Recent content by dd-b

Hey, that's me at the left of the third image, in the purple shirt, with the camera in front of my face! (My photos are up, incidentally, here )

Liberal checking in :neener: The amount of closed-minded virulent hatred I see for "liberals" in various gun forums is discouraging and appalling. Just yesterday I had my car slightly vandalized in a gun club parking lot -- somebody pried off my Darwin fish -- so I'm perhaps a bit more...

I think Joel has chosen the pictures well, too. Now, if the printer doesn't muck them up too bad, they'll add a lot. Picture quality has been noted as a major concern for reviewing the proofs from the printer. Maybe they'll all look perfect!

The law specificies a list of certifying agencies whose certificates must be accepted. In addition to that, each sheriff may accept certification from any trainer he chooses. The list consists of a bunch of outfits that probably won't do civilian certification (check the law for the actual...

F4GIB, I see you beat me to it. But for anybody who went to the URL and found it still password-protected, good news: I've just opened it. This is probably the smallest paying client I've ever done web work for -- and I suspect this web site will have the biggest traffic on launch day of any...

Oh, man am I excited. Been hoping for this for some time. Cobb, you should look into the course materials soon to be available from AACFI for Minnesota -- I've been through the beta-test training course, have been reviewing the Everything you need to know to (Legally) Carry a Handgun in...

For me personally it was my Colt Government Mk. IV series 70. I owned it from 1981 until last year, but I never found it pleasant or comfortable to shoot. I don't mind .357, I enjoyed shooting a friends .44 snubbie and the same friend's .45 Super; I'm not super-sensitive to recoil or noise...

For target work with a semi-auto, a 1911 would be my frist choice currently. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider a basic single-action design for carry. I don't consider it safe with a round chambered, and it's too slow otherwise. I think some of what you may be seeing is people...

Silly boy. The differences between women are bigger than the differences between them and us (as regards ability to shoot a firearm, anyway!). Issues can include comfort and familiarity with firearms, willingness to practice, hand size and strength, and concealment options. But I've got a...

They do pretty well on news. Except over the years they've gotten lazy or something. I keep hearing, in interviews, the key question being skipped. I suppose it won't really surprise anybody to learn that actual liberals think NPR is pretty center, will it?

Nearly always negligent -- the only time it's not negligent is if the weapon is defective and there's no reasonable way the owner could have seen early symptoms of the problem. I'm sure there's something that can go wrong suddenly and without prior symptoms in some gun design somewhere...

You said "if the foundation is secure, the building is safe". I was giving a (rather emotionally loaded) example of a case where the foundation was secure, and in fact survived, yet the building was not safe. I think you overestimate the importance of foundations. So long as men disagree...

It's so dependent on the locality that general advice from us here is pretty much useless. Beyond the obvious things like "Don't mock the person who gets to make the decision on your application", and other really basic stuff like that.

It's probably true that the people who first invented guns actually were thinking of killing. So I avoid the "origin" part of the argument as much as possible, and if my opponent insists on it, I suggest that potential and current use are much more important than original intention in deciding...

Ah! It makes sense there'd be a rule for that situation, but I didn't previously know that bit, thanks!