Hwilli1647545487

You can have a steady 40 hr/week job that you hate and ties you down, or you can have a steady 40/hr week job that you enjoy and that lets you pursue a hobby and take vacations.

 

You can have a house, a family, and responsibilities that tie you down and feel like a burden, or you can have all of those things that bring you joy and stability.

 

Life, especially what we'd call modern life, is all about finding a balance. We don't have to strive for extreme ends of the spectrum; you could be a survivalist dependent on no one, able to live on off the grid on your meager savings for the rest of your life, or you could be a yuppie strung out on debt with no flexibility to adjust course when the mood or the moment strikes because you get high off the thrill of living a high-speed, high-stakes lifestyle.

 

Whatever works for you is fine, I think most of us prefer to be somewhere in the middle. But I'm sure we all second guess our decisions. I choose to drive cheap cars because I don't want to tie money up in something nicer, but when I drive someone's BMW I wonder if maybe that little bit of financial security wouldn't be worth giving up for this badass 27-way power heated and cooled seat. I choose to live in an expensive neighborhood because I like the security and advantages it offers, but when I write my fucking check to RITA every quarter I wonder if maybe those benefits wouldn't be worth giving up to live somewhere outside the loop and have a badass finished basement.

 

You can't have it all, but that doesn't mean you can't find happiness in the middle.

Well said, except the cheap car part. That part does not compute with me.

Couple of things that stand out to me.

1. The draw looks more complicated than a standard iwb type draw. Looks like it could easily fail under stress.

2. They say it works from any drawing position, yet they only demo it from the appendix. I think the draw would be even worse to execute from another position.

3. It doesn't seem to lend itself to allow for a consistent "high tang" grip in the draw, which is the foundation for a good combat grip. Not having a molded section that consistently locates the gun in the same place would be of concern to me.

I'd personally pass, but if someone does purchase one please post a review.

I have had students do this in the past and have had no issues. The law says you can't own a hand gun until you are 21, it says nothing about taking the class before you are 21 years old.

I think 3 years.

put some anti freeze in a cup but make sure nothing else can get in.It will be attracted to sweetness and will poison it

And take several days to die/crawl someplace you can't get it's dead rotting carcass.

I've done both competitive and tactical low light shooting. I have found night sites helpful, but not necessary. What they do is make a nice marker when grabbing your gun out of the drawer when it's dark.

I run Glocks and the first thing that goes is the plastic junk sites. Since I'm swapping them i always do night sites since they are off.

Randy I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on instinctive shooting. Train to use your sites.

Vortex makes a great budget scope.

 

Making sure your scope is in the rings correctly is important.

I'd look at vortex as well. My boss has the strikefire ii. Loves it. Im sure they have some magnification options in your price range as well.

I assume you are wanting precision, but if this is a "battle rifle" you don't need magnification at under 300 yards.

Seriously????

 

Howard, you can do this without such professional....

 

DP

Not in with the 6 other projects I have going on.

"

2nd amendment is a little out dated anyway, no one is going to form a militia and take over or protect the Government. Sure they can try a military coup but we all know it's not going to end well for them.

let's start a separate thread on this one. please move to the kitchen. I'll meet you there."

Oh shit I didnt even see this one.....

Thanks! or I guess I should thank the Washington Post and Google really. You missed the part about developed countries and see below.

 

I don't think you really read my post. And since we have been mostly discussing guns and gun violence with a little mental health dabbled in, yeah, The graph is about gun violence.

 

I never said the people weren't at fault, so I' not sure where you're going with that. They are at fault, the gun doesn't magically operate itself. If you make the gun harder to put in that person's hand, you might be able to change that graph in the future.

My point is what problem are you trying to solve? The violence or the tool that is being used to perpetuate that violence.

Be honest with yourself. What is your goal?

If we had that magic Tom Cruise device that could have predicted and prevented this man from getting a firearm. Would that have prevented him from committing this crime?

What do you care most about? That this man killed these people, or how he did it?

Bro, it only counts if it was done with guns.

Guns ARE the problem, not people. Hence why we only want to talk about GUN violence.

and you are going to keep asking. I don't find your inquiry relevant to this conversation and am therefore ignoring it.

That in itself answers my question. Troll on trollster.

my point is you can't separate the tool from the user when discussing this issue. I don't see discussions regarding gun control as "blaming the tool" so much as asking the question "at what point does the interest in protecting people from gun violence outweigh the counter point of people's 'right to legitimate use?'". At this point I don't know if your version of "smart gun reform" can exist because of the sheer number of units that exist in this country. It's interesting for sure.

 

I am not sure what other preventable ways you are referring to because all the major ones are accounted in most political agendas. Accident safety, health care, employment rights, etc...And if they aren't at a national level there are efforts going on at the state level. The thing that concerns me is that the US doesn't even collect data on this - it's all private industry data.

You still have not answered my question. I've asked it twice now.

Do you actually side with the arguments you make, or are you just stirring shit?

it may be an unpopular opinion around here but restrictions on access are not restrictions on the tool but on people's use of the tool. If you want to say this is a mental health issue and a stupid people issue then argue restrictions to access that are designed to limit access to certain populations are "blaming the tool" then I don't know what to tell you.

This does not answer my question.

no it's a restriction and use issue. If the current population restrictions covered under gun control isn't addressing these kinds of issues then revise the restrictions to exclude that population. if you are worried that the new restrictions are going to exclude you then maybe you should own a gun in the first place. If you don't see the restrictions as limiting access to the tool (exactly the thing you are complaining about) based on the criteria of the owner then you miss the point of regulatory control entirely.

 

 

This was a horrific tragedy. it is unique in that it was filmed and aired to the general public via TV and Social media. But it is by no means something that is rare in this country.

 

I need to ask you a serious question. When you post on here, do you legitimatley believe what you are writing, or do you pick the opposite side just to practice your debating skills?