5 5
kallend

More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

A short barrel AR in .50 Beowulf would be a good choice. More than double the energy of a .44 magnum, more accurate and easier to handle than a pistol and if the first round doesn’t get the job done, you have 19 more.

The emasculated American male has an answer for everything. An AR-15 in every hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

A short barrel AR in .50 Beowulf would be a good choice. More than double the energy of a .44 magnum, more accurate and easier to handle than a pistol and if the first round doesn’t get the job done, you have 19 more.

I like the .50 Beowulf, but the problem is bullet selection.  Basically you are limited to pistol bullets for the S&W class or .50 BMG bullets that won't work in a AR platform

Since bullet construction and sectional density are paramount for charismatic megafauna, I'd swap out the .50 Beowulf upper for the .458 SOCOM if Brown or Polar bears were around - and do everything I could to avoid needing it.

A colleague was in the Coast Guard in Alaska in the late '60s, and they would collect glass floats from Japanese fishing nets that had washed ashore after storms.  They'd take the Z boat ashore and take turns covering the activity with an M-16.

Noticing motion in the snow at a distance, binoculars revealed a Polar bear on the move.  The .22 on steroids now looked like a pop gun that would do more to annoy the bear than anything, and they made their way back to the cutter and ended their beachcombing.

As a big bear backup, I think I'd stick with the Marlin 1895 with Buffalo Bore 405 jacketed bullets doing 2,000 fps.  If you need much more firepower than that, you're in pretty deep kimchee.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

P.S. This:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-lake-tahoe-bear-california-hank-the-tank-breaks-into-home/

Is pretty much typical of human-bear interaction in the lower 48.  I'd much rather relocate it somewhere that it can be a bear without the corruption of a human environment than to kill it for our convenience.

Edited by winsor
Hank the Tank
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

The emasculated American male has an answer for everything. An AR-15 in every hand.

Joe recommended the AR-14. He also recommended the magazine with 100 clips in it. Joe's buddy John Kerry likes discussing the AR-16 with their long clips. Makes sense that these are the partners you want on a bear country hike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe recommended the AR-14. He also recommended the magazine with 100 clips in it. Joe's buddy John Kerry likes discussing the AR-16 with their long clips. Makes sense that these are the partners you want on a bear country hike.

I doubt it was a AR-14. More likely a M-14. I doubt it was a AR-16. More likely a M-16 IF the owner had the ATF license for a machine gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

One of the really fun things about being a range officer (at the local 'club' range) is seeing what people bring down.

Lots of shooters offer to let me try a couple shots. I've never said 'no', but I have said 'not again'. 

 

I've also seen mean boyfriends hand their girlfriend, who clearly hasn't shot before, a gun way beyond her capability. 

Yeah, that definitely falls under the general observation that people are irresponsible idiots or jerks, or D all of the above.

I have seen videos of unprepared/unexperienced shooter have an "accidental discharge" on these larger caliber revolvers after their first intended shot because there were multiple rounds in the cylinder, and they weren't capable of handling the recoil. They almost shot their own heads off!

It is fun to watch an experienced shooter fire the revolver, but I only load one chamber for a first time shooter, and it shoots the "smaller" caliber 45 Colt so you can have someone work their way up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

I doubt it was a AR-14. More likely a M-14. I doubt it was a AR-16. More likely a M-16 IF the owner had the ATF license for a machine gun.

Phil - maybe you haven't seen the direct exchange between Joe and a union worker during the campaign. He definitely said, "AR-14." The union guy asked him about securing the union vote and inquired about how he intended to do that, then stated, "You are actively trying to diminish our Second Amendment right and take away our guns." Joe's response was clear, "You're full of shit. I did not say that." Yet that's exactly what he said in various campaign speeches, made other political speeches saying the same thing and was interviewed on CNN repeating those statements. During one of those speeches he stated," A magazine with 100 clips in it, 100 bullets in it." In that case his mouth was running faster than his brain, again. John Kerry in a campaign speech for Biden, talking to a room full of veterans said, "There is not a veteran here that would take a AR-16 with a long clip to go out and shoot a deer."

Do these guys not realize that everything is recorded? If they want any credibility on gun issues they need to learn the facts and lingo.

The clip is provided below. It would be humorous if not true. It made great video for NRA recruitment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yup. Got it confused with the 475 Linebaugh. The 'super duper big' pistol calibers aren't my thing. 
Thank you for the correction.

One of the really fun things about being a range officer (at the local 'club' range) is seeing what people bring down.

Lots of shooters offer to let me try a couple shots. I've never said 'no', but I have said 'not again'. 

I've also seen mean boyfriends hand their girlfriend, who clearly hasn't shot before, a gun way beyond her capability. 

I've annoyed more than one dude like that by asking the girl if she's ever shot that before (no) or if she's ever seen it fired before (also no). 

I then suggest she watch him shoot it before she tries it. That usually gets a resentful look from the guy, and a grateful look from the girl once she sees how much power and recoil it has.
I've then annoyed the dude even more by handing the girl a loaded magazine for a 22 pistol, giving her a quick lesson in operating it and letting her shoot. 
After shooting it the first time and realizing how mild it is, she then enjoys herself shooting the rest of the shots.

