If your asking what makes America a violent society, again I think you have to factor in the 'urban' factor. Violent crime overall occurs at a rate 5.4 times greater per 100,000 in urban centers (pop. 250,000+) than in rural areas.
Black on Black crime is a huge statistic driving the higher urban crime rates. In 1998, an average 15-year-old white male faced a 1-in-345 chance of being murdered before his 45th birthday. For black males, the chances were 1 in 45. And for black males in Washington, D.C.—which still has one of the highest murder rates of any city in America—it's 1 in 12.
According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.
Blacks are not only the major victims of homicide; blacks suffer high rates of all categories of serious violent crime, and another black is most often the perpetrator.
So go ahead and call me racist but these are the facts. I guess the facts are racist.
Well, if these are the facts, I don't believe they are racist comments. It appears gun violence is predominantly a black problem in America. Do you know the stats for other areas, comparatively...... where the same circumstances apply. Poor, urban, black areas, relaxed gun laws...... what are the numbers in other countries? These are genuine questions here, because I don't know the stats. I just know that a gun murder in America doesn't even seem to make the news unless it involves some gunman on a rampage shooting as many people as he can. In my country, any gun related death makes the new, coz it's not an everyday event.
I do believe that less guns in society will lead to less gun related deaths. There seems to be a perception over there, that if the guns are taken away from the responsible gun owners, that they will still end up in the hands of criminals and society will become even more violent. That certainly hasn't been the case over here. We had a shocking massacre over here in 1996, and immediately after there were huge gun reforms. A government buy back scheme where people had the option to hand in their guns, be paid for them, no questions asked. We no longer have the right to own handguns, semi auto or automatic weapons. Sports shooters can still obtain a gun license and legally own rifles and such. And there hasn't been an enormous increase in violent crime. Sure, there is always the criminal element that gets their hands on a weapon, and the occasional shooting, but certainly not the huge increase in violence that the gun supporters made all the fuss about when these reforms were coming into place.
I could probably make a pretty decent gun in a few days or weeks....
my point is the technology won't just disappear because you would like to "wish-away" the handguns....this is the simple fact of the matter....
I would make a homemade gun as soon as they took the real ones away....
What do you mean disarmed? Making guns is easy and simple. Just because you disarm a nation doesn't mean the technology disappears. I'm sure gun-loving America would be making guns in no time.
There's also of course the fact that criminals can get guns everywhere. At least that's how the argument goes, right? Take away the guns and only the criminals will have them.
So, take away a nation's guns and half of the population will just make them, the other half will buy them illegally on the streets, like criminals.
I love these arguments.
"No, you can't take away our guns because if you do we're victims and powerless."
"Banning guns is pointless, criminals will still be able to buy them, and people will make them at home."
really though...I've been around guns all my life and have had my share of knuckeldusters, but I've never been mad enough to ever consider using a gun... it has never crossed my mind...
So? Do you think everyone plans in advance? Have you ever heard about crimes of passion?
Do you think killing their spouse crossed these people's minds? Of course not.
There are a lot of people out there who never wanted to kill or harm others (I'm not talking about self defense) but who did it anyway.
Take away the "urban element" and the vast majority of our country is witness to very little gun crime.
Perhaps, but that's not how it works. You cannot take away the "urban element".
So go ahead and call me racist but these are the facts. I guess the facts are racist
You're only racist if you believe that these people are not part of the US. There's a porblem with violence in the US. It doesn't matter who's violent.
What's the point of this argument anyway? People are talking about violence in the US and you simply say 'take away the most violent groups and there's very little gun crime here.'
My point is to educate and expose people to the facts about firearms, to make then less scary.
You think everyone who is against guns is scared of them or don't know the facts about them. How very condescending of you. Granted, I know very little about guns but I know what I need to know.
I've said this before I don't have a problem with guns and I don't think they're scary. What bothers me is how some people try to represent guns here.
A gun will guarantee your safety.
Wrong. You can be the best trained person, with years of experience... a gun does not guarantee your safety at all. There was an example in the other thread by acoustic guy, he had a gun for protection, someone broke into his house while he was away. His wife came home, the burglar hid (this is the more realistic version. If they are there to steal your stuff, they probably don't want to kill you.). Point is, he could have killed her. Family not protected, despite owning a gun. Even better, imagine this guy coming into your house, you're away. You come home, he's going through your stuff and he finds your gun (I do believe you said you didn't lock it, and maybe even kept it loaded?), he comes down and he kills you. There's another scenario in this thread posted by scb, a guy actually disarmed the person with the gun and shot (at the floor).
