Trigger upgrades in a SD carry gun

[SirBannedAlot]

Let's discuss something less polarizing... like 1911 vs Glock...

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Let's discuss something less polarizing... like 1911 vs Glock...

I won't carry a 1911 for self defense because a prosecutor might argue that sense it was so deadly in 2 world wars, I was just looking to kill someone with it.

 

[cmshoot]

I don’t like how the Federal government forces states to adopt helmet and seatbelt laws by threatening to stop Federal funds for roads. The insurance lobbyists pressure the Feds into this stance.

 

[cmshoot]

I won't carry a 1911 for self defense because a prosecutor might argue that sense it was so deadly in 2 world wars, I was just looking to kill someone with it.

Heck, a guy drifting with a parachute used a 1911 to headshot a Jap Zero pilot......how deadly is THAT?!

 

[brad sweet]

I am torn on seatbelts and helmets. On one side I believe its your body, do what you want with it. That extends to drugs, abortion, suicide... So long as it isn't impacting my rights, do what you want.

But then the other side, you have to factor in insurance. You are required to have insurance as a motorist, be it bike or car. Premiums are based on pooled risk. So what you do in this case, can and does indirectly impact others via higher premiums...

There is an argument to be made on both sides, I think.

I survived a bad crash in the Vette..with good seat belts..i survived a motorcycle wreak with a helmet..more safety you put into something the less likely you will die wanting any of said devises, how ever choice is choice..just hope you make the right one.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I survived a bad crash in the Vette..with good seat belts..i survived a motorcycle wreak with a helmet..more safety you put into something the less likely you will die wanting any of said devises, how ever choice is choice..just hope you make the right one.

I have hit the ground three times on a bike. Had a dog run in front of and took me out... had a pickup truck decide to turn right from the left lane and clipped me and dragged me under the back of his truck through the bank parking lot... and once I went down on the race track, turn 5 at road Atlanta. All three times, I walked away, sore, but walking, because I wear gear, no matter how hot it is...

 

[sheep dog]

I watched an interview with one of their lawyers and was very impressed with him, and with his description of what they have to offer. I'll see if I can find it.

Yeah they also do seminars locally with good info from law side, police, etc. Somewhat regularly

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

..It needs to be said that some guys are under the impression that instructors are proponents of it because they believe it will drum up more business for them through eventual BS legislation that requires training and carry insurance....

I don't think the liberals will EVER try to mandate self-defense insurance.
They'll mandate liability insurance that protects THE OTHER PEOPLE, not you. It would be for the benefit of the bad guy you shoot (or scare, and cause PTSD in).

As for mandatory training, perhaps.
In liberal states that hate guns and gun carry by mere private citizens without LEO badges, they HAVE mandated training. But it's usually a short and easy course, mostly on gun safety. Some states don't even have a marksmanship component, which means the course can be done in a classroom in any building, with some dummy guns so the students can show safe gun handling). No state, or country, that I've ever heard of has used unreasonably burdensome or expensive "mandatory training" as a backdoor way of gun control.

And, I have to say that the free market has failed to motivate enough people to take gun training on their own, at their own expense. Only a tiny percentage of the gun-owning public have ever had real firearms training, even if only a few hours in a classroom. Most of THEM got the training in the military, which may have been decades ago and long forgotten, or they got the "hunter's safety course" when they were 15 or 16 years old, and they promptly forgot about all that gun safety stuff since then (or they rememmbered the main points-- don't drink Budweiser in the deer stand. Don't shoot into the bushes when they wriggle..)

When "the people" don't do what they know is the right thing (get training) and they pay lip service to that, but they don't actually spend the $$ or set aside the time to make it happen, then it's very likely that "the people's representatives" in government WILL make it mandatory. Give them the incentive to do what the people think is the right and responsible thing to do anyway.

 

[SirBannedAlot]

I don't think the liberals will EVER try to mandate self-defense insurance.
They'll mandate liability insurance that protects THE OTHER PEOPLE, not you. It would be for the benefit of the bad guy you shoot (or scare, and cause PTSD in).

As for mandatory training, perhaps.
In liberal states that hate guns and gun carry by mere private citizens without LEO badges, they HAVE mandated training. But it's usually a short and easy course, mostly on gun safety. Some states don't even have a marksmanship component, which means the course can be done in a classroom in any building, with some dummy guns so the students can show safe gun handling). No state, or country, that I've ever heard of has used unreasonably burdensome or expensive "mandatory training" as a backdoor way of gun control.

And, I have to say that the free market has failed to motivate enough people to take gun training on their own, at their own expense. Only a tiny percentage of the gun-owning public have ever had real firearms training, even if only a few hours in a classroom. Most of THEM got the training in the military, which may have been decades ago and long forgotten, or they got the "hunter's safety course" when they were 15 or 16 years old, and they promptly forgot about all that gun safety stuff since then (or they rememmbered the main points-- don't drink Budweiser in the deer stand. Don't shoot into the bushes when they wriggle..)

When "the people" don't do what they know is the right thing (get training) and they pay lip service to that, but they don't actually spend the $$ or set aside the time to make it happen, then it's very likely that "the people's representatives" in government WILL make it mandatory. Give them the incentive to do what the people think is the right and responsible thing to do anyway.

Training for anything is always a good thing. I ride motorcycles. Safety courses and instructor-led track days, really help you hone your skills so that you can go faster, while being safer...

I think though that it becomes a touchy subject with regards to guns, because it's a right. If you have to take a class and get a certificate in order to partake of a Right, then it feels a lot less like a Right and more like a privilege... So even if we all agree that a training class is a good idea in and of itself, a lot of people resent the idea of the government making such things mandatory or a prerequisite...