Gun Control III

Hi Percy Bear, deer and gators are a little larger than a squirrel or rabbit.Added by Edit Why should I lock up my guns or ammunition? Rabbits and squirrels and gophers but I don't know why gophers they don't eat too good. Turkey if you can hit his head while he is running and smaller birds.But to bring down a deer with a 22 you have to hit the juggler vein and then follow him for about a half mile before he will bleed down and stop then you can finish killing him with your knife by cutting his throat. Do not attempt shooting a bear with a 22 you will only make him mad.A 30.06 is a nice rifle for deer, a 4040 craig for bear.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

I have no strong feelings about the caliber of hunting rifles. How big and bad a gun do you think is needed for moose hunting? Back in colonial times wouldn't they have used muskets? Even more humane is not shooting animals at all. I do not doubt that high caliber high velocity bullets are very effective at bringing down large game - doesn't matter where you hit 'em, down they go. Doesn't seem like much of a challenge, more like shooting fish in a barrel. Where's the skill, the marksmanship?Are normal hunting rifles okay, or are a full clip and a bump stock needed?I wonder where ICANT lives. I just looked up the dates of moose hunting season in Maine and noticed that squirrel hunting season only lasts three months.--Percy

The primary concern isn't about armed people defending against actual deadly threats, though it is a concern.The primary concern, especially for anyone with gun fantasies like yours, is that you'll think you're faced with a deadly threat, go into "defense" mode, pull out your piece, and blow away some poor schmuck just going about his business. You give no indication of respect for any human life but your own, have an overinflated opinion of your own competence, and show no comprehension of the weighty responsibility of possessing a device capable of meting out death. You're a menace.--Percy

you said there is no need for "any firearm of large caliber and/or of great energy", that's what hunting rifles are. Any round for taking decent sized game is going to be good at killing a human, we're pretty squishy compared to most animals. so now you want to ban hunting. who says the hunters who use these rounds aren't trying to be accurate? if you shoot the animal in the wrong spot you could ruin the meat or worse not deliver a kill shot and then have it suffer as it bleeds out. Even with a rifle chambered in a good hunting calibre you still have to have good shot placement. The chances of taking a moose or other large game with a well aimed .22 are miniscule.

Hi Percy I don't have fantasies about guns. Uncle Sam taught me to be an expert in weapons.I have continued training from the time I left service until now. I go regularly to the firing range and practice.God Bless,

The level of unwavering expertise, competence and infallibility you attribute to yourself is so laughably fantastical that nobody should take it seriously. If what you say is true it would literally put you in the superhero league.Move over James Bond. Take that Jason Bourne. Take a hike Jack Bauer. Get outta my way Deadshot. Put yer poncho back on man-with-no-name. Step aside Robocop.Nobody this delusional about their own abilities should be allowed to walk round in possession of a deadly weapon.

Warmer today so I will carry a Smith & Wesson J frame.The Smith & Wesson J frame is a small, lighter 5 round revolver. The one I'm carrying today is a 642 Airweight chambered in 38 S&W Special. The frame is an alloy while the barrel & cylinder are steel. Fully loaded it weighs just over a pound. Trigger pull is heavy and long but with no noticeable staging.I'll be wearing shorts and so at least initially I'll pocket carry in an old Alessi holster that Lou himself made. Later as it warms up I'll likely switch to an On the Belt holster, probably a really old Hunter. As with almost all my revolvers there is no safety and this version has the hammer shrouded and so is double action only. It does have an internal lock so an owner could lock the gun making it more difficult to fire. I've never locked the gun and the key to lock or unlock it is kept is a separate safe from where I store the gun.Notice that the Hunter Holster is a retention type, there is a strap that prevents just pulling the gun from the holster and also blocks the trigger. The Alessi fully covers the trigger area and smooths the outline.

Hi jarNice Piece.God Bless,

Message 492: You don't hunt with other people? Or other people won't hunt with you? For anyone who has a gun there is a greater than zero chance that they will shoot themselves. You are not superhuman. That's absurd, too. Why do you think people are going to believe your silly stories? it's impossible that an area within range of your hammock would sustain that many squirrels over a period of weeks. More absurd bragging. So what happens after that first shot misses? Does the squirrel just sit there instead of turning into a blur, waiting for the second shot?Message 494: Gee, it sure had all the qualities of a rant: impassioned blustering nonsensical spouting off. So any crime is one crime too many, but if they pass a law you don't like you'll break it and commit a crime. Inconsistent much? You've said so many absurd, unbelievable things, why should we believe this one either? This is self evidently false, but checking the statistics, only 12% of burglaries are armed which is 190,000 armed burglaries/year, and there are only about 100 homicides during burglaries each year (Corrections to Michael Moore's gun stats). So only 0.05% of armed burglaries result in homicides, making your odds of death from an armed burglary far, far, far, far, far less than 100%.This tiny chance of being killed by criminals, whom you're in contact with for only a fleeting moment if at all, is why possession of a gun, which in your case is apparently with you always, means your odds of being hurt by your own gun exceed those of being hurt by a criminal. So yes you read the link, and even though their methodology was described on page one you have to ask about their methodology? Do you want to reconsider your claim to have read the link? Plus I quoted the methodology in my post. Obviously you're lying and did not read either the link or my post. Here's a link to the original paper which explains the methodology and inherent accuracy problems in great detail: Gun Ownership in the United States: Measurement Issues and Trends, see the sections on Data Sources and Measurement Issues. Getting into such detail would make this post far too long, but to mention just one issue they describe, you'll get different answers depending upon whether the question specifically excludes air rifles, pellet guns, starter pistols, and firearms that are antiques or no longer operable. You're having great difficulty reading for comprehension. Given how often you fail to understand what is written, repeating things you didn't understand the first time would be an exercise in futility. My own quote included the figure you said I vilified, and then since you preferred that figure I used it in my calculations. You're continuing to be really strange. You said you would lie about your gun ownership, and I took you at your word. That is not jumping to conclusions. In case you forgot what you said about how you'd lie when asked if you owned a gun, here it is again from your Message 476:

