Skipper wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:


Any auto is inherently dangerous for the occasional user *particularly*
in a stressful situation. The double action is much safer. Further, the
persuasive nature of the laser cannot be underestimated to defuse the
situation. The better *defensive* weapon is the S&W.


Why do you think an auto is more dangerous?


Far more likely to fire an unintended round while aimed at the perp.
Both guns can kill, the double action is the safer gun in the hands of a
nervous owner...for obvious reasons. There must be the threat of bodily
harm *before* pulling the trigger.

--
Skipper

You probably meant to say "Double action only" and they are safer but
too slow for home defense. How much time do you think you have to react
to a threat? If you have enough time, you avoid it and call the cops.

Dan

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
nk.net...
Skipper wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:


Any auto is inherently dangerous for the occasional user *particularly*
in a stressful situation. The double action is much safer. Further, the
persuasive nature of the laser cannot be underestimated to defuse the
situation. The better *defensive* weapon is the S&W.


Why do you think an auto is more dangerous?


Far more likely to fire an unintended round while aimed at the perp.
Both guns can kill, the double action is the safer gun in the hands of a
nervous owner...for obvious reasons. There must be the threat of bodily
harm *before* pulling the trigger.

--
Skipper

You probably meant to say "Double action only" and they are safer but too
slow for home defense. How much time do you think you have to react to a
threat? If you have enough time, you avoid it and call the cops.

Dan

He was comparing a double action revolver to some other thing. At least
that's how I interpreted what he said.

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
nk.net...
Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

I've fitted Crimson Trace Laser grips to my S/W .357 magnum on the
theory that once the perp realizes there is a bright red dot moving
about the middle of his chest a motivation change will result. Thus,
no
need to pull the trigger...the ultimate *defensive* weapon.


When did you get a pardon? Ex-felons aren't usually allowed ownership
of
handguns. Even wheel guns.


So, which is the better *defensive* handgun, a S&W .357 mag fitted with
laser grips or a Glock auto?

--
Skipper


I'd take a Glock 34 any day over that wheelgun. Fully legal mag on the
Glock holds 17 rounds, standard barrel is 5" long, and if you need them,
lasergrips are available. Oh, and my guess is the semi-auto mechanism is
inherently more accurate than the wheelgun's.

You have a single or double action wheelgun? If double, you keep a
chamber empty for safety's sake? If so, that means the G34 mag holds more
than three times the number of rounds.


How is that 17 round magazine legal? Pre-ban?

I'm not sure how you can say the semi-auto is "inherently" more accurate
than a revolver. A barrel is a barrel. The same bullets pass through
them.

Dan

I think Harry never saw Elmer Keith shoot moving dishes out of the air using
a 4" or 6" revolver. Very quickly, too.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:

Bill,
Harry is not anti-handgun, he likes to shot handguns. He just doesn't
want anyone else to own a handgun.



..or at least, none of the gun happy righties.


I resent that remark. I own a gun primarily to deal with a situation
which I know is coming soon: I will walk into the living room to
discuss something briefly with my son, who will be in TV coma mode. His
only response will be "Uh huh.....OK". You've seen this - you know the
teenager has absolutely no idea what you just said. I will then hand
him the shooting glasses and hearing protector things and tell him to
put them on. He'll say "Uh huh" and mindlessly obey. I will then shoot
the TV.

Televisions are so cheap that it would be worth $300 bucks just to see
the look on his face, and get perhaps get a week or three of
attentiveness out of him.

:-)
Might be better to take your angle cutter pliers and cut the plug off.

That would be cheaper, I guess, and not so much cleanup afterward.


But not point making!


I'm open to any and all theatrical suggestions.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:26:50 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Don White wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

It means they were properly trained to handle and use firearms.

One shot, one kill.
I had heard on the news today that there were many shots fired.
Does that
mean that several people were killed that we don't know about?
It means that when you fire your weapon you hit what you are
aiming at.

If six guys aimed at the same person then that person should have
six bullets in him.


Something you learned from your years of weekend warrior combat
experience guarding the loo, Bertie?

Bert would have lobbed half a dozen artillery shells at the
hapless victim...from a safe distance of course.

I have a feeling Bert would need a half dozen boxes of ammo to hit
the side of a barn. Accuracy with firearms requires regular practice.
I go to one of three ranges at least once a month, year-around. Most
of the cops I see at the ranges are there about every other week.
I've asked them about that. It's fun to shoot with cops, because they
sometimes have "unusual" guns with them, and they'll let you pop off
a few rounds if they recognize you and you ask.
LOL!

What a joke!

--


You planning to meet me at the Gilbert range near you, to show off your
military prowess with a handgun, Herring?

I also go out to the Blue Ridge facility in Chantilly. I've not seen
you there, either. Or at the MSAR.

I suspect what you shoot off these days is...your mouth.

This, by a person who is anti-handgun?

I'm not anti-handgun.
I'm anti-any-idiot-who-can-breathe-being-able-to-buy-one.
I used to be totally against private ownership of handguns, but
unlike your president, I am capable of learning and have modified my
views over the years. I am still, however, opposed to private citizens
owning fully auto handguns or rifles.
I prefer shotguns for home defense.
I've shot firearms for fun most of my life, mostly shotguns.



So gun nut lefties are OK.


Nobody remembers the Weathermen?

Harry Krause wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:


I'd take a Glock 34 any day over that wheelgun. Fully legal mag on
the Glock holds 17 rounds, standard barrel is 5" long, and if you
need them, lasergrips are available. Oh, and my guess is the
semi-auto mechanism is inherently more accurate than the wheelgun's.

You have a single or double action wheelgun? If double, you keep a
chamber empty for safety's sake? If so, that means the G34 mag holds
more than three times the number of rounds.


