For the gun lovers

[Ipedog]

Full auto Glock w/drum mags (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/480-1938.asp) (Click the image to run the vid)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :cool:

Looks like it might be a bit hard to conceal though...

[CO Hummer]

Full auto Glock w/drum mags (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/480-1938.asp) (Click the image to run the vid)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :cool:

Looks like it might be a bit hard to conceal though...

Oh man. I gotta git me one of those!

[GeorgeSSSS]

Some of those "hobbiest gunsmiths" can get pretty creative.

[DRTYFN]

Full auto Glock w/drum mags (http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/480-1938.asp) (Click the image to run the vid)

Looks like it might be a bit hard to conceal though...

Please tell us YOU don't have any firearms.:eek:

[PARAGON]

You could change it over if you hold a Federal Firearm Manufacturer's license.

But I really don't see the point.

[Mr. I - Man]

That looks hella accurate:rolleyes:

[PARAGON]

I bet that was at the recent machine gun shoot in Georgia recently. They were going to have all kinds of junk to shoot and let individuals fire some of the full auto weapons.

[PARAGON]

That looks hella accurate:rolleyes:I'm sure it is out to 1000mm;)

[h2co-pilot]

I don't think that tiny gun can handle that much more.

They must have put an automatic machine gun rounder thing on a little pistol right? Couldn't something give out and break?

[CO Hummer]

Couldn't something give out and break?

No. It's a Glock. ;)






Of course, now some yahoo will post a pic of the 1 in zillion that has a barrel failure. :)

[dеiтайожни]

That is the coolest, I want.

No. It's a Glock. ;)
Of course, now some yahoo will post a pic of the 1 in zillion that has a barrel failure. :)

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/images/moss-10.jpg

[MarK M]

speaking of guns... anyone have hookups for lasermax?

I'm trying to score one for my beretta.

[Fubar]

illegal or not very cool.

[MarK M]

Without going into a long discussion about the pros/cons of laser sights, I have to ask why?

On a pistol they are gimmick at best, a nuisance and hindrance at worst. I tried one many moons ago and found it is slower to aim than regular sights and does nothing for accuracy. It clearly gives away your position and holds no value in my view. They aren't too bad for training, but spending the money on ammo would be a wiser choice if you want to practice and become better.

If you really want one, check gunbroker.com, they come up from time to time at good prices.

I hear you on practice and become better. I was just thinking for intimidating factor. If for gods sake i ever have to use it for protection, instead of firing a round into the guy, maybe showing a beam would scare them off without anyone getting killed.

eh screw it... we want them dead... lol

[h2co-pilot]

That's why when I am home alone and I get scared- I sometimes flash a laser pointer out the windows at incognito angles.:D

[ETD]

That's why when I am home alone and I get scared- I sometimes flash a laser pointer out the windows at incognito angles.:D


:D :D :D

[ETD]

eh screw it... we want them dead... lol

:D :D :D

[ETD]

That's why when I am home alone and I get scared- I sometimes flash a laser pointer out the windows at incognito angles.:D

Is that some strange pop-rock band coming to attack you?:eek: :)

[MarineHawk]

The purpose of drawing a firearm for self defense is to "stop" the would be assailant, by stop I mean stop with deadly force. Once you have made the decision to use deadly force, then the best of course of action is to follow through with that. In fact many states don't allow you to threaten the use of deadly force, only to use it.

In the home, intimidation factor may be of value, but the sound of 12 gauge pump racking will likely be way more effective. Besides which, you are clearly showing them where you are and what your intentions are. While you intimidate them, they'll most probably shoot you.

In the unfortunate event that you need to use deadly force, then that is what you need to use, not the threat of it, in my view.

Exactly. Additionally, at close quarters, it's hard to distinguish when a threatening criminal who has broken into your home is being "scared off" or whether he is drawing a weapon and moving to cover, from behind which he will shoot you in the head. It all happens in a split second. If you have any doubts about terminating someone who has broken into your home and is, by definition, putting the lives of you and your family at risk, you shouldn't have the gun. Your hesitation will possibly lead to being disarmed and killed by your own weapon. The only instance when I might possibly (though not likely) withhold fire in such a situation would be if I could see he had no weapon in his hands for certain, and he immediately raised them in the air. Even then, he would be terminated immediately if he made a fleeing maneuver, because it might just as easily be a tactically offensive maneuver. It doesn’t take long to draw a weapon. The only way, in the unlikely event that I withheld lethal force, that he would survive is if he followed my instructions, maintained elevated hands, got on his knees, put his hands on the floor, and spread eagle laid face down, etc. If he’s turning and running through my house (i.e., getting “scared away”), I don’t know if he’s getting a friend, trying to get upstairs or downstairs where my wife and kids are, etc. He does that, he dies. He probably dies anyway. If he didn’t want to die, he should not have unlawfully broken into my residence, inherently threatening my family with unknown levels of violence and horror.

[MarK M]

Correct me if I’m wrong here... if the criminal turns his back to you heading downstairs or out the door regardless if he's carrying your big flat panel LCD or running away you cannot shoot him. At least in California laws.

