[cuponoodle breakfast]

iagree

I am more afraid of people carrying guns around my waters than tweaker or animals. This is too creepy.

I don't want you to panic, but if you've ever seen other anglers on the river, chances are you've been around a few guns without even knowing. Hell, you've probably been around armed people at the grocery store.

 

[djzaro]

my 9mm is too bulky most of the time so my next carry is the S&W ultra light 357. My friend has one and it is great! Tons of knock down power and light as hell. Shooting the 357 rounds are a bit harsh but its nice to be able to pratice with the .38 rounds with it.

 

[Tim Lockhart]

I'll stick w/ my XZ-38 Disintegrator. More than happy with it.

 

[Jim Wallace]

Warm weather, gorgeous women, blue water..... Yeah, I guess that wouldn't be that great.

iagreeAfter living in Hawaii for nearly 10 years, I visited Florida and it sucked immensely. There is no comparison. I couldn't get back to Honolulu fast enough...climate, beaches, people, surf, gorgeous women, integrity in presidential elections....Hawaii kicks butt over Florida in all regards...I'm embarassed to even mention the two states in the same sentence. I lived there nearly 13 years, and I'd go back except i can no longer handle the sun exposure. I never want to go to Florida again. Never.

If I think I need a sidearm, I'm just gonna saw off the barrel of my 12 gage magnum pump, take out the plug, and carry that badboy slung over my shoulder. I don't hunt any more, and that sounds like a good use for it.:rofl:

 

[Be Jofus G]

BTW...IF MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME, HOW DO YOU FIGURE YOUR RIVERSIDE ATTACKER KNOWS YOU HAVE A GUN??? AND HOW DO ALL CRIMINALS EDUCATE THEMSELVES THAT THIS IS A HIGH GUN OWNERSHIP AREA.

The same way non criminals educate themselvs that an area is a high crime area. It's much eaiser to do if one does not have his head up his own butt. It is legal to carry a side arm if a background check is passed and Kent has every right to ask about the quality and usefullness of this firearm. These are questions responsible gun owners ask. A gun is a tool. Would you stomp on a carpenters thread if he was asking if a Stilleto or FatMax was a better framing hammer? Why not? A framing hammer is just as deadly as a gun? Start you own thread and stomp on it.

 

[937]

I'm not going to go on a quote spree here to show that some of you don't read these posts or just can't comprehend what is being said. I didn't say that more guns=less crime.

Most criminals are NOT LEGAL GUN OWNERS. Therefore toss them out of your argument. What I said was in areas where there is a higher level of people carrying LEGALLY the crime rates are lower. I'm also not saying that everyone should be carrying a gun. I'm saying that a resonsible citizen should be allowed to carry if they see the need for it.

The only people you really need to concern yourself with are the criminals. I have my own reasons for wanting to carry a sidearm and I don't think you'd be in any danger fishing the same waters with me.

 

[Pieter Salverda]

The same way non criminals educate themselvs that an area is a high crime area. It's much eaiser to do if one does not have his head up his own butt. It is legal to carry a side arm if a background check is passed and Kent has every right to ask about the quality and usefullness of this firearm. These are questions responsible gun owners ask. A gun is a tool. Would you stomp on a carpenters thread if he was asking if a Stilleto or FatMax was a better framing hammer? Why not? A framing hammer is just as deadly as a gun? Start you own thread and stomp on it.

I think this is the perfect solution. I am going to start carrying a framing hammer for protection.

I have yet to see anyone attack Kent for making a post and asking a valid question, but I think equating the dangers of carrying a gun vs. a framing hammer is the most sensless argument I have ever seen. I think what some people love about about the good ol' U.S. of A is the right to carry a firearm, the same way I love the right to voice our F'ing opinion. I haven't seen the rule that says all responses on this board must be in total agreement with the original post. Aren't these the liberties we are all trying to protect? Being equally able to voice our opinion as a form of protection is the same a carrying a gun (or framing hammer if you are so bold) with which to potentially kill someone, is it not? Or, are we now ranking the importance of our constitutional rights?

And to answer your question. NO, a framing hammer is not as deadly as a gun!

 

[Tony Mull]

I used to know guys who deer hunted in brush with .410 slugs and did well. at short range ie indoors, like in a courtroom either shot or a slug would slow someone down. yeah i have used a gun while fishing and sure as hell wished i had one on a couple of other occassions, but they were all in alaska. on one trip to Ross Lake when Big Beaver first opened back up I don't think I would have slept all week had I not had a gun (didn't sleep well anyway) as we saw black bear sign everywhere and knew they were nearby. I have a short barrell side by side 12 guage that's always been my favorite for protection when i seriously thought i needed it. slugs during the day and 00 buck at night. when a bear charges you will be lucky to get off one shot, why not make it a double.

 

[Be Jofus G]

I think this is the perfect solution. I am going to start carrying a framing hammer for protection.

