Yes, we learned that technique from the gun nuts who think that "sportsmen" have a right to use an AK-47.
but my point is that the liberal gun-grabbers will use every opportunity to misunderstand and misconstrue, and even deliberately ignore the obvious and twist the truth
ezfromnwon@aol.com wrote:
Yes, we learned that technique from the gun nuts who think that "sportsmen" have a right to use an AK-47.
I have an SKS (military rifle somewhat similar to an AK-47; it came with a bayonet attached to it, too) and I use Russian military jacketed hollow point rounds for deer hunting (and target practice). Of course, it's not fully automatic, but neither are any of the AK-47's that are legally available for purchase in the U.S. There is nothing at all wrong with using an AK-47 or an SKS for hunting. But why use one, you might wonder? Because they are typically cheaper to buy than a 'civilian' hunting rifle like a .30-06, for example, and the ammo is a lot cheaper, too; the SKS cost just a hundred bucks a few years back, brand new. Of course that was then, and now they are a whole lot harder to find and the price has jumped enormously because of gun-grabbers. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the deer doesn't give a damn whether the bullet that kills it is from a 'civilian' or a 'military' rifle. Just another example of gun-grabbers not knowing what they're talking about. Why don't the gun-grabbers do something more useful like having laws passed to prohibit the manufacture of cars that can be driven faster than 80 mph. The technology is very simple, and speed kills; in fact, I would bet my eye-teeth that each year there are more people killed as a result of speeding than by all non-combat/law-enforcement killings with military rifles.
Bill Velek
We're getting way off topic now, but you may be interested to learn
that Italy recently increased their speed limit on three-lane
highways from about 55mph to about 93mph (converted from kph).
Traffic-related fatalities went down, not up. Studies basically
indicate that people don't pay attention to the task at hand
(driving) when they are traveling at slow speeds (depends on the
individual, but usually speeds under 80mph are considered "slow").
The NHSC basically came to the same conclusion in this country.
Yes, people can (and do) drive safely at triple digit speeds in other
countries. Speed limits in the US have been kept artificially low
for one reason, and one reason only: revenue from speeding tickets.
ezfromnwon@a... wrote:
Why don't the gun-grabbers do something more useful like having
laws
passed to prohibit the manufacture of cars that can be driven
faster
than 80 mph. The technology is very simple, and speed kills; in
fact, I
would bet my eye-teeth that each year there are more people killed
as a
result of speeding than by all non-combat/law-enforcement killings
with
billkennedy3 wrote:
We're getting way off topic now, but you may be interested to learn
that Italy recently increased their speed limit on three-lane
highways from about 55mph to about 93mph (converted from kph). Traffic-related fatalities went down, not up.
Well, that's just Italy. The logic there is that you are at tremendous risk any time you are in a car in Italy 
... and so by nearly doubling the speed limit, the rationale is to get drivers to their destinations and off of the roads as fast as possible.
As for the rest of your comments, I'd have to see some actual hard and reliable evidence to be convinced, So I'm not going to send you my eye-teeth just yet. 
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Ah yes....the Yugoslovian SKS Rifle.....when you absolutely, positively, have to kill every #$%&@()$^ deer in the forest.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. ;>
carlos
ezfromnwon@aol.com wrote:
Yes, we learned that technique from the gun nuts who think that
"sportsmen" have a right to use an AK-47.
I have an SKS (military rifle somewhat similar to an AK-47; it came with
a bayonet attached to it, too) and I use Russian military jacketed
hollow point rounds for deer hunting (and target practice)....[etc]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill Velek <billvelek@alltel.net> wrote:
This absolutely, positively made my day! Thanks for the smiles!
Liz
carlos wrote:"Ah yes....the Yugoslovian SKS Rifle.....when you absolutely, positively, have to kill every #$%&@()$^ deer in the forest.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. ;>"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I cant confirm or deny your speed/safty info, but this country is
certainly dependent on Speeding Tickets for a income source to states
and cities. I recently saw a show about highways in europe which are
designed for high speed and they also talked about the police giving
out many many more tickets for following too close then they did for
speeding, because it is much more dangerous and they are focused on
saftey not on the revenue. I constantly see 3,4 or 5 cars in a row
going 65-75 and only 15 feet apart. This is extremely dangerous for
them and anyone around them, but in the US no one gets a ticket for
tailgating. Oh, and while we are off target 'Go Cardinals'
Jim
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billkennedy3" <billkennedy3@y...> wrote:
We're getting way off topic now, but you may be interested to learn
that Italy recently increased their speed limit on three-lane
highways from about 55mph to about 93mph (converted from kph).
