Jump to content

I apologize as this should be in Pure Football


Xanthri08
 Share

Recommended Posts

Plaxico Burress.......we all know the saga but the NYPD must be idiots if they believe the story.

Around 1:50 a.m., as Burress fumbled with the glass in his hand, the .40-caliber Glock slipped down his leg, and as he grabbed at it, he accidentally pulled the trigger and shot himself in the thigh. Witnesses reported hearing a “pop” as his legs started to quiver and the pistol dropped from his pant leg to the floor.

Problem a glock is single action meaning that the hammer on his glock was PULLED BACK IN A FIRING POSITION......if you ask me....I can understand an NFL player carrying a gun for protection, but a round chambered and the hammer back......you would not only be a criminal but an idiot to boot.......UNBELEIVABLE

There are no single action action glocks, they are no hammers on glocks either, it is double action only. But there are no safeties on them, only a small trigger safety, causing the gun to have a longer trigger pull so it is harder to accidentally fire. I am not defending Plax, just correcting the facts.

edit: mcsupersport said something similar to my statement before, sorry to repeat what was said.

In regards to Xanthri08: mcsupersport is correct, Glocks have NO HAMMERS the firing pin is engaged by a striker, NOT a hammer. You are incorrect in that if he had a glock he could have been carrying it cocked and locked, you can't do that with Glocks. If he had a pistol with a hammer, such as a 1911 style (Colt, Springfield, Kimber), Decock style (Sig Sauer, Jericho, HK USP), or revolver (Smith and Wesson, Taurus) that would be possible. And I don't mean to be a jerk, but you don't know what you are talking about with guns and your argument on Plaxico's lack of responsibility when it comes to guns (and in other aspects of his life, but that is a completely different subject) loses all credibility when your facts are more crooked than a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmm....K. Pure football is more about X's and O's or at least it used to be. The only thing I got out of this besides diffferent variations of how a Glock works. What's the fascination? Is I have heard too much about hammers that strangely I find this appropriate for a thread that was apologetic for being in the wrong forum even though even there it would be in the wrong forum.

stophammer128615146686893031.jpg

See. I did get something out of this not so football post. Thanks. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a Gun its got a Safety switch,

I actually couldnt believe they sold guns without them,

but they do.

Pretty stupid IMO

Even BB guns have a Safety

Well glocks have three safeties but none are of the traditional trigger safety variety. Glocks (and clones made by Springfield and Smith and Wesson, even Kimber has come out with one) are designed for use by Military and Police. The safeties on glocks make the trigger pull longer, and prevent accidental firing from dropping the gun. Anyone who has a gun, should be properly trained and now their gun before they purchase it. They also need to have some type of firearm safety course, and I am as right wing as it gets when it comes to the second amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well glocks have three safeties but none are of the traditional trigger safety variety. Glocks (and clones made by Springfield and Smith and Wesson, even Kimber has come out with one) are designed for use by Military and Police. The safeties on glocks make the trigger pull longer, and prevent accidental firing from dropping the gun. Anyone who has a gun, should be properly trained and now their gun before they purchase it. They also need to have some type of firearm safety course, and I am as right wing as it gets when it comes to the second amendment.

Obviously not.

The problem with mandatory safety courses is that they set up conditions for exclusion which violates the idea of an inherent right

For example, as an indirect means of gun control the govt could regulate the cost of such mandatory training and make it so expensive that your average person couldn't afford it.

As alternate plan would be for the govt (state or federal) to make the schedule of training; only allowing minimal courses so very few people could have access; or they could make the certification needed to become a govt approved trainer near impossible to get, etc...

The second amendment reads "shall not be infringed." The mandatory training aspect, while seeming like a good idea at first glance, is ripe for manipulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously not.

The problem with mandatory safety courses is that they set up conditions for exclusion which violates the idea of an inherent right

For example, as an indirect means of gun control the govt could regulate the cost of such mandatory training and make it so expensive that your average person couldn't afford it.

As alternate plan would be for the govt (state or federal) to make the schedule of training; only allowing minimal courses so very few people could have access; or they could make the certification needed to become a govt approved trainer near impossible to get, etc...

The second amendment reads "shall not be infringed." The mandatory training aspect, while seeming like a good idea at first glance, is ripe for manipulation.

You are right. I commend you. I am however concerned about the future of concealed carry permits, but instead of talking about this on a football board, I'll just pm you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...