Search results for query: *

Why are you rudely ordering me around? How about YOU provide some proof that my statement is "radical"? BTW, my statement--you copied it so I assume you read it--is NOT it has been proven that... NOT I hereby state definitively that... You REALLY want me to provide some proof that "It...

Look. I'll also make it real simple for you: you have also made an assertion which, as lawyers say, "assumes facts not in evidence." Oh, wait: I already made it that simple for you. I guess, since I can't make it any simpler, I accept that you simply can't understand that you are still...

I handle guns every day, and have never kept them as a "secret" from the kids. My kids grew up seeing me clean and fix and dry-fire guns. If they asked what I was doing, I'd show them. I think the youngest a kid of mine went to the range was 4 (his older brother was going, and he wanted to...

No, you are wrong. If one hasn't proven that x=y, we cannot therefore assume that x≠y. It simply means that x=y and x≠y are both unproven. So, although my theory is unproven, we cannot assume that your theory is correct. But if x≠y IS proven, that simultaneously shows that x=y is false...

This is contrary to the point of the thread... But nevertheless inescapably good advice.

Only if 9mm ball has killed more people instantly than it has killed hours or days later PLUS those it has wounded who survived. Sure: where's your support that it was made up? Actually it does. You have also made an assertion (actually two: that someone made up the idea that the 9 was made to...

This is a much better statement than the "plan to kill" one. I wouldn't mind it on a t-shirt at all.

Probably from reality. There is, for example, the WWII German S-Mine ("Bouncing Betty"), which had a reputation for maiming rather than killing (whether it was designed with that in mind, who can tell). Contemporary documentation suggested that it was lethal within 60 ft, but caused injury...

Such as? When someone asks me for a brief sketch, that's what I give. If you are about to plug your recently published "The COMPLETE, FULLY REFERENCED History of the 9mm BASED ON ACTUAL HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND STUFF," well... By all means, do. But as can be noted by the title of this...

That to me is unexpected. The whole point of the modifications made on the larger PPC revolvers (more defined sights with longer sight radius, bull barrel to increase moment of inertia, etc.) was to increase the practical accuracy of the guns. But they clearly did not work if the shooters did...

At this point, if they did they might need to worry about infringing on the Walther PPS patents... Or the S&W Shield "trade dress." Wouldn't that be sweet payback. :evil:

"It"? I take it you are referring to WWI. Capt. Crozier's comments were well before that in 1899, and the 9mm began production in 1902. But I accept the standard irony in the idea that war can be waged according to rules, whether via international accords or social convention. Agree...

In this country, yes. In a more perfect world (:rolleyes:), Rodriguez would have the total responsibility for weighing all advice he was given, and separating the wheat from the chaff. Unless the instructor was or claimed to be a lawyer, his legal advice goes right next to my bartenders'.

I greatly appreciate the reference. Still I'm not sure that it can only be interpreted as you interpret it. You seem almost to suggest that DWM, in discussing a weapon of war, was too embarrassed to use the word "kill" forthrightly, and so mealy-mouthed it? Perhaps afraid of liability suits...

Well, less a history than a great cartridge-collectors' catalogue. And not so brief! But a good read with good info...and loads o' pictures--my favorite.

True. But over time, I accept more and more humanness in the people I deal with.

"Most" and "usualy" will get some folks in trouble. MA, for instance. requires registration of all firearms; I doubt we are unique, but I don't know. There is no problem here with (if you are both properly licensed, or if the friend is a new resident within the grace period applying for his...

repeat--sorry!

Congratulations on finding your way back to snubs. If you're interested, we have been talking about using such guns at distances a little longer than 15 ft...:) Snub "tactical" accuracy?

Again, while I respect the opinion, the label "just daffy" hardly diminishes the support for the idea. If the point of a round is to wound, the idea that it can wound two people with one shot: how efficient! Perhaps we can reacquaint ourselves with the (real, actual) dum-dum bullet...