Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
That's nonsense.
The trigger is already on the weapon. That isn't changing. Is it too hard to fire NOW?
The flaw is that when the trigger is staged but the weapon not fired, the weapon can then discharge without the trigger being squeezed.
That's not safe. And fixing it doesn't make it harder to fire.
So you appear to think (and I'm sure you'll insult me if I'm wrong):
* there is a flaw
* you don't think it should be fixed
* you don't believe people who don't know guns should have the right to demand a safety flaw should be fixed.
* you think that because you teach gun safety sometimes that this means you're doing something about the safety flaw you don't want fixed.
* you think fixing a firearm that will discharge when the trigger is only staged would make it too hard to fire in a crisis.
I never said that it shouldn't be fixed, exactly the opposite.
Pointing out as I did that this is covered by product law and doesn't need a new law doesn't mean any of the things you claim I said.
People who don't know anything about guns don't know what to ask for, "fixes" based on ignorance leads to ignorant fixes.
What in the world would make you think that people who use guns don't want them to be as safe as possible, you would have to believe gun owners are idiots to think that.
Gun owners do demand safety, that is why the Adams and Jenkins companies are no longer with us.
It wasn't from pie in the sky demands of people who don't know what they are talking about demanding "something" be done.
What you are arguing for now is like saying that since NASA isn't putting a man on Mars we should just pull people off the street and let them do it. Doesn't matter that they don't know what they are doing the people who do haven't done as much as we want them to.
Why not let a plumber fix your car? Makes as much sense.
I don't know if this is clear to you, judging from that tirade -- but we weren't thinking of fixing it ourselves. We figured that would be the job of the manufacturer. And nobody called for any new law in the entire thread.
So....let's see if you've settled on an articulated position:
* you agree there's a flaw
* you agree it should be fixed
* you feel it shouldn't be fixed by people who don't know anything about guns, even though that's not in dispute
* you feel no one should pass a new law to get it fixed, since a suit under existing law could force the fix
* apparently, you've abandoned your position that fixing it would make it too hard to fire in a crisis
* you're still upset that people who don't know guns would have the nerve to say it should be fixed
* that you sometimes teach gun safety means that you have no interest in doing anything about the fix
* that your guns are as safe as can be means you don't care about making this one any safer -- hell, shit happens
* moms with toddlers have every right to go packing in the supermarket
* existing training is perfect, leave it be
From there your rant is silly -- wanting to address this isn't "pie in the sky," street people putting men on the moon, or plumber fixing cars (though my plumber would probably do a decent job).
That about it?
|
RE: Another "successful" carry story - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread