Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.
.300 Winchester magnum
.338 Winchester magnum
.375 H&H magnum
7mm Remington magnum
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The topic was more the magazine than the caliber, but sure.
Actually, reading the list, dunno. Even small bears are hard to stop. People hunt grizzlies with 7mm?
How about a BAR chambered for 338 Win Mag, with a 20 round magazine?
Stop a grizzly?
Do you have something you are trying to say?
just curious if you had a preferred solution to the dilemma at hand?
sweet... save me some jerky!
my SEN and REP often hear from me
agreed, but that wasn't the point
we have excellent laws that exist right now. it would be far more logical and fiscally responsible to enforce existing laws while pushing for funding as well as requirements for states to comply with said laws
but you've completely ignored some important data: location and distance
I don't know if you've noticed but... a lot of animals don't travel near as fast uphill as down.
using that same logic: if you don't like high capacity magazines, just don't use them. cheaper. just as effective.
I can't speak for him but: I would rather have 30 rounds available than 10 or less anytime, but especially WRT a bear, boar, etc
Reading these "gun" threads excites my curiosity.
So. I roam the web reading what comes up on the scream.
Tales of the 338 mag:
One fellow, was hunting deer on Kodiak Island. Teased by a fellow hunter for lugging around such a heavy piece of equipment, he remarked: "Deer ain't the only animals on this island".
Another fellow had a shot at a large cape buffalo bull, and regretted that he only had a puny 338.
I can "speak for him":
I also would want more'n 6-8-or 10 rounds available, 30 sounds nice, 40 would be better,and think select fire might be a desirable option. And, I would want something with enough ft.lbs, and velocity to drop the target where it was hit,
And I never use more than one round in my normal day to day life. And, I never chamber it until I am sure of my target and sure of my shot.
The trick is in knowing that a firearm is a tool. If the situation called for it, I would bring the necessary firepower to neutralize the threat.
Much like saws: I would not try to drop a tree with one of my trim saws, conversely, I would not use a chainsaw on trim boards.
Does Canada also have a machine gun ban?
If I were to take a select fire weapon out into the field, I'd most likely spend a few hundred dollars on ammunition and find out if I could control the beasty on full auto. If memory serves, the m14 pulled up and to the left on full auto, while the Belgian model that used the same ammunition pulled to the right. Either way, it seems that the left arm would be working harder and might want a different grip. It seems also possible that I might not be able to hold anything on target on full auto, and then, most rifles modified for full auto also have a heavier barrel, which means lugging more weight, which means tiring sooner, and tired people make more mistakes----imagine being so tired that you didn't notice that you had wandered between a momma grizzly and her cub................(ain't gonna happen).................(just idle musing)............
Which, whose, and why?
So magazine restrictions would be no burden - you have time to prepare for any threat such as that.
It happens. It's much easier than than most people think. (With black bears, if you hunt a lot in bear country, it's not all that unlikely to have happened already).
Your magazine size isn't going to matter, barring full automatic. The bear is making the decisions, in that situation.
So? Your fantasy life is not a public concern.
and yet you air your fantastical or nonsensical beliefs in the thread
At leat I have faced off with and hunted bear, boar and puma. heck, I live with them in the area so I see them more than you, definitely.
unless you're poor and or live in a high crime urban area...
so what you're saying is: because you, personally, don't see a need for higher capacity magazines, due to your personal opinion that [x] rounds should be enough because "Your magazine size isn't going to matter, barring full automatic" and "The bear is making the decisions, in that situation"
well heck... given that no other driver on the road makes decisions based on your personal input and engine size doesn't matter if you only need to get from point a to point b, then we should ban any vehicle with a displacement above 90cc's while requiring everyone to also have a safety cage filled with Jell-o (in case you need to eat your way out to survive a long response)
I say you should give up your car, truck or other petrol engine and replace it with a moped because it's only logical given my expansive knowledge of vehicles, accidents and the typical extrication response and expense (which is obviously not enforced nor equal in all area's, mind you).
you never did show this corroborated by the NRA... in point of fact, the link I left actually refuted the statement
I think the NRA's official standpoint on gun control is to take them away(Ban) from the Democrats and liberals who keep shooting people.. which could work if it weren't "racist", one sided politically, or harmful to inner-city gun shops. But I mean most of these things are just words that could save lives until psychopaths retake over the Republican party. Something that hasn't happened since the civil war.
