|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 17, 2013 13:27:43 GMT -5
Awww.....mighty cute little guy, even with the mouse under the eye.
You know, if the lawn ornament wasn't homemade, and the instructions didn't expressly concern the dangers inherent in little kids using it for a tackling dummy, you might be entitled to compensation....
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 15, 2013 10:36:38 GMT -5
Agree with timex on this one.....the study is really comparing the sizes of antlers measured for scoring in a different era to those measured for scoring today, and assuming that the results will be the same as comparing the average antler size on the antlered critters roaming the countryside during those time periods.
Lots of factors could be responsible for a difference in antler sizes on the animals actually still carrying them around out there, if there indeed is a difference.
But the most likely answer is that a study of antlers measured for scoring a hundred years ago could reap far different results than one done today due to the human factors involving how many hunters would have them scored and why.
I have real nice CO muley 5x5 rack hanging in my garage, currently holding a lot of archery stuff up off my cluttered workbench. I didn't shoot it. I stayed in a motel in Ridgway on a hunting trip in '74, and the owner of the motel asked me if I wanted it. A guy who stayed there the previous fall rifle season had killed the buck and brought the rack down to the room, then decided after they measured it that he wasn't interested in keeping it, and left it behind. Even just 37 years ago, that rack was worthless to him if it didn't get real close to record dimensions, and not worth carrying home to other guys who had been offered the opportunity before I came along. And I only took it because I thought it would make a neat rack to hold some of my seldom-used archery items out of the way in the garage.
Seems like every barn and many porches were decorated with antlers and horns in the areas of the west I hunted, and some were fairly impressive antlers or horns of various species. Today, I suspect a lot of them would be scored and/or sold on ebay for office decor or at least mounted as mancave decorations.
It would seem that the selective harvesting over the decades of the better specimens of antler growth genetics could result in slight decrease in their population percentage, but we need to remember that those really nice specimens taken by trophy hunting are well along in their lives by the time they are harvested, and have already probably left many heirs in part due to their headgear, so the selective harvesting effect is mostly too late to have a drastic effect.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 14, 2013 13:17:26 GMT -5
That looks like where the real battle will take place.
That's where their argument seems most logical, and where our defenses are weakest.
The defense is still there, but it is a harder sell, because it depends on making the points that:
There will be unintended consequences in the prevention of otherwise law-abiding and responsible people being able to buy the weapons they need to defend themselves from criminal attack. There are about two million such defensive uses of firearms in private hands annually, and some of those will be prevented from happening if the background checks turn up some long ago diagnosis of depression or an arrest on a minor family dispute.
The INTENTION of preventing guns from falling into the hands of the wrong people may be fine, but actually PREVENTING it from happening will require more than good intentions. Most of the weaponry involved in the school shootings was obtained by other than legal means already, and 80% of the guns used in crimes are as well. Those intent on using weapons criminally will be unphased by the need to break another law in obtaining them.
Real political leadership would be seeking solutions that will ACTUALLY reduce the ease with which a maniac can access our children, and reduce their probability of completing their intended mayhem even if they do gain access...improved security of the physical premises, the presence of voluntarily armed trained personnel among the staff already inside the buildings.....instead of well- intended but unrealistic legislation that only hinders the law-abiding.
I suspect your prediction will be accurate. I'm still hopeful that he may prove to be a Democrat I could vote for, because I'm pretty tired of holding my nose while voting for Republicans in some of the races, or just skipping the ones where I can't stand the thought of supporting either side.
A guy who works on his own 13 yo Jeep can't be all bad, and he says the right stuff so far, so I'll continue to hope for the best and watch for his votes.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 14, 2013 12:27:45 GMT -5
I'm not a frequent stayer in motels or hotels, but can't recall ever staying in one where I was favorably impressed with the breakfast. Pretty much gave up on the "free" ones as being priced about right, and just stopped at the nearest place where they were primarily in the business of providing food.
IMO, McDonalds and the major fast-food competitors do a fine job if I'm in a hurry, and Bob Evans or a local place that looks good is my target if I have the time to spare.
A French vanilla capuccino and a couple of stuffed pastries from a Casey's is my normal fare when I'm scrambling to meet up with buddies at a shoot. I carry a bottle of Tums in the console.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 14, 2013 12:08:19 GMT -5
Recently saw a thread on another site about coffee preferences for backcountry. Lots of guys seemed to like the Starbucks instant travel coffee. Those who didn't prefer it seemed to mostly like Folger's Singles, and that's what I liked for camp, and sometimes threw in the suitcase or glove box for travelling.
You can almost always find or make hot water, but sometimes a decent cup of coffee can be scarce.
