I say if that is what the person read, and he or she is relaying that to us, we can verify whether it is true or not.
In fact, he/she even TELLS US TO DO THE RESEARCH!
I think we are all big boys in here, big enough to know how to do some searching with our friend (for now) Google
It doesn't actually work like that.
Anyone who makes an outrageous claim-
such as, the most-used law enforcement handguns are dangerously flawed- has what is known as the "burden of proof". It is the responsibility of the party making the outrageous claims to show evidence of said claims. It's rather like trying to make a court case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show reasonable evidence of the charges they are making against the defendant.
If you made the claim- you back it up. It's that simple.
For every 3 gunner/gun store owner/internet debater
"One of those things is not like the other." 3 gunners fire thousands of rounds in practice. They see what works for them, what works for other high-volume shooters, and what does not work, and what breaks. Higher-volume gun store workers also see which firearms frequently need repair. Both of these groups have a "knowledge base" to have an informed opinion.
Anyone with computer access can be an internet debater.
Some people forget these things are weapons first and foremost. All the spare parts you can imagine sitting there in an armory don't mean a thing if you aren't there with them.
Um, okay? Not sure what your point is here. Besides unreasonable cost, I don't much care for HKs because they are
less useful weapons to me, because of their poor ergonomics.
Why so emotional? BTW, I'm failrly certain my firearms "education" at a minimum equals your own.
All opinions are not created equal. If you shoot over 40,000 rounds a year in careful practice, your opinion
might be worth as much as Chris Rhines'.
John