’m still not aware of.
‘Then along came Lethal Weapon and the other 1000 movies glorifying handguns as the solution to all our problems.Then along came all the paramilitary weapons so we could feel like Rambo.’
Perhaps some sentiment towards the type of impact Hollywood has on our society is in order then? I agree. A good deal of what comes from Hollywood is trash. One of the first things you will hear when taking or even reading about firearms training is to forget the movies…it’s Hollywood and not the real world.
‘Like any divisive issue, this will never be solved here , or probably anywhere else.’
Very true.
‘Please show me where I have attacked or denigrated anyone.I certainly will attack your belief, but attempt not to attack the person.’
Let’s see: ‘gun freaks’, ‘grow up’, ‘immature and/ or frightened people buying weapons’, ‘NRA doing everything they can to spread the paranoia so outraged gun owners can get their panties in a wad.’, ‘Get a life.’
I heard it is a good idea . . .
. . . to file the front sight down if you carry a revolver for bear protection. It’s supposed to make it a little more comfortable when the bear shoves it up your ass.
If you transit Canada you will find it difficult to take any firearm and almost impossible to take a handgun.
Walter, don’t get us off the subject.
OK, I attacked a group,not a person. I don’t do PC.
I’m sure all those mouth breathers I have seen at gun shows fondling the merchandise are wonderful people. Admittedly,I haven’t been to one in several years.
OK, time to clock out. Tomorrow is another day.
hi walter,
Yep, the handgun issue in Canada was already discussed in this thread. It appears it’s essentially impossible, legally, for a non-resident to have a handgun in Canada at all.
As to your other issue, you’re right, that probably would hurt. I’ve just never heard of it happening. Perhaps you can enlighten us?
If I had good training and was competent in my use of a suitable firearm and was carrying it, my guess is I might have a better chance of surviving an aggressive bear encounter than someone encountering the same situation without suitable firearm and training. Many aggressive bears over the years have been dispatched instead of the firearm owner being dispatched.
Bear spray has already been discussed as well above, in case you weren’t aware. I’ve been around many people that were maced and have seen how effective this is. With all the exposed skin of a human, the effects can be awful on the person that gets nailed by it. Bear spray can be a great tool, but I’ve often wondered, since only the eyes, nose and mouth area are not covered with thick hair, how effective this would really be on a charging bear that I have to wait until it gets 20’ from me and then hit it very precisely in the eyes/nose area. Most self-defense experts I’ve heard say that even a human within 21’ is very likely going to be able to inflict damage upon you unless you are immiediately ready to stop them. How much more a bear, I wonder…
I take it you are fond of the idea of firearms giving a measure of self-defense to the individual?
Don’t get me wrong . . .
. . . I am a gun guy have have done lotsa camping across Canada and Alaska. I figure I could deliver a lethal shot/shots to a charging grizzly but probaly not quick enough for me to survive. I don’t think any handgun round will do the trick even some of the .50 stuff.
On a practical note, I put bear attack into the catagory of “why worry” much like meteor strikes and volcanic eruputions. If you ain’t stupid and store food in you tent or cover yourself in bacon fat before retiring, you are not likely to have a problem.
Bear dispatching
I read a book about a fella who was the guy that got the call to take care of problem bears in residential areas. He claimed that he had to dispatch well over 100 black bears in his career. All were treed, and all except one was killed with a single shot to the brain (via earhole) by nothing more than a .22 cal rimfire rifle!
jmden,
Great fact presentation!
Tom
William Bell shot . . .
. . . more than 1,000 elephants using the 7x57 cartridge, considered marginally adequate for deer, but I wouldn’t recommend it. There is a big difference between killin’ somethin’ and stoppin’ it right now.
I knew a guy in the Army who shot a
grizzly with a .45 auto.He was an NCO and 2 people were allowed ammo for their weapons;him and the CO.
So the griz is wandering around camp doing a little damage and Sarge decides to shoot him.Hit him right between the eyes.The slug bounnced off and left a seriously pissed off bear who went on a rampage.