We don't usually carry it anymore, since so many convenience stores and gas stops have the big coffeemakers with all the choices.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 14, 2013 11:59:07 GMT -5
Kinda fun. Would probably be even better if i understood Russian.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 13, 2013 11:43:09 GMT -5
I agree completely, swilk. As with most other gun laws, the ONLY people being restricted are the ones who OBEY THE LAW.
How stupid is it to think that such a restriction will help reduce the criminal use of weapons?
Meanwhile, the "reasonable" legislators are seeking some agreement on which people to restrict from legally obtaining firearms. If they are successful, a certain percentage of citizens will be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and their families because of some long-ago bout with depression or arrest for a youthful mistake. Some of those people will subsequently be killed due to their lack of defensive capability, and others will become lawbreakers by obtaining the needed weapons the way 80% of criminals do...by illegal street purchases, theft, or straw purchases.
But the liberals will feel better and be able to boast that they "did something", and will have "proof" that we need to go still further down that road to insanity.
I think we need to be doing something more than preaching to each other and agreeing heartily with one another. Not sure what. We already support the politicians who promise respect for the 2A. We belong to organizations that support it. Many of us actively speak up whenever the chance provides us an opportunity with friends or family.
It's an uphill battle though, when the other side has pictures of dead kids, and we don't have pictures of live kids that would have been dead had their parent or teacher have been unarmed and helpless.
Kleck's 1993 study puts the defensive use of guns at about 2.5 million times a year. DOJ study had it at 1.5 million. If we assume some bias on each side and take the average, that's still 2 million times a year that someone uses a firearm (not necessarily shoots it, just presenting it is "use") to stop or prevent a crime by someone else.
Impossible to say how many of those crimes that didn't happen or didn't get completed to the intent of the criminal, would have resulted in an innocent death. But that shouldn't mean that they should be disregarded as irrelevant.
The libs would have us leave a good portion of the innocent public defenseless and then see how many end up dead as a result after the fact. I find that approach unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 12, 2013 21:30:15 GMT -5
I always top it off, or at least as far as I can without wasting much time on it.
Then I reset the trip odometer and do some mental arithmetic as I drive, checking the mileage on that tank. Kinda fun if you like math, and it gives me quick notice if something's going wrong. The mileage is very often the first indication you will have of an engine problem.
That habit caught a stuck choke on a Scout I was heading west in once. The Scout was normally good for 16.5 mpg or so on the interstates and the first gas stop out it checked just over 11 mpg! Still started and ran fine, so I might have gone quite a ways further without noticing it unless I had checked. Darned automatic choke was stuck good at about three-quarters on. Had to make a temporary fix by putting a serious bend in the actuating rod to keep it open, and just pump it once or twice on cold starts until I got home.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 12, 2013 13:57:46 GMT -5
We discussed a similar measure last session, I believe.
I find myself joining the Brady people on this issue, although for the exact opposite reasons.
I am a 47-year Life member of the NRA and what many would call an extremist in the defense of the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. I agree with the NRA on the vast majority of their positions....but I can think of some others that have been less than smart, and I think this one will prove to be one of those.
I am also old enough to have observed the benign introduction of the federal government into a number of issues as a helpful player with pure intentions....and the resulting growth of federal influence, and the eventual loss of state and individual rights in the areas involved.
Take a look at federal "help" in the areas of education, transportation, and environmental protection as examples. And there are others if you care to look for them.
What is extremely difficult to find is an example of federal involvement in an issue that REMAINS benign and unobtrusive over time.
This measure would provide only a federal guarantee (for whatever that may be worth) of the rights we already have established through the voluntary cooperation agreements of the states. It gains us NOTHING in our ability to actually carry in any other state, and risks our carry anywhere in the country at a future time when the agreement has grown into a branch of Homeland Security and the people of New York, Illinois, and California will be in position to influence the decisions handed down by the regulatory czar-in-chief.
The voluntary agreements to recognize one another's state reciprocal carry rights are the better answer and are still growing in number. We don't need to risk the "possible" (I'd say "certain") future abuse of such an agreement at the federal level.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 11, 2013 15:49:37 GMT -5
I'd also suggest two guns for these two widely separate uses.
The .22 pistol is a good idea for the boys to learn with and practice. I have a Ruger semi-auto that has been very reliable and is comfortable and controllable in a variety of hands of different sizes. It is also a versatile gun for just fun plinking, even squirrel hunting, and holds its value well.
For home defense, I would recommend a shotgun instead. Any shotgun would be more menacing to an intruder, be easier to hit with in a home defense situation, and have more stopping power for immediate resolution of the threat than just about any pistol that would be reasonable to consider. If it's to be a designated weapon for home defense only, a "riot gun" version would be very hard to beat. The popular Mossberg is a proven example, with or without the 8-shot tube and extra grips. An attached flashlight is a good idea.
