Posted on 09/15/2011 10:06:16 AM PDT by Daffynition
Thanks.
A document of clarity and beauty!
I own a revolver and know about the hammer. If it is in the firing position, it will NOT fall and strike the primer unless there is a malfunction in the weapon or someone pulls the trigger. Dropping the weapon will not cause the hammer to fall.
Sorry, you lose and thanks for calling me a lib (which I am not) but it indicates that you are running out of valid arguments.
So your hammer can never fall downward and hit the floor and fire the gun? No one’s hammer can ever do that? You assume way too much, about what sort of guns are out there, how things fall, what things can be in the way, etc.
I didn’t call you a lib. Your arguments are like libs’.
I don’t lose; you all are being obstinately disingenuous when you cannot cede the obvious - accidents happen no matter how perfect everyone tries to be.
As far as this medical law - there are good points made about what laws have been/are actually in place (unfortunately), but simply blustering “they have no right” and “they’ll use it to hunt us down”, etc, just because you *like guns* and like 2A is silly. That’s what I see here.
The real problem with this is not the doctors freedom of speech. The govt controls MANY of the things the doctor says. There are a myriad of ways doctors change their behavior and either say things or don’t say things because of govt regulation.
The doctors who ask this are asking for one reason, because they are anti-gun. They are ok protecting their rights but are not ok with you protecting yours.
Being creative about not lying or deciding to lie are work arounds.
“Your doctor has a First Amendment right to tell you that, in his opinion, guns (insert opinion here) and you have a right to tell your doctor to go (insert unnatural act here) himself.”
No he doesn’t. A doctors visit isn’t a visit to the coffee shop. He cannot say anything he wants.
For example, if he tells you to use a non-FDA approved drug or even an FDA approved drug in a non-approved way he is liable and could lose his license.
“I know of no shotgun of the last 20 years that would fire a shell that had just been racked into the chamber”
My gunsmith knows of at least one. I have a very old Remington 870. Apparently the remington 870 has a floating firing pin. When it hasn’t been used for a long time the grease hardens and the floating pin becomes fixed.
So its entirely possible when you chamber a shell the newly fixed firing pin could hit the primer, and fire the weapon.
Me: Well, let's see...I have 12 handguns, 8 rifles and 4 shotguns.
Doctor: Wow! What are you afraid of?
Me: Nothing.
Reading your post, I just thought of another great response if you have an anti-gun zealot doctor asking the questions:
I’m sorry Dr., but talking about guns when I’m here for a sprained ankle kind of gives me the creeps.
I really don’t care what premise they use, I like to use my “play dumb” card in these situations rather than my “forcefully exercising my rights” card. It goes a lot farther.
not a bad idea
I agree the “forcefully exercising my rights” card isn’t the preferred way to go about it. I don’t like the lying approach either. If we let our govt force us to start lying to our doctor then how far are we willing to let them push us.
—I don’t like the lying approach either.—
I do not advocate lying. Rather, always tell the truth. Just use the doctor’s lack of PQ* skills to divert the questions. Lying is, by definition, telling a falsehood. Leaving out info is not lying. Telling the truth precisely, but in a way that causes the listener to interpret it differently is most definitely not lying. Lying is saying something that is not true.
*PQ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_questioning
I spent several years of my early married life as a Navy small arms maintainer during a period when the military Joint Services Small Arms Program was underway, resulting in the M16A2 designb modifications of the M16A1 rifle, the adoption of the M9 Beretta semiauto 9mm pistol and other deevelopments, not all of which were necessarily improvements, but at least increased the military knowledge database. I got *lent out* to several of the folks involved in the design engineering of several of the ongoing projects, including one for security forces shotguns, there being a wide variety of adapted commercial designs then in service due to the differing requirements of the various services and their needs. One of our first efforts was to summarize advantages and disadvantages of each design, several of which hadnt been manufactured for decades, and evaluate their characteristics for inclusion in a *unity* design. Safety, not surprisingly, was a big deal.
One requirement from the Navy: that the weapon not discharge with a chambered round when dropped from a height of 15 feet onto a steel plate, as when a weapon might drop from one deck of a ship to the next level down. Testing was commenced with a number of different types, muzzle down, horizontally, muzzle up, randomly positioned and under about every condition we could consider.
