Post by: superdown on May 16, 2012, 09:44:11 AM
Post by: BobW on May 16, 2012, 10:15:22 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 16, 2012, 10:19:53 AM
Post by: jyerxa on May 16, 2012, 10:27:21 AM
44 special revolvers are really small and compact.
Post by: muzzlebuck on May 16, 2012, 10:32:08 AM
Post by: headshot5 on May 16, 2012, 10:33:44 AM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on May 16, 2012, 10:49:40 AM
Post by: blindpig on May 16, 2012, 10:51:20 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 16, 2012, 10:58:29 AM
Post by: Curly on May 16, 2012, 11:07:18 AM
:o
Post by: runamuk on May 16, 2012, 11:19:56 AM
Heck a bb gun might do the trick with that type of bear escapement tactics........ ;):yeah:
:o
Post by: Thenewguy on May 16, 2012, 11:35:12 AM
Post by: Camp David on May 16, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
Post by: Caseyd on May 16, 2012, 11:47:37 AM
Nothing smaller than a 9mm. I have seen tests where a .380 will not even penetrate a thick coat. My personal fav is .45acp.
:dunno:
Im sure I can find a test that shows .380 shooting better then a 9mm.
Its all in the ammo :tup:
Post by: npaull on May 16, 2012, 11:51:16 AM
Post by: Button Nubbs on May 16, 2012, 11:52:45 AM
That said I like my millimeters. 9 and 10 to be exact.
Post by: Thenewguy on May 16, 2012, 11:56:30 AM
Way, way, way more likely to kill yourself, hurt yourself, or shoot someone you don't want to with a sidearm... when I bowhunt, it's me, my bow and my knife. Not going to be a popular sentiment, but that's the way it is...
yet somehow safe gun owners manage to do it every day. The knife looks really cool but won't do much if a bear takes a swipe at you.
Post by: mrmoskillz on May 16, 2012, 12:06:44 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Nothing smaller than a 9mm. I have seen tests where a .380 will not even penetrate a thick coat. My personal fav is .45acp.
:yeah: for thick coats and tweekers.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on May 16, 2012, 12:28:01 PM
I don't give a shi+ what you shoot me with, I'm probably gonna be on the floor cryin like a little bi+ch.
That said I like my millimeters. 9 and 10 to be exact.
Yep.. Those are exactly what I carry.
Post by: Mongo Hunter on May 16, 2012, 12:45:28 PM
Post by: Alchase on May 16, 2012, 12:47:25 PM
Way, way, way more likely to kill yourself, hurt yourself, or shoot someone you don't want to with a sidearm... when I bowhunt, it's me, my bow and my knife. Not going to be a popular sentiment, but that's the way it is...
Really?
Kind of silly bringing a knife to a gun fight don't you think, lol
Post by: Alchase on May 16, 2012, 12:48:37 PM
But seriously the best caliber for defence is the one you have in your hand at that moment, lol
Post by: Kowsrule30 on May 16, 2012, 12:54:08 PM
Post by: jeepster on May 16, 2012, 01:23:38 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent7.flixster.com%2Fmovie%2F26%2F75%2F267521_det.jpg&hash=0def6cdb5b97c9886c8176b64796f903537fb356)
i carry because i dont ever want to hear banjos, get hog tied, or told i have a purdy mouth
but then again a gun is 400-1000$....wasp killer is 3 bucks....
Post by: Mike450r on May 16, 2012, 01:52:11 PM
Protect against what? People my 17" guns (just a guess dont know how big they really are)will do the trick most of the time but in the bear woods I have a .40 but just bought a 357 I'll take this year. I think a 22 wld work just fine on people. I know I would rather be shot by a 357 than a 22
Please explain why you would rather be shot by a .357 than a .22 (I am making the presumption of .357 magnum -vs- .22 LR)?
Is it because you would rather die faster?
Would you rather be less likely to sustain a survivable gunshot wound?