He is not a risk to you or to your loved ones if he walks away therefore you cannot use deadly force. However, if he is coming towards you, you pop a cap on his ass!

A cop told me once; you only use as much force to stop the assailant from threatening you and your loved ones.

I then asked one shot, two shots; empty the whole magazine… what’s appropriate? He repeated the above statement.

[GeorgeSSSS]

BTW, there's a firing range in Las Vegas where you can rent military rifles (M-16, AK-47, MP9, Uzi, etc.) and fire them full auto. I haven't tried it, but I bet it's great.

Best regards,

George SSSS

[ETD]

More than one friend who are native Texan attorneys told me when I moved here that the only way to be certain that the would-be robber does not get to turn around and sue you for shooting him is to make sure that he can't contact the lawyer in the first place. ( Apparently, a good lawyer can make him into the victim.) Once done, it's your word in the police report whether he turned to run or to draw a weapon. Unlike in MA or CA, the police here would take your word then. I intend to take his advice should I ever be in that situation. Just a thought.

[MarineHawk]

Correct me if I’m wrong here... if the criminal turns his back to you heading downstairs or out the door regardless if he's carrying your big flat panel LCD or running away you cannot shoot him. At least in California laws.

He is not a risk to you or to your loved ones if he walks away therefore you cannot use deadly force. However, if he is coming towards you, you pop a cap on his ass!


Depends on several things including geometry. My front door is about seven feet from our stairs going up to the upper level and near the other stairs going down. Unless, I'm right by the front door AND he happens to be running out that door, he's always potentially heading toward a part of my house that may contain my loved ones if he's running away from me. If I'm in my family room, and he's running away from me, he could be heading out of the house OR right upstairs to kidnap or kill one of my family members. He doesn't get that chance. He gets shot multiple times. My family lives unharmed for certain. No guess work about whether he's retreating or going after hostages.

"... At least in California laws." I would never, ever, ever live in California for that very reason. They protect criminals and prosecute victims. I know of several specific accounts of this. Never, ever.

[h2co-pilot]

I love it when you all are so protective.:)

That is all.

[PARAGON]

We just passed a castle law that extends to your vehicle and business. Gives us protection to defend ourselves from BGs and takes out the hesitation one would have to defend themselves in some states due to the makeup of the laws.

11 97-3-15. (1) The killing of a human being by the act,
12 procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the
13 following cases:

27 (e) When committed by any person in resisting any
28 attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony
29 upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, occupied vehicle or the
30 building of a business during hours when the business is closed to
31 the public in which such person shall be;
32 (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own
33 person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable
34 ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some
35 great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such
36 design being accomplished;
37 (g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful
38 ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;
39 (h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing
40 any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
41 (2) (a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and * * * (d) of this
42 section, the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public
43 officer or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or
44 assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in
45 securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the
46 offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape,
47 recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting
48 himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person
49 shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means
50 when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The
51 public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may
52 act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding
53 circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use
54 excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary
55 in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's
56 resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the
57 offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or
58 others from bodily harm.
59 (b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and * * * (d) of this
60 section the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been
61 convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in
62 custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an
63 offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or
64 confinement in the penitentiary.
65 (c) As used in subsections (1)(e) and (3) of this
66 section, "dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind
67 that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is
68 temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that
69 is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night,
70 including any attached porch;
71 (3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to
72 have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the
73 commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, a
74 vehicle which he was occupying or the building of a business
75 during hours when the business is closed to the public, if the
76 person against whom the defensive force was used was in the
77 process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and
78 forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle or the building of
79 a business during hours when the business is closed to the public,
80 or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to
81 unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from
82 that dwelling, occupied vehicle or the building of a business
83 during hours when the business is closed to the public, and the
84 person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that
85 the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or
86 had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person
87 against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a
88 lawful resident or owner of the dwelling or vehicle, or is the
89 lawful employee or owner of the business or the building of the
90 business, or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in
91 unlawful activity;
92 (4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not
93 engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before
94 using deadly force under subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section
95 if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be,
96 and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's
97 failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was
98 unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.
99 (5) (a) A person using deadly force in accordance with the
100 provisions of subsection (1)(e) or (f) of this section shall be
101 immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force and
102 shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death
103 resulting from the use of force. The presumptions contained in
104 subsection (1)(e) and (f) of this section shall apply in civil
105 cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a
106 defense.
107 (b) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees,
108 court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses
109 incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought
110 by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune
111 from prosecution as provided in this subsection (5).
112 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from
113 and after July 1, 2006.

[Odysseus]

You know they say that your pistol is what you use while you are trying to get to your rifle. This thing is trying too hard! :D

In regards to the discussion on laws, the castle doctrine and the use of force definitely varies state to state. That is in regards to criminal law.

However as well documented those who have to defend themselves also run up against civil lawsuit. Often even in the commission of a crime by a perp, wrongful death or harm lawsuits can be filed. The common thought on the lowest denominator is to use deadly force only when the threat of harm is present. Thus someone running out of your house with a TV is not an imminent threat. Someone running in the house at you is...