JAB

  Of course in TN there is no legal duty to retreat.  I understand what you meant, though, and I agree - especially the last part of the last sentence.  There may be no legal duty to retreat but in a public setting I think it is the common sense thing to do.  In my own home I would feel differently but in a public setting getting away and calling 911 (as in Caster's previous example) sounds a lot better to me than dealing with the legal aftermath of shooting someone, no matter how justified.  I'll deal with that aftermath if I have to in order to save my life or the life of someone about whom I care but better to avoid the whole shebang if I can.   Further, while some might not think this the 'upstanding' attitude, I do not carry a gun to protect society at large.  I carry a gun to protect myself and a core group of family/friends.  If I am in a crowded building with members of that core group and some maniac starts shooting, my 'job' and main concern is getting them (and me) out alive.  If the shooter is ten feet away then, yeah, my best bet is probably to try and take the shot.  If, however, he is on the other side of the restaurant/store/movie theater and my group is close to an exit then I am not going to risk shooting more innocent bystanders in the crossfire and draw the shooter's attention to my group by opening up from 25 yards or so away.  As you say, if I/we can retreat then that is what I/we will do.

  I think a much more satisfactory outcome would be if no one showed up at his funeral, at all, except Phelps, himself, the funeral director and grave diggers.  I believe that a lot of the pain he has caused has been because he is a self-aggrandizing attention whore.  How fitting, then, if his passing didn't get much attention, at all.   There was a line in the article that seemed to indicate that Phelps, himself, was 'excommunicated' from his own church.  Part of the quote from Nate Phelps read:         I have to wonder what that is all about.  I also have to wonder if it is a misprint and, if not, why the non-excommunicated family members won't let the previously 'ex-communicated' family members see him.  If it is true, was he 'ex-communicated' because he had a change of heart about the hate filled mission of the church?  Are the church members blocking others from seeing him because they are afraid he will denounce his previous actions and message?   The most disgusting thing I remember this guy doing - even worse, IMO, than protesting military funerals - was that he planned to protest at the funeral of the little Amish girls that were killed in a shooting at an Amish school a few years back.  One of them, despite being just a little girl, apparently asked the gunman to kill her, if he had to kill anyone, and let her friends live.  She was not only an innocent child but also a hero and those Westboro pukes were planning to protest her funeral, calling her a whore and other things.  The only reason they didn't protest was that there was a talk show host (radio, IIRC) who traded them some on-air time in exchange for leaving her funeral alone.   http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/04/anti-gay-kansas-church-cancels-protests-at-funerals-for-slain-amish-girls/

If no other factors were of concern then carrying with the idea of being able to make 50 yard SD shots might be worth considering.  However, other factors are an issue and there are reasons, IMO, why the likelihood of taking such a long shot with a handgun is very low, low enough that I would consider the whole thing little more than a mental exercise and certainly not a factor in choosing a gun to carry in a public setting.  I'm not talking about just concealment and comfort, either.  To me, in most 'in public' settings, taking a 50 yard shot on an assailant - or a 25 yard shot in many cases - would be irresponsible regardless of what handgun I am carrying, be it my J-frame or my Ruger P95.  After all, I am not preparing to be on a battlefield, considering raiding a domestic terrorist compound or charged with kicking in the door of a warehouse turned meth lab where every person in the range of fire is an enemy combatant.  Instead, I am probably going to be in a populated area where there are more innocent bystanders in that 50 yard range than there are assailants.  To my way of thinking, the further out the shot the more likely I would strike an innocent bystander instead of the assailant.  I am responsible for every bullet that leaves my gun and so I could not, in good conscience, take such a shot in, say, a Walmart parking lot or (as someone above suggested) a crowded movie theater.  There would simply be too much chance of such an action going quickly from 'self defense' to 'manslaughter' or even 'second degree murder.'  Sure, there are other reasons (as mentioned in the article) why a full-sized gun or at least something larger/heavier than a pocket pistol might be better in some cases.  I carry my aforementioned P95 sometimes because there are times when I go places where the extra ammo capacity and greater stability are a comfort not because I think I might need to exchange fire with an assailant from he distance of half a football field.   As for the 'shooting 300 to 500 rounds is a test of endurance' issue with the small guns, I guess that is true.  However, once again, how likely is it that I am going to have to fire 300 to 500 rounds in an SD situation.  I wouldn't even have that many rounds on me in a SD situation, anyhow, so I call that another non-issue.  Speaking to the 'never shoot them' issue, maybe I am weird but I tend to shoot my pocket pistols more than my full-sized guns.  That is because I realize that 1. I am more likely to be carrying one of the smaller guns and 2. I realize that smaller guns require more practice in order to be confident with them.   Now, if I am in a more rural setting without bystanders around then I might be more tempted to take the long shot.  Fortunately, in such a setting I would also be a lot more likely to be carrying a full-sized handgun than a pocket pistol.  Heck, depending on where I am (in the woods at home, for instance) there is a good chance I'd be carrying a long gun of some type.   There is another reason I believe the '50 yard handgun self defense shot' to be all but a non-issue.  In the article, the author goes so far as to admit that most self defense shootings DO occur up close and personal.  From which one can extrapolate that even the author realizes 25 or 50 yard SD shots, while 'it could happen', are an aberration.  Now, consider that the vast majority of us will never be involved in a self defense shooting in the first place - we generally carry more 'just in case' than because we really will.  To my way of thinking, then, that makes dying because I can't make a 50 yard shot with my J-frame only slightly more likely than being gnawed to death by militant beavers - it is possible but not a very practical thing to worry about.  In fact, due to the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph, I would say that I consider the mindset in which one would plan to take such a shot with any handgun in a public setting to be downright irresponsible the vast majority of the time.