There are probably just as many scenarios in which you (person with gun for protection) ends up being shot. Also, remember, not everyone with a gun is like you. I know the MT is filled with people who grew up on shooting ranges, had 16 guns before they were 6, had years of training etc but I'm sure that a great percentage of Americans doesn't have the same level of expertise. I guess you agree, because you want to teach gun owners to be responsible.
So can we please stop with the bullshit that a gun will protect you. It's a gamble. If you really want an honest debate about guns, or an honest informative thread about guns perhaps one of the first things you should mention is the fact that life is not a movie.
Yeah, it's very tough and macho to say you'll kill a twenty year old petty thief because he's an addiction and he wants to take your toaster, but actually killing someone is a different story.
Consider yourself a future victim. Legalizing guns would allow you a level playingfield. So, God forbid, as you lay on the cold ground with the life flowing from the stabwound on your neck, staring up into a clear night, I bet you'll think about how nice it would have been to at least had the means to defend yourself.
I guess that's the fundamental difference between folks like you and I. I refuse to be a victim.
Some would say living in that kind of fear all your life makes you a victim.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Exactly, most people don't refuse to be a victim, they're just not.
And like I said, you can be a victim with or without a gun.
Hey, I'm a victim of many things... some awful fashion choices, some really bad hairstyles, some poor choices as regards lifestyle... But owning a gun wouldn't make me any less of a victim.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
I think Charger has a point, he's just not sure what it is. Its not that guns help protect people, quite the opposite, I think the point here is that America has a very violent culture. Capitalism breeds it, but its especially apparent in the US, where we are literally taught from a very young age that violence solves problems, from television to police action to government action. Violence is often the first resort in any conflict (when it should be the last).
From day one we are taught to compete, to look out for ourselves. And success is measured in wealth. With inner cities being treated as third world countries, literally, to some extent, the people within these area have very little oportunity to clime the social ladder-other than through violence. Their only chance at 'success' is through force-to take what they are otherwise unable to obtain. And so it has become commonplace, part of our culture. Gang violence is rarely even reported on the news these days, though it happens every day.
And not just violence. Drug use and sales are part of this culture. People need to escape from this shitty existence here in these third world cities, from this culture period, and so resort to heavy drug use in some cases. A culture people want to be a part of has very little use for heavy drugs.
All of this points to a very violent culture that is becoming pervasive throughout the US, predominant in inner cities, and encouraged by the status quo. With firearms readily available it only adds to the volitile situation. take away the guns, sure crime will still exist, but its not easy to gun down your classmates without a gun. Or so easy to rob a liquor store with a knife. and so on.
People are the problem to be sure, a product of their environment, but allowing them access to guns (designed for one purpose) can only have one outcome.
Just because I own an umbrella doesn't mean I own it because I'm scared to get wet. It means I am prepared in case it rains.
You folks are the ones living in fear of inanimate objects.
Hardly analogous. Owning an umbrella can't create rainfall. Owning a gun can create gun crime.
Besides which, it's a ridiculous argument. "I bought this trebuchet. It's not that I'm scared of enemy camps from the Middle Ages, but boy howdy, I'm prepared to siege 'em when the time comes." You don't need the trebuchet, and you don't need the gun.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Then you'd probably want a shotgun. Shot for birds, snakes, home invasion. Slugs for larger game taken at a distance. Just practice and get used to the recoil.
Ok, so aside from a shotgun, is there anything else? What about a .22?
I guess there would be a greater degree of accuracy required for a .22?
I just can't see me being able to get comfortable with a shotgun which seems like it would defeat the purpose really.
I guess I'm thinking, knowing myself, that I'd want something that would require a level of proficiency from me, that is realitively light weight.
Ok, so aside from a shotgun, is there anything else? What about a .22?
I guess there would be a greater degree of accuracy required for a .22?
I just can't see me being able to get comfortable with a shotgun which seems like it would defeat the purpose really.
I guess I'm thinking, knowing myself, that I'd want something that would require a level of proficiency from me, that is realitively light weight.
Not every shotgun has harsh recoil. You may have had experiences with 12 gauges that have scared you but a .410 is a perfect low recoil/light weight shotgun.
.22's are great for shooting squirrels and other varmints at less than 100 yards. Not great for stopping power or taking larger game. No matter what gun you choose you should practice and become proficient with it.
