Political cartoon, "Bullet under new D.C. gun rules"

[jody]

[2KS2KHonda]

1. No primer?

:D

[east texas lib]

2. There ya go!

We let you have a primer in the case, what more do you want?!;-)

[Testament]

3. It's not a bullet, but a cartridge... :P NT

[jody]

10. LOL ! That obvious fact is typical of those gun-control types make because of ignorance about guns.

[bhbwl]

4. Not a bad idea...

I still don't see what was so wrong with DC's commonsense anti-violence legislation. None of this would have ever come about if it weren't for some whiny conservative with a gun-fetish, and a stacked court full of neocon activists.

Oh, and a pro-violence lobby that was waiting to pounce like feral dogs wait in the sagebrush for the cowboy to fall asleep.

So we have:
-Disgruntled freak with a fetish
-Radical Right-Wing Activist Bench
-Pack of wild dogs in the pro-violence lobby
...as champions of liberty.

O-kaaaaay.....

[Boomer 50]

5. Not a bit of common sense about it......

All the ban and trigger lock laws are doing are to enable violent criminals by making it safe for them to terrorize their victims. The criminals have no concern for gun laws as DC's obscene crime rate proves. Since 30 years of stupidity hasn't worked, let's give something else a try. After all, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the classic example of insanity... Or does the thought that when the gun ban is gone, and the citizens of DC may finally enjoy the same freedoms and securities that all other Americans enjoy and the murder rate plummets, scare the gun grabbers so bad that a high crime rate is preferable to the truth?

Common sense is to look at an alternative besides the same BS that hasn't worked in 30 years.

[spin]

7. If D.C. and Chicago actually gave in...

and allowed honest citizens to own guns for self defense and allowed citizens with squeaky clean records and training to carry concealed, it would be interesting to see the effect on the crime rate.

Of course, this will never happen in the near future. Any average honest person who wants to own a firearm will face a daunting set of requirements and hurdles so difficult to navigate that only a very few will succeed. And if one of those individuals actually does use a weapon in an act of justifiable self defense, the entire city legal system will come down on him so hard as to make his life a living hell. After all the legal expense and the disruption of his life, he/she will wish they would have never bought a firearm.

[krispos42]

6. Ah, obviously you need a visual aid

Hope this helps:

[bhbwl]

12. Only thing that graph shows me...

is that the murder rate didn't start to spike until around 1980, about the same time as reagan got elected and soars during bush the elder...

Oh, and look at when the murder rate starts to go down. Right when Clinton was elected.

Shows me something OTHER than the DC gun ban is responsible for the spike in the murder rate in the nation's capitol. Almost seems like someone WANTS a lot of dead minorities, doesn't it?

Murder rate went down under Clinton, while there was still a gun ban. That tells me that the solution is two-fold: a gun ban AND a Democrat in the White House at the same time.

And why shouldn't it be darn near impossible to get a weapon that can kill more than a dozen people as quickly as you can press a button? Why would you want a handgun if it's not to kill a person? Perhaps the people who are cheering this case of judicial activism ought to examine why they want to kill people so badly.

[krispos42]

17. Thanks for making my case for me

The gun ban didn't do anything to solve a problem that is inheirently social and economic, not a matter of hardware.


If Democrats didnt' spend an awful lot of time and political capital attacking hardware, they would not have alienated large numbers of voters, resulting in more Democratic victories.

If the Democrats had spend the above time and political capital instead on more traditional New Deal-style progoressive policies, the problems of urban crime (remember, inheirently social and economic) would have been reduced, validating the Democratic Party and the progressive ideals of this country.

If Democrats didn't adopt anti-gun rhetoric, most of which is proveably false, perjorative, and/or misleading, they would not have damaged their credibility, resulting in more Democratic victories.

All of which would have meant less time for Republican in office and in charge of the House and Senate.

And why shouldn't it be darn near impossible to get a weapon that can kill more than a dozen people as quickly as you can press a button? Why would you want a handgun if it's not to kill a person? Perhaps the people who are cheering this case of judicial activism ought to examine why they want to kill people so badly.

