I love the 1911. I really want a long slide one day. But I have 2 cheapy models in .45acp and 9mm.
Since you usually shoot center line, having the ejection port on the other side doesnât make much of a difference, even with a strong side weaver stance. But I believe they DO make a left handed version. Cabot I know makes one but yeesh their stuff is pricey. Work filters prevent me from looking for others.
You can get an ambi safety, which both of mine have. I know a lefty who competes and is sponsored by Sig and uses a 1911 and does just fine on mag changes. I think its a bit better, as I noticed he doesnât have to twist the gun ever so slightly to get the thumb to hit it.
But they do make a mag release that works on the right side for the 1911. I think Slide and Cylinder makes it.
The Dalai Lama has mentioned owning an air rifle several times. Though I realize that some Buddhists criticize him for this.
Aikins: âDo you have a favourite animal?â
Dalai Lama: âBirds maybe. I feed birds, peaceful birds. Iâm a
non-violent person, but if a hawk comes when Iâm feeding birds, I lose
my temper and get my air rifle.â
Aikins: âYou have an air rifle?â
Dalai Lama: âYes, although I shoot only to scare the hawks.â
As Iâve made clear, Iâm pro-gun control but I did grow up shooting. I learned to shoot at age 6, was given a .22 for my seventh birthday, and did blackpowder recreation as a teenager (had a .50 left handed custom muzzle loading rifle from a lefty gunsmith). My stepdad hunted most of our meat.
Also @ Mister44 Iâm actually somewhat surprised that we donât see more people testing a reversed mag release in competition so you donât have to break your grip. But maybe moot when you are high level - there is that insane video of Travis somebody that demoing a lightning fast mag change. For my favorite pistol I can reliably release with my middle finger of my firing hand, but I canât on most pistols.
@Otherbrother - the lack of high round count defenses isnât very meaningful. Most scenarios end quickly because both sides are not dedicated to the fight. Given opposition of deadly force most criminal retreat rather quickly. Only those hell bent on stopping their opponent are going to stay in an extended firefight. And your response to me makes it oddly sound like we disagree, when I brought it up, strange phrasing.
As far as knowledge needed to draft legislation, many of the laws are so poorly written and nonsensical (even those put out by the folks who write them for the California legislature each annually, just to be voted down or fail in committee EVERY SINGLE YEAR) that consulting any police or govt agency armorer could help them write a much more sensible law.
The rebuttal would be that the repealing of prohibition would have as far more to do with reducing the profits and stakes of the alcohol black market that was fueling the killings of the 20s; just as many people believe today that legalization MJ/other drugs generally would reduce profits and therefore the number of people willing to commit violence for profits and in drug turf wars.
Wow. Just wow. Out of all the examples in the world, THOSE are the two that you choose to advocate your point? Ok.
First photo:
Campus police officer uses excessive force to break up an act of civil disobedience. This is undoubtedly a bad, illegal thing to do. But the officer lost his job (should have been charged with a crime, yes), the protesters got a massive cash settlement from the school along with lots of publicity and sympathy for their cause (which is one of the main goals for acts of civil disobedience), and nobody got shot. For the life of me I canât think of any way that bringing guns to the situation would have helped improve this outcome for anyone involved.
Second photo:
A rich family of ranchers that lost a lawsuit (and exhausted a lengthy appeals process) over an issue of not paying the required fees for use of government land decided to take up arms against federal officials who were peaceably executing a judgeâs lawful order to seize some property as compensation. They and their friends literally threatened to murder federal officials who were not endangering them. The âpeaceful solutionâ was for the government to step back and let them get away with their crimes for a little while longer, until the family and their friends, now emboldened, royally screwed up, and got themselves arrested (and in one case, shot), now to be charged with crimes that carry much more serious consequences than a simple loss of some cattle. In the end, I donât think the guns improved their situation one bit.
If these are your shining examples in your advocacy for a well armed populace, that means Iâm much further from understanding your thought process than I had imagined.
