Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Magna Trigger

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25

    Magna Trigger

    Hello everyone,

    I have a S&W 642, and my very soon to be wife and I are looking into ways to make our gun owning household a little safer (especially for kids). I currently carry my 642, and keep it in the nightstand. Once we have children I would not leave the gun in the nighstand, and I was planning on getting a small biometric safe I could use instead, in case I need my gun during the night. While researching i found this thing called a Magna Trigger. Basically it's a conversion that prevents the gun from firing, unless the shooter is wearing a special magnetic ring. Without the ring, the gun can't shoot. I figured this would be great for when the kids are young, so they can never fire the gun accidentally (or on purpose). Also, if someone breaks into my safe (including kids) they can't use the gun. This also renders the gun useless if a perp wrestles it from me and tries to use my own gun on me. Does anyone here have experience with the magna trigger? And how do you like it or dislike it?

    Now before the hounds are loose:

    -I can purchase additional rings so I can use both hands, or an additional ring for my wife. Basically making her an "authorized user".
    -Children do get a hold of guns, and do stupid things, no matter how great the parenting is. Especially around their friends who did not get great parenting.
    - It's reliable (mechanically) and was used by a few Ohio police departments when revolvers were still the go to choice.
    - I can wear the ring to bed.
    - The ring would not become an obstacle if i were to become disoriented. I would already be wearing it, and the revolver is still point and shoot.
    - No matter your training, sometimes the other guy is better trained, and a gun can be taken from you.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,867
    what does NV statutes state regarding protection of minors from firearms? that should be one guiding factor in anything you do

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    what does NV statutes state regarding protection of minors from firearms? that should be one guiding factor in anything you do

    ipse
    NV doesn't really have anything on the matter, except they can't buy a gun. I'm not obligated by law to lock my guns up in any way shape or form, and I'm not instructed how to store ammo. It's pretty much up to the gun owner (which I like).
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Seems like a problem, trying to solve a non-problem.

    Get a dog.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    They have been around for decades I decide many years ago they were not worth the effort.

    Training your children works better for me.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Training your children works better for me.
    Uhhh ...
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    I do not like gun safety devices. They can fail, create problems and may invalidate any warranty on the firearm - it has been altered.

    How about if you are incapacitated and your best friend tries to use your gun in your defense - what then?

    Either my gun is on my hip or it is locked away - that is my form of gun control, gun safety. Believe in beginning the training with children at a very early age - dependent on child's ability to grasp the concept.

    Gun taken from a LAC while OCing - virtually all such incidents have proven to be false. Bottom line - less than your chances of being struck by lightning IMO.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/ida...other-toddler/

    ^^^^^^^^ Honest accidents happen. Do you guys know that in 2013 more preschoolers were shot (83) than officers in the line of duty (27)? You can teach kids gun safety all day long, but sometimes crap happens. And crap happens a lot more than anything else.

    Grapeshot- Those were my worries as well, but again, the system was used in police departments and I cant find an incident of the system failing. Though there was one guy who modified the ring and the magnet rusted or something. Plus, my best friend carries as well And with that situation arising, I think you have a higher chance of being struck by lightning, IMO Kids doing stupid stuff and/or their friends doing stupid stuff, or just plain accidents, happens multiple times daily.
    Last edited by Jagorilla; 10-08-2015 at 02:18 PM. Reason: Typo
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagorilla View Post
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/ida...other-toddler/

    ^^^^^^^^ Honest accidents happen. Do you guys know that in 2013 more preschoolers were shot (83) than officers in the line of duty (27)? You can teach kids gun safety all day long, but sometimes crap happens. And crap happens a lot more than anything else.

    Grapeshot- Those were my worries as well, but again, the system was used in police departments and I cant find an incident of the system failing. Though there was one guy who modified the ring and the magnet rusted or something. Plus, my best friend carries as well And with that situation arising, I think you have a higher chance of being struck by lightning, IMO Kids doing stupid stuff and/or their friends doing stupid stuff, or just plain accidents, happens multiple times daily.
    The lady could have prevented the problem by keeping her handgun in a good retention holster on her person. That would have been smart.

    My question regarding your best friend, specifically said if he picked up your gun - not whether he carried as he may have run his dry.