Well... This option would seem to punish the NRA for enforcing safety. Forcing gun owners to join the NRA isn't such a bad idea considering they were psychologically evaluated secretively. But suing an organization that enforces safety because one person went crazy doesn't make much sense. " I mean I kinda hold the American sniper responsible for his own death because he failed to realize the guy he was training wasn't right. And I have gotten my ass beaten by a puetro rican gang member who told me he wanted to kill his family...." Then thrown in jail...
Yeah I bet you can't believe it quantum...
Makes a ton more sense just to print more money and give it to the real victums of crimes... Those who are often involved.
Yeah.. the issue was really about that buzz word being thrown around like so many AR15's.
There is little doubt that the deaths of the 17 in Florida could have been prevented by adequate gun management or regulation. There is also the problem of gun owners unhappiness with a central registra. Having the NRA maintain that registra independent of government might work out and placate fear of such a central data base.
Do you think those that prevent solid gun regulation should be held responsible..? Would that include a lobby group such as the NRA?
I mean on one hand we have show results such as Australia which have so few violent terrorist actions. I would mostly attribute that to their society and upbringing rather than the complete banishment of guns.
Holding the NRA responsible for gun violence is kinda like holding the seat belt and air bag companies responsible for car deaths. There is a right and a wrong way to do anything. It's the people knowing that they are going to do harm who are at fault not those who believe in protection and training.
If everyone was raised to be responsible this just wouldn't be an issue.
Uh. It seems like two different data bases.... A government one and a private one. The private one having less and being more vocal about safety.
wrong on so many levels - given that particular string of logic, how would you describe Columbine, then? It happened during an assault weapons ban that also restricted magazines while banning weapons that looked like AR's...
the only way the FL shooting could have been prevented is if the LEO's, Fed's and community actually enforced the laws which effectively stopped the Everett shooting
The idiot posted about becoming a school shooter. guess what happened? he did
that isn't about adequate gun management or regulation... that was an epic failure of the system. it was demonstrative of what can happen when you don't enforce laws that exist for the safety and protection of a community.
Again, Everett was demonstrative of how effective those measures can be when action is taken and the laws are enforced.
everyone has the right to their own opinion and can advocate for what they believe, even if that includes prevention of gun regulation
moreover, what you consider "good" regulation may not be good for anyone or anything. (see also: violent crime)
for the same reason you don't sue printers, ink suppliers and distributers for idiots like Hitler and his book
also, the NRA advocates for training and safety while defending inalienable rights, specifically, the 2A right. It is not selling guns any more than you're stabbing and eating prostitutes to stop the spread of HIV
so what part of adequate "gun management and regulation" didn't you understand... of course adequate enforcement is included as is background checks on mentally disturbed people.
I mean... I agree with you, however your "wrong on so many levels" is in fact inappropriate and perhaps a tad "reflexive".
seems to be a number of concerns preventing uniform regulation and therefore responsibility.
The fear of tyranny - government and civilian.
The fear of identification - centralized data base.
The fear of losing the pseudo empowerment "free access" to guns affords.
The fear of taking responsibility for what other do ( collectively )
The fear of relevant mental health issues and how to address them
What others can you think of?
Remember, Government regulation ideally is only needed when people are unable to self regulate.
ie. Speed limits for cars are there because individuals people can't seem to self-regulate their driving behavior with out "collective" deterrents in place.
Empowering the NRA to regulate is all about self regulation via an associated independent of government body.
I'm all for electronic identification...
*Fear of corruption... finding out your gang made a mistake and charging you more money to operate.
Tangentially, Idealism only works as the name suggests as an idea. In order for it to work perfectly some parts of the idea have to be withheld from those who would take advantage of it.
Not enforced. Three of the four firearms were illegal.
The failure included inadequate gun management and regulation.
Laws that are not enforced are of little benefit. Laws that do not exist - such as universal background checks, magazine and fire rate restrictions, etc - cannot be enforced.
- - -
Especially then - the expense alone already precludes them, and there is no demand for them except in offensive weapons to commit crimes. Fancy gun ranges and big back yards for playing with stuff like that are far less common in poor and urban areas.
Yep. It's called reality, and it's the normal basis of sound governance of anything.
