Posted on 01/06/2003 9:07:13 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:12:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I wasn't paying attention to posters names and was responding to the above post from rabidone without realizing that you had chimed in.
Handguns not made for hunting, TW. They are designed for killing things at close range.
I dissagree with this statement of yours.
I have several handguns that are designed specifically for hunting, one which I seldom take a shot at less than 100 yards. I can consistently kill deer and other game at this distance. And a 22 cal revolver I've had since '68 isn't much for self defence but with a 9.5 onch bbl, its deadly for squirrels and rabbits.
Possibility does not equal intent!
Your bias and ignorance are showing again. I specifically cited a number of my handguns that are for nothing but hunting. They are entirely unsuitable for "self-defense" against a human adversary. You would be in a hell of a lot of trouble if you "defended" yourself with a .45-70 revolver or a .454 Casull or a .44 Magnum. Those firearms are designed to be "backup" when hunting dangerous game with a rifle OR as the primary firearm for taking moose, elk or deer. I NEVER have any of those firearms loaded on my premises. Ditto for the .22 cal pistols. Using something that small for self defense is asking for failure.
The firearms that are intended to "kill people" for self defense are the .357 Mag, .38SPL, .40S&W, .45ACP, 9mm or 44SPL. When loaded for self defense, I select a high velocity jacketed hollow point. Federal Hydra-Shok is the "law enforcement" favorite. If you must defend your choice of ammo in court, selecting the same stuff used by local law enforcement causes minimal objection. When used at the range for "plinking", they shoot FMJ, DEWC or FN profile bullets. These firearms are NEVER taken in the field as "backup" for hunting.
The .45-70 revolver is perfectly good for moose and deer at 200 yards with iron sights. No less than 10 other people in town have taken deer and moose with that firearm.
You are apparently not familiar with "cowboy action shooting" either. That is a firearms related activity that is as much wrapped up in authentic costumes as shooting activities. Nobody goes to such activities with the intent to kill a human at close range. The people at the Monday night bullseye tournaments would take offense at your attitude as well.
We're talking design here, TW. Hammers don't drive nails, either, but that's what they're for.
Yeah, yeah. If a person buys a gun for self-defense -- which is why most people buy guns -- they're buying them to kill humans.
This is fine with me -- some folks just need killing. But let's not play stupid semantic games about what handguns are "really for." They're for killing people.
More BS. My firearms are principally for my entertainment at the range. It's been 20 years since I even had time to go hunting. The probability that my handguns will even be needed to defend against a human is very small. As previously noted, most use of a handgun results in the criminal backing off in preference to being shot. The consequences of actually shooting someone are a legal morass that nobody wants. Assuming that your defense is found to be legitimate (not criminal), you still face the possibility of a civil suit by the person shot or that person's survivors. You will likely be out $75,000 to $100,000 for legal expenses alone. All because some criminal placed you in a position to make a life or death choice.
The Freep actually published NRA gun safety rules? And credited them properly? Knock me over with a feather...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.