You'd right that I want the right to own a gun in order to kill a person (among other reasons). It's called self-defense, and while I really really hope that I'm never in a situation where I'm confronting an intruder with a handgun or long gun, I want the ability to do so if circumstances require it. I don't want to kill anybody, but I may have to. Or threaten to.

You are letting the MSM-hyped mass shootings influence your opinion. You're having a "moral panic" on the issue, defined thus by Wikipedia:

In sociology, a moral panic is a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. It has also been more broadly defined as an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests."<1> They are byproducts of controversies that produce arguments and social tension, or aren't easily discussed as some of these moral panics are taboo to many people.<2> Characterization of the group reaction as a moral panic requires a presumption that the group's perceptions are unfounded or exaggerated.

These reactions are often fueled by media coverage or propaganda around a social issue, although semi-spontaneous moral panics do occur. Mass hysteria can be an element in these movements, but moral panic is different from mass hysteria in that a moral panic is specifically framed in terms of morality and is usually expressed as outrage rather than fear. Moral panics (as defined by Cohen) revolve around a perceived threat to a value or norm held by a society normally stimulated by glorification within the mass media or 'folk legend' within societies. Panics have a number of outcomes, with one being the certification to the players within the panic that what they are doing appears to warrant observation by mass media and therefore may push them further into the activities that led to the original feeling of moral panic.

The influences and behaviors of young people are common themes in many moral panics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

Boldface added

Another visual aid is appropriate in this case:




The whole "it can kill a dozen people" meme is essentially meaningless. People have been buying firearms fed with detachable magazines that can hold dozens of cartridges for about a century now, give or take. The Tommy gun, a fully-automatic submachine gun fed from a 50- or 100-round drum magazine, used to be available by mail order and delivered to your doorstep. After World War Two, M1 carbines with 15- and 30-round magazines were available cheap as war surplus. AR-15 and Mini-14 rifles with 20- and 30-round magazines have been for sale in the civilian market since the 60's.

The school shooting/mass shooting is a recent phenominon and is the result of a social sickness, a wound in our national psyche that will take a generation to heal. These events could have happened at virtually any point in the 20th Century, but they are taking place now. Why?



And, frankly, I don't buy the bullshit from the right when they tell me I have to give up my rights to be safe, and I don't buy it from the left, either.

[appal_jack]

19. nicely explained Krispos! n/t

:hi: :dem:


-app

[krispos42]

36. Thanks

I got tired of the "but the DC homicide rate is lower than when the gun ban started" meme and did the research. And when I picked my jaw up off the ground, I made a graph! :-)

[JonQ]

20. All that graph proves is

that they needed to ban guns even more! Just like all we need to do to get rid of murder is to make it illegal.

That's how they successfully wiped out the drug problem in this country, they made it illegal to do drugs and presto, no more drugs.

/sarcasm of course

The problem isn't guns. Some of our states with the highest murder rates have are the most stringently opposed to the 2nd amendment. And vice versa.

People like to point at places like Britain or Canada and say that they don't have guns and they have a lower murder rate (both true). However they neglect to point out that they had a lower murder rate prior to any gun ban, and that it actually went up following said ban.

We do have a problem that needs to be resolved regarding crime rates, but it isn't linked to the availability of firearms.

[Caliman73]

8. Common sense

How is it common sense to ban the means of self defense of law abiding citizens? What is the definition of a criminal? Someone who breaks the law. Criminals have no respect for the law. The citizens who follow the laws are the only ones who really suffer. How is that common sense? It is a fear reaction. Like the kid who keeps giving his lunch money to the bully in hopes that the bully will get tired of taking it away. Good luck with that plan.

[pipoman]

9. This is freaking hi-lar-ious

I still don't see what was so wrong with DC's commonsense anti-violence legislation.