In that specific incident, it was pepper spray and a few bruises. The kids were white and affluent enough for college, so they walked away with some press and a little bit of money for their trouble- Because you know, leaving some cash on the nightstand makes it all better in the morning.
There are a hell of a lot more people who are nowhere near as lucky. I mean, do I really need to post a list of black, hispanic, native, and poor people who have been killed by police over nothing, and whose murderers are still walking around like it never happened? How about rapes?
It would be one thing if the justice system worked. It doesnât. It would be one thing if outrage over injustice actually had an effect on our political climate. It doesnât. This shit just keeps happening. Look me square in the eye and tell me in a straight face that either Trump or Clinton is actually going to do anything about the militarization and unaccountably of police.
And thatâs the thing about the that second picture- Those guys werenât even right. Hell, they were assembling a paramilitary network while openly advocating the overthrow of the federal government- Literally one of the only times the government might actually have been justified in a full-blown military assault. And what happened? Eh, fuck it. Weâll deal with them later- somebody might get hurt.
Well, yeah, citing one of those examples (of which there are many) potentially would have been a more persuasive way to advocate for your position. Iâm just amazed that instead of citing one of those you specifically cited an example that (in my mind) most definitely would not have been improved by adding more guns. Really, I just donât get it. Same for your rationale in choosing your second example.
Edit to add: itâs true that weâre drifting somewhat off topic here. Iâll bail and leave you good folks to the discussion of which firearms are most appropriate for which purposes. (such as the purpose of defending you cattle against government repossession)
Thanks, the trip was nice. I rode up to a little valley at about 10,000 ft, with a nice clear stream running down through the meadows and flowers. Mosquitoes kept it interesting at dawn and dusk. Both the dog and the horses attempted to murder as as many chipmunks as possible. I saw a bunch of Elk (including two newborn calfs), jackrabbits, prairie dogs, coyotes, and various birds and reptiles. Read a couple of books, and spent a decent amount of the time looking at the stars, and listening to the sounds of the deep forest. Very refreshing experience. I did some shooting as well. I set a 500 yard target out, which was an 8" paper plate. I had a Husqvarna Rifle from the mid-50s, shooting .270 130 gr reloads. I really impressed myself with consistent solid hits. A coyote ran down the slope behind my target, at probably 800 yards, but he was not bothering me, so I did not bother him. I am on the road now, I will look into starting a subheading with collections of cars and other things.
That is a helpful diagram. I have some shotguns, but I have never been fully literate on all the different choke types. Off hand, do you know if bore size changes these numbers?
Hereâs a question: Why conceal? Since permits for concealment make it sound like a special case, one might think that unconcealed would be the norm. Thatâs also how other social norms tend to work - if what you have or are doing is legitimate, there is no pressing reason to hide it. So it seems as if maybe there were agenda in the past for de-normalizing the open carry of firearms. Who did this, and why?
âConcealed firearmâ can mean a lot of things. My wife sometimes keeps one in her purse, as she sometimes leaves the clinic very late at night. If she did that without a permit, it would be illegal. So would be having a gun in your car within reach, but out of sight.
There are some tactical reasons to conceal the fact that you are carrying a firearm. Where I work, we often deal with real security threats. It is a terrible idea to dress like an âoperatorâ. Those are the guys who get shot first. I think that would go for anywhere that a terrorist or criminal might open fire. They are going to shoot the threats first, if they have any sense.
At home, I am in the mountains a lot, and it is sensible to have a firearm. If I am not wearing a day pack, I find it comfortable to use a shoulder holster. If I am wearing a jacket, suddenly I have a concealed gun. I am not hiding it, just carrying it in a protected place, out of the rain, and not likely to get caught on brush. Still, permit required. I have family members who open carry pistols all the time. That is not a problem up in the mountains, but in a city, it can be intimidating. I personally donât like to do things that make others uncomfortable.