Hardly analogous. Owning an umbrella can't create rainfall. Owning a gun can create gun crime.
Owning a gun can save your life and you are 80 times more likely to use it in self defense than become a victim of gun crime.
You people are scared of a potential situation far less likely to kill you than being given the wrong medicine by your own doctor. If you are living in that kind of fear you better not ever drive a car or go near a road because that has a far greater chance of happening. Never ever fall down either because falls account for more deaths than firearms as well.
Seriously, whos' really living in fear here?
Besides which, it's a ridiculous argument. "I bought this trebuchet. It's not that I'm scared of enemy camps from the Middle Ages, but boy howdy, I'm prepared to siege 'em when the time comes." You don't need the trebuchet, and you don't need the gun.
If you lived in the middle ages you would!
Fortunately for me, I get to decide what I do and do not need. Again, we can keep having this circular discussion on whether or not people should own guns but it will go nowhere.
Seems Jeanie is the only one getting anything out of this as I had intended.
Not every shotgun has harsh recoil. You may have had experiences with 12 gauges that have scared you but a .410 is a perfect low recoil/light weight gun.
.22's are great for shooting squirrels and other varmints at less than 100 yards. No matter what gun you choose you should practice and become proficient with it.
It's not really about being scared of the recoil and more to do with knowing I don't like how they discharge. I wouldn't consider getting a gun and not learning all I need to know to use it correctly. My understand of shotguns is that they spray pellets everywhere and do maximum injury but wouldn't be a "quick" or "clean" shot unless used at very close range and require much less proficiency. Given that I'm of two minds regarding owning a gun, to me a shotgun doesn't really come into the equation.
Supposing I ever needed to discharge a gun at a living target I'd prefer something that required me to be very certain and very accurate.
It's not really about being scared of the recoil and more to do with knowing I don't like how they discharge. I wouldn't consider getting a gun and not learning all I need to know to use it correctly. My understand of shotguns is that they spray pellets everywhere and do maximum injury but wouldn't be a "quick" or "clean" shot unless used at very close range and require much less proficiency Given that I'm of two minds regarding owning a gun, to me a shotgun doesn't really come into the equation.
Supposing I ever needed to discharge a gun at a living target I'd prefer something that required me to be very certain and very accurate.
Does that make sense?
get a .38
or 9mm.
if your looking for a handgun.
if your looking for a rifle, get a .22., semi auto ruger with scope, they are cheap and I think they sell em at wall mart for a few hundred bucks. you can hit a birds head at a few dozen yards, and empty 15 rounds or so in 3 or 4 seconds.
It's not really about being scared of the recoil and more to do with knowing I don't like how they discharge. I wouldn't consider getting a gun and not learning all I need to know to use it correctly. My understand of shotguns is that they spray pellets everywhere and do maximum injury but wouldn't be a "quick" or "clean" shot unless used at very close range and require much less proficiency Given that I'm of two minds regarding owning a gun, to me a shotgun doesn't really come into the equation.
Supposing I ever needed to discharge a gun at a living target I'd prefer something that required me to be very certain and very accurate.
I used to hunt with a .270 Rem. .270. that's all you need to take out a deer or a cat. Even an elk. And if your good you could take a bear out with it, not advised, but still.
a .306 is enough to drop a bear. a fucking big bear. any bear.
a .308 is for people who want to not just kill what they're shooting at but to make sure all the trees and bushes behind it drop too.
All I'm sayin is a .308 is a very large caliber hunting rifle. I'm not even sure if they make a bigger caliber.
I used to hunt with a .270 Rem. .270. that's all you need to take out a deer or a cat. Even an elk. And if your good you could take a bear out with it, not advised, but still.
a .306 is enough to drop a bear. a fucking big bear. any bear.
a .308 is for people who want to not just kill what they're shooting at but to make sure all the trees and bushes behind it drop too.
All I'm sayin is a .308 is a very large caliber hunting rifle. I'm not even sure if they make a bigger caliber.
You cannot be serious?! Are you being serious? "Not even sure they make a bigger caliber" "a .308 is for people who want to not just kill what they're shooting at but to make sure all the trees and bushes behind it drop too." Unless you are kidding I may have to post a link to this thread on Ar15.com. They will have a good laugh. Also please link me to any modern firearm chambered in .306?