The .357 magnum is a man killing round of the first order, while the .22 can be lethal enough there is no way I would rather be shot by .357 than a .22
Post by: mrmoskillz on May 16, 2012, 02:00:12 PM
Protect against what? People my 17" guns (just a guess dont know how big they really are)will do the trick most of the time but in the bear woods I have a .40 but just bought a 357 I'll take this year. I think a 22 wld work just fine on people. I know I would rather be shot by a 357 than a 22
Please explain why you would rather be shot by a .357 than a .22 (I am making the presumption of .357 magnum -vs- .22 LR)?
Is it because you would rather die faster?
Would you rather be less likely to sustain a survivable gunshot wound?
The .357 magnum is a man killing round of the first order, while the .22 can be lethal enough there is no way I would rather be shot by .357 than a .22
Yes 357 because if I get shot I want it to be done and over with. Same reason I dont want to be shot by a broadhead I mean who wants to suffer? I also heard a 22 bounces around in you and you die a slow painfull death...dont know for sure as i have never been shot. :mgun:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 16, 2012, 02:08:10 PM
Another guy I know in Port Angeles (before he turned into a tweeker) tried to rip off his dealer in town and got shot with a .22 in the mouth. It shattered his teeth but the bullet deflected and exited his cheek.
The smallest I'd trust is the HK 4.6x30.
Post by: BobW on May 16, 2012, 02:12:55 PM
Post by: MP123 on May 16, 2012, 02:19:39 PM
Post by: mrmoskillz on May 16, 2012, 02:26:15 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 16, 2012, 02:27:45 PM
I know a guy whos brother died after being shot in the leg by a 22 and the bullet bounced around hitting some arteries
My son's half-brother was killed by a .22 two days before Christmas a few years ago. Guy took a wild shot and hit him in the heart. Died instantly.
Post by: mrmoskillz on May 16, 2012, 02:34:06 PM
I know a guy whos brother died after being shot in the leg by a 22 and the bullet bounced around hitting some arteries
My son's half-brother was killed by a .22 two days before Christmas a few years ago. Guy took a wild shot and hit him in the heart. Died instantly.
Sorry for your loss..God bless
Post by: colockumelk on May 16, 2012, 04:29:50 PM
Post by: npaull on May 16, 2012, 05:23:28 PM
Quote
I know a guy whos brother died after being shot in the leg by a 22 and the bullet bounced around hitting some arteries
The Inuit absolutely routinely shoot polar bear with .22 and kill them. When asked how they do it, their reply is simple: "we shoot them in the heart."
You can kill almost anything that moves with a .22 if you shoot it in the right spot.
Post by: Bean Counter on May 16, 2012, 05:33:07 PM
Post by: Jamieb on May 16, 2012, 06:42:03 PM
Post by: FC on May 16, 2012, 06:49:54 PM
Way, way, way more likely to kill yourself, hurt yourself, or shoot someone you don't want to with a sidearm...
Care to provide some kind of a cite for that tidbit? I've never seen any evidence to back that claim, the reverse is true in every case.
Post by: whitey on May 17, 2012, 08:03:49 AM
Post by: shoot-em-dead on May 17, 2012, 08:10:21 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 17, 2012, 08:25:17 AM
Way, way, way more likely to kill yourself, hurt yourself, or shoot someone you don't want to with a sidearm... when I bowhunt, it's me, my bow and my knife. Not going to be a popular sentiment, but that's the way it is...
Please provide statistics to support this statement. And, please tell us "...more likely..." than what? A Popsicle, a rifle, a mud pie?
In your comment in the thread "Has Obama really attacked the 2A?", you stated that, "This paranoia 'they're going to take my guns!' is a frightening and puzzling phenomenon that I've just never understood."
