I simply don't see any legitimate lawful reason for almost any civilian to be carrying any loaded long rifle (military style or otherwise) in most public places, yet many gun owners seem to assert that this act is the very essence of the second amendment.
Oh, I see your point now.
Yeah, it's very hard to "carry" a loaded long gun without it seeming like "brandishing." And most people I know (myself included) think that the Texas "protests" with open-carrying of long-guns are doing more harm than good.
The one thing that can be said in their defense is that the Texas law regarding open carry is pretty nuts. The cause of the protest is to point out the sheer nuttiness of a law that precludes open-carry of handguns (holstered) but does nothing to preclude the open CARRY (a virtual necessity) of loaded long guns, which, as you rightly note, strike most people as far more threatening!
Most of those people don't want to open carry long guns around. They want to open carry holstered handguns around. But the (inane) law precludes sensible, (to most people) non-threatening holstered handgun carry.
At least here in Colorado, quite a few people open-carry holstered handguns, and nobody seems to even notice. So, there's a cultural aspect as well. But even in Colorado, I don't think the public wants to see loaded long guns (which are necessarily unholstered) open-carried!
I am sympathetic to the principle behind the Texas protest but also think that these people are actually harming the big-picture public perception! There are other means by which to get the law changed, including mass-scale civil disobedience by open-carrying holstered handguns, which IS what they want the law to allow.
Anyway, yeah, I agree that open-carrying loaded long guns legitimately feels threatening to most people, and the cause of the sane gun-carrying public is not helped by this form of "protest."
I don't care if he's a lone nut or fifty thousand principled rebels, the second amendment wasn't intended to require "we the people" to stand idly by until triggers are pulled. Loaded long rifles no longer have any lawful purpose in a public place therefore should be considered an implicit threat to "we the people".
Agreed also. And fifty-thousand wouldn't even start to get the job done.
Furthermore, if it comes to that, the whole question will be WHO "we the people" consists of!
So, yeah, there is something non-self-defense feeling about open-carrying loaded long guns in public.
I understand the point of the Texas protests, even if I don't sympathize, but I'm referring to the apparent legal inability to deal with the Bundy confrontation, and to the almost inevitable terrorist act which will take advantage of this absurdity in many state laws.
The practicalities of unloading a flintlock firearm and the relatively minor public danger of a lunatic or fanatic armed with one shaped the checks and balances arguments of the 1780's. That equation has changed beyond recognition, and our laws should too. There is no constitutional reason that can't happen except that the gun lobby knows the ultimate result would be lower gun sales, and therefore they oppose any efforts to reduce gun deaths and injuries, whether it be by criminals, lunatics or by the currently lawful negligence of gun owners.
If being a relativist means that I'm willing to sacrifice a narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle for laws that save more innocent lives than they cost, then I'm a relativist.
...our laws should too.... If being a relativist means that I'm willing to sacrifice a narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle....
Can you tell me how exactly you'd like to see the laws change to save so many innocent lives?
And can you tell me what "narrow self-serving interpretation of an abstract philosophical principle" you refer to? I'd like to know what your perspective is of what makes it "self-serving" and exactly what principle you think is "serving self" by some "narrow interpretation."
Ron, rang the 8" steel @ 200m yesterday despite my feeble 52yr old eyes with my No4 Mk1 lend lease made by savage .303
That 72 year old rifle is still smooth as silk and a straight shooter.
Thoughts on 30-.06 for an elk rifle? I am looking at the Winchester model 70 Super Grade.
I have a different view on the 30.06 for an elk rifle. Although this trusted and true cartridge was very popular for many years, it time has for the most part gone. Please let me explain.
What type of terrain do you plan to hunt? How far will animals on your hunt typically be when they can be shot? How much time do you have shooting, and are you proficient at shooting a big game caliber?
All questions and a hundred more would have to be answered honestly for anyone to even begin to be able to answer this question, for you!
Example, prior to the woods here bing over run with wolves, a typical mule deer shot could be anywhere from five yards to up to and uncluding 200 yards. Mule deer are not typically as tough as an elk, but you must place a shot well at the upper end, say 200 yards to have a clean humane kill almost assured, beyond that would be foolish without some considerable skills. Now that the wolves have ruined any form of outdoor activity as we used to know it, mule deer can only be rarely spotted anywhere under 700 to 2000 yards.
