This is "what I'm talkin' about"Along with your new boots, something like this would really show them you mean business.
View attachment 267534
I did. I don't see how that, in it's entirety, would ever make it through committee. It's beyond "pie in the sky control". I had to re-read the fine schedule....really? She appears to be doing a pretty decent job, in many areas, for Texas and I will leave it at that.So, how many of you took the time to read this? Every word...
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr127ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr127ih.pdf
If this goes through you may as well turn in all your guns. Contact your representatives and convince them this is dead wrong.
Seems crazy.. I don’t think it will pass at all.So, how many of you took the time to read this? Every word...
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr127ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr127ih.pdf
If this goes through you may as well turn in all your guns. Contact your representatives and convince them this is dead wrong.
Who is Raz Simone?I'm surprised that no one on this thread has asked the most important question concerning guns at this junction in our national history. When Raz Simone signature model AR coming out?
According to what I am reading handguns have a 90+% effectiveness rate of having ended bear attacks. This is based on actual bear encounters. Nothing theoretical. Many of the encounters with 22 calibers, of course this is all bears not just grizz.
73 documented bear attacks. Hsndguns 96% effectiveness in stopping the attack. Many of these after bear spray failed.
Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n = 162) of bear-firearms incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear.
Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including lack of time to respond to the bear (27%), did not use the firearm (21%), mechanical issues (i.e., jamming; 14%), the proximity to bear was too close for deployment (9%), the shooter missed the bear (9%), the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded (8%), the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun (8%), people tripped and fell while trying to shoot the bear (3%), and the firearm’s discharge reportedly trig-gered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun (1%).
We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms.
Bears protecting cubs or a food source are aggressive by nature. Killing bears in such a situation is not a good thing.Hmmm i don't think such modeling makes better data. The best data available is the stories of actual encounters and how they were ended.
Sometimes we study too much and end up ignoring common sense. Just tell us what happened in each of those 200+ encounters.
Ohh and aggressive bears being shot to dearh... is a good thing, no matter the reason for their aggression.