I have yet to see anyone attack Kent for making a post and asking a valid question, but I think equating the dangers of carrying a gun vs. a framing hammer is the most sensless argument I have ever seen. I think what some people love about about the good ol' U.S. of A is the right to carry a firearm, the same way I love the right to voice our F'ing opinion. I haven't seen the rule that says all responses on this board must be in total agreement with the original post. Aren't these the liberties we are all trying to protect? Being equally able to voice our opinion as a form of protection is the same a carrying a gun (or framing hammer if you are so bold) with which to potentially kill someone, is it not? Or, are we now ranking the importance of our constitutional rights?

And to answer your question. NO, a framing hammer is not as deadly as a gun!

The comparison I was drawing that if either "tool" is used improperly for malicious intent it is a deadly weapon and the discussion about that has a time and place. A sidearm is a tool, nothing more or less. This thead was about the usefullness of a "tool" as it pertains to fishing, not constitutional rights or anything like that. If you want to voice an opinion go to a voting booth or start a gun rights debate thread. I thought this discussion was supposed to be about the quality and usability of a particular wheelgun.

How can one object be "more deadly" than another object? Last time I heard there was no such thing as sort of dead or kinda dead or really really dead.

 

[Kent Lufkin]

Sheesh, I was simply posting a question about a firearm and had no intention of it becoming a referendum on whether or not carrying a handgun should be legal, on the water or off. (For the record, I have a CWP and do carry a lightweight .357 on some outings.)

Nor, for that matter, was my post ever meant to be interpreted as whether the firearm in question would/could be as good as a long barrel shotgun. I thought I was pretty clear in stating that the gun in question was intended for personal protection at close range, NOT bird hunting or paper plate shooting.

But for all those who weighed in on one side or the other of the handgun ownership issue, the question is now on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for their upcoming session. Here's a summary of the case and its background:

Handgun Ban and the Second Amendment

And finally, pending before the court is a major gun case. At issue is the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, which was struck down by a federal appeals court earlier this year. Lawyers for the District, and for gun owners have asked the court to review the decision. If the justices do, their eventual ruling would be the first on the Second Amendment to the Constitution since 1939.

The amendment says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Did the founders mean a collective right to bear arms, aimed at maintaining state militias, or an individual right to own a gun? When the court last ruled on this question 68 years ago, it seemed to side with the notion of a collective right. But in recent times, gun owners have gained new scholarly backing for the idea that the amendment was intended to apply to individuals.

Many, if not all of these cases, could be decided by 5-4 votes. Odds are the court's conservative majority will continue to close the courthouse door to civil rights and other plaintiffs, but that is a welcome trend in a business community that complains it is besieged by lawsuits. On the other hand, Supreme Court watchers predict that liberals may win a number of significant victories this term.​

Stay tuned.

K

 

[Be Jofus G]

Sheesh, I was simply posting a question about a firearm and had no intention of it becoming a referendum on whether or not carrying a handgun should be legal, on the water or off. (For the record, I have a CWP and do carry a lightweight .357 on some outings.)

Nor, for that matter, was my post ever meant to be interpreted as whether the firearm in question would/could be as good as a long barrel shotgun. I thought I was pretty clear in stating that the gun in question was intended for personal protection at close range, NOT bird hunting or paper plate shooting.

Uhm paper plate shooting or patterning and the like is a method to determine how it will perform in various situations. How else will you figure out how much metal you will shoot into whatever it is you are aiming at without paper testing at various distances and marking your pattern? a paper plate works well because that is about the max pattern size that will have any real stopping effect on anything. I really don't see any advantage over the 357 unless you are fishing in rattler country and that's only if that pistol will pass a "paper plate" test at 15 - 20 feet. I suspect it won't, but who knows.

 

[Kent Lufkin]

Uhm paper plate shooting or patterning and the like is a method to determine how it will perform in various situations. How else will you figure out how much metal you will shoot into whatever it is you are aiming at without paper testing at various distances and marking your pattern? a paper plate works well because that is about the max pattern size that will have any real stopping effect on anything. I really don't see any advantage over the 357 unless you are fishing in rattler country and that's only if that pistol will pass a "paper plate" test at 15 - 20 feet. I suspect it won't, but who knows.

Umm, the gun was designed for use at more like 5-10 feet, so yes it probably will fail. In any case, if it doesn't seem practical to you, don't buy one. Hell, I'm sure not going to when I can borrow my neighbor's

K

 

[Richard E]

Be Jofus G's response wasn't related to the initial post by Kent, but rather directed at Stiff Legged Van Rossi (which is why Be Jofus G used Rossi's quote in the response.

Pieter, it appears you went on a tangent . . .

I think this is the perfect solution. I am going to start carrying a framing hammer for protection.