Thanks to everyone for the replies and suggestions.     That is largely what I am thinking.  Also, I am specifically thinking about amoxicillin because - based on some research I have done - it is one of the 'milder' antibiotics but is still a pretty solid choice.  From what I can find, it might not be quite as effective as some of the stronger stuff but it is also very unlikely to have risks associated with taking it (beyond overuse resulting in resistant strains of bacteria, of course.)  Amoxicillin is what I have been prescribed by dentists in the past as a precaution to take before certain dental procedures.

  Thanks!

Like the thread title says, I am looking for a good, reliable, trustworthy source for nonprescription fish mox (aquatic pet amoxicillin) and perhaps similar items.  I keep reading how they are available in pet stores but have checked all the pet stores of which I am aware in this area and have yet to find any.  Anyone know where I could find some locally (Knoxville area) or a good, reputable site for ordering online?

I don't see why the entire nation doesn't simply move forward one half of an hour in the Spring and then leave it there.  Split the difference and forget about it.

I still cannot understand the apparent opinion among lawmakers, etc. that I - as a person who can legally carry as many fully loaded firearms on my person as I have places to put them and can legally do so in most public places - would be transformed into a bloodthirsty maniac by the presence of a single >4 inch blade stuck in among all those firearms.  The length limit needs to be dropped, completely, but HCP holders should have been immune from those restrictions all along.     It is sad to think that we saw more significant, positive changes to weapon and self defense laws with Naifeh as Speaker of the House and a New Jersey Democrat (Bredesen) in the Governor's office than we have seen since Republicans gained the House and the Governorship (official adoption of 'no duty to retreat' and other 'Castle Doctrine' based laws, carry where alcohol is served and so on.)  In every election, from local to national, we hear the old mantra, "You'd better vote Republican if you want your self defense and gun rights protected and advanced." Seems like this is simply a good case in point to show that is just more political BS.

  I am sure that if they do get close to actually putting these on the road for something near the advertised price then one of the established car companies will buy them out and either shut them down or 'redesign' the vehicles so they can charge $20,000 for them.  That is if the car industry lobbyists give their pet congressmen the nod to go ahead and allow them to legally be on the road in the first place.