The CO’s weapon was an M-14 so the bear was killed with that.
Sarge was drunk, as usual, when he told me that story, so who knows?
I stand by what I said. NOBODY is going
to shoot a tight group at 200 meters, or 100yards for that matter, with a CONCEALED CARRY pistol or revolver. By this I mean guns like the Smith Air Weight 38, the Glock 26 9mm, Para .45 hi cap, Colt officers ACP .45, Colt Python 2", etc. Now for a little added pressure lets have someone shooting at you while you attempt this tight group. I know this is off topic as it relates to the practical, and for some, moral issue, but I feel it weakens the pro gun point of view to make statements like “I can hit 6” target at 100 yards with a carry gun" A freak or two maybe, the rest of us ABSOLUTELY NO WAY. I have some money in my pocket if anyone wants to test this theory of mine with the guns mentioned above. Bill
Who knows…
…that could be. .45 autos are not very powerful. They’ve got a trajectory like a slingshot rock. Even a .40 S&W was designed to handle more pressure in the case and because of that, ends up producing more energy. .45s are great for dealing with unfortunate 2 legged critters. The ammo that’s meant for a two legged critter is also a very bad choice to use on a bear, thus my explanation WAY up above in this thread to consider using Hornady XTP bullets as many handgun hunters do.
Neither of these rounds is even meant to be considered for griz protection and even a hot-loaded .40 S&W with the proper bullet is marginal on a big black bear.
Right tool for the right job…and being competent at the moment is alwasy helpful… I wonder how often ETOH plays into poor firearms choices and poor choices in general?
On the way to 200… 
nm
Very true. nm
– Last Updated: Feb-28-09 10:22 AM EST –
"There is a big difference between killin' somethin' and stoppin' it right now."
Yeah, I often wonder about that too
– Last Updated: Feb-28-09 4:57 PM EST –
I know a local cop who emptied his gun at a man exiting a building carrying a gun. My understanding is that the range was only about 40 feet and he had been waiting with his gun trained at the door. Every shot missed. About ten years ago, a small group of cops broke down the door of a local hotel room and found the suspect armed and hiding in the bathroom. Those cops smashed open the door and fired something like 18 shots at the guy and never hit him once. Think about how small a motel bathroom is (usually less than 8 feet from the door to the back wall, so the armed suspect couldn't have been more than 6 feet away while all those bullets were flying) and imagine yourself at the dooryway shooting at someone inside. How could you miss? How could the guys standing beside you miss too? Now think about the fact that law-enforcement personal have pretty strict practice requirements so their shooting skills are always sharp, and you think again, how could they miss? The answer of course is pretty simple. If someone has a gun pointed at YOU, suddenly the value of your skills and your ability to think clearly are just a wee bit compromised, doncha think? Now how about the skills of your average guy in such a situation? How many of us could do a better job than trained police officers? I'd wager that the answer is "VERY few".
Most gunfights
– Last Updated: Feb-28-09 2:17 PM EST –
occur within less that 7 yards. We still shoot from the 3, 7, 15, and 25-yard line, but the big focus nowadays is on 7 or less, timed shots from the holster, establishing muscle memory by the act of repeatedly drawing and firing, and practicing trigger control and proper breathing which will - hopefully - not be too skewed by the inevitable adrenaline dump of having to use deadly force, to begin with.
Of course, everything usually IS skewed in combat - which is exactly what any kind of use-of-force scenario is. This is why getting a gun and carrying it without extensive training (not just going to the range once a month) does little more than give people a false sense of security.
Regarding bears - same thing. When I worked in AK, my agency issued a Marlin .45-70 for bears with a custom-made 540-grain cartridge that our firearms guru had done research on and commissioned a guy to make. The rounds were so powerful that we actually couldn't train with them because they had a tendency to try and remove one's arm from their torso, so we fired a couple each year for familiarity, but trained with the 300-grain rounds (the540-grainers were also about $70.00 for a box of 20). We even had a target stand on wheels that held a 6-foot high paper target with a photo of a bear, outlined with scoring zones in vital areas like heart, lungs, brain (if you can get through the skull), etc. The target would be pulled towards the shooter from 15 yards out, who had X number of seconds to fire X number of rounds into the vital areas in order to qualify.
