HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148

Journal Archives

Intentional conflation of violent criminals with gun owners.

The majority of homicides are committed by people who can't legally so much as touch a gun or a single round of ammunition; very, very few homicides are committed by first-time offenders, as the VPC well knows.

Of course, the VPC is the same organization that trolled Dems into throwing away the House and Senate in 1994 over the VPC's "assault weapon" fraud, who pushed the "precision bolt-actions are a threat to airliners" meme, etc. etc., and who tried to portray holders of concealed carry licenses (statistically even less likely to commit unjustifiable homicide than law enforcement are) so consider the source.

Generally no.

Some old designs (think antique revolvers and some antique semiautos) could go off if they dropped and fell on the hammer a certain way, or some older semiautos fell pointing straight down so that inertia could move the firing pin hard enough to discharge a shot into the ground on impact. In the 19th century, revolvers were often carried with an empty chamber under the hammer to render them drop-safe, but that is not necessary with most modern designs. Modern handguns incorporate passive safeties to prevent accidental discharge, and most could be thrown off a building onto pavement and not go off, though some mid-century designs (like the Walther PPK and the Phoenix Arms Raven) require the manual safety to be on.

Ammo can go off due to heat if the temperature of the powder exceeded its ignition temperature, but that would be around 300 degrees, give or take 10%. You can achieve that in an oven, or in a fire, but not by leaving it in a car with the windows up.

Nearly 100% of the "the gun just went off" stories you'll hear involve accidentally pulling the trigger, usually either as the result of carelessly putting a finger on the trigger when the shooter did not intend to fire the gun, trying to catch a falling gun (don't, it's drop-safe but a snatch can pull the trigger), or accidentally pulling the trigger while holstering. It's a fundamental rule of gun safety that your finger goes on the trigger only when you are about to shoot, and one of the easiest ways to identify a total n00b is to see whether they casually rest their finger on the trigger.

Some older bolt-action rifles designed in the 1940s through the 1970s aren't drop-safe because they weren't intended to be carried with the chamber loaded, but most modern designs incorporate better safety systems and are intended to be drop-safe with the safety engaged, and some incorporate passive safeties as well. Also, some older rifles and shotguns could be fired by closing the action, and the Remington 700 had a problem for a while in which a neglected and dirty rifle could fire when the safety was disengaged, but handguns designed to be carried loaded tended to have a lot more attention paid to those kinds of failure modes.

Colt lost their way a few times...

when they let their line of civilian revolvers and pistols wither while wasting resources on politically favored but unreliable "smart guns", mostly abandoning the civilian AR market to other companies just as the AR became the top selling civilian rifle in the United States, and setting themselves up for gun-owner boycotts once or twice in the '90s. The disaster with the promising All-American 2000 9mm pistol (interesting design, lousy quality assurance) hurt them badly and sent them into Chapter 11 for a while. And when they finally re-entered the AR market, their quality was excellent (a Colt 6920 is still of the more highly regarded AR's) but they lagged in adapting to civilian innovation on that platform; to this day, you can't buy a Colt AR with a midlength gas system, for example.

What is really hurting them right now is debt from their prior poor decisions, though; their revenues are decent, but given their debt load they would have to have stellar revenues to survive.

I do think they will emerge from bankruptcy a much healthier company; we'll see.

Good writeup at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt%27s_Manufacturing_Company

The Four Rules of Gun Safety:

The Four Rules of Gun Safety:

(1) Always treat a gun as if it is loaded.

(2) Never point a gun in an unsafe direction. (If you say "But it's OK, it's unloaded", see Rule 1.)

(3) Keep your finger off the trigger unless you are on target and ready to shoot. (If you say "But it's OK, it's unloaded", see Rule 1.)

(4) Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

That's why my HD carbine has a light on it, and why I *always* have a light with me when carrying a handgun, at home or otherwise. Shooting at unidentified shadows runs the risk of a tragedy like this happening.

And FWIW, this is definitely chargeable as negligent homicide or manslaughter in Florida. The conditions under which one can claim Castle Doctrine immunity are clearly spelled out and are NOT subjective, and do not apply in this case. Castle Doctrine applies to unlawful forced entries, which this was not.

This is the same tired meme that the Third Way/DLC have been pushing since the 1990s

and pushed REALLY hard 2000-2004. Remember Americans for Gun Safety, and the whole "gun owners will be fine with bans and restrictions on the law-abiding as long as we frame it as safety and not control?

How'd that turn out, again?

Are they *trying* to keep all electronically-locked guns off the market?

They aren't thinking this through. Last time I checked, the gun control lobby in New Jersey is talking about *repealing* NJ's "smart gun" law, which in large measure is responsible for the demise of several electronically-locked guns such as the Armatix .22.

Thing is, electronically-locked guns are very much a niche item, aimed at those who don't care much about reliability and are interested in the technology from either a safety or cool-factor standpoint. For a range toy (particularly a .22) that won't see hard use and won't serve in the defensive role, it is certainly a viable option, and there is a small but viable market for it, just like there is for autonomous cars.

However, mandating them across the board, and banning all guns not so equipped, is as ridiculous as outlawing all cars and trucks not capable of autonomous operation, and passing a law that mandates them will do nothing except make it much harder to bring electronically-locked guns to market.

In the case of Armatix, they didn't help matters by touting their product's ability to be remotely disabled or blocked from firing at "unauthorized" targets, either. And in a defensive role, the reliability and usability issues and the ability to be remotely disabled are dealbreakers, which is why law enforcement have flatly rejected "smart guns" even though they are the ones who would theoretically benefit most from their use. Keeping a gun in a safe when appropriate is more secure and doesn't wreck the gun's reliability and utility as a defensive weapon.

Just like Vermont. Shock, horror.

And the idea that one might use a centerfire .22 to shoot bear or moose is ludicrous. The view over at Field and Stream seems to be that even a .270 (twice the muzzle energy of a .223) is marginal for moose or elk, and that the better minimum choice is probably .30-06 Springfield.

But the right conferred is to the "people", a group of which I am, in fact, a part.

The "people" in the 2ndA is the same as in the other amendments of the Bill of Rights. The 2ndA does not state "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; if it did, you might be able to argue that the RKBA is limited to those defined in 10 USC 311 (of which I am one also), but the 2ndA makes no such limitation.

If someone can't find a right of the people to keep and bear arms in the text "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", then it's no wonder those same people have trouble finding a right to be free from "stop and frisk" or other warrantless searches in the 4thA, or a right to privacy in same.

"Your kind."

Doesn't that kind of prove their point?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3