Traffic-related fatalities went down, not up. Studies basically
indicate that people don't pay attention to the task at hand
(driving) when they are traveling at slow speeds (depends on the
individual, but usually speeds under 80mph are considered "slow").
The NHSC basically came to the same conclusion in this country.Yes, people can (and do) drive safely at triple digit speeds in other
countries. Speed limits in the US have been kept artificially low
for one reason, and one reason only: revenue from speeding tickets.
Carlos Lebron wrote:
Ah yes....the Yugoslovian SKS Rifle.....when you absolutely, positively, have to kill every #$%&@()$^ deer in the forest.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one. ;>
carlos
Carlos, I don't know if you're just joking, or if you are also one of those nasty ol' gun-grabbers, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, for those of you who might think that there is actually a grain of truth to that, meaning that it might be possible to shoot lots and lots of deer just because a person has an SKS ... that is just another gross misrepresentation of reality, typical for liberal gun-grabbers.. And that's because deer aren't running all over the place where you can do that in the first place. I've gone entire seasons spending a lot of time on a deer stand without getting a single shot. Some days we won't see a single deer, or it will be a doe during buck season or something like that. Sometimes they're so far away that it's hard to see through the brush if they have enough points on their antlers. And they can move real fast. I'm not the best shot in the world, but I'm not the worst either, but where I hunt, the brush is thick enough that I'd be absolutely impressed by anyone who could shoot a deer, and then be able to accurately get off a shot at a second deer (then probably a moving target) before it disappears in the brush. Frankly, I don't know a single hunter who would be trying to get that second shot; they'd be worrying about the first one they shot -- whether they actually hit it or not, and in which direction it ran (assuming it didn't just drop on the spot, which frequently doesn't happen).
Hunting is a valuable game management tool. If sportsmen quite hunting, the state would literally need to spend tax dollars hiring employees to go out and do it. Either that or just let the deer populations grow to the point of becoming a public nuisance and/or starving from over population. But gun grabbers don't look at _anything_ logically. They've got this tunnel-vision problem, and they always know that they're right.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Why don't the gun-grabbers do something more useful like having laws passed to prohibit the manufacture of cars that can be driven faster than 80 mph. The technology is very simple, and speed kills; in fact, I would bet my eye-teeth that each year there are more people killed as a result of speeding than by all non-combat/law-enforcement killings with military rifles.
Bill Velek
Now, now, Bill that's not nice to say...
I am a target shooter, but I also drive a C5 Corvette that advertises a top speed of 185 mph. I don't speed but like the mechanical aspect of the Corvette. BTW, I get over 33 mpg going to Las Vegas.
I'm against gun grabbers and car grabbers!
Dennis
vp-connoisseur
Carlos, I don't know if you're just joking, or if you are also one
of
those nasty ol' gun-grabbers, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt. Now, for those of you who might think that there is
actually a
grain of truth to that, meaning that it might be possible to shoot
lots
and lots of deer just because a person has an SKS ... that is just
another gross misrepresentation of reality, typical for liberal
gun-grabbers..
First of all, I don't think that being against the possession of
guns by private individuals makes one a "liberal" even if one
considers that term to be roughly equivalent to "Nazi", "ultimate
evil", "utter fool", or any of the other equivalent epithets that
certain overfed radio talk-show (rant-show) hosts use to describe
anyone who believes in women's rights, preservation of the
environment, religious freedom (including the right not to HAVE a
religion), etc. etc. In reality, there are too many points of view
out there to pigeonhole everyone in the world into two categories,
especially not the two categories, "liberal" and "holy truth".
And that's because deer aren't running all over the
place where you can do that in the first place. I've gone entire
seasons spending a lot of time on a deer stand without getting a
single shot.
Bill, since you are the only person I've ever talked to who liked to
go deer hunting and also had a higher than third grade education,
and since you're obviously an intelligent and articulate person, I
wonder if you could answer a few questions I'd had for a long time
that truly puzzle me:
Why do you hunt deer?
Is it for the thrill of participating in some kind of "sport"? If
so, what is "sporting" about pitting several men with advanced
weaponry, vehicles, equipment, etc., combined with human
intelligence, against a few terrified and not particularly
intelligent deer whose only defense is speed? I honestly don't see
the thrill, nor would I feel any kind of joy or sense of
accomplishment if I sat in a blind, freezing my butt off, until
eventually some hapless deer wandered near enough for me to blow his
head off.