    In 2008:
    "...........about 765,000 were sworn personnel—which is defined as those with general arrest powers. The report contains data from 17,985 state and local law enforcement agencies with at least one full-time officer or the equivalent in part-time officers, including:

    • 12,501 local police departments
    • 3,063 sheriffs’ offices
    • 50 primary state law enforcement agencies
    • 1,733 special jurisdiction agencies"

    http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/...nf_census.html

    "BJS estimates that in 2008, there were 17,895 law enforcement agencies employing 1.13 million full-time workers, including over 765,000 sworn officers, as well as about 100,000 part-time employees, including over 44,000 sworn officers. That gives a total of full- and part-time employees with general arrest powers of about 810,000 in 2008.

    By 2014 - "Additionally, these figures, including the rate of increase and rate of acceleration, make the current NLEOMF estimate of “over 900,000 sworn officers” seem quite plausible, if a bit high, assuming an average of 45,000 part-time sworn officers as in previous years.

    So if a few departments/agencies are in fact still using this trigger, you may color me skeptical as to how this becomes an endorsement for the rest of us.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-08-2015 at 04:03 PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The lady could have prevented the problem by keeping her handgun in a good retention holster on her person. That would have been smart.

    My question regarding your best friend, specifically said if he picked up your gun - not whether he carried as he may have run his dry.

    In 2008:
    "...........about 765,000 were sworn personnel—which is defined as those with general arrest powers. The report contains data from 17,985 state and local law enforcement agencies with at least one full-time officer or the equivalent in part-time officers, including:

    • 12,501 local police departments
    • 3,063 sheriffs’ offices
    • 50 primary state law enforcement agencies
    • 1,733 special jurisdiction agencies"

    http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/...nf_census.html

    "BJS estimates that in 2008, there were 17,895 law enforcement agencies employing 1.13 million full-time workers, including over 765,000 sworn officers, as well as about 100,000 part-time employees, including over 44,000 sworn officers. That gives a total of full- and part-time employees with general arrest powers of about 810,000 in 2008.

    By 2014 - "Additionally, these figures, including the rate of increase and rate of acceleration, make the current NLEOMF estimate of “over 900,000 sworn officers” seem quite plausible, if a bit high, assuming an average of 45,000 part-time sworn officers as in previous years.

    So if a few departments/agencies are in fact still using this trigger, you may color me skeptical as to how this becomes an endorsement for the rest of us.

    Come on, we both know many women carry their gun in their purse, and some of them are most likely members of this website. I went to a gunshow Saturday and they were selling purses that made ccw easy and accessible. I don't think many people would actually call conceal carry, in a purse, that is on ones person, "dumb". Hindsight is always 20/20 huh?

    And guns do get stolen and used. Locked safe or otherwise.

    Okay lets go over your scenario. A gun fight ensues, and I go down for the count. Then my friend runs out of bullets in his gun. He then comes over to my position (where I was just shot) and tries to use my gun (instead of retreating), because he is still being fired upon. Or he was right next to me, and still needs my gun, and he is fighting multiple combatants for some reason. All of this ignoring the fact that gunfights almost never last longer than a few seconds (which is a pro gun argument against the "police don't know who is bad or good" argument). And the fact that one never needs to fire all of their bullets. Even in the line of duty this is extremely rare. So in this scenario am I a spy saving a diplomat? Or a undercover soldier in the middle of ISIS headquarters? Talking about slim odds of occurrence. What happens less than being struck by lightning? Death by party balloon? Find me 5 cases of a scenario like this in civilian life that has occurred outside of a movie in the last century.

    Now compare that to the chances of someone being irresponsible with a gun that is not theirs. If you had to bet on one or the other happening, which one would you put money on?

    Also, isn't use by a police department always a nice credential for a gun, or piece of equipment to have? This particular system only works for revolvers, so police don't use it anymore, because they don't use revolvers anymore. I remember the Ruger LCP getting some attention because some police were using it as a backup weapon. And that's how Glock became so renowned. Go to a gunshow and find the bulletproof vest guy, and he will tell you how much police or swat teams love that vest. Same carries over to holsters, and ***ESPECIALLY*** ammunition. Even though a small fraction of police forces may use a product, it is still a great credential and argument for a company/ product. That's why gun companies cater to gun requirements by law enforcement agencies. Its good revenue, and good street cred.
    Last edited by Jagorilla; 10-08-2015 at 04:53 PM.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    Some times one worries way to much about things that might happen.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Some times one worries way to much about things that might happen.
    At least I worry about things that actually happen, and is unfortunately a very real part of life for many (Thousands) people.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25

    Smile

    And if we didn't have much concern for things that might happen, none of us would carry a gun Huh?
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagorilla View Post
    --snipped--
    don't think many people would actually call conceal carry, in a purse, that is on ones person, "dumb".

