new Remington r 51

WalkingWolf said:

OK I will give you that one, but the rest is painfully clear. It is ironic as well as funny that you accuse others of falsehoods yet every post of yours contains outright lies, and accusations of lies where none took place. A slug under a rock has more creds than you.

Click to expand...

Who cares about "creds"? Is THIS what bothers you so much? I don't care about "creds" least of all from you. You post non-sense I don't have a problem calling it out.

You say no lies took place and yet to this day you STILL have not offered any proof that there is a reputation. I want you to show me the reviews on an on-going basis that say "well this gun does have a reputation for exploding." Cause, a couple isolated cases that don't have a clear resolution don't really equate to a "reputation". Stop trying to pivot your statement to the "kaboom" I don't care about that. All brands have kabooms. I want the proof of reputation that you claim.

In fact, I'll use one of your posts to prove you are wrong.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080313/NEWS/803130481

In the article, page 2:

The Polk County Sheriff's Office uses a different Glock, the .40-caliber Model 22 pistol, but there haven't been any incidents with it, said spokeswoman Carrie Rodgers.

The Sheriff's Office switched last year to the Glocks after using Smith & Wessons. The Glocks cost the agency $350 per gun, compared with $560 for the .45-caliber Smith & Wessons deputies were using.

"They're easier to fire, more accurate, and they hold more ammunition," Rodgers said.

Click to expand...

Doesn't bode well for this "reputation" claim. Oh, this is not good:

Two .45-caliber Glock Model 21 pistols exploded in the hands of two officers at the Portland Police Department, according to a 2004 article in The Oregonian newspaper. That department then switched to 9 mm Glocks.

Click to expand...

So they switched from Glock to ... Oh, Glock. So that doesn't prove a reputation.

maybe this:

In Pennsylvania, a training officer with the Upper Darby Township Police Department said his department used to carry the Glock Model 21 before it started jamming.

The department is now testing a different model of Glock. "We can't get a reason why it keeps happening," he said.

Click to expand...

Darn, another model of Glock... Still no reputation of exploding. Just a few cases where they did. Well let's read that second one you like:

http://communitypress.cincinnati.co...001/NEWS/Police handgun explodes while firing

Oh. We can't. So... no proof there.

Got any proof at all that this mythical reputation exists? We all know that guns can go kaboom. That's not disputed. I want you to actually finally categorically prove there is an industry accepted reputation that glock explode. And not one where you back out like you did last time:

WalkingWolf said:

Personally I have nothing against Glocks, would not own one unless given to me, but have nothing against them. I only posted negatively to upset the snobbers, and it worked. Such hypocrites.

Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

Delusion and Denial are not a river in Egypt... :lol::lol::lol:

Better yet, rather than further defecating on this thread, I'll start a new one for your. You can prove your case to your hearts content there and let this thread be all about the R51, as it should.

mobiushky said:

Better yet, rather than further defecating on this thread, I'll start a new one for your. You can prove your case to your hearts content there and let this thread be all about the R51, as it should.

Click to expand...

Go ahead, don't be surprised if I am not there. You are ate up with the Glock snobbery, I have had my fun, go lie to your hearts content.

WalkingWolf said:

:lol::lol::lol:

Delusion and Denial are not a river in Egypt... :lol::lol::lol:

Click to expand...

No? So you're planning to stick to the plan of not backing up your claims?

mobiushky said:

No? So you're planning to stick to the plan of not backing up your claims?

Click to expand...

I did back up my claims, with news reports, and members of the Glock fraternity. I provided a hell of a lot more than what you did for the R51. If that is what you base your defense on then you should just not embarrass yourself by putting down others. :lol:

Glocks are not a joke, you are!

WalkingWolf said:

Go ahead, don't be surprised if I am not there. You are ate up with the Glock snobbery, I have had my fun, go lie to your hearts content.

Click to expand...

So no proof then. Unsubstantiated claims with no proof. That's false information. So how am I lying when I say you are giving false information?

mobiushky said:

So no proof then. Unsubstantiated claims with no proof. That's false information. So how am I lying when I say you are giving false information?

Click to expand...

Again you are lying, but sorta used to it by now. How he hell can anyone in there right mind consider news reports unsubstantiated. Ohhh never mind, only the delusional.

WalkingWolf said:

I did back up my claims, with news reports, and members of the Glock fraternity. I provided a hell of a lot more than what you did for the R51. If that is what you base your defense on then you should just not embarrass yourself by putting down others. :lol:

Glocks are not a joke, you are!

Click to expand...

You posted news articles that proved you were wrong. I even showed where they proved you were wrong. The article I posted on topic simply was a review as requested. One that was generally favorable to the R51 but pointed out some short commings that should be addressed. Nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps it would do well to explain something. Making a claim like "Brand X has a reputation for exploding" on a forum like this is a serious claim. That's a big deal. Especially when newcomers or first timers come to a place like this for information and help. Claiming ANY firearm has a reputation for exploding is VERY serious especially when that claim encompasses an entire manufacturer. That's an issue of safety. People need to know they can rely on their firearms to be safe. So to claim a manufacturer has a reputation for exploding is very important to back up. Many law enforcement and military members own these guns. Millions of average gun owners own these guns. IF they have a reputation for being unsafe, we need to be sure that people know that.

By contrast to make some claim out of personal bias and selfish reasons (self-proclaimed sheriff of snobbery) without showing proof is shameful. To claim that something is factual because you are bent out of shape is deplorable. If you have factual proof that a real danger exists in large scale beyond a few isolated cases, that needs to be brought to peoples attention. Otherwise you are disseminating false information without cause.

mobiushky said:

You posted news articles that proved you were wrong. I even showed where they proved you were wrong. The article I posted on topic simply was a review as requested. One that was generally favorable to the R51 but pointed out some short commings that should be addressed. Nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^

[video=youtube;XVSRm80WzZk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk[/video]

WalkingWolf said:

^^^^^^^^^^

[video=youtube;XVSRm80WzZk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk[/video]

Click to expand...