Is it for the joy of the kill? Is it for the visceral thrill as you
see the high-powered shell rip into the deer's ribcage, blood
spurting out the exit wound? Is it for the deeply satisfying sight
of seeing the deer's eyes widen is fear, shock, and pain, and then
seeing it collapse to the ground in agony? Do you savor its death
throes as you slowly stride up to it, triumphant in the knowledge
that once again the mighty hunter has overcome the wily deer, armed
with only a Remington 30.06 with telescopic sight and 200 rounds of
anmmo?
Is it because you like to eat venison? Well, I can at least see
that, but it seems to me it would be a lot more cost-effective to go
down to Grocery World and place a special order for a few shanks or
steaks or cutlets or whatever it is you get from a deer.
Is it for the manly comraderie, the opportunity to camp out with the
boys, drink beer, and compare the size of each other's rifles? (I
may be close here, especially with the part about the beer.) Well,
let me just relate something I saw last year:
It was October, and I decided to drive up into the Sierra foothills
and into Yosemite Valley to see the fall colors. Suffice it to say
that it was one of the more glorious days I have ever spent in the
mountains. There was beauty there to move anyone to tears. On my way
down to the valley, I was passed by a huge pickup truck. In the bed
sat four hunters on soem kind of improvised bench. Each had his
rifle detween his knees, pointed upwards. Each was staring straight
ahead, unaware of the beauty around him. It was one of the saddest
sights I have ever witnessed.
Hunting is a valuable game management tool. If sportsmen quite
hunting, the state would literally need to spend tax dollars hiring
employees to> go out and do it. Either that or just let the deer
populations grow to the point of becoming a public nuisance and/or
starving from over population.
Gee, one wonders how all those poor deer got along for hundreds of
thousands of years before we mercifully came along to help thin them
out. The answer, of course, is that since HUNTERS have largely
extirpated the deer's natural predators, the herds thrive to the
point of overpopulation. If we'd just let the whole mess alone for a
few decades, the predator AND deer populations would stabilize.
But in any case, are you suggesting that hunters are primarily
pursuing their hobby out of a sense of public spirit, that theirs is
simply a noble endeavor to help balance the animal population and
preserve the environment? Funny, then, how I don't see any of these
people out helping clean up beaches, or reclaim wetlands for birds,
or any other less fun environmental tasks.
But gun grabbers don't look at _anything_ logically.
They've got this tunnel-vision problem, and they always know that
they're right.
So characterizing anyone who disagrees with you is a mark of a
narrow-minded person. It's sad, as you are obviously an educated
man, who has unfortunately risen to a profession where you affect
many lives. I had always thought that in the process of receiving
enough education as well as life experience to ascend to the bench,
a person would acquire enough perspective so as not to see
everything in shades of black and white.
Pollyanna idealist that I am.
Dear Vpfree
How much video poker do you get out of $100?
patrick
Carlos, I don't know if you're just joking, or if you are also one
of
those nasty ol' gun-grabbers, but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt. Now, for those of you who might think that there is
actually a
grain of truth to that, meaning that it might be possible to shoot
lots
and lots of deer just because a person has an SKS ... that is just
another gross misrepresentation of reality, typical for liberal
gun-grabbers..
First of all, I don't think that being against the possession of
guns by private individuals makes one a "liberal" even if one
considers that term to be roughly equivalent to "Nazi", "ultimate
evil", "utter fool", or any of the other equivalent epithets that
certain overfed radio talk-show (rant-show) hosts use to describe
anyone who believes in women's rights, preservation of the
environment, religious freedom (including the right not to HAVE a
religion), etc. etc. In reality, there are too many points of view
out there to pigeonhole everyone in the world into two categories,
especially not the two categories, "liberal" and "holy truth".
And that's because deer aren't running all over the
place where you can do that in the first place. I've gone entire
seasons spending a lot of time on a deer stand without getting a
single shot.
Bill, since you are the only person I've ever talked to who liked to
go deer hunting and also had a higher than third grade education,
and since you're obviously an intelligent and articulate person, I
wonder if you could answer a few questions I'd had for a long time
that truly puzzle me:
Why do you hunt deer?
Is it for the thrill of participating in some kind of "sport"? If
so, what is "sporting" about pitting several men with advanced
weaponry, vehicles, equipment, etc., combined with human
intelligence, against a few terrified and not particularly
intelligent deer whose only defense is speed? I honestly don't see
the thrill, nor would I feel any kind of joy or sense of
accomplishment if I sat in a blind, freezing my butt off, until
eventually some hapless deer wandered near enough for me to blow his
head off.