Combined with the above statement, this leads me to believe you either don't own firearms and are opposed to them, or that you're in complete denial that there are powerful people in the US, with the President at the front of the charge, who would remove or change the 2nd Amendment to further anti-gun agendas. You seem to say that our signing the UN small arms treaty and the appointment of Eric Holder as the US Attorney General is no indication that Obama would like to end our individual gun rights.
Please answer these questions. How do you substantiate the statement that you're more likely to hurt yourself or someone you don't intend to with a handgun, and compared to what? Are you a gun owner? Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment as written? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment as written guarantees the individual's right to bear arms?
Post by: superdown on May 17, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
Post by: carlyoungs on May 17, 2012, 10:17:53 AM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on May 17, 2012, 10:38:39 AM
my AK (if its not hunting season)
You can legally hunt with an AK. I have done it. It's a 30 caliber bullet and meets the WDFW impact requirements at 100 yards. For big game, if I recall, there is no mag restriction.
Post by: GrainfedMuley on May 17, 2012, 10:44:50 AM
Are you a gun owner? Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment as written? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment as written guarantees the individual's right to bear arms?
YES, YES, and YES! :tup:
Post by: npaull on May 17, 2012, 10:55:06 AM
Quote
Please provide statistics to support this statement. And, please tell us "...more likely..." than what? A Popsicle, a rifle, a mud pie?
In your comment in the thread "Has Obama really attacked the 2A?", you stated that, "This paranoia 'they're going to take my guns!' is a frightening and puzzling phenomenon that I've just never understood."
Combined with the above statement, this leads me to believe you either don't own firearms and are opposed to them, or that you're in complete denial that there are powerful people in the US, with the President at the front of the charge, who would remove or change the 2nd Amendment to further anti-gun agendas. You seem to say that our signing the UN small arms treaty and the appointment of Eric Holder as the US Attorney General is no indication that Obama would like to end our individual gun rights.
Please answer these questions. How do you substantiate the statement that you're more likely to hurt yourself or someone you don't intend to with a handgun, and compared to what? Are you a gun owner? Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment as written? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment as written guarantees the individual's right to bear arms?
This website:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/
Provides numerous citations of scientific articles supporting what I've said about overestimates of self-defense with gun possession vs underestimates of accidental harm (links along the left provide authorship and publication of specific studies). It will undoubtedly be criticized immediately as part of the liberal agenda against guns etc etc and then discounted, but it is in fact one of the better scientific sources examining this question.
As I have said in numerous posts: I am a gun owner, I am a hunter, I support gun ownership, I don't think there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership, and I don't think EVERY gun debate needs to be about confiscation vs possession.
I own guns to hunt. I think the idea of owning guns to protect yourself is simply not supported by the evidence for the overwhelming majority of citizens. That doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to carry side arms. For the most part, I do. But I actually don't think it's sensible based on the evidence.
You're right about one thing - I do deny that there are a significant number of people in power - the president among them - who want to "take away the 2nd Ammendment." I think that is a gross overstatement.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 17, 2012, 10:58:41 AM
Post by: npaull on May 17, 2012, 11:13:58 AM
Quote
So how do you explain us signing away our rights by joining the UN small arms treaty? And, how do you explain the appointment of Holder to Attorney General when he's so blatantly anti-gun?