Agree on firing big calibers, it's just not fun. The "here, try this" idea with inexperienced or lighter weight shooters is a bad thing for sure. Nothing wrong with starting out on a .22 pistol. My preference are the Rugers, SR22 or Mark 4's.

We had a highly experienced guy shoot a Desert Eagle at an indoor range. The severe recoil (speculation) caused him to grip the gun harder, and the second round exploded his head when it ricocheted off the low ceiling. What a mess.

One that's quite fun to fire is the FN 5.7 with an optical. Low recoil and highly accurate at longer ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Phil - maybe you haven't seen the direct exchange between Joe and a union worker....

No i had no idea what you're talking about. Clearly President Biden isn't a gun enthusiast.

 

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Agree on firing big calibers, it's just not fun. The "here, try this" idea with inexperienced or lighter weight shooters is a bad thing for sure. Nothing wrong with starting out on a .22 pistol. My preference are the Rugers, SR22 or Mark 4's....

Agree, I personally like High Standard semi autos.

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

...We had a highly experienced guy shoot a Desert Eagle at an indoor range. The severe recoil (speculation) caused him to grip the gun harder, and the second round exploded his head when it ricocheted off the low ceiling. What a mess....

Aside from my opinion that a .44 mag Desert Eagle is a low recoiling handgun. IMO Its only drawback is that you need a bigger hand to comfortably grip it single handed.

The second round he fired ricocheted 180 degrees to then penetrate his skull?

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Aside from my opinion that a .44 mag Desert Eagle is a low recoiling handgun. IMO Its only drawback is that you need a bigger hand to comfortably grip it single handed.

The second round he fired ricocheted 180 degrees to then penetrate his skull?

I don't know the exact angle but it had to be close to that, or it could be that it hit the roof at an angle then off the side wall. All I know is one of the range masters said it was super loud and a huge mess.

The shooter was middle size (not a large hand), 55ish and not a weight lifter. That indoor range has shooters stations that, IMO, are a little tight. The "roof" is less than 8', maybe 7.5', and they are fairly narrow. The sound concussion alone in that enclosure would be quite high. With a normal shooting stance the muzzle blast is down range of the enclosure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789154?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=022122

Key Points

Question  Are “stand your ground” (SYG) laws associated with increases in violent deaths, and does this vary by US state?

Findings  In this cohort study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.

Meaning  These findings suggest that SYG laws were associated with increased homicides each year and that the laws should be reconsidered to prevent unnecessary violent deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kallend said:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789154?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=022122

Key Points

Question  Are “stand your ground” (SYG) laws associated with increases in violent deaths, and does this vary by US state?

Findings  In this cohort study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana.

Meaning  These findings suggest that SYG laws were associated with increased homicides each year and that the laws should be reconsidered to prevent unnecessary violent deaths.

There's a big difference between Justifiable Homicide and Murder.

That being said, I am a strong proponent of running like hell whenever possible.  There's no second place winner in a gunfight.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, winsor said:

There's a big difference between Justifiable Homicide and Murder.

That being said, I am a strong proponent of running like hell whenever possible.  There's no second place winner in a gunfight.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

You nailed it, totally. No need to change dumb gun laws when faster running will save you. Of course, there will be unfortunates like the Grannies who couldn't run away fast enough from Covid and some others who seem unable to run away from their ethnicity when deemed prudent, but oh, well. If there are going to be winners there must be losers, just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, winsor said:

There's a big difference between Justifiable Homicide and Murder.

That being said, I am a strong proponent of running like hell whenever possible.

You're faster than 1,250 ft/sec?

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You're faster than 1,250 ft/sec?

Yup, I've been missed by such by being a rapidly moving target.

If I'd stuck around I can't guarantee that I wouldn't have been hit.

There's no second place winner in a gunfight, and I'd much rather be a live coward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

That SYG laws allow for armed people to remain and escalate situations they would otherwise remove themselves from.

Hey,: I didn't vote for it.

As a firearms instructor I recommended real estate as the preferred means of self defense.  Put as much of it as you can between you and trouble and your odds improve greatly.

If an assailant wishes to call you a coward, do your best to make it a long distance call.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

That SYG laws allow for armed people to remain and escalate situations they would otherwise remove themselves from.

That is an interesting description. One could, in some situations, also say - the SYG law gave the homeowner the knowledge that they could defend themselves against aggression without worrying about being prosecuted.

No officer, I didn't escalate the situation I deescalated it. The intruder had a gun, I got a gun and a bell. I rang the bell and he didn't run away. He pointed his gun at me, I pointed my gun at him. I then deescalated the situation. I no longer have a gun pointed at me and you don't have a ton of policework to do trying to locate the intruder. He's right there. Anything else I can help you with?

To be clear. One should escape if possible. But, when needed, SYG is a good thing, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billeisele said:

That is an interesting description. One could, in some situations, also say - the SYG law gave the homeowner the knowledge that they could defend themselves against aggression without worrying about being prosecuted.