Now how has that "anti-violence legislation" worked out thus far? (hint: see krispos42's graph above) But really, who cares if it works, is common sense, or is truly anti-violence, huh? It feels soooo good.


edit: :crazy:

[bossy22]

11. im still curious

you keep referring to some precedent that was set that in reality wasnt. I suggest you read US V Miller- its a really short decision and ends quiet abruptly

Miller- the other 2nd amendment case which you probably think set a precedent- slightly hinted towards a collective right but could be used to back up either school of thought

Overall Miller was bad for many reasons- the defense never showed up, the decision was short, the governments arguement that the 2A only protected a collective rights was never acknowledged by the court.

Justice Kennedy was right- Miller was deficient

[jody]

13. Thanks for free speech allowing you to make such statements as:

So we have:
-Disgruntled freak with a fetish
-Radical Right-Wing Activist Bench
-Pack of wild dogs in the pro-violence lobby
...as champions of liberty.

But one can also observe those who oppose the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as:

So we have:
-Disgruntled freak with a phobia
-Radical Left-Wing Activist Bench
-Pack of wild dogs in the pro-criminal lobby
...as champions of liberty.

It would nice if you present facts showing that prohibiting law-abiding citizens from exercising their RKBA will prevent criminals from using firearms to commit violent crime.

I don't believe you can do that because the Scary Brady Bunch and the Vigorously Protecting Criminals (VPC) gang have not been able to it.

ON EDIT ADD: As I posted elsewhere, I'm reminded of Monty Python's "Black Knight".

[DonP]

15. We're about 5 minutes away from the, "That's what the police and 911 are there for" speech

Sometimes I wish we had a single discussion thread to send each new, foaming-at-the-mouth, self-righteous gun grabber to that would give them some basic facts on the law as it really is, not as Dennis Hennigan or Paul Helmke interprets it.

To quote my grandfather, "You can lead a horse's ass to water ... but you usually can't hold his head under long enough to do any good."

It seems inevitably they devolve to calling all of us Republican stooges and NRA plants because we couldn't be Democrats because don't want to ban all guns right now.

[jody]

16. RE Horse and water. Some staff officer said that to General Curtis LeMay to which the General

supposedly replied, "Hold his head under and suck on his ass."

LeMay really had a sense of humor.

[krispos42]

35. *snort*

:rofl:

[bhbwl]

26. I'll address your request in a separate post, but first...

I'd like to address what you posted in the first part:

"But one can also observe those who oppose the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as:

So we have:
-Disgruntled freak with a phobia
-Radical Left-Wing Activist Bench
-Pack of wild dogs in the pro-criminal lobby
...as champions of liberty."

Who might that be?
-In the first case, many people have a fear of being killed. If that's a phobia, so be it.
-Who on DU wouldn't be pleased with a radical left-wing activist bench? Wouldn't it help to start undoing the century or so we've suffered under radical RIGHT-WING activist jurists?
-Last I checked, the "pack of wild dogs in the pro-criminal lobby" was the ACLU. Woof.

We could do much worse.

[bhbwl]

29. Next, you asked if I could present facts showing...

...that prohibiting law-abiding citizens from owning guns will prevent criminals from using firearms to commit violent crime.

It's a mistake for us to do that, since any clever person can make a statistic say what he wants it to say (don't the repukes do that all the time?). I come at the debate from the following points:
1) The "right" is morally indefensible
2) The instrument of that right is NOT morally neutral
3) The "right" is racist

I'll address these one by one.

1) The "right" is morally indefensible.
The gun lobby likes to use the acronym "RKBA" as a sort of code-shorthand for the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms." It's more honest to call it "RKAP," or the "Right to Kill A Person." The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." It doesn't equivocate, or make a distinction between criminal and victim; all have this right. The Declaration goes on to permit sanction by competent tribunal for true crimes, but not the taking of life. It also says that everyone has a right to a free and fair trial.

The so-called "right" to kill places a person at the mercy of someone not competent to sit as judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. It reduces humanity to the state of animals.

In other words, it's just as immoral for the victim of a crime to kill the criminal as it is for the criminal to kill the victim. A murder victim and a dead poor person shot in so-called "self-defence" look exactly the same in a morgue.

