J
Jose
Wrong answer. You just opened another door for destroying the gun industry.I do understand the need for every gun manufactured after X date should have certain safeties, including a drop safety. That certainly makes sense.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Wrong answer. You just opened another door for destroying the gun industry.I do understand the need for every gun manufactured after X date should have certain safeties, including a drop safety. That certainly makes sense.
Internal and drop safeties are a good idea going forward. Times change and so does technology.
I agree. Some times changes need to be made and advances incorporated just because it is smart and has nothing to do with be legislated upon us. Back in the sixties (and even today) there were and are a group of folks that did not believe sealtbelts should be required to be installed by manufacturers. But it was the smart thing to do so it has become standard across all manufacturers. When these features become standard in all firearms our MA firearms display cases will be able to look like those at Cabella's and that would be sweet.
Is SIG abandoning MA?
I agree. Some times changes need to be made and advances incorporated just because it is smart and has nothing to do with be legislated upon us. Back in the sixties (and even today) there were and are a group of folks that did not believe sealtbelts should be required to be installed by manufacturers. But it was the smart thing to do so it has become standard across all manufacturers. When these features become standard in all firearms our MA firearms display cases will be able to look like those at Cabella's and that would be sweet.
Well, says you. Reasonable people can have different opinions. Some (including rabid anti-gunners) tout the "safety" of a magazine disconnect, when I wouldn't own any gun that had one. I have no interest in "smart gun" technology, although the Brady Bunch and the VPC ("Victim" Policy Center) would have you believe they make guns so "safe" no one ever gets shot with them (which is, frankly, my concern with them). I'm with GSG here. I don't want more of Gov't legislating my choice of personal defense weapon under the whim of safety. They already do enough of that already.
ETA: BTW, the analogy to airbags and seat belts is specious, without even getting into the car vs right issue. Neither airbags nor seat belts make a car safer. They make them more survivable. You are no less likely to have an accident because your car has an airbag or seatbelt.
I took my post off. When will I learn. I'm going back to being a reader.
I think it was a good post. You just had the question phrased backwards.
All we need guns to do is go bang when the trigger is pulled and nothing more. Any of these so-called "safety enhancements" could jeopardize a firearm's mission: That is, to simply shoot a bullet.
Of course, if bullets discharged without a trigger being pulled, that would be a problem. But if some gun manufacturer had a reputation for making guns that did this, they'd be quickly out of business. Market forces work.
He's pissed he can't get an M&P Pro or 9L.
The problem with this statement is you somehow believe that there's actually a significant difference in safety between most handguns currently manufactured- news flash- there isn't.
Wrong answer. You just opened another door for destroying the gun industry.
Well, what would you recommend? I'm open to other points of view.
Red, post more not less. As for guns that go boom when dropped, colt still makes the SAA as a direct hammer firing mechanism. Drop it and it will go boom. Who would carry it is another story.
Actually, you're probably more likely to get into an accident if you're car has many safety features. Seatbelts, air bags and all the rest of the safety equipment reduces risk, so humans tend to compensate; That is, take more risk.
Jose, how about you drop the attitude? I opened things up to suggestions and you act like an a$$
Jose, how about you drop the attitude? I opened things up to suggestions and you act like an a$$
At what point did I say one should ask for permission?
The cost versus return aside, (I think it's minimal compared to ultimate profit), I have respect for those companies who do not bother. People with little-to-no knowledge of the firearms industry woke up one day and declared themselves God. The apathetic in Massachusetts rolled over and took it. Kudos to those companies who refuse to buckle to Massachusetts bullshit...
Internal and drop safeties are a good idea going forward. Times change and so does technology.
Yes, sometimes it is the principle of the thing. If no firearms manufacturers bent over for MA laws, then people would have been MUCH louder in their opposition to them years ago. Maybe it would have been changed by now, or challenged in court somehow. You deserve what you accept and go along with.
There are probably only a handful of cases in history where falling handguns have killed people. But MA regulation makers would have you believe the streets were running red with blood from guns going off by themselves. Ridiculous.
Pretty much all guns are now made with different safeties, including drop safeties. MY POINT was that the certification is a stupid and corrupt process. A company submits a letter certifying that they have said safeties and that should be good enough. If they lie, they are liable just like a car company. Also, they need to ditch the load indicator, if you want to know it is loaded then open the slide.
I am, too. But I'm not going to blame S&W for it.
They shouldn't even need to do that. Your mindset is in the wrong place- you really think this is about safety- it's not- it's about politics and banning/blocking the sale of handguns by any means possible.
-Mike
Could you tell me please how licensing prevents people from doing criminal things? What would be your thoughts on needing a license to vote (not to be confused with registering to vote, so don't throw that red herring in), or needing one to express an opinion? Seems ludicrous, doesn't it? But the concept of "testing," or "licensing," for voting was exactly how some Southern states, post-Reconstruction, tried to eliminate voting for a certain segment of the population. And that's exactly what licensing can and will do for firearms.I have read the second ammendment completely. Yes, I don't have an issue with licensing, but there is a difference with HOW the licensing process occurs. Our current process is BS. Do you think anyone, regardless of criminal past, should be able to buy and CCW a handgun???
Could you tell me please how licensing prevents people from doing criminal things? What would be your thoughts on needing a license to vote (not to be confused with registering to vote, so don't throw that red herring in), or needing one to express an opinion? Seems ludicrous, doesn't it? But the concept of "testing," or "licensing," for voting was exactly how some Southern states, post-Reconstruction, tried to eliminate voting for a certain segment of the population. And that's exactly what licensing can and will do for firearms.
See, here's where the whole opinion thing comes in. I like and seek out weapons with well-designed loaded chamber indicators, as I think they have a tactical (as well as tactile) advantage. I like the fact I can slide my hand over the top of my XD in the dark and immediately know if there is a round chambered. You don't like them. Cool. If there are more of you than me, they will disappear from the market. If there are more of me, then they will be on every gun. This is the whole argument for letting the market decide this, not the .gov.Pretty much all guns are now made with different safeties, including drop safeties. MY POINT was that the certification is a stupid and corrupt process. A company submits a letter certifying that they have said safeties and that should be good enough. If they lie, they are liable just like a car company. Also, they need to ditch the load indicator, if you want to know it is loaded then open the slide.
If that's true, then you are not expressing the idea well. You said, "I don't have an issue with licensing," which is a whole lot different than saying, "One thing at a time." When you say, "I don't have an issue with licensing," it sounds like you don't have an issue with licensing.Scott, I'm just trying to move the bar forward here. There are certain things I will accept for the time being to get rid of the other rediculous stuff. If we go to the MA liberals and try to move to a VT type of gun laws we will be laughed out of Beacon Hill. Fight the fights you can. Then we try to move the bar again later.
See, here's where the whole opinion thing comes in. I like and seek out weapons with well-designed loaded chamber indicators, as I think they have a tactical (as well as tactile) advantage. I like the fact I can slide my hand over the top of my XD in the dark and immediately know if there is a round chambered. You don't like them. Cool. If there are more of you than me, they will disappear from the market. If there are more of me, then they will be on every gun. This is the whole argument for letting the market decide this, not the .gov.