asked to decock

flb_78 · Jul 13, 2013

DrakeZ07 said:
Because advocating for someone to initiate a negligent discharge is common practice among OC'ers, right?!

If he intentionally put a round into the floor, it wouldn't be a negligent discharge.

DrakeZ07 · Jul 13, 2013

flb_78 said:
If he intentionally put a round into the floor, it wouldn't be a negligent discharge.

You're right; I couldn't think of the name/term for it at the moment. Still, would be illegal within most city limits within the state. Although I question the authority of most towns to do so, a large part of them have ordinances banning the discharge of a firearm within city limits for any reason, with the exception of self-defense, or protection of your property. And I personally found it distasteful, even in sarcasm, for David to make a comment about playing with the hammer, and causing the round to be fired, even in the context of not being the OC'er.

MKEgal · Jul 13, 2013

DocWalker said:
I know we need to be diplomatic with stupid people but sometimes it gets trying.

Amen.

I'm tired of people thinking that my rights and safety take a back seat to someones "feelings" or "insecurities".

Is that what you meant to say?

SFCRetired said:
the only real safety their weapon has is their control of their bugger hook.

That doesn't mean the same as "booger hook".

FreeInAZ said:
Does she peer at the split triggers on glocks & ask their owners to place the trigger in the reward position?

:lol: Never thought of it that way.

KYGlockster · Jul 14, 2013

flb_78 said:
If he intentionally put a round into the floor, it wouldn't be a negligent discharge.

Actually it would. If someone were to actually do so, then they would be doing so due to their lack of care or concern for others, which is the very definition of negligence.

JoeSparky · Jul 15, 2013

flb_78 said:
If he intentionally put a round into the floor, it wouldn't be a negligent discharge.

I'd call it a negligent INTENTIONAL act. It is a more serious violation in my mind that an UNINTENTIONAL negligent act!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

willy1094 · Jul 18, 2013

JoeSparky said:
I'd call it a negligent INTENTIONAL act. It is a more serious violation in my mind that an UNINTENTIONAL negligent act!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wanton endangerment could be a charge. Now we all know we cannot shoot into the floor of the gun store/dept. That would be negligent and dangerous.

Citizen · Jul 18, 2013

I've been passing over this thread since it first started because I figgered I knew what it was going to be about.

Glad I checked. Y'all are hilarious!

davidmcbeth · Jul 18, 2013

gutshot said:
Absolutely correct. It would be negligent, but not an accidental discharge.

Well, just put brass in w/ just a primer (no powder/bullet) ... they'll be looking for that bullet forever .... I've done that to hilarious effect .. antis have no clue what a discharge really sounds like ...

DocWalker · Jul 18, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Well, just put brass in w/ just a primer (no powder/bullet) ... they'll be looking for that bullet forever .... I've done that to hilarious effect .. antis have no clue what a discharge really sounds like ...

When they do hear it, it usally requires them to go change thier shorts.

katlynn2 · Jul 22, 2013

flb_78 said:
If he intentionally put a round into the floor, it wouldn't be a negligent discharge.

Or maybe this:

Well, the sheriff arrived with his bathrobe on.
The confrontation was a tense one.
He shook his head and said, "Bubba, boy,
Now, you was always a dense one".
Now, reckless discharge of a gun.
That's what the officers are claimin'.
Bubba hollered out, "Reckless hell!
I hit just where I was aimin."

asked to decock

flb_78

Regular Member

DrakeZ07

Regular Member

MKEgal

Regular Member

KYGlockster

Activist Member

JoeSparky

Centurion

willy1094

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

DocWalker

Regular Member

katlynn2

New member