I use this example for a reason, stick with me please. My regular mule deer partner have a long history of time together and both have considerable ability at distance with our arms. When changes were occuring to our hunting, I changed to a much more modern caliber than I used to use, because the 7mm Magnum could only do the job well for a limited distance, and my abilities exceeded, as well as opportunities exceeded the range of this rifle. It is more than capable, at one time of up to 500 yards, with 300 being a more realistic range.
My partner carries the exact rifle you mentioned, and has done well with it for many decades, and so has his father. Now with changes and distances involved, he has been forced to shoot at the upper end of the range, and believe it or not, lost a well shot deer at the closer end of our now days range. Twice! We did put in our time and many really rotten miles trying everything to recover these animals, but in two instances and several days spent tracking and trying to recover them, the animals were lost.
The point, it once was a great all around gun for novice and experienced enthusiast alike, but not so today. All the stars and planets would have to be positioned right to get to use a rifle with this caliber and be doing the right thing. Can it kill an elk at 1000 yards? Yes absolutely,but only in hands capable of shooting way beyond anything you or I can. Is it good for elk hunting at 200 yards? Yes, and no. This is where the questions asked above come into play. Can you off hand, while possibly out of breath, without a bench, hit the boilerroom of a moving target, which is about the size of a bowling ball or even smaller, EVERY TIME? At 200 yards? If your answer is yes, by all means I would encourage you to do so. If your answer is anything but Yes, I would encourage you to gander at the hundred or so calibers and cartridges developed since then and find a more suitable tool.
This wasn't intended to downplay any other opinion, or insult any one else. It was intended as a small eye opener as to the thoughts that one should ponder prior to a hunting rifle of any use. I would say the same of the .308, maybe even 7mm, and hope you take time to make a more informed decision. One based of your ability, intended use and range, etc., etc..
ok folks, back to the discusion at hand.
Burly Bob
PS, for anyone considering posting a link or clip of gun stupidity, another week has gone by, and my guns, carried and used daily have gone through nearly a 1000 rounds of ammo with no incidents or accidents. Not a single complaint, no laws broken, and no fear instilled in the people. carry on.
Can it kill an elk at 1000 yards? Yes absolutely,but only in hands capable of shooting way beyond anything you or I can. Is it good for elk hunting at 200 yards? Yes, and no. This is where the questions asked above come into play. Can you off hand, while possibly out of breath, without a bench, hit the boilerroom of a moving target, which is about the size of a bowling ball or even smaller, EVERY TIME? At 200 yards?
Good comments Bob... Although here in Konnecticut we'd never be legally hunting out to 1000 yards I frequently see "hunters" lined up right before opening day at the range unable to hit the paper at 200 yards... From a bench... not out of breath... etc....
The old questions of "Can it...... " are often best answered with.... "Can YOU....."....
Good comments Bob... Although here in Konnecticut we'd never be legally hunting out to 1000 yards I frequently see "hunters" lined up right before opening day at the range unable to hit the paper at 200 yards... From a bench... not out of breath... etc....
The old questions of "Can it...... " are often best answered with.... "Can YOU....."....
Stick with .338 Lapua.... :)
You made me laugh so hard I have bubbles coming out of my nose. It isn't just your locale that the phenomenon of people lining up to "sight in their rifles" for the season and can't hit sh!t. I usually avoid watching this sh!t show as much as possible.
It isn't only the lapua that can do the job at this range, and I wouldn't want to eat the mess left afterward, that thing has very few uses in the hunting world.
Comes more back to the old "ethics" thing, every time. Tried to not use the word, but it fits. I have only shot one animal at this range, and if had it to do over, wouldn't take the shot again. That is a long ways, and although my practice plate is 10 inches by 11 1/2 inches, and can be struck at this range and beyond repeatedly, it still wouldn't be right to take a cold bore shot with unkown air conditions at this range ethically, for me. Can I do it? Probably. Should I? Absolutely not with my current abilities. That shot was taken succesfully in the early eighties, and I have considerable more experienc now.
Summary:
Doesn't much matter what you shoot. Get proficient with it, and know both your limits and your gun's limits. Some calibers are more capable than others, and some people can do more with less. Other's can't hit the broad side of a barn from 5 feet with a shotgun.
tradEddie, so what you are really saying is that since our GOVT now has formidable personal firearms, that we the people should no longer have an equal means of self preservation?
I never said that you can't have the means of self preservation, but unless you can provide me an example of a non-insurgent reason to carry a loaded formidable firearm in a crowded public place, doing so should be regarded as an explicit threat to democracy and the rule of law, and the majority of "we the people" should be able to use the rule of law to preserve it.
