guns on campus

well.......thats something for him anyway.

I'm sorry you missed the humor of some here taking the bait ..............

My regrets that you failed to comprehend the conversation and chose to answer in chatroomese.

The point was ..............

any projectile of a high muzzle velocity and energy is dangerous as a home defense round because it can go through walls VERY easily, and has a range of a mile or more.

Sorry that you could not comprehend or stick to the point being discussed.

Point was that someone would come out blazing with a ".357" (type and flavor unknown and unstated) and think that this big bad round would make them a big bad home defender. No matter that one who would use such a round in such a way is just a plain vanilla idiot.

So, I'm sorry that those here who did not or could not follow the point of the conversation got diverted into such diarrhetic literati minutiae.

They would have had more credibility with the .454 Casull argument.

Steve

No. Really, it was your amazing literary skills.

Steve

wrote

Oh, God, my heart be still!

Steve

Guess you've never heard of moon clips, then, huh?

That would be no. Please explain, as I am always interested in buying something more for my guns. :-)

Steve

Googled them, and a friend had one for a .45 cal. revolver he had. Funny, but the one I saw had six .357 MAGNUM rounds in it. Wonder if they make it for the plain .357 rounds, too. Steve

I had a thought while laying in bed this evening. Why don't colleges teach ancient technology courses? Such things as throwing sticks, slings, and sling shots could be taught.

One frat rat with a sling shot and some 1/2" steel ball bearings could have put a hurt on that guy, and a half dozen could have killed him.

Oh, but wait. That wouldn't be PC. Unless, of course, they taught it in conjunction with ethnic diversity or some such nonsense that would link it to some minority group. But then, that's entirely possible, as sling shots have been historically linked to downtrodden minority kids, haven't they.

I think I'm on to something.

And a Wrist Rocket or equivalent with ball bearings makes one nasty weapon. Even one made out of a tree fork and strips of inner tubes works pretty good.

Steve

ok steve, you are right. you are sorry.

as an aside, the fact that you own a gun doesn't make you a ballistic expert. in fact, that is the point of my other posts. before you jump on someone or try to add the stupid kind of crap like you just wrote, it would be a help to you if you knew what you were talking about.

wrote

it would be a help to you if you knew what you were talking

I own so many guns, I would have to go to my gun room and count them to accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I was

1. I've been shooting since then.

So, prove me wrong. Show me a .357 shell. A generic one. Not a magnum, not a SIG, not anything, but a .357 caliber shell.

Steve

Really? That's a pretty generic-sounding cartridge, there, Steve. ".22", huh? Well, what is it? .22LR? .22Magnum? .22-250?

steve, i have never once commented on your .357 v. 357 sig v 357 magnum bull shit. my comments concerned your stupid and innane remarks regarding the ballistic properties of the 357 whatever. certainly anyone at your advanced stage of life can follow a thread?

as for owning so many guns.......first i doubt it. don't count the mattels, air guns, and b-b guns please. never the less, if the number of guns that you own somehow related to your intellectual level, then the us govt would be brilliant. they are not and it does not.

lol.

i just think you are on something.

steve, stop and think for a minute. you just got caught in your own stupidity.

"most" people that have guns would know what you meant by .22 rifle, just as "most" people would know that 357 refers to the well known model, the .357 magnum. you played a stupid little game because you were pissed at larry but you just ended up making yourself look stupid. the 357 magnum is usually referred to as the 357. it is pretty much the standard in that caliber. now they do have the 357 sig (intended to be a 357 magnum light for the auto loader) and the

357 remington max or 357 max remington (intended as a hunting round i think). there could even be others out there, but the magnum is the stable and we all knew that was what larry was referring to.

why don't you relax and stop blowing o-rings over little things.

thedumbguy:

Nope. It was you again. You even delivered an ironic twist: Only 28 minutes before posting your "stop and think" reply, you said to Steve "certainly anyone at your advanced stage of life can follow a thread?"

IDIOT! Steve referred to the staple (not 'stable') from the outset. From then on, punkinseed has been pouting as follows:

"No where did I ever mention, use or imply the word Magnum, all I said was .357. I gather you have NEVER heard of a .357 Sig have you clueless one? Vastly different the a .357 Magnum. Educate yourself, with this link about them maybe you will learn something"

"I made a statement about .357, I did not specify Magnum or otherwise, as the people in here that know me, which I have discussed firearms with would know what I meant."

"Sorry you are too stupid to understand that the regulars in here knew what I was refering too"

"I'm sorry, but once again, those that know me and who I have been conversing with for many years knew exactly what I was refering too."

"I NEVER SAID .357 MAGNUM, YOU DID."

If you can confuse a .22 round with anything else, you would not understand anything else I said.

Steve

beryl........great to hear from you again old boy. the home let you at the computer again huh?

is steve a friend of yours beryl? or are you just an avenging angel for the people that come here and make fools of themselves? you fill the bill, old bean, because no one could be a bigger fool than you.

beryl, that last part doesn't even make sense. take your meds every night.....relax.......get some more sleep beryl........and you may be able to actually say something that makes sense.