You cannot be serious?! Are you being serious? "Not even sure they make a bigger caliber" "a .308 is for people who want to not just kill what they're shooting at but to make sure all the trees and bushes behind it drop too." Unless you are kidding I may have to post a link to this thread on Ar15.com. They will have a good laugh. Also please link me to any modern firearm chambered in .306?
My cousin uses his hounds to tree bears and lions and shit, and that's what he uses, .308, I believe.
Again, all I'm sayin is a .308 is a very large caliber hunting rifle.
306? 30.6? thirty ought six? that's what I was referring to.
My cousin uses his hounds to tree bears and lions and shit, and that's what he uses, .308, I believe.
Again, all I'm sayin is a .308 is a very large caliber hunting rifle.
306? 30.6? thirty ought six? that's what I was referring to.
Your cousin is either a badass who knows exactly what he is doing hunting these animals or he is an accident waiting to happen. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the .22lr and 10 being the .50 BMG I'd say the .308 is a 5. It is a mid power cartridge and on the low end of what you'd want to be using on dangerous game such as lions or bears.
Step up to the some of the .30-.40 caliber magnum rounds or some of the "safari" .458 Lott .416 Rigby and I'd say your good to go for bear and lion.
And dude. They don't sell .50 cal sniper rifles to fucking joe hunter.
You can by any number of ".50 cal sniper rifles" just as easily as buying a .22! You have to be toying with me or you are very uninformed. I am sitting 10 feet from one as I type!! I can send you pics if you'd like.
You can by any number of ".50 cal sniper rifles" just as easily as buying a .22! You have to be toying with me or you are very uninformed. I am sitting 10 feet from one as I type!! I can send you pics if you'd like.
My Dad started teaching me firearms when I was 12. By the time I was 14, I was learning basic CQB (Close Quarters Battle). I was learning to properly switch between rifle and pistol during a firefight, how to coordinate target selection with a partner, double-tapping with a headshot, using proper ballistics depending on the terrain...etc.
You'd think that I would've massacred 100 innocent people after losing my job. But, nope, here I am. If anything, I have a deep respect for firearms and a greater disgust for people who abuse their right to own them.
Comments
Why?
Well, if these are the facts, I don't believe they are racist comments. It appears gun violence is predominantly a black problem in America. Do you know the stats for other areas, comparatively...... where the same circumstances apply. Poor, urban, black areas, relaxed gun laws...... what are the numbers in other countries? These are genuine questions here, because I don't know the stats. I just know that a gun murder in America doesn't even seem to make the news unless it involves some gunman on a rampage shooting as many people as he can. In my country, any gun related death makes the new, coz it's not an everyday event.
I do believe that less guns in society will lead to less gun related deaths. There seems to be a perception over there, that if the guns are taken away from the responsible gun owners, that they will still end up in the hands of criminals and society will become even more violent. That certainly hasn't been the case over here. We had a shocking massacre over here in 1996, and immediately after there were huge gun reforms. A government buy back scheme where people had the option to hand in their guns, be paid for them, no questions asked. We no longer have the right to own handguns, semi auto or automatic weapons. Sports shooters can still obtain a gun license and legally own rifles and such. And there hasn't been an enormous increase in violent crime. Sure, there is always the criminal element that gets their hands on a weapon, and the occasional shooting, but certainly not the huge increase in violence that the gun supporters made all the fuss about when these reforms were coming into place.
Yes, it's really that hard to understand.
What do you mean disarmed? Making guns is easy and simple. Just because you disarm a nation doesn't mean the technology disappears. I'm sure gun-loving America would be making guns in no time.
There's also of course the fact that criminals can get guns everywhere. At least that's how the argument goes, right? Take away the guns and only the criminals will have them.
So, take away a nation's guns and half of the population will just make them, the other half will buy them illegally on the streets, like criminals.
I love these arguments.
"No, you can't take away our guns because if you do we're victims and powerless."
"Banning guns is pointless, criminals will still be able to buy them, and people will make them at home."
naděje umírá poslední
So? Do you think everyone plans in advance? Have you ever heard about crimes of passion?
Do you think killing their spouse crossed these people's minds? Of course not.
There are a lot of people out there who never wanted to kill or harm others (I'm not talking about self defense) but who did it anyway.
naděje umírá poslední
Perhaps, but that's not how it works. You cannot take away the "urban element".
You're only racist if you believe that these people are not part of the US. There's a porblem with violence in the US. It doesn't matter who's violent.