    And guns do get stolen and used. Locked safe or otherwise.

    Okay lets go over your scenario. A gun fight ensues.........Find me 5 cases of a scenario like this in civilian life that has occurred outside of a movie in the last century.

    Also, isn't use by a police department always a nice credential for a gun, or piece of equipment to have? ......... That's why gun companies cater to gun requirements by law enforcement agencies. Its good revenue, and good street cred.
    I know a few women that carry in a purse part of the time. I also know some women that only carry at all part of the time. I never tell them that is dumb - that would be insulting IMO. I tell them it is not the best choice and why.

    Yes guns get stolen and the device can be removed as easily as it went in.

    If we carried in the same manner as LEOs, we'd all be wearing Bat Belts - no thank you. Following the money explains a lot about companies developing products for police use then marketing to the general public.

    It has been said that most gun fights last 3 sec or less.

    Not going to play the "find me five" game.

    You opened the door for discussion on the product by posting, yet don't seem to especially tolerant of opposing opinions - party balloons indeed. No I don't own this product, yes I have seen and handled it, no I don't like it anymore than I would like such a device on my vehicle, door(s) to my home, or my medicine cabinet. We all make choices/selections based on our own standards - you are entitled to yours.

    Think that the back and forth of this is disproportionate to the interest in the product. End of story.....I trust.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagorilla View Post
    At least I worry about things that actually happen, and is unfortunately a very real part of life for many (Thousands) people.
    I believe your numbers are a bit high.

    Here's a good analysis I hope you keep all your 5 gallon buckets under lock and key there are things around the house a lot more dangerous then guns.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07...ve-gallon.html


    Which are more dangerous for young children, five gallon buckets or guns?

    Five gallon buckets result in a small number of fatal accidents for young children; about 27 a year. The accidents are not tracked as rigorously as those with firearms are. I found a study that tracked them for six years. From a pediatrics study:

    Analysis of Consumer Product Safety Commission data revealed 160 bucket-related drownings for the years 1984 through 1989, representing a mortality rate of 0.367 per 100 000 persons (younger than 2 years old) per year in the United States.
    I have not found numbers for bucket drownings for later years, but the total drownings have dropped slightly from 1990 to 2005-2009. In 1990 there were 3,979 total drownings. In 2005-2009 the average was 3,533. In 2011 there were 3,556. From 1990, the total number has dropped about 11 percent.

    Drownings of children under five were fairly consistent from 1999 to 2010, so it seems reasonable to believe that drowning in buckets have dropped about as much as the general figures. That would put five gallon bucket drownings at .89 x 27, or 24 per year. The number is small enough that no one seems to track exactly how many child drownings occur with five gallon buckets. It is a rare event, but it happens.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I believe your numbers are a bit high.

    Here's a good analysis I hope you keep all your 5 gallon buckets under lock and key there are things around the house a lot more dangerous then guns.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/07...ve-gallon.html


    Which are more dangerous for young children, five gallon buckets or guns?

    Five gallon buckets result in a small number of fatal accidents for young children; about 27 a year. The accidents are not tracked as rigorously as those with firearms are. I found a study that tracked them for six years. From a pediatrics study:

    Analysis of Consumer Product Safety Commission data revealed 160 bucket-related drownings for the years 1984 through 1989, representing a mortality rate of 0.367 per 100 000 persons (younger than 2 years old) per year in the United States.
    I have not found numbers for bucket drownings for later years, but the total drownings have dropped slightly from 1990 to 2005-2009. In 1990 there were 3,979 total drownings. In 2005-2009 the average was 3,533. In 2011 there were 3,556. From 1990, the total number has dropped about 11 percent.

    Drownings of children under five were fairly consistent from 1999 to 2010, so it seems reasonable to believe that drowning in buckets have dropped about as much as the general figures. That would put five gallon bucket drownings at .89 x 27, or 24 per year. The number is small enough that no one seems to track exactly how many child drownings occur with five gallon buckets. It is a rare event, but it happens.


    http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/t...lence-children
    ^^^^^ My numbers weren't too high at all. 3,000 children die every year from gunshot injuries before making it to the hospital, and another 453 died while they were at the hospital (sadly). So yes, it is thousands.

