billeisele

That is an interesting description. One could, in some situations, also say - the SYG law gave the homeowner the knowledge that they could defend themselves against aggression without worrying about being prosecuted. No officer, I didn't escalate the situation I deescalated it. The intruder had a gun, I got a gun and a bell. I rang the bell and he didn't run away. He pointed his gun at me, I pointed my gun at him. I then deescalated the situation. I no longer have a gun pointed at me and you don't have a ton of policework to do trying to locate the intruder. He's right there. Anything else I can help you with? To be clear. One should escape if possible. But, when needed, SYG is a good thing, IMO.

I don't know the exact angle but it had to be close to that, or it could be that it hit the roof at an angle then off the side wall. All I know is one of the range masters said it was super loud and a huge mess. The shooter was middle size (not a large hand), 55ish and not a weight lifter. That indoor range has shooters stations that, IMO, are a little tight. The "roof" is less than 8', maybe 7.5', and they are fairly narrow. The sound concussion alone in that enclosure would be quite high. With a normal shooting stance the muzzle blast is down range of the enclosure.

Agree on firing big calibers, it's just not fun. The "here, try this" idea with inexperienced or lighter weight shooters is a bad thing for sure. Nothing wrong with starting out on a .22 pistol. My preference are the Rugers, SR22 or Mark 4's. We had a highly experienced guy shoot a Desert Eagle at an indoor range. The severe recoil (speculation) caused him to grip the gun harder, and the second round exploded his head when it ricocheted off the low ceiling. What a mess. One that's quite fun to fire is the FN 5.7 with an optical. Low recoil and highly accurate at longer ranges.

Phil - maybe you haven't seen the direct exchange between Joe and a union worker during the campaign. He definitely said, "AR-14." The union guy asked him about securing the union vote and inquired about how he intended to do that, then stated, "You are actively trying to diminish our Second Amendment right and take away our guns." Joe's response was clear, "You're full of shit. I did not say that." Yet that's exactly what he said in various campaign speeches, made other political speeches saying the same thing and was interviewed on CNN repeating those statements. During one of those speeches he stated," A magazine with 100 clips in it, 100 bullets in it." In that case his mouth was running faster than his brain, again. John Kerry in a campaign speech for Biden, talking to a room full of veterans said, "There is not a veteran here that would take a AR-16 with a long clip to go out and shoot a deer." Do these guys not realize that everything is recorded? If they want any credibility on gun issues they need to learn the facts and lingo. The clip is provided below. It would be humorous if not true. It made great video for NRA recruitment.

Joe recommended the AR-14. He also recommended the magazine with 100 clips in it. Joe's buddy John Kerry likes discussing the AR-16 with their long clips. Makes sense that these are the partners you want on a bear country hike.

No surprise. There is a constant debate in SC about calibers for white tail deer. Folks use everything from 243 to 338 magnum, and probably larger. The 270 peeps used to be picked on the most. Now it's the 6.5 Creedmoor.

Are you saying to: Wear or not wear one of those dinner bells?

Agree. I wonder if those countries have the same number, or more or less, per capita of hospital beds as the US? One would think that population density and poverty rates would have a big impact. Variables like that make the value of comparisons difficult.

Yes, agree. As said before, it's complicated. It's interesting to try and compare states to states, and countries to countries. Comparisons do have value the challenge is determining how much. One comparison is reviewing the case counts in strict CA and loose FL. The CDC normalized data showed high infection rates in CA, and FL had the lowest in the country in much of 2021. Then along came Omicron, the holidays when family gatherings occurred, the snowbirds arrived and tourism increased. I'm assuming that tourism increased because that always occurs in December, and FL had super low case counts lowering the perceived risk for travelers. No surprise, the FL case count went thru the roof to one of the highest in the country. CA and many other states experienced the same rapid increase. An interesting note is that the NE cold climate states starting climbing a couple weeks earlier than the rest of the country, presumably from more indoor contact. But then there is Maine. They stayed fairly steady until 3 weeks ago when their case counts soared while most other states are in a step decline. Interesting. Hopefully the severity of the disease continues to decline. One concern I have is that the risk of death "appears" to decline, mainly because the most vulnerable have died. We'll keep learning. Thanks for the good conversation.

thanks for background info

Thanks for the background, I've not heard this before. The article is dated Feb 2022, thought it was new news. The article discusses how the pandemic preparedness plan, that was previously prepared, wasn't followed. The plan stated that for the overall good of public health it was unnecessary and potentially harmful to close schools and small businesses, to impose masking and quarantine healthy people. These recommendations were based on public health science. The subsequent COVID actions were supposedly based on science, and they weren't. They were contrary to science. In your reply you indicated that the MDs, "wanted everything to go back to normal." But the recommendations say something different. They suggest to protect the most vulnerable and allow those with minimal risk of death to live normally. It seems that there's no way to know how that would have turned out. The article goes on to discuss how public health is wide-ranging and requires a long term view. The actions taken with COVID were short term. The COVID mandates resulted in a rise in suicide rates, increases in drug and alcohol abuse, a rise in domestic violence and a reduction in standard health screenings that detect cancer and other significant diseases. If I'm reading the article correctly it says that the COVID mandates have a worse impact on overall public health than COVID would have had if the mandates were not imposed. Not sure how one proves that. i don't know if these people are correct but the actions taken against them are not good. Silencing people with differing opinions is never good.