1) We haven't joined the UN small arms treaty. It hasn't even actually been written or finalized yet. We may not end up joining it, and there's NO WAY you can know right now what may or may not be in the final treaty, because it's still being developed and won't actually be discussed until July of this year. This is a scare tactic. We've expressed a limited and conditional potential support for doing so provided a whole list of provisions are met. So far it's still in the discussion phase. But even if we were to join it (unlikely given that it'd need a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate plus presidential approval), it wouldn't "take away the 2nd Ammendment." International treaties cannot supersede the Constitution. This is settled law, there's just no way around it. The treaty itself concerns international exchange of firearms. It is not involved in the intra-US sale of guns, nor could it be (there is no legal mechanism by which an international treaty could create national laws for the US that supersede constitutional law, let alone the Bill of Rights). The only threat to the 2nd Ammendment would come from a new Constitutional Ammendment revoking the 2nd ammendment (there is absolutely NOTHING in the works like this, and it's virtually impossible to do anyway), or by a really radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Ammendment by the Supreme court. This seems unlikely, as pretty much everyone agrees that the 2nd Ammendment is totally settled case law. What gets argued about are specific particulars about types of weapons, etc, not the validity of the Ammendment overall. See this link for more (there are a multitude of other places that discuss this):
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
2) In regards to Holder, I'm guessing there may have been one or two other things/issues that got thought about besides his general stance towards guns in his nomination. It seems a little simplistic to think that the thought process was Holder = no guns = good. I'm guessing the nomination process was more comprehensive than that. I don't argue that you and he disagree on gun issues - merely that I think it's unlikely he was nominated BECAUSE of his stance on guns. There's just no evidence for that.
Post by: GrainfedMuley on May 17, 2012, 11:20:36 AM
I think the idea of owning guns to protect yourself is simply not supported by the evidence for the overwhelming majority of citizens.
[/quote]
Where in the hell do you live? If you live anywhere close to Puget Sound I am sure you have heard about the rash of home invasions. In those invasions how many of those home owners were armed? How many became a nonvictim because they were ready to defend themselves and there property? If we were like Switzerland and EVERY house in the country was armed, how many home invasions would there be?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 17, 2012, 11:23:19 AM
I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on Holder. Besides the President, he's the highest law enforcement professional in the land and is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Yet, he's been very vocal that he disagrees with perhaps the one amendment which protects the rest. This, to me, is a conflict. How can you swear to uphold something with which you disagree?
Post by: FC on May 17, 2012, 11:27:20 AM
http://books.google.com/books?id=B1TqrNK3OkAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Post by: Alchase on May 17, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
QuotePlease provide statistics to support this statement. And, please tell us "...more likely..." than what? A Popsicle, a rifle, a mud pie?
In your comment in the thread "Has Obama really attacked the 2A?", you stated that, "This paranoia 'they're going to take my guns!' is a frightening and puzzling phenomenon that I've just never understood."
Combined with the above statement, this leads me to believe you either don't own firearms and are opposed to them, or that you're in complete denial that there are powerful people in the US, with the President at the front of the charge, who would remove or change the 2nd Amendment to further anti-gun agendas. You seem to say that our signing the UN small arms treaty and the appointment of Eric Holder as the US Attorney General is no indication that Obama would like to end our individual gun rights.
Please answer these questions. How do you substantiate the statement that you're more likely to hurt yourself or someone you don't intend to with a handgun, and compared to what? Are you a gun owner? Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment as written? Do you think that the 2nd Amendment as written guarantees the individual's right to bear arms?
This website:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/
Provides numerous citations of scientific articles supporting what I've said about overestimates of self-defense with gun possession vs underestimates of accidental harm (links along the left provide authorship and publication of specific studies). It will undoubtedly be criticized immediately as part of the liberal agenda against guns etc etc and then discounted, but it is in fact one of the better scientific sources examining this question.
As I have said in numerous posts: I am a gun owner, I am a hunter, I support gun ownership, I don't think there should be NO restrictions on gun ownership, and I don't think EVERY gun debate needs to be about confiscation vs possession.
I own guns to hunt. I think the idea of owning guns to protect yourself is simply not supported by the evidence for the overwhelming majority of citizens. That doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to carry side arms. For the most part, I do. But I actually don't think it's sensible based on the evidence.
You're right about one thing - I do deny that there are a significant number of people in power - the president among them - who want to "take away the 2nd Ammendment." I think that is a gross overstatement.
I just spent 10 minutes of my life wasted, wading through the link you provided to a study funded by the David Bohnett Foundation, right off thier fron page on the right side is a clincky for
"Hand Gun Control"!!
http://www.bohnettfoundation.org/programs/view/11
Handgun Control
The David Bohnett Foundation supports and encourages groups that promote the goals of reduction and elimination of the manufacture and sale of handguns in the U.S.