    And the conclusion for the article is very flawed. Buckets past the age of 5 are no longer a danger (more like 3 years old). Guns however remain dangerous an entire lifetime. And other people can be sent to the hospital because of others misusing a gun. I don't think toddlers are sending People to the hospital by striking them with buckets. It's also much harder for a kid to commit suicide with a bucket. This is just deaths. A non fatal injury by a bucket is no where as life changing and harmful as a non fatal gun injury.

    So which is more dangerous, buckets or guns?
    Easily guns. And no, nothing else in your house is more dangerous. My gun can harm anybody, young or old. A bucket is a slight danger to toddlers and only toddlers and younger. A handgun is a weapon and only a weapon. The second we start walking around like guns aren't dangerous is when accidents happen.

    Buckets are more dangerous????? Really??? And we blame the other side for twisting statistics.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagorilla View Post
    http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/t...lence-children
    ^^^^^ My numbers weren't too high at all. 3,000 children die every year from gunshot injuries before making it to the hospital, and another 453 died while they were at the hospital (sadly). So yes, it is thousands.

    And the conclusion for the article is very flawed. Buckets past the age of 5 are no longer a danger (more like 3 years old). Guns however remain dangerous an entire lifetime. And other people can be sent to the hospital because of others misusing a gun. I don't think toddlers are sending People to the hospital by striking them with buckets. It's also much harder for a kid to commit suicide with a bucket. This is just deaths. A non fatal injury by a bucket is no where as life changing and harmful as a non fatal gun injury.

    So which is more dangerous, buckets or guns?
    Easily guns. And no, nothing else in your house is more dangerous. My gun can harm anybody, young or old. A bucket is a slight danger to toddlers and only toddlers and younger. A handgun is a weapon and only a weapon. The second we start walking around like guns aren't dangerous is when accidents happen.

    Buckets are more dangerous????? Really??? And we blame the other side for twisting statistics.
    Sigh......Here goes another thread off topic and having little to nothing to do with Holsters and Accessories.

    Unfortunately, the OP sounds much like an anti with his recent postings. No that is not an accusation, just an observation.

    Twisting statistics or as some do cherry picking those that suit their purpose? Within the OP linked study is the support material:
    "About 84 percent of these shootings involved teens aged 15 to 19, and two-thirds of those were related to assaults. While the study's database does not provide specifics, Leventhal said it's natural to assume that gang violence explains some of these gunshot injuries."
    http://www.webmd.com/children/news/20140127/twenty-us-kids-hospitalized-each-day-for-gun-injuries-study

    However, all of that is fodder for another thread, NOT this one. BTW - we have done this one before if memory serves.

    Back on topic or experience a rapid thread lock.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    I am calling troll on this one.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Sigh......Here goes another thread off topic and having little to nothing to do with Holsters and Accessories.

    Unfortunately, the OP sounds much like an anti with his recent postings. No that is not an accusation, just an observation.

    Twisting statistics or as some do cherry picking those that suit their purpose? Within the OP linked study is the support material:
    "About 84 percent of these shootings involved teens aged 15 to 19, and two-thirds of those were related to assaults. While the study's database does not provide specifics, Leventhal said it's natural to assume that gang violence explains some of these gunshot injuries."
    http://www.webmd.com/children/news/20140127/twenty-us-kids-hospitalized-each-day-for-gun-injuries-study

    However, all of that is fodder for another thread, NOT this one. BTW - we have done this one before if memory serves.

    Back on topic or experience a rapid thread lock.
    Well Grapeshot, if you'll look back a ways, I had asked a couple questions to a very specific audience about a very specific product. And none of the initial responses had related to what I asked. Including your initial inquiry. And it was your statement (that had nothing to do with the post that started this thread) that sent us into this. Not entirely your fault I admit, but still.

    I can also see why you think I'm an anti. But for us to be able to debate effectively and appeal to non gun owners/ antis, we must make arguments that are logical, realistic, and founded on facts. In debates in the public sphere, if gun owners make arguments that are full of fallacy then we will be ignored and shut out of the debate. Sooner or later. I believe that guns are invaluable to society, and that it is a right that should not be infringed on, but at the same time, ignorance towards the danger of guns harms the cause more than helps. We can't be taken seriously with these arguments. Plus rational gun owners like me get a bad rap from people who ignore reality.

