[Crazy Canuck]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)
and especially this model: http://www.cx4storm.com/

for those that wounder why:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...ting/index.html

my wife works 1 street corner away, and sometimes goes for lunch there... that day, she didn't... Thank God !

[Jon A]

Mark, without even touching the deeper more fundamental issues, would you clarify this as a "non-hunting, designed for killing people" machine?
(IMG:http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534103m.jpg)
I got my first couple of deer with one. As have millions of others, since long before I was born. That particular model has been taking deer, elk, antelope, bear and everything else in this country in three different centuries now. I don't know of any that hold three rounds or less--depending up the round it's chambered for, some hold over 10+ in the tube. But you'd outlaw and confiscate that?

The vast majority of all bolt action hunting rifles hold at least four in the magazine--usually only the big magnums that don't. So I'm wondering what your emotions would allow us to own? Ruger No. 1's and Contenders OK? The fat magnum bolt guns that only hold three? But you'd take away the vast majority of all hunting guns out there, which have been there since the 1800's, because you decided we can no longer be trusted with them?

Of course all handguns are out? Even revolvers? Even if I weld shut three holes in the cylinder?

As somebody who claims to like guns and hunting, you just really don't sound like you do. Under your rules the only one I'd be allowed to keep is my biggest and most powerful one--with which I am pretty deadly at over 1000 yds. Doesn't seem too logical. So what sort of handguns (if any) and rifles would King Mark A allow his subjects to own?


EDIT: Attachment added by trackbird (same photo Jon posted a link to).

Attached File(s)

 534103m.jpg ( 7.89K ) Number of downloads: 0

 

[marka]

Howdy,

Mark, without even touching the deeper more fundamental issues, would you clarify this as a "non-hunting, designed for killing people" machine?
(IMG:http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534103m.jpg)

Ironically, work proxy servers block that site as it deals with weapons. :-) I can't see the image here.

I got my first couple of deer with one. As have millions of others, since long before I was born. That particular model has been taking deer, elk, antelope, bear and everything else in this country in three different centuries now. I don't know of any that hold three rounds or less--depending up the round it's chambered for, some hold over 10+ in the tube. But you'd outlaw and confiscate that?

The vast majority of all bolt action hunting rifles hold at least four in the magazine--usually only the big magnums that don't. So I'm wondering what your emotions would allow us to own? Ruger No. 1's and Contenders OK? The fat magnum bolt guns that only hold three? But you'd take away the vast majority of all hunting guns out there, which have been there since the 1800's, because you decided we can no longer be trusted with them?

I'm reminded of my Ithica 20ga pump. Holds five normally, but you're required to install a plug to limit capacity to three for some types of bird hunting (or, at least, you were when I grew up with it in Maine). Magazine / tube capacity can be changed.

Of course all handguns are out? Even revolvers? Even if I weld shut three holes in the cylinder?

In my hypothetical world, yes. Or do you hunt with revolvers?

As somebody who claims to like guns and hunting, you just really don't sound like you do. Under your rules the only one I'd be allowed to keep is my biggest and most powerful one--with which I am pretty deadly at over 1000 yds. Doesn't seem too logical. So what sort of handguns (if any) and rifles would King Mark A allow his subjects to own?

Dude, its my opinion. You don't need to share it. I'm under no illusions as to whether or not it would successfully be adopted. I'm also under no illusions as to the types of gun violence it would slow down / stop. You're 100% correct that a trained person with a good hunting rifle will be an effective sniper if they choose their place of fire carefully. I'm more interested limiting access to the carjackers, crack head, and mentally disturbed folks.

You may well not agree with me. I very easily could be wrong.

But so is just blithely spouting off "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Mark

[trackbird]

Or do you hunt with revolvers?

Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game.

[marka]

Howdy,

Or do you hunt with revolvers?

Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game.

Many people hunt with a spear too.

Mark

[trackbird]

Howdy,

Or do you hunt with revolvers?

Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game.

Many people hunt with a spear too.

Mark

Mark,

I've met you in person and think you're a bright, level headed guy and I feel that we get along great (and I'm sure that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one). So, with that said, I'll mention that I was trying to seriously answer your question. I'm not sure what your reply has to do with that answer, maybe I just missed it. I think you meant "Many people hunted with a spear", it's not too common these days.

If you want to hunt hippo's with a spear or a knife, you are more than welcome to have at it, same for deer, elk, bison, grizzly bears, etc. It surely can be done, but for the larger critters, I'd suggest a powerful revolver (and practice) or a powerful rifle for the job. Large bore revolvers make excellent hiking weapons in "bear country". They are not large and cumbersome like a rifle, they are packable and can be used to protect yourself from things that might eat you. I'd not want to face a bear with only 3 shots in my revolver (unless it's a .454 Casull or larger, and maybe not even then). Of course, I don't personally spend much time in bear country. I live here:

http://www.10tv.com/?sec=home&story=si.../466791665.html

[marka]

Howdy,

I've met you in person and think you're a bright, level headed guy and I feel that we get along great (and I'm sure that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one). So, with that said, I'll mention that I was trying to seriously answer your question. I'm not sure what your reply has to do with that answer, maybe I just missed it. I think you meant "Many people hunted with a spear", it's not too common these days.

We're going to have to agree to disagree for sure. :-)

When I said that people hunt with a spear too, what I was implying was that I've never met someone who hunted with a pistol, despite growing up in rural Maine being very interested in guns, hunting, etc. etc. In my opinion, someone who chooses to hunt with a pistol isn't someone who's serious about hunting, its someone who likes to show off. That opinion was shared by the other hunters I knew back in the day.

I don't have a problem with not allowing hunting with a pistol.

And, in terms of self defense against animals, you'd be a _lot_ better off with a 12 gauge pump with three rounds of buckshot than you would be with a pistol with 10 bullets. And, in the extremely rare case where you'd want more stopping power, you'd be better off with a rifle (with which you could actually hit something) than you would be with a pistol.

Mark

Howdy,

Well, so much for my hopes that this would sink into oblivion......

To lock, or not to lock, that is the question.....

Hey man, I'd stopped reading the thread, then it popped up again on latest posts... :-)

I'd say locking it would be fine if you wanted to though. Or you could just delete my recent posts if you want.

Whatever.

Mark

This post has been edited by marka: Oct 1 2006, 02:18 AM

[sgarnett]

And, in the extremely rare case where you'd want more stopping power, you'd be better off with a rifle (with which you could actually hit something) than you would be with a pistol.

Any animal I'd be shooting at for self defense would certainly be large enough and close enough to hit with a pistol, and in fact that would be my weapon of choice for speed. Any self defense shot that requires a rifle to hit the target would be really tough to justify as self-defense.

I'm not worried about being attacked by the coyotes. I very rarely see them. However, I did at one time carry a 45 because of a roaming, vicious pair of feral rottweilers.

A case can be made for the shotgun, even though the handgun is much easier to keep, um , at hand, but I'd certainly feel no more comfortable about a whacko carrying a 3 shot pump 12 instead of a 7 shot 45.