Gun sales on track to set a record

You must be very proud

"Dechucka" wrote in news:Gr6dnTx_zNyoB1LKnZ2dnUU7-W snipped-for-privacy@westnet.com.au:

We are, roofucker. Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Not to mention the civic virtue of stimulating the economy by buying all those guns you probably can't afford! Call it the "Paranoid Gun Nutz' Fiscal Stimulus."

Buy mo' ammo. Commodity prices are suffering, and you can give some price support to copper and lead.

Ed Huntress wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Actually Ed, I can afford any gun I want. i just don;t have time to shoot all the ones I have,

Well, hell, buy more then! When the pile is so big that it falls over, you'll find time to go shoot just to clean up your floor.

Buy mo' ammo, too -- the expensive stuff is best.

So that's how to find the best ammo, just look for the most expensive stuff? Before I call bullshit, and prove it, would you like to modify your statement?

When you buy ammo for survivalism, or for any kind of defense, the best ammo is the ammo that pumps the most money into the economy.

Anything that makes fools spend their money is good.

Whether the ammo he buys is 10 cents a round or 10 dollars a round, if someone has $100 to spend on ammo, that's what he'll spend. The exception would be when his favorite ammo is on sale (i.e. is NOT the most expensive ammo), then he might scrape up some more ammo money to take advantage of the bargains. But none of that is relevant to which ammo is "best".

The best ammo is the ammo that gets the job done. If the job is self defense, then its hard to beat Federal HST in +P if your pistol can handle it. Great stopping power, deep penetration, and excellent expansion make a deep and wide wound channel. You can find more expensive ammo, but best isn't measured by price. Much less expensive ammo will put supper on the table.

Hard to beat a 10 or 12 gauge with Deer slugs for knock down at short range without killing all you neighbors.

Perhaps, if you're looking for raw power. But that's not the optimal criterion for defensive ammo. For one thing, how many people are willing to carry a shotgun wherever they go? How do you go about carrying that gun concealed? What about the risk of overpenetration? Those and other concerns limit the defensive use of shotguns to home intruder situations. Outside the home a handgun makes more sense. For home defense with a shotgun, have you looked at this?

It's the guys that buy the most expensive whiz-bang high-tech ammo that can't place it in the paper.

Buck shot is too penetrating..Each one of those shots is .22 caliber. One of the finest Home defense weapons is a .410 pistol with old fashioned no 2 shot loads. And yes they are sold and apparently legal. For solid knock down power a heavy gauge shotgun deer slug at short range is the ticket. Out side the home the best weapon is still a rifle that handles .223 or similar. In close quarters the Trench shotgun is still the star. It fires trench rounds(MILITARY). That gun is short and to the point.;-p

Deer slugs are not available everywhere due to lack of demand

Not mine and I do fire military rounds..Lots of them.

And y\that is not a pistol??

You get 5 or 6 shots, and a slow

In a standard home invasion...a couple of rounds is usually all that is needed. That Teenage girl down south used a 20 Ga, fired 2 shots and killed one and the second one left a blood trail.

Of course you could use the 2 Rottweiler trick instead.

That's not what most people would consider "One of the finest

With a stage gun and a full choke...#2 is damned hard to beat in confined areas where you don't intend killing everyone in the neighbor hood. Even Swat Cops use special 5.56 rounds to avoid killing the neighbors. You want to kill every thing around you..use Military Trench rounds. But you may lose a few friends in a barrage like that.

During duck and Goose season I shoot about 12 to 20 boxes. And no I am not poaching, but am assisting in filling game quota's for our paying visitors on state land. There are also buffalo permits available....

I can still remember cutting splits in my .45 Ammo... In country they will hang your ass for using such.

OK.

"Revolver" refers to a handgun that chambers ammo in a rotating cylinder. "Pistol" refers to a handgun with a chamber integral to the barrel.

A pistol is a handgun - but not all handguns are pistols.

The defining factor that makes a handgun a pistol is a chamber that is integral with the barrel. Semi-automatic handguns have a barrel with the chamber built in, which means they are pistols. Revolvers, on the other hand, are not pistols, because a revolver contains a cylinder that's separate from the barrel and contains multiple chambers.

When it comes to firearms terminology, any gun that is designed to be fired using one or both hands, without shouldering the gun, is a handgun. Legal definitions of the term may vary in certain locales.

The term "pistol" is often erroneously used to describe any handgun, but its definition should preclude its being used to describe revolvers and any type of handgun which does not have a chamber made integral with the barrel.

I didn't know there was a definition for a "standard home invasion", and "usually" means that in a particular situation "a couple of rounds" may not be enough. If you should happen to need nine rounds and you only have five, you're screwed. And in a firefight, even trained police might hit their target only one time in ten.

The goal in defense is not to kill anyone. The goal is to stop the attack, as swiftly and definitely as possible.

Congratulations. The best shot shells for duck and goose hunting are not the best shells for defense.

There was no requirement for confiscation in that bill. The problem came when people tried to skirt it with the "bullet button" ruse on SKSs, buying them after the ban on new sales had gone into effect.

Look at what happened there, RD. The law grandfathered existing SKSs with removable magazines, and set a last date for new sales. Then somebody dug out a loophole over the definition of "tool," got a court to agree to it, and proceeded to sell guns that otherwise were illegal, modifying fixed-magaine guns to have removable magazines that took advantage of the loophole. Morons bought them, and then the state corrected the law and closed the loophole.

It was a ruse intended to skirt the law. I have no sympathy for them. In no reasonable use of those guns is a removable magazine a real issue. They just wanted to skirt the law, and they got caught.

After that, it was a real back-and-forth legal mess. But, in general, even California's gun bans have either allowed for grandfathering or an ability to sell the gun to an FFL for sale outside of the state.

We have registration for different types of guns in many parts of the US. California is the weird one.

The point is that 80% of the guns used in crimes in NJ come from the states with lax purchase laws, or slovenly enforcement. Do you really not get the point, or are you trying a shell game here?

Right. And that's the problem that the rest of the article is all about. How about the second sentence?

"The only place the police can turn for help is a Kafkaesque agency in West Virginia, where, thanks to the gun lobby, computers are illegal and detective work is absurdly antiquated. On purpose."

"The program turned out to be far more expensive than expected and

are used so rarely by criminals in the first place."

The fact is that all handguns have been registered in Canada since

It doesn't have to talk to you. It only has to be there when you decide that you want it so you can rob a bank. If it's not there, the bank doesn't get robbed.

How about rock salt? Old timers used to use it because it was painful but less deadly. Or maybe because it was cheaper, not sure which. ;)

Swill