What is this liberal demand that Americans only defend themselves in ways that liberals find appropriate?

If there are three people that are attacking me and my family I'd damn well want a firearm even if I wasn't very efficient with a weapon and put all rounds into drywall.

(Disclaimer for the record: I would never shoot a human, even in self-defense, and I’d never own a gun, because they terrify me. Guns are scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary.)

(09-14-2017 03:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:56 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why would a dog be better? Explain..

To combat your straw-man argument , firearms are used by law abiding citizens hundreds of thousands of times each year to stop crime and protect personal life and property. A Springer Spaniel can't do that.

Most people aren't very efficient with a weapon. If they have to take down three people, it might not be so easy.

Yet ordinary people use them each day to thwarting crime and protecting themselves and their families and property ...

Now explain why a dog would be better..

(09-14-2017 11:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 07:43 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  I'm with you on this one.

Silencers really only equate to negative connotations.

However, the ONLY way I could see them being tied to federal land is something like allowing hunting on large federal properties where the ban on hunting as allowed certain animals to overrun the population of others and in the need of control. I've seen it on several military bases where bowhunting is legalized via specially granted permits to control deer populations, etc. In that capacity, they could feasibly allow "silenced" hunting weapons so as not to alarm others on federal property but also provide more hunters the ability to aid in animal population control.

Yup. I can think of no legit need for a silencer.

To help avoid ear damage?

A $2 pair of ear plugs does that.

(09-14-2017 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 07:43 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  I'm with you on this one.

Silencers really only equate to negative connotations.

However, the ONLY way I could see them being tied to federal land is something like allowing hunting on large federal properties where the ban on hunting as allowed certain animals to overrun the population of others and in the need of control. I've seen it on several military bases where bowhunting is legalized via specially granted permits to control deer populations, etc. In that capacity, they could feasibly allow "silenced" hunting weapons so as not to alarm others on federal property but also provide more hunters the ability to aid in animal population control.

Yup. I can think of no legit need for a silencer.

To help avoid ear damage?

A $2 pair of ear plugs does that.

And aren't practical for hunting

(09-14-2017 03:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 03:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Most people aren't very efficient with a weapon. If they have to take down three people, it might not be so easy.

I hope to not have to take down three people. I hope that the fact that target #1 is nearly cut in half by a load of high brass #4's and they are now covered in their friend is enough to deter the 2nd and 3rd targets. If not then target #2 get the same treatment and target #3 gets a load of #1 buckshot.

I actually think just the sound of the pump action being worked on a 10 guage is generally enough of a deterrent in most cases.

(09-14-2017 04:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 07:43 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  I'm with you on this one.

Silencers really only equate to negative connotations.

However, the ONLY way I could see them being tied to federal land is something like allowing hunting on large federal properties where the ban on hunting as allowed certain animals to overrun the population of others and in the need of control. I've seen it on several military bases where bowhunting is legalized via specially granted permits to control deer populations, etc. In that capacity, they could feasibly allow "silenced" hunting weapons so as not to alarm others on federal property but also provide more hunters the ability to aid in animal population control.

Yup. I can think of no legit need for a silencer.

To help avoid ear damage?

A $2 pair of ear plugs does that.

And aren't practical for hunting

And a silencer on a shotgun is? That said, firearms are not good for hearing. I suspect that a single concert is probably more damaging than a lifetime of occasional hunting trips. Been on plenty of hunting trips and my hearing is just fine.

(09-14-2017 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. I can think of no legit need for a silencer.

To help avoid ear damage?

A $2 pair of ear plugs does that.

And aren't practical for hunting

And a silencer on a shotgun is?

Yes.

Quote:That said, firearms are not good for hearing. I suspect that a single concert is probably more damaging than a lifetime of occasional hunting trips. Been on plenty of hunting trips and my hearing is just fine.

