I know that intersection well. Consider me extra-paranoid from now on.
Printable View
I know that intersection well. Consider me extra-paranoid from now on.
It is not a need to carry a firearm, it is more of a want. Do I want to be able to defend myself, my family and my friends, if I, or we, are caught in a potentially fatal situation? YES is my answer to that question. Not everyone thinks the same way. Not everyone will be put in a dangerous situation where protecting your life is at hand. If it happens to me, I will be prepared for it to some degree and NOT a definite statistic!
After all.........I do live in the WILD WILD WEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!:icon_mrgreen:
Lotsa folks get the impression the US is bad due to all the 'guns'. :shrug:
I don't carry. Don't see that changing anytime soon.
Lotsa responsible gun owners out there, but you rarely ever hear of 'em because they are not causing anyone any trouble!!!
Also got some folks that are flat azz infatuated with guns, and for several different reasons, both legitimate, and not so legitimate.
Like they say, better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it,,,, That's why I carry a screwdriver in my tool kit. Used it 3 times now in less than a year. My need for a gun in 50 years? 0. :shrug:
YMMV 'kickthecan'
Let's turn the Wild West into a grand Death Star finale!
Anyone up for packing a 2W laser? Instantly blind your assailant day or night, up to several kilometers away!
http://www.wickedlasers.com/arctic
I'd like to see a high training requirement for people to pack heat on their hips. I don't view concealed carry as a constitutional or moral right; I think you need to demonstrate a high level of personal responsibility and a thorough knowledge of gun safety, because everyone has neighbors.
This guy obviously didn't practice elemental gun safety, and we have one more needless gun death because of it. Could've been a bystander besides. How many people die every week because somebody was "sure" the gun wasn't loaded?
Gun rights supporters (of which I am one, just not unlimited rights) like to point out that gun rights should be preserved for "responsible, law-abiding" gun owners and I agree 100%. You should demonstrate responsibility through training, and if you do something stupid like have an accidental discharge then you lose your right, at least for a period of time. Why would that even be controversial? Instead this is what we get: constant paranoia that any restrictions at all mean that gubmint wants to take all your guns away. And since that motivation must be behind every single piece of regulation, behind every single law, then all laws and regulations must be opposed. Mindless and counter-productive. I just don't get it.:icon_rolleyes:
I agree.
Regulation is so controversial,,, Ya got the 'no guns' folks, and the 'no gun laws' group, and those in the middle. :shrug:
Even making it more difficult, the folks we don't want getting guns usually don't abide by the laws designed to keep them from getting guns,,, so the effectiveness of the laws is 'a bit gray'. Hundreds of thousands of guns exist, so naturally, not every one will be 'exchanged' in a regulated manner,,,
I ride with my sawed off Winchester M1887 in my left hand. Never failed me on my 1990 HD Fat Boy that I used to ride!!!
Sorry I couldn't resist....
Back to the OT,,,
Like Steve said, need more info as what we've been told is not nearly enough to know how it happened,,,
I know very little about handguns,,, Would it be possible for a revolver on a loaded chamber to receive enough force on the hammer to fire? I know there are mechanisms in place to prevent this, but would enough force render those systems ineffective?
Some of your older single action revolvers that would be possible Scot. Anything of recent manufacture it would be impossible. The trigger has to be pulled to the rear before its possible for the hammer to go forward.