What's the point of this argument anyway? People are talking about violence in the US and you simply say 'take away the most violent groups and there's very little gun crime here.'
You think everyone who is against guns is scared of them or don't know the facts about them. How very condescending of you. Granted, I know very little about guns but I know what I need to know.
I've said this before I don't have a problem with guns and I don't think they're scary. What bothers me is how some people try to represent guns here.
A gun will guarantee your safety.
Wrong. You can be the best trained person, with years of experience... a gun does not guarantee your safety at all. There was an example in the other thread by acoustic guy, he had a gun for protection, someone broke into his house while he was away. His wife came home, the burglar hid (this is the more realistic version. If they are there to steal your stuff, they probably don't want to kill you.). Point is, he could have killed her. Family not protected, despite owning a gun. Even better, imagine this guy coming into your house, you're away. You come home, he's going through your stuff and he finds your gun (I do believe you said you didn't lock it, and maybe even kept it loaded?), he comes down and he kills you. There's another scenario in this thread posted by scb, a guy actually disarmed the person with the gun and shot (at the floor).
There are probably just as many scenarios in which you (person with gun for protection) ends up being shot. Also, remember, not everyone with a gun is like you. I know the MT is filled with people who grew up on shooting ranges, had 16 guns before they were 6, had years of training etc but I'm sure that a great percentage of Americans doesn't have the same level of expertise. I guess you agree, because you want to teach gun owners to be responsible.
So can we please stop with the bullshit that a gun will protect you. It's a gamble. If you really want an honest debate about guns, or an honest informative thread about guns perhaps one of the first things you should mention is the fact that life is not a movie.
Yeah, it's very tough and macho to say you'll kill a twenty year old petty thief because he's an addiction and he wants to take your toaster, but actually killing someone is a different story.
naděje umírá poslední
Exactly, most people don't refuse to be a victim, they're just not.
And like I said, you can be a victim with or without a gun.
naděje umírá poslední
From day one we are taught to compete, to look out for ourselves. And success is measured in wealth. With inner cities being treated as third world countries, literally, to some extent, the people within these area have very little oportunity to clime the social ladder-other than through violence. Their only chance at 'success' is through force-to take what they are otherwise unable to obtain. And so it has become commonplace, part of our culture. Gang violence is rarely even reported on the news these days, though it happens every day.
And not just violence. Drug use and sales are part of this culture. People need to escape from this shitty existence here in these third world cities, from this culture period, and so resort to heavy drug use in some cases. A culture people want to be a part of has very little use for heavy drugs.
All of this points to a very violent culture that is becoming pervasive throughout the US, predominant in inner cities, and encouraged by the status quo. With firearms readily available it only adds to the volitile situation. take away the guns, sure crime will still exist, but its not easy to gun down your classmates without a gun. Or so easy to rob a liquor store with a knife. and so on.
People are the problem to be sure, a product of their environment, but allowing them access to guns (designed for one purpose) can only have one outcome.
I don't live in fear. I am prepared.
Just because I own an umbrella doesn't mean I own it because I'm scared to get wet. It means I am prepared in case it rains.
You folks are the ones living in fear of inanimate objects.
Besides which, it's a ridiculous argument. "I bought this trebuchet. It's not that I'm scared of enemy camps from the Middle Ages, but boy howdy, I'm prepared to siege 'em when the time comes." You don't need the trebuchet, and you don't need the gun.
Ok, so aside from a shotgun, is there anything else? What about a .22?
I guess there would be a greater degree of accuracy required for a .22?
I just can't see me being able to get comfortable with a shotgun which seems like it would defeat the purpose really.
I guess I'm thinking, knowing myself, that I'd want something that would require a level of proficiency from me, that is realitively light weight.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Not every shotgun has harsh recoil. You may have had experiences with 12 gauges that have scared you but a .410 is a perfect low recoil/light weight shotgun.
.22's are great for shooting squirrels and other varmints at less than 100 yards. Not great for stopping power or taking larger game. No matter what gun you choose you should practice and become proficient with it.
I think this is ultimately what needs to be done regardless if you are anti-gun or pro-gun.
The divide between classes IMO is the root of the senseless gun violence, and almost all violence for that matter.
Owning a gun can save your life and you are 80 times more likely to use it in self defense than become a victim of gun crime.
You people are scared of a potential situation far less likely to kill you than being given the wrong medicine by your own doctor. If you are living in that kind of fear you better not ever drive a car or go near a road because that has a far greater chance of happening. Never ever fall down either because falls account for more deaths than firearms as well.