The statistics about gun use and availability are alarming:
about one quarter of adults in the US owns a gun (Criminology of Criminal Justice);
268 people in America die each day from gun violence (Center for Disease Control);
67% of the 16,272 murders in 2008 were committed with firearms (FBI);
every minute, eight new firearms are produced in the US (ATF);
guns in the home are four times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting than to injure or kill in self-defense (Journal of Trauma).
Groups and institutions that educate the public or seek to make public policy on the local, state or national level for gun control and elimination are encouraged to seek funding.
view full grant listing for this programRecent recipients in this program area:
Gun Free Dining Tennessee (Dec 6, 2011)
Legal Community Against Violence (Nov 15, 2011)
Women Against Gun Violence (Nov 15, 2011)
Media Matters For America (Nov 15, 2011)
Heeding God's Call (Nov 15, 2011)
Violence Prevention Coalition (Nov 15, 2011)
University of Chicago Crime Lab (Jun 14, 2011)
States United To Prevent Gun Violence (May 15, 2011)
UCLA / Hammer Museum (Mar 28, 2011)
Got money to bet every one of those support Obama?
LMAO
:bash:
Post by: npaull on May 17, 2012, 01:33:04 PM
Quote
Thank you for answering.
No problem. Thank you for being civil. We'll have to agree to disagree on some elements of this, but that's OK.
Sorry to semi-hijack the thread. I'll bow out now.
Post by: blacklab-123 on May 17, 2012, 06:38:33 PM
Post by: runamuk on May 17, 2012, 06:53:20 PM
Post by: superdown on May 17, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
did anyone actually read the original post :dunno: :dunno: it was kinda a joke, haha funny stuff....I thought they would never notice. :rolleyes: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 17, 2012, 09:26:06 PM
My wife and I both carry 9mm but I would trust any gun vs. having no gun.
Best answer hands down, Partial quote " I would trust any gun vs. having no gun " unquote.
Post by: DeerThug on May 17, 2012, 09:40:14 PM
When I was a kid an elderly guy shot a home intruder with a 22 once and dropped him in his tracks. Just down the road from where I lived. ended up that it was a drunk native that came home to the wrong house.... no charges fi led.
Then as a teenager I worked in the orchards with a REAL biker criminal. He had been shot in the lower cheek with a 44 mag and twice with a 12 ga buckshot while on a bike driving down the highway. Plus the crash on his bike. It was over drugs and a girl. He was really messed up with a ton of scars. but was otherwise normal.
It is just like hunting.
It is all about shot placement..
Post by: huntnphool on May 17, 2012, 09:44:05 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on May 17, 2012, 09:49:59 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 18, 2012, 06:59:21 AM
That 5.7 sounds like a really cool round
They are for around $1200.
Post by: jeepster on May 18, 2012, 11:03:20 AM
my AK (if its not hunting season)
i always thought you couldnt have more than a certain ammount of rounds in your rifle durring hunting season... (maybe i just bird hunt too much)....
You can legally hunt with an AK. I have done it. It's a 30 caliber bullet and meets the WDFW impact requirements at 100 yards. For big game, if I recall, there is no mag restriction.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on May 18, 2012, 12:24:03 PM
Post by: GrainfedMuley on May 19, 2012, 02:52:39 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on May 19, 2012, 08:45:21 AM
Yes there is. For big game, a bullet must create more than 350 foot lbs of impact at 100 yards. That is why the minimun caliber to hunt big game in Washington is, I think, .243. I have heard about this rule since I was a kid. You can not hunt deer in Washington with a .223 but you can in Oregon.
can you direct me to where it shows this rule?
page 74 of the regs "big game, except cougar must be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber (6mm) centergire rifle."
i dont see anything about any energy requirement. 6mm-223 is legal as well. the way i read it, even a .25 auto is legal as long as it meets barrel requirements.