Not even close.



http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Recre...-Exposure/

Quote:Firearms Are Loud

Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage hearing. Almost all firearms create noise that is over the 140-dB level. A small .22-caliber rifle can produce noise around 140 dB, while big-bore rifles and pistols can produce sound over 175 dB. Firing guns in a place where sounds can reverberate, or bounce off walls and other structures, can make noises louder and increase the risk of hearing loss. Also, adding muzzle brakes or other modifications can make the firearm louder. People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols.

(09-14-2017 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  To help avoid ear damage?

A $2 pair of ear plugs does that.

And aren't practical for hunting

And a silencer on a shotgun is?

Yes.

Quote:That said, firearms are not good for hearing. I suspect that a single concert is probably more damaging than a lifetime of occasional hunting trips. Been on plenty of hunting trips and my hearing is just fine.

Not even close.



http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Recre...-Exposure/

Quote:Firearms Are Loud

Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage hearing. Almost all firearms create noise that is over the 140-dB level. A small .22-caliber rifle can produce noise around 140 dB, while big-bore rifles and pistols can produce sound over 175 dB. Firing guns in a place where sounds can reverberate, or bounce off walls and other structures, can make noises louder and increase the risk of hearing loss. Also, adding muzzle brakes or other modifications can make the firearm louder. People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols.

lol...never seen one of those in my life. That was pretty cool!

(09-14-2017 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...never seen one of those in my life. That was cool!

I'd sure love to get one without having to wait between eight months and a year, pay the federal government an additional $200, and because f the now limited market pay an exorbitant price for duck hunting. I feel sure the retrievers would as well.

(09-14-2017 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:52 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  One dog = 1 cartridge spent by the perp

Two dogs = 2 cartridges spent by the perp

Firearms are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for citizens to have.

Not quite certain to what your point is Fit?

My point is that a lot of people claim to purchase guns for home defense. However, if what you say is true, it might be a better idea to get a dog.

Shotgun > Dog

Dogs are lazy sometimes and can be tricked. A shotgun is never tricked. It does the tricking.

(09-14-2017 06:58 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:52 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  One dog = 1 cartridge spent by the perp

Two dogs = 2 cartridges spent by the perp

Firearms are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for citizens to have.

Not quite certain to what your point is Fit?

My point is that a lot of people claim to purchase guns for home defense. However, if what you say is true, it might be a better idea to get a dog.

Shotgun > Dog

Dogs are lazy sometimes and can be tricked. A shotgun is never tricked. It does the tricking.

my 870 tactical modified.....

(09-14-2017 07:11 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:58 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:52 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  One dog = 1 cartridge spent by the perp

Two dogs = 2 cartridges spent by the perp

Firearms are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for citizens to have.

Not quite certain to what your point is Fit?

My point is that a lot of people claim to purchase guns for home defense. However, if what you say is true, it might be a better idea to get a dog.

Shotgun > Dog

Dogs are lazy sometimes and can be tricked. A shotgun is never tricked. It does the tricking.

my 870 tactical modified.....

I have a similar setup, but the light is factory. Those things are a must, and primo for home defense. Unless you're a very good shot and get lots of practice and can stay cool in a life/death situation, a handgun is useless. Well, maybe not useless but definitely much less effective.

(09-14-2017 02:16 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  I thought this thread was going to be about stinks desire to be a Hitman.

No, I don't support it. Hunters should be forced to use bows and arrows if they want silence. LOL

@onlyifrequired

that may not be too far down the roe-ad (that's 2 syllables for road...had to give you some sushi tint) if things continue to play out as prescribed from ALL the washtubington dippos

let me get back to pippy longsmokiing now

I have KC in the first five innings against Cleveland if you can believe that.....

just for posterity and a complete derail for crazy trains....

2017/09/14
05:03:56 PM 38433139 I
Baseball - MLB
[967] Kansas City Royals 09/14/2017 (06:10 PM) (Pending)
Money Line +144 for the First 5 Innings J. Junis(must start) J. Tomlin(must start)

Straight 300.00 432.00

(09-14-2017 03:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  What is this liberal demand that Americans only defend themselves in ways that liberals find appropriate?