  I liked it, too, and agree with many of your points.  I do have to say that I wasn't at all surprised at the 'reveal' of Daryl's past.  In fact, based on things he has said in past seasons, I would have been surprised if it had been any different and really didn't get all the trying to guess what he did, before, that other members of the group were doing.   As far as the crying scene, as I said in a discussion on another forum, it isn't like Daryl broke down bawling then went and ate a pint of Ben and Jerry's.  Like the tears he shed when he had to stab Walker Merle in the face, I saw them more as tears of rage and frustration rather than tears of fear or sadness - very much in character for Daryl.  Further, with his own dad being an abusive piece of crap, Herschel by contrast was still trying to be a good father even after the world went to hell.  In a way, Daryl lost a positive father figure when he died just like Beth and Maggie lost their father in truth.  Daryl's own, blood kin are all dead and he had to put down his brother not too long ago.  Now he has lost his surrogate family - people who, for the first time in his life, saw him as having some real worth as a human being and because of whom he could feel a sense of self-worth (like when the one kid came and thanked him for bringing the deer for them to eat, calling him 'Mr. Dixon') to the same sick, psycho bastard who killed his brother.  You also have to consider that, while Beth had been sipping at the moonshine, Daryl was slugging it back so he was probably drunk by that point.  For those reasons, the crying didn't bother me, at all.  Deciding that both of them should get wasted in a wide open, falling down remnant of a house with walkers nearby on the other hand was not something I think Daryl would do.  Not keeping some of the moonshine for possible, future use (as an antiseptic, etc. if nothing else) rather than using it all to start the fire was also not a very good decision, IMO.   I also saw some correlation between Daryl's emotional reactions and those shown by Michonne in the previous couple of episodes.  After losing her family, Michonne more or less shut down, started leading a couple of walkers (her dead boyfriend and his best friend) around on a leash and more or less just wandering from one place to the next.  When first leaving the prison, she fell back into that pattern but rejected it when she slaughtered the walker group she was wandering with, including her two new 'pet' walkers.  Much the same, when they realized that Sophia was dead, Daryl shut down.  He removed himself from the group (he set up a little camp on the farm off to himself) and coped by lashing out at Carol, Dale and anyone else that tried to comfort him or talk to him.  He never shed a tear for Sophia any more than when Merle was lost from the rooftop.  When they first had to flee the prison, Daryl seems to have tried falling back into that pattern.  He wouldn't grieve, seemed to be operating on automatic pilot and at first lashed out when Beth tried to talk to him but then he rejected that pattern when he shed those few tears and let Beth know that he felt like he failed by not being able to save everyone, stop the governor and protect their home.  His tears weren't a sign of weakness or even 'getting in touch with his feelings', IMO.  Instead, they were Daryl deciding not to give up on living no matter how much it hurt.

My late father was the type of person who liked guns but in my memory he pretty much only had:   1.  A 12 gauge pump 2.  A semiauto .22 rifle 3.  A lever action 30-30 4.  A S&W .357 revolver and 5.  A 'generic' (it has no markings on it, whatsoever, other than a series of numbers) Mauser that is so inaccurate as to not really count - I don't remember him ever even firing it.   With those 'few', his gun owning needs were met.  I now have his 12 gauge, his 30-30 and that Mauser along with several more of my own.  Therefore, I guess it could be said that my firearm 'needs' were met long ago.  My 'wants', however, are another matter - although there isn't anything I desperately want and I don't generally invest a lot of $$$ into any, one gun.  In fact, I have to admit to having a soft spot for 'working' guns - utility grade, I guess they are called - over pricier ones.  I also don't own nearly as many guns as some of the folks on here.  I would kind of like to have one super-fancy 'barbecue' gun but it isn't anything crucial, for me.  Right now, I would mostly like to have a coach gun, a snub-nosed .357 of some ilk and a Ruger Alaskan in .44 Magnum.  I wouldn't mind a nice lever carbine in .357, either.  I'm not really actively looking for any of those, however.  In that way, I guess you could say that my gun lust is sated - for now.   Yeah, my dad's gun collection was much smaller and simpler than mine.  Of course, having my HCP and the desire to have enough of a variety of carry guns to fit pretty much every situation in which I can legally carry has influenced some of my purchasing decisions - dad never had an HCP.  Then, again, dad had a 'thing' for old cars and trucks.  Like me, he never really bought anything fancy - just old cars (sometimes near junkers) he could tinker with - but overall my guns are still probably a less expensive hobby.

Hey, what if we all got one like this but with a pull string? Just pull the string and the gold badge and star part in the middle spin around while the programmed voice repeats loudly, "Fellow citizens, do not be alarmed. I am an HCP holder. To all law enforcement personnel, do not shoot - I am one of the good guys. Fellow citizens, do not be alarmed. I am an HCP holder. To all law enforcement personnel, do not shoot - I am one of the good guys.," over and over. Bonus if the voice could sound like Robocop.

