Think you’re gonna drop a bear with that pea-shooter before it rips your head off? Maybe not “nutty” as much as “optimistic.” 
Be kind, it’s all he’s got to cling to. And even then, he has to go into some serious contortions to try to blame the pro-murder-rights-lobby-funded GOP filibuster on Feinstein or something. :rolleyes:
We’re still waiting for a realistic proposal of his own, or from anybody else in the pro-murder-rights contingent of which he is such a proud member, to actually reduce gun deaths. Hell, we’re still waiting for an explanation of how he can tell the “good guys” from “bad guys” - another artificial construct he needs to make in order to keep the door closed against the howling void inside.
You call THIS a pea-shooter?
Legalize drugs and put welfare recipients on birth control. I think I said that a long time ago.
How big are your bears? When one attacks, would it come at you on two legs, or would you take a preemptive shot when it presented its broadside? 'Cuz you’d have a hell of a time making a killing shot if it were coming straight at you on all fours. A handgun is mostly good for some sound and fury, and an airhorn is lighter and more compact to carry.
The gun pictured is a 500 S&W, currently the most powerful production handgun in the world. It is fully adequate to kill grizzlies; in fact it’s credited with kills for African big game including elephants.
I assume those kills were from an optimal position where the hunter could aim for the heart, thus my “broadside” comment above. Interesting posts from here: 9mm against a bear? > Bear Hunting > AR15.COM . First the technical answer:
Same principle as sloped armor on a tank. Now the funny:
…and…
Bears are real hard to kill.
S&W .500, like the man said. It’s a purpose-built anti-grizzly gun, basically. I’ve heard better anecdotal evidence of their utility than I have about air horns, at least in grizzly country. Black bears, I could give a fuck about black bears, they run if you look at 'em funny and yell.
From my point of view, there’s a profound difference between “I might need this, therefore I carry it” and “I WILL need this, therefore I carry it.”
You really don’t have a clue about anything you are saying do you?
I’d prefer a rifle myself but people hunt bears with handguns all the time. The bears pretty much never win. Seems guns are helpful to hikers too:
Certainly more so than cameras:
Depends on the handgun.
There are several handguns (mostly revolvers) that can do it. In fact they are frequently called bear guns because other than wearing at fancy barbecues, their only practical purpose is to protect you from bears.
Are you deaf or just dumb?
I don’t know how many times I have to say licensing and registration.
You can usually tell who is likely to commit violent crimes in the future by looking at who has committed violentcrimes in then past.
It seems like I have to repeat I have posted these two things ever 4 or 5 pages before you forget again.:rolleyes:
I don’t have a lot of experience but the common wisdom seem to be that yeah bears are hard to kill but you can’t run from them (they’re faster runners), you can’t climb a tree (they are better climbers). You can’t swim from them (they are one of the few land animals that are better swimmers). So you really want a gun.
A lot of people prefer handguns because they are lighter, easier to carry and more manueverable. Some of the larger calibers are more than powerful enough to do the job. I have heard that the 460 S&W round is particularly good because it has so much penetrating power.
Until you come up with something that would actually have an effect on the prevalence of gun deaths in the US, or at least meet your own insisted-upon criterion, “Would it have prevented Newtown?”
Perhaps one of your comrades in the murder-rights contingent can help you with that, but I doubt it. Repeating your own previous alleged “answers”, as is the only thing you have shown yourself capable of doing, simply shows us what happened to the kid who sat in the corner of the classroom eating paste and giggling to himself.
Every single one of these shootings is a stupid gun news item.
Enough will never be enough.
So, I agree with what the gun confiscation nuts are saying in this thread, that is: that crime is on a year to year drop over the past several decades, that any given person is vanishingly unlikely to be the victim of a violent crime (and for a person who lives in a decent neighborhood, is not involved in the drug trade, and is not married to a perpetrator of domestic violence, the likelihood is effectively zero), and that the media overhype incidents of violence to sell papers/commercials etc.
Given that we agree on this fact, and that, as an objectively true measurement, it doesn’t care who agrees with it anyway, can you please show me where this wave of spiraling crime committed with guns is located?
That’s a pretty nifty point of view. There are quite a few gun murders that have been cited in this thread over the many pages it has spanned so far.
You are stating that these are “overhyped” incidents. In fact, every cited gun murder linked by myself at least is a true event.
Please explain “overhyped”.
Actually, despite an overall drop in violent crime since 2000, handgun homicides have remained stable, and homicides with other firearms have increased by 50%.
Gun homicides are down slightly over that time and way down over the longer term. Gun crime in general is way down. It cannot be true that non-handgun gun homicides are going up and handgun homicides are not going down, since total gun homicides are down. Perhaps you are reading a source that does not adequately distinguish “deaths” from “homicide” and is skewing the numbers with the huge confounding factor of suicides?
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980 -2008. Bitch.
In 2000, there were approximately 8,000 handgun homicides. In 2008, there were approximately 8,000 handgun homicides.
In 2000, there were approximately 2,000 homicides with other types of firearms. In 2008 there were approximately 3,000 homicides with non handgun firearms.
See Figure 42.
Even your own cite observes a similar point, you stupid fuck -
“Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007.”
So, in the context of an overall decline in violent crime during the same period, firearms homicides are stable or increasing, particularly among non handgun firearms.
The “slow resumption of a downward trend” is not, in fact, an upward trend…maybe I can translate this into one-syllable words if that and the pretty line on the graph are not clear enough.
Use whatever size words you are capable of to try to explain yourself.
The fact remains, as I said before, despite the downward course of overall violent crime, firearm homicide rates are stable, and in fact non-handgun firearm homicide rates have increased by about 50%.