Post by: high country on May 19, 2012, 12:36:37 PM
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Have%20No%20Faith.htm
And a study by the FBI on handgun wounding and effectiveness.....
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 19, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Post by: dawei on May 19, 2012, 06:04:11 PM
My belief is you should choose the largest caliber you can shoot effectively, accurately, and repeatably (ALL THREE). For me, at my present age (62); that is the 357 Magnum. For my wife (63), that is the 38 Special. There will come a time, I imagine, in the not too far distant future; where the 357 Magnum will be too much for me to handle. At that time my primary carry gun(s) will change to be a 44 Special and 38 Special.
Post by: huntnphool on May 20, 2012, 01:07:16 AM
That 5.7 sounds like a really cool round
It is! Long range, high penetration and low recoil. :tup: feature=related
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 20, 2012, 01:42:19 AM
By contrast when unarmed I was very aware there was a bear nearby once while fishing and once hiking. I heard brush popping and saw bushes moving both times before a surprised bear popped into open ground and was surprised to find me there where it wanted to go. Both times we made it around each other at fairly close distance without incident but I'd be lying If I said I was completely comfortable with the situation. the third time a friend and a gal I knew and I were so into fishing we completely missed 5 brownies walk out on the opposite bank about 25 yards away until the gal looked up, dropped her pole and walked quickly to the truck, got in and locked the doors. We asked "what's wrong Sue?" And she pointed and said...."There's 5 of them!" And we looked and she was right! So we said "open the door and let us in!", and she said, "Nope". So there we stood until the bears wandered back in the bushes. Then she decided we could drive her home.
Another time 4 of us boated across Shelikof Strait from Kodiak to dig clams for crab bait commercially. We were digging in Kukak Bay and Switshak and had bears going by us every day and they basically ignored us. Or pretended to. They had to know we were there, but they wouldn't acknowledge us in the slightest, even when we yelled at them. We finally ignored them and just dug clams and they did their thing. This was in the general area Tim Treadwell ended up getting himself killed, But we weren't camping on bear trails either.
Post by: Deep Forks on May 20, 2012, 03:40:41 AM
Post by: rasbo on May 20, 2012, 06:15:10 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Post by: gotshot on May 20, 2012, 06:52:09 AM
Post by: dawei on May 20, 2012, 10:50:06 AM
hope this works, Im not sure of his accent or where he is from, but this could be the result of gun bans.... :chuckle:Oberfranken = Franconia
<iframe width="560" height="315" src=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Franconia = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconia
Thus he is German.
Post by: jeepster on May 20, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
has anybody ever used those? they are 1 3/4 inch 12 gauge shells
ive often wondered about those, i bet i could put 10 of those in one of my shotguns, and they seem great for home defence, i wouldnt bother with something that small in the woods, and definatley wouldnt hunt with em but yeah... always wondered...
Post by: jaymark6655 on May 22, 2012, 12:24:31 PM
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/162922/aguila-minishell-ammunition-12-gauge-1-3-4-4-and-1-buckshot-11-pellets-box-of-20
has anybody ever used those? they are 1 3/4 inch 12 gauge shells
ive often wondered about those, i bet i could put 10 of those in one of my shotguns, and they seem great for home defence, i wouldnt bother with something that small in the woods, and definatley wouldnt hunt with em but yeah... always wondered...
I might have to check those out.
Post by: high country on May 22, 2012, 12:29:09 PM
Post by: Mongo Hunter on May 22, 2012, 12:30:23 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 22, 2012, 12:38:20 PM
hope this works,Im not sure of his accent or where he is from,but this could be the result of gun bans.... :chuckle:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
German, almost definitely. Fun guy. He'd be right at home here.
Post by: Special T on May 22, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 22, 2012, 12:54:45 PM
Post by: Special T on May 22, 2012, 02:42:34 PM