Well that certainly helps the discussion along.

mobiushky said:

Well that certainly helps the discussion along.

Click to expand...

There is not discussion here, nothing but you denying and whining. So I might as well poke some fun. :lol:

WalkingWolf said:

There is not discussion here, nothing but you denying and whining. So I might as well poke some fun. :lol:

Click to expand...

So I understand that you are willing to loosely claim that a manufacture of firearms is consistently producing a product that is dangerous to people without proving that claim to be true? You are willing to make false claims that have serious ramifications without bothering to prove any of it? And when called out, you obfuscate and poke fun rather than man up and back your claims. And you say I have no "creds"?

mobiushky said:

So I understand that you are willing to loosely claim that a manufacture of firearms is consistently producing a product that is dangerous to people without proving that claim to be true? You are willing to make false claims that have serious ramifications without bothering to prove any of it? And when called out, you obfuscate and poke fun rather than man up and back your claims. And you say I have no "creds"?

Click to expand...

Don't you ever get tired of being a crybaby? Christ give it a rest! You are making a complete fool of yourself over a inanimate object. Utterly STUPID, IMO.

WalkingWolf said:

Don't you ever get tired of being a crybaby? Christ give it a rest! You are making a complete fool of yourself over a inanimate object. Utterly STUPID, IMO.

Click to expand...

Do you ever post anything to back up what you say? You act the knowledgeable sage on all things firearms related and then when pressed come out full of hot air. You bully people to get them to stop pressing you and it doesn't work on me. You made a claim that is not substantiated. It is incumbent on you to prove your claims valid. You haven't. Twice now. I won't back off until you prove your false accusations to be true. You made the claim, prove it. If it's valid, I'll accept it. At which time I suspect you would be smart to take that Glock you just bought back afterall:

WalkingWolf said:

Personally I don't want to shoot a gun that will blow up in my hand such as Glocks have a reputation for.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to own a gun that has a reputation for blowing up either. Sort of strikes me as odd that you would make that claim and then not even back up your claim. But worse, you went and bought what you claim is a dangerous firearm. How irresponsible is that?

mobiushky said:

Do you ever post anything to back up what you say? You act the knowledgeable sage on all things firearms related and then when pressed come out full of hot air. You bully people to get them to stop pressing you and it doesn't work on me. You made a claim that is not substantiated. It is incumbent on you to prove your claims valid. You haven't. Twice now. I won't back off until you prove your false accusations to be true. You made the claim, prove it. If it's valid, I'll accept it. At which time I suspect you would be smart to take that Glock you just bought back afterall:



I wouldn't want to own a gun that has a reputation for blowing up either. Sort of strikes me as odd that you would make that claim and then not even back up your claim. But worse, you went and bought what you claim is a dangerous firearm. How irresponsible is that?

Click to expand...

What is wrong with you, see a doctor ASAP. Glocks HAVE blown up in people's hands. Glock has admitted there was a problem and blamed that problem on lead bullets. YOU have to really be ignorant not to know the reports that are out there. No other firearm has made the news for blowing up as much as Glocks have. Stop being a cry baby, and get over it. Glocks suck and are a piece of junk, they should be outlawed, and Glock snobs should be jailed for life.

There does that make you happy, now pull up your briefs, and get out of the basement for fresh air. You are not going to affirm your manhood on the internet, you will only be made fun of, as I have done to you.

WalkingWolf said:

What is wrong with you, see a doctor ASAP. Glocks HAVE blown up in people's hands. Glock has admitted there was a problem and blamed that problem on lead bullets. YOU have to really be ignorant not to know the reports that are out there. No other firearm has made the news for blowing up as much as Glocks have. Stop being a cry baby, and get over it. Glocks suck and are a piece of junk, they should be outlawed, and Glock snobs should be jailed for life.

There does that make you happy, now pull up your briefs, and get out of the basement for fresh air. You are not going to affirm your manhood on the internet, you will only be made fun of, as I have done to you.

Click to expand...

I see no links to reputable sources. You are not a reputable source.

All firearms have blown up. Fact of life. Once again you pivot away from the issue at hand. Prove that Glocks have a "reputation for blowing up." You have not proven that the manufacturer Glock has an industry wide accepted reputation for blowing up. That would be an unsafe firearm to own. People need to know if that's true. I suspect you are just breathing hot air like normal and can't prove it. I don't care if you like them or not, that's your prerogative. You can attempt to bully me any way you choose. I don't care if YOU call me a snob because I've lost most of any respect I may have had for your opinions. You are on the hook to provide a reputable link that shows this reputation you claim. Until you prove it, you're making false claims.

mobiushky said:

I see no links to reputable sources. You are not a reputable source.

All firearms have blown up. Fact of life. Once again you pivot away from the issue at hand. Prove that Glocks have a "reputation for blowing up." You have not proven that the manufacturer Glock has an industry wide accepted reputation for blowing up. That would be an unsafe firearm to own. People need to know if that's true. I suspect you are just breathing hot air like normal and can't prove it. I don't care if you like them or not, that's your prerogative. You can attempt to bully me any way you choose. I don't care if YOU call me a snob because I've lost most of any respect I may have had for your opinions. You are on the hook to provide a reputable link that shows this reputation you claim. Until you prove it, you're making false claims.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;a0-QnzeNLP4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a0-QnzeNLP4[/video]

So you are not going to be backing up your false statements?