Seriously, whos' really living in fear here?
If you lived in the middle ages you would!
Fortunately for me, I get to decide what I do and do not need. Again, we can keep having this circular discussion on whether or not people should own guns but it will go nowhere.
Seems Jeanie is the only one getting anything out of this as I had intended.
It's not really about being scared of the recoil and more to do with knowing I don't like how they discharge. I wouldn't consider getting a gun and not learning all I need to know to use it correctly. My understand of shotguns is that they spray pellets everywhere and do maximum injury but wouldn't be a "quick" or "clean" shot unless used at very close range and require much less proficiency. Given that I'm of two minds regarding owning a gun, to me a shotgun doesn't really come into the equation.
Supposing I ever needed to discharge a gun at a living target I'd prefer something that required me to be very certain and very accurate.
Does that make sense?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
or 9mm.
if your looking for a handgun.
if your looking for a rifle, get a .22., semi auto ruger with scope, they are cheap and I think they sell em at wall mart for a few hundred bucks. you can hit a birds head at a few dozen yards, and empty 15 rounds or so in 3 or 4 seconds.
Sure! Then it all depends on what you will primarily be killing. A bolt action rifle in .308 Winchester is a good "all purpose" gun. It is a fairly standard caliber for taking deer and other mid-sized non-dangerous game. A nice setup might be a Remington 700 BDL http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/model_700_BDL.asp with a variable 3-9 power scope http://www.leupold.com/hunting-and-shooting/products/scopes/ultralight-riflescopes/vx-ii-3-9x33mm-ultralight/ The BDL even comes with iron sights if you prefer.
just sayin....
You are kidding me right? .308 knock you on your ass?!
Are you Verne Troyer or something?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxNzkAYh9_Y&feature=related
I used to hunt with a .270 Rem. .270. that's all you need to take out a deer or a cat. Even an elk. And if your good you could take a bear out with it, not advised, but still.
a .306 is enough to drop a bear. a fucking big bear. any bear.
a .308 is for people who want to not just kill what they're shooting at but to make sure all the trees and bushes behind it drop too.
All I'm sayin is a .308 is a very large caliber hunting rifle. I'm not even sure if they make a bigger caliber.
You cannot be serious?! Are you being serious? "Not even sure they make a bigger caliber" "a .308 is for people who want to not just kill what they're shooting at but to make sure all the trees and bushes behind it drop too." Unless you are kidding I may have to post a link to this thread on Ar15.com. They will have a good laugh. Also please link me to any modern firearm chambered in .306?
Thank you charger.
I have to go out now but I'll check these links out after and get back to you with more questions I'm sure.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I own this rifle http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=50A1B&Category=0406c9ff-539d-4b4c-ae1f-d045b91324c3 it is the Armalite AR-50 chambered in .50 BMG. The gun weighs 35lbs and can hit a target the size of a cantalope at 1000m.
http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/Tshack/?action=view¤t=MVI_2498.flv
Are you certain you are familiar with firearms?
My cousin uses his hounds to tree bears and lions and shit, and that's what he uses, .308, I believe.
Again, all I'm sayin is a .308 is a very large caliber hunting rifle.
306? 30.6? thirty ought six? that's what I was referring to.
But I do know that a .308 is a pretty fucking big gun.
And dude. They don't sell .50 cal sniper rifles to fucking joe hunter.
Your cousin is either a badass who knows exactly what he is doing hunting these animals or he is an accident waiting to happen. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being the .22lr and 10 being the .50 BMG I'd say the .308 is a 5. It is a mid power cartridge and on the low end of what you'd want to be using on dangerous game such as lions or bears.
Step up to the some of the .30-.40 caliber magnum rounds or some of the "safari" .458 Lott .416 Rigby and I'd say your good to go for bear and lion.
http://www.top40-charts.info/?title=List_of_rifle_cartridges
Educate yourself.
You can by any number of ".50 cal sniper rifles" just as easily as buying a .22! You have to be toying with me or you are very uninformed. I am sitting 10 feet from one as I type!! I can send you pics if you'd like.
Buy one online! http://www.impactguns.com/store/ARM-50B.html
You'd think that I would've massacred 100 innocent people after losing my job. But, nope, here I am. If anything, I have a deep respect for firearms and a greater disgust for people who abuse their right to own them.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825