Light loads for training on the basics with it are a good idea for any family members unaccustomed to shooting who might be discouraged or intimidated by the recoil, and are probably all that would be really needed to take out any intruder inside the home, but I'd load it up with some heavier stuff for that purpose just to be on the safe side.
The "long gun", even in the shortest versions, will be much more likely to hit where it is needed in an emergency situation.
And the shotgun pellets will be much less likely to penetrate into adjoining rooms or the neighbor's place and do unplanned collateral damage.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 7, 2013 12:48:34 GMT -5
I see my representative, Todd Young, is among the signers on this one. Still awaiting a reply as to his absence on the Rokita letter in the other post, butglad to see him here.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 7, 2013 12:32:36 GMT -5
Congratulations to you both! The wife and I will be celebrating our 48th in less than two weeks. Time flies.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 6, 2013 23:50:56 GMT -5
And I really appreciate the "modify" function on this site. 8^)
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 6, 2013 23:48:22 GMT -5
Hmm...yep, I may be getting old....missed the "s" where the "d" should have been. I admit to having fat-fingered a few like that myself, being right next to the one I was aiming at on the keyboard. But I do try to catch them all before hitting "post reply".
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 6, 2013 11:30:25 GMT -5
Gee, dadsfr, I thought I was a tough critic on those issues, but I see little there to send me looking for the red pencil.
A couple of minor syntax errors, and the last paragraph needs a rewrite for clarity, but overall I'd give it a B- on technical aspects, and an A on content. 8^)
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 2, 2013 10:13:22 GMT -5
I suppose that's as close as an eastern liberal town may be able to come to a real common sense solution.
In many parts of the country, including here in backwoods IN, the local school boards and even state governments are increasing the "resource officers" as well, but also are either arming the teachers or laying the groundwork for doing so, by providing the training for volunteer teachers and school staff.
That is by far the most cost-effective means of protecting the students, and probably the most effective regardless of costs within any reasonable limits.
The schools already have people inside who are responsible, educated, and quite a number of whom have already demonstrated their readiness to put their own lives on the line in the defense of the kids.
In all the accounts of school shootings I've read, I have yet to hear of a single teacher who abandoned their classes to save their own necks. These are generally very good people who would fight to protect the students and some of whom have already given their lives in pretty hopeless attempts to stop maniacal shooters. Yet the people who see the government solution as the only one possible still snub the voluntary defense efforts of the people already in the classrooms or the offices or the halls, in favor of finding funding for other people to come in and serve the same purpose.
I agree, it's better late than never, but I wish they'd gone the rest of the way to a system that would actually work even more effectively, and at minimal cost.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 31, 2013 16:09:05 GMT -5
Believable estimates of defensive use of firearms in preventing or defending against criminals ranges from 2.5 million cases a year down to a little over 1.5 million instances, depending on the source.
The president says increased limits on who can legally buy a gun will be worth it if they "only save one child".
There is no accounting whatever for the other side of such increased restriction....the number of increased victims of armed criminals due to the victims being unable to legally purchase a firearm for protection.
Hard to say what percentage of the 2 million plus users of a firearm in self-defense or defending home and family would be prevented from obtaining one by whatever tightening of the restrictions might occur, or how many of them will die as a result.....but I'd guess it will be more than one.
Also hard to predict how many seriously disturbed people will be deterred from a mass killing by their inability to legally purchase a firearm....but I'd guess it won't be many.
Actions have consequences, and often they are not the ones intended. Even if we accept the best intentions for those proposing additional restrictions, they appear to have much greater potential for harm than for measurable improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 28, 2013 13:28:49 GMT -5
E-mailed Rep. young's office just now. I was surprised to find his name absent, and mentioned that, as he is a strong 2A supporter and as conservative as they come on about every issue. Requested a response, so we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 28, 2013 12:53:13 GMT -5
I expect a compromise position that includes some restrictions in each area, watered down sufficiently to get enough votes, will pass.
It SHOULDN'T, but probably will.
My confidence level on any legislation that would actually be beneficial passing is extremely low.
And there is probably no need for federal action on legislation that would be really effective. The states are already implementing the actions they see as the most effective, and in several that includes arming teachers or school personnel who volunteer for additional training for school-specific carry and storage of arms. This is the better solution to the problem, as it is better tailored to the conditions and needs of each state, by the people of that state, than being forced to apply the same provisions to the two-room schools in rural North Dakota that would apply to mega-schools in Newark, New Jersey.
But the political pressure to cave will be high.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 28, 2013 12:03:07 GMT -5
Read about a guy who used a proximity sensor like the ones ontrail cams to trigger the taped sounds of an angry Rottweiler going nuts. He had a healthy chain attached to a porch railing and a large dog dish to add some realism.
He claimed no more break-ins after setting up the system.
Probably the lowest-cost alternative and likely pretty effective. Would be more fun if paired with the trail cam to watch the reactions.
|
|