Is it for the joy of the kill? Is it for the visceral thrill as you
see the high-powered shell rip into the deer's ribcage, blood
spurting out the exit wound? Is it for the deeply satisfying sight
of seeing the deer's eyes widen is fear, shock, and pain, and then
seeing it collapse to the ground in agony? Do you savor its death
throes as you slowly stride up to it, triumphant in the knowledge
that once again the mighty hunter has overcome the wily deer, armed
with only a Remington 30.06 with telescopic sight and 200 rounds of
anmmo?
Is it because you like to eat venison? Well, I can at least see
that, but it seems to me it would be a lot more cost-effective to go
down to Grocery World and place a special order for a few shanks or
steaks or cutlets or whatever it is you get from a deer.
Is it for the manly comraderie, the opportunity to camp out with the
boys, drink beer, and compare the size of each other's rifles? (I
may be close here, especially with the part about the beer.) Well,
let me just relate something I saw last year:
It was October, and I decided to drive up into the Sierra foothills
and into Yosemite Valley to see the fall colors. Suffice it to say
that it was one of the more glorious days I have ever spent in the
mountains. There was beauty there to move anyone to tears. On my way
down to the valley, I was passed by a huge pickup truck. In the bed
sat four hunters on soem kind of improvised bench. Each had his
rifle detween his knees, pointed upwards. Each was staring straight
ahead, unaware of the beauty around him. It was one of the saddest
sights I have ever witnessed.
Hunting is a valuable game management tool. If sportsmen quite
hunting, the state would literally need to spend tax dollars hiring
employees to> go out and do it. Either that or just let the deer
populations grow to the point of becoming a public nuisance and/or
starving from over population.
Gee, one wonders how all those poor deer got along for hundreds of
thousands of years before we mercifully came along to help thin them
out. The answer, of course, is that since HUNTERS have largely
extirpated the deer's natural predators, the herds thrive to the
point of overpopulation. If we'd just let the whole mess alone for a
few decades, the predator AND deer populations would stabilize.
But in any case, are you suggesting that hunters are primarily
pursuing their hobby out of a sense of public spirit, that theirs is
simply a noble endeavor to help balance the animal population and
preserve the environment? Funny, then, how I don't see any of these
people out helping clean up beaches, or reclaim wetlands for birds,
or any other less fun environmental tasks.
But gun grabbers don't look at _anything_ logically.
They've got this tunnel-vision problem, and they always know that
they're right.
So characterizing anyone who disagrees with you is a mark of a
narrow-minded person. It's sad, as you are obviously an educated
man, who has unfortunately risen to a profession where you affect
many lives. I had always thought that in the process of receiving
enough education as well as life experience to ascend to the bench,
a person would acquire enough perspective so as not to see
everything in shades of black and white.
Pollyanna idealist that I am.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
rockofjello333 <rockofjello333@yahoo.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
CLOSEOUT PRICES ON NEW ELECTRONICS HOUSEWARES AND MORE
www.patrickswholesalewarehouse.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Depends.
If you're playing 25c video poker, 5 coins per hand,
you get $1.25 coin-in per hand played.
It will take 12,000 hands @ $1.25 per hand to attain
the $15,000 coin-in mentioned in the subject line.
How far $100 goes depends on whether or not you lose
it, and if you do, how soon.
vpFREE Administrator
On 12 Oct 2004 at 18:19, patrick wrote:
Dear Vpfree
How much video poker do you get out of $100?
Jazbo, at his VP site, in his article on "half-life", puts a little statistical flesh on
an answer to this question, for various VP games and various stakes.
.....bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
On 12 Oct 2004 at 18:19, patrick wrote:
> Dear Vpfree
> How much video poker do you get out of $100?
Thank you !
patrick
Dear Vpfree
How much video poker do you get out of $100?
Depends.
If you're playing 25c video poker, 5 coins per hand,
you get $1.25 coin-in per hand played.
It will take 12,000 hands @ $1.25 per hand to attain
the $15,000 coin-in mentioned in the subject line.
How far $100 goes depends on whether or not you lose
it, and if you do, how soon.
vpFREE Administrator
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
vpFREE <vpFREE@Cox.net> wrote:
On 12 Oct 2004 at 18:19, patrick wrote:
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
CLOSEOUT PRICES ON NEW ELECTRONICS HOUSEWARES AND MORE
www.patrickswholesalewarehouse.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Woah. I should probably just let this one die, but the logic here is
so flawed that I feel compelled to throw my 2 cents on the fire.