Madbolter, to borrow a phrase, safe, legal and relatively rare is how I'd like to see gun ownership or gun carrying. To do that, we need to reduce the urge (and need) of people to own and carry a gun that is far more likely to injure their spouse or children than prevent a life-threatening crime. It's trivially easy for criminals and lunatics to get guns, and that needs to change.
We agree on universal background checks, if not on the level of government to best perform them. If you remain skeptical about their effectiveness, go to any popular gun sale website, select a state without universal background checks, and search for "no background check". Count how many "law abiding" gun owners are openly and legally offering to sell guns to criminals. See also the number of dealers who need to point out they will do a background check, to reduce the barrage of online inquiries from criminals. Some criminals will always be able to get guns, but guns are not like drugs, the market is tiny, illegal trade is not self-sustaining, the same profit margins are not there. Lunatics and the less motivated will choose less lethal tools. Take your own critical look at the raw numbers from states with and without universal background checks.
The penalties for negligent gun dealers are laughable, with almost no risk of serious prosecution for dealers who lose the paperwork and sell guns on the side. Ron boasts that his store exceeds federal security requirements, but there are no federal requirements, merely recommendations. Many first-time dealer offenses are merely misdemeanors, prosecutors are not going to build an expensive case for such crimes.
We've been over this before. The gun industry opposes any effective measures because effective measures would reduce gun sales, directly by preventing criminal purchases, and indirectly by reducing crime and thereby reducing legitimate demand. They rally around this small-government rhetoric because they, like many corporations, know that Big Government is a far bigger threat to corporate profits than it is to the well-being of its citizens.
I carry a "loaded formidable firearm" in public every day.... I'm hardly an insurgent. What's the measure for something you're personally "comfortable" with? Why should your comfort matter assuming you're in no real danger?
I agree that the clowns in Texas open carrying various rifles slung in the front in restaurants certainly seems childish to me. I would not be comfortable sitting with my family in a public place with 10 20-something asshats so equipped trying to make a statement. I'd most likely just leave.
That being said, if they were not carrying such rifles in an unsafe manner there is no crime or real danger and I'd absolutely respect their right to do so even though I wouldn't be "comfortable" with it.
I'm not comfortable with a lot of things people do every day. I don't like being at parties where people are shitfaced drunk and/or high.... Too bad for me.
It's a dangerous thing to try and legislate one's "comfort". We live, or at least used to, in a country based on freedom and liberty. That means sometimes sacrificing your comfort for peoples rights to live as they choose.
And just when I think we're on the same page, it all goes to hell in a handbasket. Sigh
Madbolter, to borrow a phrase, safe, legal and relatively rare is how I'd like to see gun ownership or gun carrying.
Why "relatively rare"?
In Colorado, law enforcement states that they wish every law-abiding citizen was packing. The Sheriff that granted my CCW stated to the whole group of us there that day (over fifty just that one day out of five that week) that he supports CCW because he believes that an armed citizenry is the FIRST line of defense against crime. I could go on. I, for one, just don't even go a STEP down the road you suggest: "Relatively rare" should instead be, "VERY common, coupled with well-trained."
To do that, we need to reduce the urge (and need) of people to own and carry a gun that is far more likely to injure their spouse or children than prevent a life-threatening crime.
Nope, again, not going there with you. The need and urge is real and legitimate. That's one you are not going to get me to agree with you about.
Even if that study I quoted was an order of magnitude off (no way, not even the critics claim that!), that would still be at least an order of magnitude more legitimate uses each year than idiots and negligents doing dumb things. This is one that you're just not gonna convince me on. I'll always ante up for more training and better lock-down of unattended firearms. But your above statement about "more likely" just isn't getting off the ground with me.
It's trivially easy for criminals and lunatics to get guns, and that needs to change.
Yup. Agreed. And that has very, very little to do with your above statements.
We agree on universal background checks, if not on the level of government to best perform them. If you remain skeptical about their effectiveness....
I'm not skeptical that they can do SOME good. That's enough for me, as I've said. Let's not start up a disagreement where we don't actually have one. Your above points provide plenty of grist for that mill already!
The penalties for negligent gun dealers are laughable, with almost no risk of serious prosecution for dealers who lose the paperwork and sell guns on the side.
Fine, but I'm less sympathetic about this than you would think I should be, because I think we have SO many other FAR more damaging and pressing enforcement problems than this.
