On 10/11/2012 17:23, Walt wrote:
On 11/10/2012 9:17 AM, mike wilson wrote:
On 10/11/2012 16:12, mike wilson wrote:
On 10/11/2012 11:37, P. J. Alling wrote:
Unpleasant though in may be ya got to think about this stuff.
Have to agree with P.J. about this. There was an incident last year(?)
when a guy was walking no more than a mile or so from his house and was
attacked by an old, dying (of starvation) Grizzly. It may have been a
gummy bear but it was 6-800lbs of hungry omnivore determined to have an
easy meal. Only because he was carrying a particularly powerful handgun
(and managed a lucky hit with one of the three rounds he managed to
fire) did he survive. Humans are still the huntee in some parts of the
continent.
A link for those interested.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/31/man-kills-charging-bear-with-454-casull/
A "snub nose" .454 Casull!
I'd hate to try to empty the cylinder on one of those in a hurry.
As it would seem to entail being in the path of a charging predator, I
tend to agree with you. But I'd give it a jolly good go if I had to.
On 11/10/2012 1:08 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
Damn we’re a cheery bunch.
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM, P. J. Alling
<webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote:
AK47 or the equivalent, unless it's fully automatic isn't good enough
for a
bear of any kind. Just not accurate enough, and the AR-15 derived
competition isn't powerful enough. Really only good against
varmints up to
200 pounds, with poor slope armor on their skulls.
On 11/8/2012 11:03 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
Don't forget that real men have an AK-47 or equivalent in the woods
with
them, no mere grizzly would be an issue.
stan
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Miserere <miser...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah John, Scandinavia is for girly men. I want to live poor and
die
young, hopefully at the hands (paws?) of a grizzly bear in the
woods
(where I'm forced to live because I can't afford a house and
there is
no help from the government for scientists living below the poverty
line).
—M.
\/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com
http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
On 8 November 2012 14:02, John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com>
wrote:
From: DagT
I can agree with you there, being relatively conservative by
Norwegians standards. One reason why republikanske are not very
popular around here is that they usually don't seam to know much
about the world outside the US. And in the previous election they
used Skandinavia as an example of a system they didn't want :-)
Just compare The US to Scandinavia ...
Scandinavia = Denmark; Finland; Norway; Sweden (Numbers from
OECD):
Healthcare cost as percent of GDP:
US 17.4% - Denmark 11.5%; Finland 9.2%; Norway 9.2% Sweden 10%
Healthcare cost per capita:
US $7,960 - Denmark $4,348; Finland $3,226; Norway $5,352; Sweden
$3,722;
Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births before their first
birthday):
US 6.8 - Denmark 4.4; Finland 3.0; Norway 3.1; Sweden 2.4
Life expectancy at birth (Total Population):
US 78.7 - Denmark 79.3; Finland 80.2; Norway 81.2; Sweden 81.5
Life expectancy at age 65 (Males):
US 17.7 - Denmark 17.0; Finland 17.5; Norway 18.0; Sweden 18.2
Percentage of persons living with less than 50% of median
equivalised
household income:
US 17.3% - Denmark 6.1%; Finland 7.9%; Norway 7.8%; Sweden 8.4%
Easy to see why we wouldn't want anything like *THAT* for the U.S.
--
No fixed Adobe
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