If there are three people that are attacking me and my family I'd damn well want a firearm even if I wasn't very efficient with a weapon and put all rounds into drywall.

(Disclaimer for the record: I would never shoot a human, even in self-defense, and I’d never own a gun, because they terrify me. Guns are scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary.)

You'd rather let THEM kill YOU or your family than to kill one with a gun?

(09-14-2017 05:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 05:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  A $2 pair of ear plugs does that.

And aren't practical for hunting

And a silencer on a shotgun is?

Yes.

Quote:That said, firearms are not good for hearing. I suspect that a single concert is probably more damaging than a lifetime of occasional hunting trips. Been on plenty of hunting trips and my hearing is just fine.

Not even close.



http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Recre...-Exposure/

Quote:Firearms Are Loud

Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage hearing. Almost all firearms create noise that is over the 140-dB level. A small .22-caliber rifle can produce noise around 140 dB, while big-bore rifles and pistols can produce sound over 175 dB. Firing guns in a place where sounds can reverberate, or bounce off walls and other structures, can make noises louder and increase the risk of hearing loss. Also, adding muzzle brakes or other modifications can make the firearm louder. People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols.

lol...never seen one of those in my life. That was pretty cool!

huh?

(09-14-2017 07:17 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 07:11 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:58 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:52 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  One dog = 1 cartridge spent by the perp

Two dogs = 2 cartridges spent by the perp

Firearms are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for citizens to have.

Not quite certain to what your point is Fit?

My point is that a lot of people claim to purchase guns for home defense. However, if what you say is true, it might be a better idea to get a dog.

Shotgun > Dog

Dogs are lazy sometimes and can be tricked. A shotgun is never tricked. It does the tricking.

my 870 tactical modified.....

I have a similar setup, but the light is factory. Those things are a must, and primo for home defense. Unless you're a very good shot and get lots of practice and can stay cool in a life/death situation, a handgun is useless. Well, maybe not useless but definitely much less effective.

How do you turn the light on? Edit : that was meant for stink

(09-14-2017 07:17 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 07:11 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 06:58 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 02:52 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  One dog = 1 cartridge spent by the perp

Two dogs = 2 cartridges spent by the perp

Firearms are a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for citizens to have.

Not quite certain to what your point is Fit?

My point is that a lot of people claim to purchase guns for home defense. However, if what you say is true, it might be a better idea to get a dog.

Shotgun > Dog

Dogs are lazy sometimes and can be tricked. A shotgun is never tricked. It does the tricking.

my 870 tactical modified.....

I have a similar setup, but the light is factory. Those things are a must, and primo for home defense. Unless you're a very good shot and get lots of practice and can stay cool in a life/death situation, a handgun is useless. Well, maybe not useless but definitely much less effective.

I get lots of practice and am a very good shot. Not sure how cool I'll actually stay as I've never been in a life or death situation involving a handgun. But, I'll stick with my handguns as they are much easier to tote around. Now if you're talking about waking up to a noise in the home, I keep a Winchester Home Defender between my bed and the night stand loaded up with #7 birdshot.

Of topic but..............

Is there anything wrong with wanting to buy a .22 as a good first gun?

Someone suggesting that it was a good idea because it does lots of damage and ammo is cheap.

(09-15-2017 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of topic but..............

Is there anything wrong with wanting to buy a .22 as a good first gun?

Someone suggesting that it was a good idea because it does lots of damage and ammo is cheap.

A .22 is a great first gun, but it does not do much damage. It's good for learning the basics of firearm safety, function, and marksmanship. It's good if you're looking to take out squirrels and the like, but not so good for self-protection.

I've got an AR, Shotgun, and several pistols, but our Henry Lever-action .22 is the most "fun" to shoot for the whole family.

A .22 is a great beginner for a child. But as tough as you are with your martial arts and all ,Fit, you should be able to begin with a 9mm.

Now are you going to back up your point on how a canine would be better home protection than a firearm? Your words not mine... stand up and be counted Bruce Lee.