One of my good, good friends and her daughter were recently hit by a drunk driver, which totaled their new car, put both of them in the hospital for over a week, and now has both of them (particularly my friend) suffering from what looks to be such severe concussions that it means permanent brain damage. She has been an excellent, highly-evaluated, middle-school teacher and just two weeks ago tried to go back to work. It's not looking good. Her evaluations went through the floor, and they are talking about her not being fit to continue. She honestly can barely think coherently now. It's a struggle for her to keep two sentences together on the same topic.
So, her car cannot be replaced by insurance (you know how a new car goes when totaled: underwater). Her insurance company is saying that she can only get medical coverage, etc. up to the limits of the drunk driver's insurance policy, which was the minimum-legal (of course). Nobody is covering her now massive medical bills. She's looking at suing, but the 30-year-old drunk driver is a loser working in fast food and not, shall we say, upwardly mobile, so will never have money to speak of.
And the drunk driver is about to get a plea-bargain to do 48-hours in jail and six months of probation.
This woman (I really struggle to not explode in pejorative terms!) ruined my friend's and her daughter's lives. I mean, literally, no-exaggeration ruined. Nothing will every be like it was, even close: health, career, car, loss of house due to catastrophic medical expenses... it goes on and on. And the drunk driver is going to WALK with six month's probation! No fines. No requirement to devote 1/4 (at least) of her paycheck for the next 20 years to even START to make up for the damage she did. She just basically walks!
And she is the tip of the iceberg, and that pisses me off a LOT more than the tiny proportion of bad shoots that take place in this country (we're 1/3 of a BILLION people, remember!).
So, you start talking about throwing away the key on people like this drunk driver, and I'll start having a shred of sympathy about another enforcement hobby horse!
TE, it seems that whenever we get close to a pretty sweeping agreement, you make some envelope-edge comments that push me way back from you again.
It's a dangerous thing to try and legislate one's "comfort". We live, or at least used to, in a country based on freedom and liberty. That means sometimes sacrificing your comfort for peoples rights to live as they choose.
And THAT, my friend, is where the rubber meets the road!
I 'spose that drunk should just be able to live his life as he chooses, right? Why should he (or the legal system) be concerned about someone's comfort at the expense of winoman's right to live free?
The world has definitely gone wrong when the man is even shooting sovereigns.
Florida Deputies Kill 'Sovereign Citizen' After Ambush in Florida
A 10-year-old girl accidentally shot her 8-year-old sister with her father’s service weapon Friday morning after he left it on the bed while getting ready for work, police said.
The girl's injury does not appear to be life threatening, Fresno Police Lt. Joe Gomez said.
The girls' father is a deputy with the Madera County Sheriff's Department, Fresno Police Lt. Joe Gomez said. The man was getting ready for work about 7:48 a.m. and placed his service weapon on the bed before heading into the bathroom, Gomez said.
There was one bullet in the handgun's chamber. The magazine had been removed, he said.
While he was in the bathroom, his daughters entered the bedroom.
The older girl picked up the handgun and accidentally shot her younger sister, Gomez said.
Officers arrived at the home in the area of Bullard and Cornelia avenues and found the injured girl.
The girl suffered one gunshot wound to her lower torso and was taken to an area hospital, where she was in stable condition.
Gomez, who also has two young daughters, said that as a police officer, he worries about keeping his weapon out of reach of his daughters and younger family members.
The question for law enforcement officers who take their guns home with them is, "What do you do with your weapon?" he said.
Fortunately the young girl will survive.
If only someone in that home had been trained in the responsible use of handguns, this wouldn't have happened.
If only someone in that home had been trained in the responsible use of handguns, this wouldn't have happened.
I totally agree. As many professional trainers will attest, cops are among the most poorly-trained people that carry guns every day. In general they have terrible shooting skills, coupled with little motivation to improve... they are supposed to keep the things holstered, and it's an "event" if they ever do fire the things off at somebody!
And the whole "one in the chamber, but the magazine had been removed" bit? LOL... yeah, that's some "trained" clearing of the weapon.
Yup, there you have it: our "defenders," so says the anti-gun crowd. With the cops around to protect us from harm, what individual could ever have a legitimate need or even desire to carry a gun in public for self-protection?
I cringe every time it's cop day at our range. They take the place over and then generally proceed to act like asshats with poor muzzle discipline, fingers on triggers, improper clearing of weapons, etc. And boy do we get dirty looks when we say anything.....
Let us know!