Conclusion: when so dropped horizontally, virtually ALL of the weapons we tested would fire, even with their trigger-blocking safeties in the safe position. Inertia would snap the hammer back far enough for the hammer to drive the firing pin forward and set off the cartridge. When dropped on the buttpad, the hammer would also snap back but either the pad would so cushion the impact that firing did not result or the hammer would engage the sear and simply remain in the cocked and safe position. The one gun which did NOT fire under those conditions was the Winchester M1897 shotgun, an external hammer design designed by John M. Browning in the Nineteenth Century.
There is one design that would fire as you pumped it- it is a police weapon, not legal to the general public- it fires as you pump it. Policemen/women would have access to such a weapon. What you describe would scare anyone- classic mishandling of a weapon and potentially deadly for you.
There are at least four commonly encountered commercial designs that would *slam fire* all are perfectly legal for civilian ownership in any jurisdiction in which the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed; they include the Winchester Model 1897, AKA the '97 Winchester, the Model 1912 Winchester, AKA the Model 12, the Stevens Model 520 and the those models of the Ithaca Model 37 without the later fitted trigger interrupter. The early Ithaca, without interrupter and fitted with an eight-shot magazine was a favorite of Navy SEAL Team point men operating in Vietnam, and was one of the shoitguns we tested that was most likely to fire when dropped horizontally. The SEALs didn't bother with the safety much, simply keeping their fingers off the trigger until ready to fire. Some *authorities* preferred working from an empty chamber, racking the slide when a round was needed. This was a less-than-ideal solution for those in the Army equipped with the Stevens Model 77E shotgun, which had only a four round magazine capacity.
Oh, the conclusions of our project: The Navy went to the Mossberg Model 500, later the product improved model. The Marines got the rebuilt Navy Remmie 870sa until the semiauto they wanted was developed [by Benelli] and the Army stuck with Winchesters.
I had a nurse start asking me questions last time at the Dr’s, starting with the seatbelt question.
I said, “I’ll answer that one, but no more, thanks.”
Not at all certain there is anything you think is safe, and you know...you’re absolutely right. So we should all live in fear of what might be— drowning in our ignorance of the proper operation of tools that can protect us from the criminal element. Brilliant.. ad absurdum.
In general, the world is not a safe place. However, those who are willing to give up their freedom and rights for security deserve neither and that is what they will get— neither.
The police will be the very first to tell you they cannot prevent someone from being attacked. This is why we have a right to defend ourselves.
We especially do not need continuous monitoring by the self righteous thought police to ensure our absolute safety.
Good info. Your testing reminded me of my formidable former mother-in-law who taught English to Hmong. Well trained in firearms, she had a habit of carrying a Browning Hi-Power (a Standard Hi-Power 9mm single action) in “cocked and locked”— chambered round, hammer back, safety on and full mag ready to autoload on firing. I about flipped when driving her daughter and her to dinner and adjusting the car seat, found the weapon under the seat, in a holster in that “condition”. What the Brits called “condition one”. She said no big deal, she did this routinely in Vietnam (was there in 52). Instant respect...and a reminder of the rule- ALL Firearms Are Loaded. I married her daughter.
I was thinking of the Ithaca as a “slam-fire” but Ive heard in some areas now one could get hassled about having one. Navy retirees told about the Ithaca.
You are so right. Just imagine with obamacare and federalized pt data the enormous list of firearm owners they could amass.
Much better than Che’ going through Fulgencio Batista’s gun owner lists in Havana-— and confiscating the weapons or shooting on the spot those who either didn’t have them or wouldn’t give them up. He even shot those who did give them up. Really bodes well for our future.
obamacare MUST be repealed totally.
Let’s remember that this all came out of the psawing and dismissals that doctors are asking about guns for no reason at all.
All I’m saying is they can see this as a safety (injury) issue. Some may ask about seatbelt use and lecture us about that (I don’t like being made a criminal for not wearing seatbelts).
Some made it seem guns have “nothing to do with medical issues”. But guns as well as lots of other things do put a certain risk - and accidents happen.
I don’t know why it’s so terrible that I point out to the zealous deniers that there IS a chance guns can hurt people accidentally, and that that is the base reason doctors mention it. As with smoking, no-seatbelts, obesity, drug usage, etc.
Is it possible that there is more to this? Sure. (Same with the other nonsense.) But I don’t like people scoffing that accidents never happen - or deflecting by insisting only fools “allow” it to happen and so thus, guns aren’t really a risk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.