How is that 17 round magazine legal? Pre-ban?


Nope. Perfectly legal in Maryland.


I'm not sure how you can say the semi-auto is "inherently" more
accurate than a revolver. A barrel is a barrel. The same bullets
pass through them.

Dan

Dan


How they get to the barrel matters.



How does that affect the accuracy? They still all pass though a barrel.

I know how that can affect the reliability, but that tend to favor the
revolver.

Dan

Harry Krause wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:


I'd take a Glock 34 any day over that wheelgun. Fully legal mag on
the Glock holds 17 rounds, standard barrel is 5" long, and if you
need them, lasergrips are available. Oh, and my guess is the
semi-auto mechanism is inherently more accurate than the wheelgun's.

You have a single or double action wheelgun? If double, you keep a
chamber empty for safety's sake? If so, that means the G34 mag holds
more than three times the number of rounds.


How is that 17 round magazine legal? Pre-ban?


Nope. Perfectly legal in Maryland.


I always thought that was a federal law. Here's what I found on it:

"When Browning had to come up with a ten round magazine to satisfy the
demands of Clinton's 1994 law, they put a little spring on the bottom. I
don't mean to be uncomplimentary when I say it resembles a rat-trap."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...112128013/pg_2

Dan

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:20:51 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Dan Krueger wrote:

I'd take a Glock 34 any day over that wheelgun. Fully legal mag on the
Glock holds 17 rounds, standard barrel is 5" long, and if you need them,
lasergrips are available. Oh, and my guess is the semi-auto mechanism is
inherently more accurate than the wheelgun's.

You have a single or double action wheelgun? If double, you keep a
chamber empty for safety's sake? If so, that means the G34 mag holds
more than three times the number of rounds.


How is that 17 round magazine legal? Pre-ban?

Nope. Perfectly legal in Maryland.


I'm not sure how you can say the semi-auto is "inherently" more accurate
than a revolver. A barrel is a barrel. The same bullets pass through them.

How they get to the barrel matters.


True. However, I much prefer revolvers because they are simpler,
easier to reload (quicker actually) and easier to handle.

Their major disadvantage is number of rounds, but accuracy more than
makes up for it.

I own more than a few guns and I use them for sport. I do keep one or
two around for self defense but that's another thread.

I have revolvers and semi-auto's. How do you figure that the revolvers
are more accurate? Trigger pull is similar as are the lengths of the
barrels. What am I missing?

Dan

Doug Kanter wrote:


Sounds better the more I think about it.

About 6 years ago, my son hit me in the cohones with a hardball during
pitching practice and I ripped him a new asshole, as was appropriate. He
learned some new words that day. I felt terrible, though, and a few days
later, I was discussing it with some friends over beer. My friend Mike made
an interesting observation based on his experiences in his enormous extended
family. When things get bad with a kid, mothers will *usually* ramp up the
response slowly, from calmly correcting the kid, through various levels, and
finally blowing up. Fathers usually go from calm to "holy ****" much faster.
I think this is true, and it's not a problem. Kids should know that in a
previous life, their fathers were cave men, and might react in "interesting"
ways. Not violent toward the kids, but interesting.

I think my son learned well. Three years ago, we were at a boat launch in
the Adirondacks. The boat was out of the water, I was securing things, and
he was mindlessly staring at the sky or some chick in a bikini, when I saw
two pit bulls running toward him. The gun was out of the holster instantly,
I yelled to the owner to stop the dogs, and he did. If those dogs had come
within 20 feet of my son, they would've been dropped, followed closely by
their owner sucking on the barrel until the police arrived. My son flipped
out at the idea that I was ready to kill the dogs. But, as I explained,
there was no other possible option, other than wait and see if they were
vicious. It took him a couple of days to see the logic, but he finally did.


You were packin' a gun in it's holster at a boat launch?
Up here that would cause some commotion!

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Sounds better the more I think about it.

About 6 years ago, my son hit me in the cohones with a hardball during
pitching practice and I ripped him a new asshole, as was appropriate. He
learned some new words that day. I felt terrible, though, and a few days
later, I was discussing it with some friends over beer. My friend Mike
made an interesting observation based on his experiences in his enormous
extended family. When things get bad with a kid, mothers will *usually*
ramp up the response slowly, from calmly correcting the kid, through
various levels, and finally blowing up. Fathers usually go from calm to
"holy ****" much faster. I think this is true, and it's not a problem.
Kids should know that in a previous life, their fathers were cave men,
and might react in "interesting" ways. Not violent toward the kids, but
interesting.

I think my son learned well. Three years ago, we were at a boat launch in
the Adirondacks. The boat was out of the water, I was securing things,
and he was mindlessly staring at the sky or some chick in a bikini, when
I saw two pit bulls running toward him. The gun was out of the holster
instantly, I yelled to the owner to stop the dogs, and he did. If those
dogs had come within 20 feet of my son, they would've been dropped,
followed closely by their owner sucking on the barrel until the police
arrived. My son flipped out at the idea that I was ready to kill the
dogs. But, as I explained, there was no other possible option, other than
wait and see if they were vicious. It took him a couple of days to see
the logic, but he finally did.
You were packin' a gun in it's holster at a boat launch?
Up here that would cause some commotion!

In NY, they have to be concealed. No commotion before, and only a bit
surprisingly, not much after, either. There were just 3 "sets" of people
there, and it's a place where guns are seen more often than in cities. The
gun was along for the ride because we were tying up to shore to fish, and
bears have been known to express an interest in fishermen in that area. I
have no delusions about this particular gun being a great solution in such a
scenario, but some rangers say just the noise is enough to scare a bear
away. Or, it ****es off the bear and she shoves the gun up your ass. :-)