I have yet to see anyone attack Kent for making a post and asking a valid question, but I think equating the dangers of carrying a gun vs. a framing hammer is the most sensless argument I have ever seen. I think what some people love about about the good ol' U.S. of A is the right to carry a firearm, the same way I love the right to voice our F'ing opinion. I haven't seen the rule that says all responses on this board must be in total agreement with the original post. Aren't these the liberties we are all trying to protect? Being equally able to voice our opinion as a form of protection is the same a carrying a gun (or framing hammer if you are so bold) with which to potentially kill someone, is it not? Or, are we now ranking the importance of our constitutional rights?

And to answer your question. NO, a framing hammer is not as deadly as a gun!

 

[Be Jofus G]

Umm, the gun was designed for use at more like 5-10 feet, so yes it probably will fail. In any case, if it doesn't seem practical to you, don't buy one. Hell, I'm sure not going to when I can borrow my neighbor's

K

Post back after you get to shoot it a few times and pattern it out. I'd be interested in hearing how it performs. It's not that it doesn't seem practicle, I just doesn't seem any "more" practicle than a nice lightweight 357, unless you are loading it with 5 45 longs. :beer2: a 410 is probably not going to stop a full grown man running full bore at you, with a framming hammer, in his tracks, which I would think would be the desired effect if said assailant is already 5 - 10 feet away from you.

 

[Kent Lufkin]

a 410 is probably not going to stop a full grown man running full bore at you with a framming hammer in his tracks, which I would think would be the desired effect if said assailant is already 5 - 10 feet away from you.

Coffee just came out my nose! That's the best laugh I've had all week - thanks!

K

 

[Be Jofus G]

Coffee just came out my nose! That's the best laugh I've had all week - thanks!

K

Any time man

 

[Fishful Thinking]

What I find interesting about Cliff"s story (a horrible experience, to be sure), is that what saved him wasn't a gun, it was running away. If Cliff had had his gun ready, how would that story have panned out? Would Cliff have engaged in a gunfight? .22 vs. .44? Even with his current .38, it seems likely that the outcome wouldn't have been as good if Cliff had decided to fight it out instead of doing what he did. The assailant had the advantage, with a spot and an intention to kill. Cliff was assuredly paniced and probably would have found it difficult to obtain a sight picture, so probably would not have hit his target. I know running away doesn't feel as manly as shooting it out, but I bet his wife and kids don't care....My conclusion as a gun owner is that it is a tool of absolute last defence, only to be used when getting out of harm's way is not an option. Then, it's shoot to kill. S&W .357 magnum, seven shot. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cliff]

What I find interesting about Cliff"s story (a horrible experience, to be sure), is that what saved him wasn't a gun, it was running away. If Cliff had had his gun ready, how would that story have panned out? Would Cliff have engaged in a gunfight? .22 vs. .44? Even with his current .38, it seems likely that the outcome wouldn't have been as good if Cliff had decided to fight it out instead of doing what he did. The assailant had the advantage, with a spot and an intention to kill. Cliff was assuredly paniced and probably would have found it difficult to obtain a sight picture, so probably would not have hit his target. I know running away doesn't feel as manly as shooting it out, but I bet his wife and kids don't care....My conclusion as a gun owner is that it is a tool of absolute last defence, only to be used when getting out of harm's way is not an option. Then, it's shoot to kill. S&W .357 magnum, seven shot. Just my 2 cents.

Fishful Thinking:

A very good question, and one which I probably should have commented upon in my original post. After this goofy thing happened to me I had any number of friends say something to me like, "if I had my gun with me I would have fired right back", or "I would have let him have it with a full magazine of 9mm's". etc. Even if I would have had an Uzi with me I would have done the very same thing - run for my life. I had, and have no intention of ever wanting to become involved in a situation like that with some buttwhacky woods-loper. It would have been a LOT more comforting, though, if I had my handgun with me while I was trying to hide on that hillside. I was utterly defenseless and I was fully expecting to be hunted down and shot. That was my point about being armed in the boonies.

Cliff

 

[fredaevans]

I'm suprised that I have never though of a side arm where I fish. I get as far off the beaten path as I can get sometimes. I know that there are Bears up where I go and Bull Moose. I only got out of the Upper Ruby one time because there was something in the bushes rattling around. But as for snakes, since I've been in Montana I have only seen one snake and it was a garder snake about 18" long.

Jim

Have to agree with the general sentiment above. REALLY want to scare hell out of 'someone/something?' Bring along your 'red-headed' wife. By the way ... what's a 'garder snake?' Sounds dangerous!!

 

[Gary Thompson]

First I would like to say. There have been a lot of good comments about carrying a side arm for self defense, while fishing or not.
I have fired shot shells in my .22 and was not to impressed I don't think the 410 shot shell would be any better, 410 slug might work very well at short range (25 yds).
I have a Colt 45 peace maker and I like the way the .45 long colt preforms, even out to 50 yards.
If I were to go fishing in a place where bad bears were a problem I would carry a short barrel 12 or 20 gage shot gun with 00.
My .02 on the anti-gun thing is to disarm the law abiding so the dicktaters of the world can take over without much fight. It has nothing to do with having a safer world.