  Heck, if you aim that .22LR at their center of mass then most 'normal' people are probably going to change their behavior pretty quickly.  The problem is, I would think that a large percentage of assailants who would go far enough that you would need to/could legally shoot them are not 'normal'.  My thinking would be that they were either chemically altered, mentally unbalanced, in a complete rage or a member of a subculture (i.e. gang) in which getting shot is much more a commonplace occurrence that it is to most 'normal' people.   I live and generally spend most of my time in low risk/low threat level areas.  To my knowledge I also don't have any true enemies.  The chances of me being attacked - while always a possibility - are pretty slim.  The flip side is that if I am attacked then the assailant likely won't be a 'normal' person.  Instead, the assailant will likely be a meth-head or a nut-job (or a meth-head nut-job) rather than simply the type of opportunistic criminal that might be a factor in a higher crime area.  That line of thinking leads me to believe that if I am threatened then it is not likely to be by the type of assailant that would probably turn and run at just the sight of a gun.  Even given that, my most often carried firearm is my j-frame stoked with .38 +P and I do carry a P3AT occasionally - when I need something really flat and easily concealable - but I expect to have to fire more than one shot to stop the threat.  Personally, I believe that a 9mm, .40 and .45 would all be about equally effective in such a situation.  I don't know that I would be comfortable carrying a .22 as a primary for those reasons (although a BUG is a different story.)  Just something I thought I'd throw out there.

I am not a smoker but, to me, this is just one more example to support my theory that the vast majority of problems in this country could be solved if people would just mind their own, damned business.  Sure, I don't want the guy next to me in a restaurant smoking like a stack and ruining my meal with his second hand smoke (in which case, that is my business) but no smoking at a bar?  Banning vaping?  C'mon.

  I agree with all of your points except about the profiteers.  When they cook up, perpetuate and (likely knowingly) spread false rumors and outright lies about the ammo situation just to try and goad a mark into paying 3X normal retail for a box of .22 ammo they are contributing to the panic and prolonging the shortage.  I haven't been to a gun show in several months but the last couple I went to I was already hearing the fairy tales coming from ammo 'dealers' with Walmart ammo stacked up in front of them.  In a few cases, I had to almost bite my tongue to stop myself from telling their mark that the dealer was spewing BS.  For that matter, there were a couple of times I didn't stop myself.

Meh, for the most part, using modern defense ammo an assailant who is shot with a 9mm is just as shot as one that is shot with a .40 or a .45 - and vice versa all over the place. If we were limited to ball ammo and expansion weren't a factor then I could see an argument for the 'bigger' .45 bullet being superior but we aren't, it is and I don't. It isn't like any of them are a .357 magnum :pleased: (sorry, couldn't resist.) Being that I believe 9mm to be just as potentially effective as .40 or .45 on any, given assailant (which means any of them might stop a threat with one shot or any of them might fail to stop a threat with several shots), I can't bring myself to accept that .45 ammo is worth two or three times the price of 9mm. With .40, ammo is more expensive than 9mm but not as expensive as .45. Further, if one were buying their first pistol I could see an argument for .40 in that so many LEAs have gone that direction, meaning ammo might be easier to come by at times. Beyond that, given that I don't think companies will stop making 9mm any time soon I don't see any reason to abandon the 9mm I already have in favor of a .40.

  Damn skippy.  I saw the ammo shortage coming and, unlike many, had a feeling that .22 would be included this time so I put a little back before it got scarce/ridiculously priced.  Thing is, I expected .22 ammo - mostly bulk packs - to be scarce for a year or so.  I didn't expect it to all but completely disappear, even in 50 round boxes, for three or more years.  Therefore, I have enough .22 ammo on hand that I can shoot my .22 rifles and handguns a little from time to time but I certainly don't have enough to maintain the level of .22 shooting I was doing, before and will have to ration what I do have if it is really going to be two years before the industry catches up.   I have been hoping that things on the .22 ammo front might start turning around by this summer.  The Winchester rep's statement is disappointing but I am still holding some hope that we might see improvement - may not 'normal' but at least noticeable improvement - later this year.  One, big thing that gives me hope is that Remington has said that they are expanding their ammo factory in Arkansas to help keep up with the rising demand.  Yeah, I know that Remington bulk pack stuff isn't generally the best but having compared results on paper (by which I mean shooting paper targets) between the 'new, improved' golden bullets and some older ones, I think Remington really has made them better.  Besides, for plinking as long as the ammo is minute of plastic soft drink bottle I'll shoot it with a big grin on my face and save the 'better' ammo in case I need it for something else.