With all of that - humoungous round, great weapon, solid training - the best bear deterrents were still things available to anyone: bells/noisemakers, carrying bear spray, and using one's brain - as in trying to avoid them, to begin with.
I once put a shotgun blast just over
the head of a brown bear that was 15 feet away…it was evening and the muzzle flash was about 2 feet long…The bear sat down on his but and just stared at me then I shot again just over his head and he slowly got to his feet and walked away…
I’ve never seen anyone shoot …
– Last Updated: Feb-28-09 5:07 PM EST –
... that accurately during "rapid fire" even at a range of 20 yards, and missing by six inches at 20 yards is the same as missing by three feet at 120 yards (but shooting at the longer range is worse for most people because you can't sight that accurately in the first place at that range). I think there's a reason standard pistol targets are placed at such close range you can knock them down with a rock.
Most people can't hand-hold a rifle and shoot individual shots a whole lot more accurately than your supposed rapid-fire handgun example at 100 to 120 yards (of course a rifle with ANY kind of steadying device is different story). If you say that's the case, I want to see it. Even focus, who by his own admission is a fantastic shot with a handgun, is talking about shooting that well only with a chosen style of gun, with very carefully controlled shooting that can only be done on his best days and under the best of circumstances, which sure wouldn't include rapid fire.
By the way, when you try to prove your ability in this regard, use a paper target, not tin cans in the dirt. The shooting enthusiasts I used to hang out with discovered that they ALWAYS drastically over-estimated how close their near-misses are when shooting into the dirt. Using a paper target generally amplified the distance of their misses by a factor of three. Of course, the distance by which they missed was the same in both cases, but the paper target provided a more accurage recording of what actually happened during rapid fire.
Using one’s brain.
– Last Updated: Feb-28-09 6:08 PM EST –
A novel approach.
Guns, particularly handguns , are made for KILLING. Let's get the silly euphamisms like home protection,self defense,and so on out of the way.
Are you willing to kill another human being?I am not.
gbg , I told you how it is …
… take it or leave it .
I have nothing to prove , ain’t braggin , don’t do that crap , don’t need to .
If you really need to “see it” as proof , just go do it yourself , there’s not much of anything to it .
The only requirements are that you “know your revolver and what loads it likes to eat” , and I sugggested already a 6" or longer barrel in .357 or a nice .44 mag like the S&W 629 .
Really , there’s not much to it !!
When I mentioned off hand rapid fire (emptying the cylinder) for those distances , I “DO” shoot in single action mode at aprox. one per sec. , not dbl. action … It may be a tech. point with you , I don’t know , but matters not at all to me … when I brace or ground rest , most all hit , because I take a few seconds to have a better look first .
I don’t even own a gun now , don’t care to anymore … gave them all away or sold … that ought to tell ya something ??
Go ahead and do it !! … use a spotter scope and even put your paper behind the tin can … you will get the hang of it before the first box of rounds are finished .
The famous George Owell quote comes…
…to mind: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Some dispute that these are actually Orwells words, but the below is clearly in Orwell’s writings.
In his essay on Rudyard Kipling (1942), Orwell wrote: “[Kipling] sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilised, are there to guard and feed them.” And in his ‘Notes on Nationalism’ (1945) he wrote: “Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
I would hazard a guess, string, that there are some instances where you would kill someone, if it became absolutely necessary to protect someone you hold dear, for instance, among other things. Or, would you stand by, when you had the opportunity to change the situation, and watch someone close to you (take your pick) be innocently murdered. Extreme example? Yes. But you said you couldn’t kill someone.
I hope you aren’t saying that those that have killed and been killed and have done violence on your behalf to give you the freedom you have in this country are immoral.