No officer, I didn't escalate the situation I deescalated it. The intruder had a gun, I got a gun and a bell. I rang the bell and he didn't run away. He pointed his gun at me, I pointed my gun at him. I then deescalated the situation. I no longer have a gun pointed at me and you don't have a ton of policework to do trying to locate the intruder. He's right there. Anything else I can help you with?

To be clear. One should escape if possible. But, when needed, SYG is a good thing, IMO. 

So you think this is a good thing?


" study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

That is an interesting description. One could, in some situations, also say - the SYG law gave the homeowner the knowledge that they could defend themselves against aggression without worrying about being prosecuted.

No officer, I didn't escalate the situation I deescalated it. The intruder had a gun, I got a gun and a bell. I rang the bell and he didn't run away. He pointed his gun at me, I pointed my gun at him. I then deescalated the situation. I no longer have a gun pointed at me and you don't have a ton of policework to do trying to locate the intruder. He's right there. Anything else I can help you with?

To be clear. One should escape if possible. But, when needed, SYG is a good thing, IMO. 

This blast of alternate reality is brought to you by the Kyle Rittenhouse Home Protection Service. From what I see SYG can cause more problems than it solves. With or without it if someone is in your house shoot the bastard, if need be, but bozos wandering around with their guns looking for an excuse to SYG is the problem.

Edited by JoeWeber
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

So you think this is a good thing?


" study assessing 41 US states, SYG laws were associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in monthly rates of homicide and firearm homicide. State-level increases in homicide and firearm homicide rates reached 10% or higher for many Southern states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana."

The study has a ton of flaws rendering it nothing more that interesting information. The most obvious is the use of the liberal definition of "homicide." The conventional definition is, "the deliberate and unlawful killing..." A SYG self-defense killing is lawful. The liberal definition includes lawful and unlawful killings as homicides. The flawed study doesn't have a control group and doesn't distinguish between lawful and unlawful deaths, and doesn't ID deaths directly related to SYG cases. There is no consideration given to the potential reduction in violent crime since a violent criminal was eliminated, one that probably had already offended and would certainly offend again. There is no consideration given to the fact that homicide rates could have increased the same or a higher percentage without SYG laws.

The study, as you've quoted above, states that "SYG laws are associated with....."  That may be true except they never made any specific association. They assume that the existence of SYG laws caused the increase. 

Quick note, one that you will easily grasp, reviewing stats in 41 states doesn't mathematically equate to a "national" increase.

Finally, there are these sentences from the Conclusions, "The accumulation of evidence established in this and other studies point to harmful outcomes associated with SYG laws. Despite this, SYG laws have now been enacted in most states, and the uptake of new SYG bills continues to be popular, unnecessarily risking lives." The first sentence says accumulated evidence (meaning homicide statistics), then says "points to harmful outcomes." The second sentence says, "unnecessarily risking lives." The whole study and these "closing arguments" seem to be concerned about the deaths of violent criminals during the commission of a crime. My bet is that the majority of people would prefer that an innocent victim have a legal option to defend themselves from a violent criminal.

A quick look down a couple levels on the authors and funding source, and one easily sees the anti-gun bias. Not saying that the data isn't valuable just that the conclusions are flawed.

It's more liberal PhD BS. But it does create a beautiful arc as it crosses the room to land in the round file, where it belongs.

You are a smart guy. Certainly you can find better data to "prove" what you believe to be true. Or maybe you were sucked in by the Key Points and didn't read the study.

To be clear. Any death is not good. But if one chooses to lawfully defend themselves, another person or their property against an aggressor then the outcome is on the aggressor. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

This blast of alternate reality is brought to you by the Kyle Rittenhouse Home Protection Service. From what I see SYG can cause more problems than it solves. With or without it if someone is in your house shoot the bastard, if need be, but bozos wandering around with their guns looking for an excuse to SYG is the problem.

Is the KRHPS a real thing? One has to wonder if that's one of the many companies that the political figures, anti-gun activists, Hollywood peeps, and others use to protect themselves while whining about guns.

About the real part of your comment - Yes, SYG can be a problem. No doubt that permits like a CWP are to easily obtained and retained. No doubt that some gun owners are ill equipped to use the firearms they have. Both can lead to people doing things they aren't qualified to do and getting shot.

Absolutely agree on the last sentence. In SC, as of 9-20-21, a CWP holder can open carry. We are the 46th state to adopt that law. Scary. Why? The CWP course requirements in SC are too weak. If one has never touched, read about or even seen a gun they can attend an 8-hour class (that includes range time) and receive a CWP. It can be done with a .22 pistol.

I took the course and there were people there that were highly unqualified both before and after. Three people were shooting a .22. Some didn't know how to load or operate the gun, or were careless with muzzle control. The instructors had their hands full. One must score 35 out of 50 shooting 10 rounds each at 3, 5, 7 and 10 yards, and 5 rounds at 12 and 15 yards. It's not difficult.

One concern is it could give some folks the feeling that they are now qualified own, use and carry a gun. SC has reciprocity with 20 states, I guess their requirements are as weak as ours. Not good.

As you stated, even worse, are those that are looking to be a hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5