    The study I had used was intended to debunk that buckets are more dangerous than guns, and that guns are more dangerous than common household objects. And no matter your opinion on the study, I think it did just that. And that age group (15-19) is an age group that very much can still live at home, and that demographic was probably mostly assaulted by the same demographic. Even if not, that is still one third that was unintentional (for that age group). A majority of incidents occurring in that group proves that guns are a constant (in terms of time) danger, and buckets are not. No matter how you approach those numbers, it proves that buckets are not more dangerous than guns. And in terms of my thousands number; even if we say less than 1000 children die a year from gun wounds (which isn't the case) over a decade, it is still thousands. I didn't include that stat grapeshot mentioned, because it wasn't needed, there were too many data points to choose from, so I did not include them all. I did include the article for all to read though, because you can't deny my conclusion (guns are more dangerous than buckets) with anything in the article, or the bucket article. And my article left out suicides wherever possible.


    What Grapeshot? Couldn't find the 5 incidents I asked for?

    And not very moderator-ish of you to try to get the last word in, and threaten a thread lock when you're done.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I know a few women that carry in a purse part of the time. I also know some women that only carry at all part of the time. I never tell them that is dumb - that would be insulting IMO. I tell them it is not the best choice and why.

    Yes guns get stolen and the device can be removed as easily as it went in.

    If we carried in the same manner as LEOs, we'd all be wearing Bat Belts - no thank you. Following the money explains a lot about companies developing products for police use then marketing to the general public.

    It has been said that most gun fights last 3 sec or less.

    Not going to play the "find me five" game.

    You opened the door for discussion on the product by posting, yet don't seem to especially tolerant of opposing opinions - party balloons indeed. No I don't own this product, yes I have seen and handled it, no I don't like it anymore than I would like such a device on my vehicle, door(s) to my home, or my medicine cabinet. We all make choices/selections based on our own standards - you are entitled to yours.

    Think that the back and forth of this is disproportionate to the interest in the product. End of story.....I trust.
    You implied that if you carry in a purse and not a retention holster, it is dumb. The device also requires the gun to be sent in to be installed. So putting it in is actually rather difficult and a review I read explained that taking it out is very difficult.

    But if you did want such a belt, wouldn't you use the one the police use? I'm not advising others to get this conversion. Also, you can't play the find me 5 game, because it's impossible, and you know it. How about 3?

    Now that was a good reply to what I asked. You never mentioned that you had personal experience with the product. That would have been useful. I don't have a high tolerance for options that stem from no experience.

    I'm sorry I replied to that out of order. I did not see the post quoted above.
    Last edited by Jagorilla; 10-08-2015 at 10:48 PM.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    I am calling troll on this one.
    I know you were wrong, but let's not resort to name calling.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincy area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    888
    Besides some S&W revolvers did the company ever successfully make this gadget for any other handguns ? Best I recall the concept was a total failure with semiautomatics.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Reno, Nevada
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian D. View Post
    Besides some S&W revolvers did the company ever successfully make this gadget for any other handguns ? Best I recall the concept was a total failure with semiautomatics.
    It fits S&W j,k,l, and n Frame revolvers, and one Ruger revolver. I do not know if there were other attempts at semis. They had a mod for Glocks, but it's just an additional safety.
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Jagorilla View Post
    You implied that if you carry in a purse and not a retention holster, it is dumb. --snipped--
    You are trying my patience, sir.

    I implied nothing and very clearly stated otherwise. See my post #14 above wherein I said,

    "I know a few women that carry in a purse part of the time. I also know some women that only carry at all part of the time. I never tell them that is dumb - that would be insulting IMO. I tell them it is not the best choice and why."

    I educate as well as learn from others - hope to never stop learning. Will never stop educating.

    While we are on the subject of educating, let me offer some advice/education to you - it is very bad form to misquote someone (rule violation) or imply they said something when clearly they did not. Particularly a bad choice when that person is a Moderator - Forum Rule #16 can easily be interpreted to cover this.

    I also said, "Back on topic or experience a rapid thread lock."

    PM will be sent and locking this thread.

    Added: Getting the last word in is precisely one of my functions - I set the record straight and stop any argument about it.
    Worth mentioning too is that you do not determine what rights, privileges, or authority I might have.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 10-08-2015 at 11:59 PM. Reason: Added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •