The psychology of the bully
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: where is zmodem?
Next: props to the slack developers
From: rm on 15 May 2007 10:49 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > There is a lot of documentation. Here's one that mentions a polar > bear killed with a 22. > http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2438&page=5 That's not a newspaper article!!! Are you kidding us? One guy was chased by a polar bear and he only had a .22. And according to him, only one bullet at that. He shot in desperation and hit the bear in the ear! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We didn't think the growing season was long enough up there to produce pot that good. > And just a month ago the Anchorage newspaper had a story about a > brown bear killed with a .220 Swift A .220 Swift is a hell of a lot more powerful than a 22L. Either you are being disengenuous or you are really stupid and don't know what you are talking about. > Young Inuit children, usually between the ages of six and eight, > are taught to hunt caribou with a .22 rimfire. The .22 Hornet was > once one of the most popular rifles in the Arctic (and is often > the rifle caliber chambered in emergency survival rifles) only > because it was a very economical cartridge to reload. One Inuit > guide I once met used his .17 Remington for everything from polar > bear to ground squirrels. > http://www.realtree-ca.com/community/feature-detail.tpl?ID=42 It is illegal to hunt caribou with a rimfire rifle in Alaska. >>> You can doubt, but I'll just be laughing at your ignorance. >>Nobody will hear your laughing from way up there. > You won't, and you are a nobody. Everyone else is laughing at > you. Anybody that knows the least bit about guns has you all figured out. > You are so much an idiot, now they must be laughing all > the way across Canada too. Here is what one Alaskan hunting "school" recommends for big game: * Large caliber hunting rifle or handgun * Appropriate rifle calibers include 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 338 Win * Mag, and 375 H&H Mag * Appropriate handgun calibers include 44 Mag, 454 Casul, and * 500 S&W Mag * 100 rounds of full-power hunting ammunition http://www.frontsight.com/alaska/View/ViewClass.asp?Action=View&PID=203&ID=219&ds=f It doesn't say anything about .22's now does it, doofus? Here's what another guide site recommends: Rifles for our big game hunts should be outfitted with good quality mounts and scope. Calibers should be appropriate for species hunted. 270, 7mm, and 30 caliber cartridges we think best for sheep, caribou, mountain goat and like animals. For Grizzly, Brown bear and moose, 30 caliber rifles and larger medium bores such as the 338, 358, and 375 are excellent. http://johnlatham.com/html/biggame.html Gee, what about .22's? It seems that the pros don't use them! And here is what one writer, on an Alaskan Government site says: Personally, I like a dependable Mauser- type action chambered in ..300 Winchester Magnum. I shoot premium quality 180 grain spirepoint bullets for everything from Sitka black-tailed deer to Alaska Peninsula brown bears. The 30-06 with 165 grain bullets would define my personal low end of calibers and the .338 magnum with 225 grain bullets the upper end for an all around Alaskan big game caliber and load. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.biggame_intro It is against the law in virtually every country in the world to shoot seals with a .22. And that's because the .22 isn't powerful enough to kill the seal with any frequency. >>http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor93-56/sec28.html >>"28. (1) No person shall fish for seals, for personal or commercial >>use, in any of Sealing Areas 4 to 33 except with >>(c) a rifle and bullets that are not full metal-jacketed that >>produce a muzzle velocity of not less than 1,800 feet per second and >>a muzzle energy of not less than 1,100 foot pounds; or >>(d) a shotgun of not less than 20 gauge and rifled slugs." >>And NAMMCO reports that the most popular weapon for shooting seals >>is the .222 and .223. As you know, these shells are far more >>powerful than a .22. > > You are an idiot. A .222 or a .223 *is* a 22 caliber. Hardly. An M16 shoots a .223. You do know what an M16 is, don't you? A .223 has a huge, center-fire cartridge, while a .22 is a puny rimfire. You're pathetic. >>http://www.nora.fo/docs/NAMMCO-hunting-report.pdf >>"The minimum power of the rifles to be used for shooting adult seals >>and seal pups is restricted by Norwegian law (Appendix 3). The most >>common rifle for shooting seal pups is the calibre .222, while the >>6.5 mm calibre is used for shooting adult seals. Expanding bullets >>(i.e. not full metal jacket) are used." > > So it appears that the Norwegians also prefer a 22 caliber for > shooting seals. Yes, right. A .223 travels about 1000 fps faster than a .22. Here's more: Southcentral Alaska's five most popular rifle cartridges for big game: 7mm Rem. Mag., .30-06, .300 Win. Mag., .338 Win. Mag., .375 H&H Mag. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntingbulletin.hntbul8#cartridges But here is the coup de grace. According to the alaska hunting regulations, it is *illegal* to hunt bears, or any other big game, with a .22 rimfire. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=regulations.hunting Now, please. Go home. Go on home. cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 15 May 2007 10:54 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > > A couple odd facts: > > 1) More elephants have been killed with a .303 caliber than anything > else. > > 2) More caribou have been killed with a .303 caliber than anything > else. Gee, what about the .22LR? cordially, as always, rm
From: rm on 15 May 2007 10:58 Two Ravens <two-ravens(a)operamail.com> wrote: > rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > >> But all of these guns are much, much, more powerful than a .22. > That depends on what you are referring to as a '.22' as it > includes not only the rimfire cartridges but all the centrefire > so-called .22's as well the 220 swift is still a '.22' as are the > 222's, if you mean .22 rimfire then say so, as there are several > varieties of that alone. The fact No. A ".22" refers to a rimfire, not a centerfire. Centerfire cartridges are huge compared to the .22. > remains as Floyd has pointed out, that an awful lot of meat gets > taken with former military calibres because there are a lot of > rifles in those calibres about, .303 and 7 x 57mm being quite > common and even those cartridges are known by a number of > different nomenclatures .275 Rigby for example. Again, a .223 is _not_ a .22 and anyone who thinks so is being disengenuous. > Bullet placement and deformation within the wound channel are the > two most significant factors in choosing a suitable calibre for > any given quarry. ?!? What does that have to do with anything? If you took a shot at a bear with a .22 you would have to be very lucky and shoot it in the eye or the throat. Even then it would probably kill you. But a ..223 has 50% more power, enough to go through thick bone. cordially, as always, rm
From: Chick Tower on 15 May 2007 12:22 On Mon, 14 May 2007 07:38:30 -0700, ANC wrote: > What is it about Slackware that attracts violent sociopaths like Kurt and > Dan C and where no one speaks out about it? Perhaps we're drawn to Slackware so we can ignore extraneous BS. Well, except for this one time, anyway. -- Chick Tower For e-mail: aols . sent . towerboy AT xoxy . net
From: Two Ravens on 15 May 2007 13:00
rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > No. �A ".22" refers to a rimfire, not a centerfire. �Centerfire > cartridges are huge compared to the .22. > For most of the time whilst I was actively shooting calibre was defined by the barrel rimfire or centrefire they were all considered to be '�22s' > > Again, a .223 is not a .22 and anyone who thinks so is being > disengenuous. > see above the Nomenclature �223 differentiates between it and the rimfire it is still a �22 barrel > > ?!? �What does that have to do with anything? �If you took a shot at > a bear with a .22 you would have to be very lucky and shoot it in > the eye or the throat. �Even then it would probably kill you. �But a > .223 has 50% more power, enough to go through thick bone. > Indeed so! Where did I claim otherwise. -- Two Ravens "...hit the squirrel..." |