And it's going to win out, sooner or later. Get used to the idea. If you don't help write the new laws, they'll be written without you. The status quo is not sensible, not reasonable, not sustainable.
You have never fired more than six rounds from a semiautomatic at a charging bear, boar, or puma (charging puma? face off with a puma? phht).
I can say it was a response from irritation but one of the problems surrounding the issue is the lack of clarity on what things mean and how things work. for instance: you say
currently we have laws that exist. you know this... however, management and regulation aren't the same thing and they don't necesarrily mean what most think with regard to laws.
application of laws isn't just about writing and passing a law. There has to be funding, training, testing and so much more. Current laws are typically circumvented on a local level (florida shooting) because of the application of finances (or lack thereof) and decisions of local LEO's and their leadership focus. Then there is the abject ignorance of the typical person with regard to knowledge and it's interpretation and application in the law.
for instance: florida has a Baker act law (Fl. Statute 394.451-394.47891 (2009 rev.) the Florida Mental Health act of 1971) that would have allowed for the involuntary inpatient placement, except that most mental health institutions etc don't like to do this due to the touchy nature of mental health in the culture: litigation against institutionalization is costly and countrerproductive to the functional management of the institution. Most people seem to be afraid of mental health to begin with, and historically, institutions haven't been nice places (actually, they still aren't if a person is desirous of freedom - they're just sometimes nicer than jail).
so given your historical posts that promote gun control and the fact that you asking if "those that prevent solid gun regulation should be held responsible" and include NRA in the next question, it stands to reason that you are ignorant of a great many details not only of the law, but also of how it can be applied. This is especially disconcerting as the NRA is a 501(c)3 organization and publicly shares it's by-laws, finance info etc per federal law.
if you use the law like a weapon, then that weapon can be turned on you as well.
background checks would be effective if actually done.
there is no need to make "universal" backgound checks when the primary problem of current background checks is the lack of compliance and funding.
part of that is management, but most of it is due to lack of enforcement and lack of funding under the provisions of the law as written. so is the problem due to government cutbacks (which could be classed as poor management), it's authors, or is it due to the bill going through revisions?
when you state "universal", does it simply mean adding funding and enforcement to the law or does it mean all gun sales get a background, regardless of licensure and status of the seller? I ask because we can't even fund current background checks and enforce them, so ...
you need to clarify this please: as I understand it, you are targeting the poor intentionally because you believe that only the criminals have a demand for weapons/magazines in low income areas.
it's not reality. it is your belief.
the decision to make restrictions based upon your belief (in this case, that something isn't needed or should be restricted) is directly the point - and it is not sound governance at all, otherwise abortions would be illegal and mentally disturbed people would still be medical testing dummies.
the only reason you choose to advocate for magazine restrictions is because you fear criminal acts with high capacity magazines. You, yourself, admit that Columbine happened with illegal weapons, so advocating for [x] to be illegal because a criminal disobeyed a law and kills (also illegal) is all due to your personal fears and has nothing to do with reality, logic, or sound decision making in any form.
if you chose logic and sound decisions then you would choose to allow the populace to purchase the same capacity as the Military simply because of the fact that the public can be called as Militia to defend or augment in times of crisis.
so you keep saying. just because you don't see the ability to fight stupidity doesn't mean everyone should lie down and let it roll over them willingly
I may not be a representative of the government capable of introducing laws to congress, but I can influence my congresspeople and help push for more common sense laws. I won't lie down as you suggest. I will continue as I do because allowing it to happen based on bullying and intimidation is wrong: you can lie there and wait for what you percieve to be inevitable.
try reading what I wrote again: I have faced a Griz with a service weapon. M-16. it wasn't a semiautomatic.
the rest is assumption on your part. I've faced off with boar and puma because I hunted them. boar is tasty. puma killed a person, so had to be tracked and dealt with. and I never stated it charged. unlike you, we actually have these animals around us regularly and we have to live with them and deal with them. Usually, they don't come near our actual home for very specific reasons
it did. you are ignoring the NRA source material article that disputes it.
so you choose to accept the poll because it complies with your bias whereas I choose not to accept it because source material disputes it's claims and accuracy with better accuracy and ability to actually query it's members, not rely on self reporting of membership and belief.
Separate names with a comma.