quote:

---

If you call me and ask if I had guns in the house I would say no. If you came to my door and asked the same question I would say no. If you were sitting in my living room and asked me the same question I would say no. Yet one would be within reach of my hand. I would not know what your intentions were regardless of what you said your reasons for asking was.

---

See, no jumping to conclusions. And look at that, there you are quoting me using the figure you said I vilified. Words, sentences, simple percentages, it's all just a jumble of confusion to you. There's no point in explaining again, you'll just reply with more miscomprehension.Message 496: Yeah, sure, you're superman. Your irrational overconfidence in your abilities makes you a menace.Message 497: So now you're changing your story? Now you hunt bear, deer and gators, in addition to squirrels from your hammock? I guess for you the truth is whatever you happen to write at the moment, no matter what you said at any other moment. So you do or you don't have rifles. Why are you asking me? What do they teach you in firearm education classes? I think this'll be the third or fourth time I've said that I don't have strong feelings about what caliber rifle is used for hunting. Use whatever caliber rifle makes sense for what you're hunting. Just make sure it's a hunting rifle, not an assault rifle.--Percy

Yes it does. It says, "resist not evil." A fellow fixing to kill you with a weapon constitutes evil, doesn't it? Jesus told you not to resist. No. It isn't that specific. It talks about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, not just a cheek. And the passage to which Jesus is referring is even broader:

quote:

---

Exodus 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

---

It is definitely NOT just about a slap on the cheek. There's always an "other" cheek.

I'm saying they shouldn't be, not by the same logic used in the gun-totin' interpretation of the amendment. If every citizen has the right to bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia, then any infantry weapons should be allowable.

That quote is from the exchange with Hyroglyphx that you originally responded to. I thought Hyroglyphx had just said hunting rifles are of much smaller caliber than assault rifles, but reading it again I think he meant the opposite. How many times have I said I'm fine with hunting? I'm sure they are. What matters is their skill.--Percy

Hi Percy If I missed him with the first shot it was because he was running or jumping from one tree to another. You sure do know a lot especially since you don't have any facts.
From the farm house I was living in at the time it was 2 miles to the east to a road of any kind with a stream running from the road the house was on. The stream was running southwest. South behind the house it was 12 miles to a dirt road running east and west. To the west it was 14 miles to highway 98. So yes there was plenty of woods to produce all the squirrels we could eat. My sister lives in that house today and the lay of the land has not changed. I did not say any law. I said if you passed a law that would take away my constitutional right to bear my arms I would probably break that law. That would go for any other law that that infringed upon my constitutional rights. As I said they either use information received by asking questions over a phone or going door to door.And yes a lot of people would be willing to tell you they had an air gun that is used for killing rodents. But when asked about a shotgun or rifle they would not admit to owning one.But I don't know of any phone poll or door to door poll that covered every household in the US. A certain number of households are polled then an average reached then applied to all households. I did polls for Gallup when I was in college so I do know how they work.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

You have fantasies about yourself that revolve around guns. They're splashed all over this thread.--Percy

Hi Percy I said I hunted squirrels with my 22 pistol. Closest to the house for killing a bear was 6 miles. Closest to the house for killing a deer was about 300 yards. Wild hogs in the yard, and garden. That a weapon that is not accessible in less than a second can cost you your life.If you have to open a safe to get your weapon then go in a different room and open another safe to get the bullets then load the gun what do you think an intruder would be doing all that time. You think he would be sitting in your recliner waiting for you to get prepared to defend yourself?Under those circumstances I would agree with you that it would be more dangerous to have a gun in the house than not having a gun in the house. What do you classify as an assault rifle?Definition of an assault rifle: a lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically. assault rifle definition - Google SearchNotice to be classified as an assault rifle it has to be capable of firing automatically. Meaning you pull the trigger and hold it in that position and the rifle will empty the magazine or if it is belt fed fire until you release the trigger loose.An AR15 is not an assault weapon. It is against the law to manufacture and sell a fully automatic weapon for civilian use in the US.You can modify the AR15 with a bump stock that makes it fire fully automatic. So yes make bump stocks illegal. But there are weapons I will not mention that are much more deadly and could kill a lot more people than an AR15 could.God Bless,