I have only one question for you: "where do you think the meat on
supermarket shelves comes from?" Killing a deer with a high powered
rifle is certainly more humane than then the way cows are
slaughtered. When you're eating a hamburger, do you think that just
because YOU didn't actually kill the cow, that one didn't die?
People have been hunting for thousands of years, and there is
certainly nothing immoral about it, as you're trying to suggest. Are
you against fishing too? Or is your problem with hunting because
deers are "cuter"?
And while you may consider hunting "boring", I'm sure there are
activities that you partake in that others might find equally
uninteresting (such as walking around in the mountains). How would
you feel if somebody suggested that you not be allowed to do
something that you enjoy just because THEY can find no redeeming
qualities to it?
I can't believe that you'd call someone else one-sided.
I also want to add that I don't hunt, and don't own any guns. But I
feel very strongly that everyone should have the right to do both. I
also feel that a VP forum should focus on VP, so I'll stop adding
fuel to the fire now. =)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
Why do you hunt deer?
Is it for the thrill of participating in some kind of "sport"? If
so, what is "sporting" about pitting several men with advanced
weaponry, vehicles, equipment, etc., combined with human
intelligence, against a few terrified and not particularly
intelligent deer whose only defense is speed? I honestly don't see
the thrill, nor would I feel any kind of joy or sense of
accomplishment if I sat in a blind, freezing my butt off, until
eventually some hapless deer wandered near enough for me to blow
his
head off.
Is it for the joy of the kill? Is it for the visceral thrill as you
see the high-powered shell rip into the deer's ribcage, blood
spurting out the exit wound? Is it for the deeply satisfying sight
of seeing the deer's eyes widen is fear, shock, and pain, and then
seeing it collapse to the ground in agony? Do you savor its death
throes as you slowly stride up to it, triumphant in the knowledge
that once again the mighty hunter has overcome the wily deer, armed
with only a Remington 30.06 with telescopic sight and 200 rounds of
anmmo?Is it because you like to eat venison? Well, I can at least see
that, but it seems to me it would be a lot more cost-effective to
go
down to Grocery World and place a special order for a few shanks or
steaks or cutlets or whatever it is you get from a deer.Is it for the manly comraderie, the opportunity to camp out with
the
boys, drink beer, and compare the size of each other's rifles? (I
may be close here, especially with the part about the beer.) Well,
let me just relate something I saw last year:It was October, and I decided to drive up into the Sierra foothills
and into Yosemite Valley to see the fall colors. Suffice it to say
that it was one of the more glorious days I have ever spent in the
mountains. There was beauty there to move anyone to tears. On my
way
down to the valley, I was passed by a huge pickup truck. In the bed
sat four hunters on soem kind of improvised bench. Each had his
rifle detween his knees, pointed upwards. Each was staring straight
ahead, unaware of the beauty around him. It was one of the saddest
sights I have ever witnessed.> Hunting is a valuable game management tool. If sportsmen quite
hunting, the state would literally need to spend tax dollars hiring
employees to> go out and do it. Either that or just let the deer
populations grow to the point of becoming a public nuisance and/or
starving from over population.Gee, one wonders how all those poor deer got along for hundreds of
thousands of years before we mercifully came along to help thin
them
out. The answer, of course, is that since HUNTERS have largely
extirpated the deer's natural predators, the herds thrive to the
point of overpopulation. If we'd just let the whole mess alone for
a
few decades, the predator AND deer populations would stabilize.
But in any case, are you suggesting that hunters are primarily
pursuing their hobby out of a sense of public spirit, that theirs
is
simply a noble endeavor to help balance the animal population and
preserve the environment? Funny, then, how I don't see any of these
people out helping clean up beaches, or reclaim wetlands for birds,
or any other less fun environmental tasks.But gun grabbers don't look at _anything_ logically.
> They've got this tunnel-vision problem, and they always know that
> they're right.
>
So characterizing anyone who disagrees with you is a mark of a
narrow-minded person. It's sad, as you are obviously an educated
man, who has unfortunately risen to a profession where you affect
many lives. I had always thought that in the process of receiving
enough education as well as life experience to ascend to the bench,
a person would acquire enough perspective so as not to see
everything in shades of black and white.Pollyanna idealist that I am.