An interesting article is linked at the bottom. It discusses how experts that went against the narrative were silenced, and how the science was not followed to the determent of overall public health. Make sure to click on the link to the Great Barrington Declaration. The list and qualifications of the 43 co-signers along with the three authors is significant. A small excerpt is: The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-former-harvard-prof-martin-kulldorff-science-and-public-health-are-broken_4270247.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-02-17&utm_medium=email&est=SLbKCcHiWa0Ls%2FZo8LXwVAMEfIMqItCbUUVWzgYj3IByZneYGjdlngnPREA%3D

lol - No, according to the "rules" it's your responsibility to provide a citation. Wendy and others would seem to be correct with their common sense that avoidance is the best option. The "seem to be" allows that statement since it's clearly an opinion. Some might say that the bells are bad since they could be a signaling device saying, "dinner is over here." Most experts would say that the bears want to avoid humans so bells are good. IMO. The discussion on various firearms and calibers is interesting. I'd go for all the options: avoidance, spray and the best I can do is a .357. I could carry the Redhawk .44 mag but the 7.5" barrel and 4X scope would make it rather unwieldy. While there's no specific proof, it's been said that the best option is to hike with someone else. Preferable someone you don't have strong feelings for and someone that runs slower than you. Might be good for them to wear the bells, "I'm running, follow me."

We definitely need an acceptable citation for that claim. Please don't try and say that spray deters and guns can kill. Therefore the spray is a better deterrent.

Don't have a clue how you come to this conclusion. I didn't complain about being called out, I accepted it and took the thrashing. No outrage was demonstrated. Is it the fact that it didn't come from Tucker what bothers you? Did you read the noted citation, specifically the noted section, 3.12? Within that section it states, "From this aspect, it is also problematic that moisture distributes these potential pathogens in the form of tiny droplets via capillary action on and in the mask, whereby further proliferation in the sense of self and foreign contamination by the aerosols can then occur internally and externally with every breath." I also stated that this was not exactly what I referenced but it was close. IMO, there's no sense in arguing about this further.

OK. How does one know which definition to use when two are shown? Does the most current definition override the original one? Reading further it appears that one just makes up a word and defines it. How does that make any sense? "All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!Please review Urban Dictionary's content guidelines before writing your definition. Here's the short version: Share definitions that other people will find meaningful..." Googaloo When one rubs his or her butt until it bleeds look at that googaloo bitch over their by Michael Rubbing February 14, 2008 googaloo The gooey yellow gunk from the yolk in a cooked egg. I split open my egg - sunny side up- and all the googaloo rushed out like a lava flow. by Emilise June 11, 2007

I've received my smackdown. Now I know that citations are needed, I'll do better. Since this requirement has been clearly stated that means that others must follow the same standard. What fun. Thanks Wendy for a related citation. And no gowlerk, the info didn't come from Tucker. It came from various other sources, some of them peer reviewed. The reports/statements were published 8-12 months ago. What I find interesting is I can't find them now. That means they were either false and removed, or true and removed. Both are interesting. But since I can't find them I'm taking my thrashing. In the future I'll save the articles. However, this article provides interesting info. Not exactly what I referenced but close. The complete article is worth reading but if you only want to focus on the lung stuff skip down to 3.12. Also note that the next paragraph states, "A major risk of mask use in the general public is the creation of a false sense of security with regard to protection against viral infections, especially in the sense of a falsely assumed strong self-protection,", "Researchers were able to provide statistically significant evidence of a false sense of security and more risky behavior when wearing masks in an experimental setting." Kinda supports my "magic bullet" comments. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ Roll on, citations will be used in the future.

Good morning Joe. Great game. Can't find the definition of Googaloo, doesn't seem to be a real word. But if you have a citation.... You've quoted items I've said and either, just want to argue, or truly don't understand that there is a difference in the two discussions. The can and could words was in reference to a citation that is claimed to show a certain scientific result. Any statement of fact that has these words has little value. The words soften the message and lower it's relevance. A typical tactic when the results aren't proven to the level required to be proven. In contrast, my use of the words "some impact" and "probably" were specifically chosen because I don't know how much impact any of the factors have in the total outcome.

true, so true

Good prior post about the magic bullet masks, I agree with the first sentence. Casual conversation with all kinds of people has shown me that some believe they provide a high degree of protection. My only disagreement with your post is assigning the drop in cold and flu to mask wearing. No doubt it has some impact but the decrease in social gathering, and education on handwashing and sanitation are probably a major factors. As to the requirement to provide citations. Didn't know that was the rule, and if so, then the prolific posters here need to start doing it. They make some claims that are difficult to believe. Having said that, thanks for taking the high road and providing the cloth mask reference.

Then that means you have a citation stating such.

Another perfect example of why some don't post here at all and why I spend much less time engaging. These type personal attacks are just childish. It's the type thing people do when they have nothing intelligent to say. Making up lies is not your standard behavior. Your typical intelligent posts providing information are much more useful.

Thanks for the correction. I was listening to it on a broadcast while driving and didn't read the article.