New anti-gun legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

JayB

Active Member
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?
 

WAS

Active Member
I did.
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.
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.
 

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
Yeah, it seems intended to do away with all private firearm and ammo ownership. I'll be surprised if this makes it out of committee.
 

jaredoconnor

WFF Supporter
I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my (probably redundant) 2 cents.

Regarding gun control, I think America can and should do a lot more. I'm from a country (Australia) that has much more stringent gun control and it works; gun violence is basically non-existent. I would never own a gun in my home country. That said, the police force is significantly better than it is here. When my wife and I buy a house, buying a gun and getting some training will be one of the first things I do.

Regarding bear protection, I did a tonne of research on this before I moved to the USA. Apparently, handguns are ineffective, shotguns can be effective and bear spray is most effective. With a 44 magnum, you must shoot the bear in the brain or destroy a limb, which is extremely unlikely in a high stress situation. If you shoot a bear in the heart, it often still has enough time and oxygen in its blood to kill you. Any other shot will enrage the bear further and decrease the probability of survival. I found some evidence that you are actually more likely to die, if you try to shoot a bear with a handgun, than if you do nothing. Shotguns have all the same problems, except that the probability of brain damage or limb removal is higher. Bear spray is far more effective than either. If you hit the bear with spray, it can't see or smell you. If you fail to hit the bear with spray, you're more likely to survive the mauling.
 
Last edited:

BDD

Active Member
In this clip Clint effectively shows the differences of hitting your target when using hand guns and shotguns.


With pepper spray, the bear lives. With guns, you are more likely to become more proficient than administering pepper spray. What is the best? I imagine it depends on the person and the situation.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
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.
 
Last edited:

jaredoconnor

WFF Supporter
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.

Can you post the source? I'm guessing its the "research" below. That's not exactly a good source.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/ha...r-attack-73-cases-96-effective/#axzz6mEhsAyKS

I'm trying to find the research that I read, but it was too long ago for me to remember. It might have been one of the ones below.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...acy_of_Firearms_for_Bear_Deterrence_in_Alaska
https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2193/2006-452

Below are some quotes.

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.

I only gave it a quick skim, but I think I remember now that the thing about being more likely to die was only in close encounters or something to that effect. Also, my point about shotguns was maybe inferred or from somewhere else, because those studies say there wasn't a big difference between the gun types.
 
Last edited:

Rob Allen

Active Member
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.
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
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.
Bears protecting cubs or a food source are aggressive by nature. Killing bears in such a situation is not a good thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info
Top