  The profiteers who descend on Walmart like a plague of locusts are taking advantage of - and no doubt spreading rumors to perpetuate - panic buying.  They clean out the Walmart shelves (and probably shelves at many sporting good stores.)  People see the empty shelves and panic, thinking they may never get any .22 again.  Then, when they see a stack of it in front of a scalper they think, "That's kind of expensive but maybe I should consider buying a box."  Then the profiteer gives the potential mark customer some BS line about how no stores are getting .22 ammo, companies are going to stop making .22 ammo and so on to the point that the already panicked buyer is now freaked out and more than willing to buy two or three $20 boxes of ammo for $60 or $70 apiece.  Then the con man independent entrepreneur, seeing how easy it is to make a huge profit as long as people don't see the stuff available on a Walmart shelf for 1/3 of his price sets out to keep the shelves at Walmart and other stores bare - thereby perpetuating the panic and being able to resell every box of .22 he can get his hands on by recruiting a herd of his friends/family to wait with him in Walmart at 5:30 in the morning to clear the ammo shelves as soon as they are stocked.  A vicious cycle.

  More like Zimmerman backed out when he realized he wouldn't be allowed to bring his pistol to a fist fight.

Tickled to death by killer bees in a dark alley.   Kinky.

Looks pretty cool in a 'steampunk' kinda way. My problem would be that - in order to be able to cycle it as quickly as possible - the bolt would have to be cycled with the right hand. That would mean shooting it left-handed which, in my case, would mean shooting it with my weak/non-dominant hand. Combine the recoil with that odd grip and shooting left handed and I might actually hit the broad side of a barn. That barn would be good and shot, though.

  I don't take it quite as far as that but this is the reason that any semiauto I carry will either be DAO or DA/SA so that the first shot, at least, will be as much like shooting a DA revolver as possible.  That is another reason I am not likely to ever carry anything like a 1911 or anything that is carried 'cocked and locked' with a light, single action trigger on the first pull as well as the reason I want hammer fired (even if it is an internal hammer) and no striker fired for carry.

I am a revolver guy.  I have a few semiautos and will likely hold on to them but never really went through a phase of liking semiautos better - I just saw some advantages for some situations.  There are a few more semiautos I wouldn't mind having but, honestly, if I never buy another semiauto handgun and only buy revolvers I will probably be just as happy.   Heck, I have a revolver (.357) as my bedside handgun.  If I am awakened in the middle of the night and have to reach for a defensive handgun while still half asleep, bleary eyed and with the lack of coordination that often goes along with it, I don't want to have to worry about limp wristing, holding the gun so that the brass can eject cleanly without jamming the action or having to do tap/rack drills.  If the assailant is on top of me before I can fire, I don't want to have to worry about the gun jamming because of a shot fired at contact distance with the muzzle pressed into an assailant's gut.  I want to aim, pull the trigger and repeat if necessary - and if that doesn't work then maybe the 12 gauge pump I also keep close to hand will.

  If your 995 shoots nearly as well as mine - which shoots better and is more accurate and reliable than it has any right to be - then that .45 must be downright awesome.     To answer the OP, I don't have anything in .45 (acp or colt) or in .40.  I'm mostly interested in buying revolvers, right now, but I do keep going back and forth about getting a used HiPoint pistol in either .40 or .45 and if I do then I will probably have to eventually pick up a carbine to go with it.  I have seen postings online where guys claim to have taken deer from close range (30 to 40 yards or so) with the .40 carbines and claim the deer were pretty much DRT.  Not that such is much of a consideration, for me - I have much better deer guns.  I just might want one to fill a caliber hole.  Then, again, I am not sure I want to get in to yet another caliber of ammo and have also considered just picking up a HiPoint 9mm pistol to go with the carbine just so they can share magazines (the carbine mag will work in the pistols but not vice versa.)

When I and my sister were kids, I knew where dad kept his guns and his ammo.  They were in a closet.  They weren't locked up, didn't have trigger or cable locks or anything like that.   I also knew where dad kept his car keys.  I knew where he kept his chainsaw and where he kept his circle saw and where the key to the lock on the storage building he kept them in hung so I could have accessed the saws any time I wanted.  I would no more have gotten one of his guns out to play with it than I would have grabbed his car keys and tried to take his car for a joy ride, cranked his chainsaw or plugged his circle saw in and played with it.  It isn't like I ever tried and was punished for doing so - I simply knew better.  Maybe if some people would stop trying to dictate how the entire world lives and pay attention to raising their own, damn kids then there wouldn't be so much of a problem.  To me, it is kind of like parents who bitch about one or another television show and try to get it taken off because it isn't 'appropriate' for their kids to watch.  Well, here is an idea - don't let them watch it!