2) The instrument of the "right" is NOT morally neutral
Gun types often say that their guns are mere "tools," and as such, morally neutral. They claim that the gun can be used either to commit crime or defend against it.

This is an oversimplification. A knife is a tool, too. It can be used to stab a person, but just about any knife can also be used to carve wood, slice food, open boxes, and many other useful and PRODUCTIVE ends. A baseball bat can be used to bludgeon, but that's a corruption of its purpose; it's real purpose is NOT to bludgeon, but as sports equipment.

A gun, on the other hand, cannot do anything productive. It can only kill or destroy. Rifles might make good kindling, and handguns might be able to hammer nails, but there are cheaper ways to start a fire and better ways to stick nails in wood. We could make the case that the poor hunter needs the gun to maintain his subsistence, but in truth, such a person is not forced into hunting--he chooses to do so from other more environmentally sensitive alternatives.

3) The right is racist.
Ask any honest repuke (good luck finding one!) and he'll tell you that the reason the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined, AFTER we'd kicked out the British and decided on a decent working government, was to keep down "uppity negroes and red savages." History bears this out: Slave-owning repubs made sure that they had guns to keep even free African-Americans in a state of terror, before the Civil War and even afterward until Democrats passed the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts. And we can see how white gunowners treated Native Americans when they tried to assert their rights.

That's some heritage to lay claim to.

Anyone can cite statistics, after which it's a simple exercise in arithmetic to find out who has the stronger case. The issue isn't arithmetic. It's moral.

[jmeyer]

31. you need to brush up on your political history

regarding your third "point"

It wasn't the republicans owning slaves, and the democrats had very little to do with the 14th amendment.

[bhbwl]

32. The 14th expanded civil rights to African-Americans

That's Democrat territory. Period.

Also, to say that Repukes weren't the slaveowners is to imply that Democrats condoned it.

Sorry. That can't be right, either.

[jmeyer]

33. read your history

The Republican party was the party of abolitionism (Abraham Lincoln was a Republican); the Democratic party was the party of the South; this all changhed in the 1960's, but before that the Democratic party was the party of racism and slavery.

[SteveM]

38. WOW! Way off base! Here's why...

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 with most leadership coming from abolitionist Republicans. They proposed 14A as a means to place blacks under the protections of the U.S. Constitution, thereby preventing Southern (read: Democratic) states from restricting the rights of newly-freed blacks; most specifically, recognizing and reaffirming that blacks had a right to arm themselves from roaming gangs, the KKK, and state-sponsored militia. (Kind of takes the shine of the militia clause argument, doesn't it?)

That the two parties "changed hats" well on down the line into the 20th Century doesn't stand up to the reality that Democrats were of small help to blacks until FDR, and the 14th Amendment was not actively used to dismantle apartheid until Bill Haley & the Comets recorded "Rock Around the Clock."

And during the time of the 14th's adoption, Southern Democrats damn well did endorse slavery, then sharecropping, then a whole raft of discriminatory laws right up to the time of the Beatles' first half-dozen No. 1 hits. Thanks to LBJ and MLK, the whole Southern Democratic bloc was broken apart and many Southern Dems changed to the GOP (for a number of reasons, including race).

SEE: <www.georgiacarry.org> Scroll a few pages to the Heller brief and enjoy a short history of the purely-racist gun-control laws (in effect well into the 20th Century), and get a reference to Stephen Halbrook's research on 14A.

Check Ben Ezra's stuff on the "Racist Roots of Gun Control" and other sources in the Gungeon. It wasn't all about blacks, either. New York City's Sullivan Law was passed in large measure because of antipathy and fear over immigrants, most notably Italian.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. You really need to read some history before posting.

Here are the voting totals on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


By party
The original House version:<9>

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:<9>

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:<9>

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Sorry to say we can't claim the higher ground on racial issues historically.

David

[east texas lib]

37. Well then...

Should you ever find yourself on the receiving end of modern favorite criminal activities such as
armed robbery, home invasion, carjacking and the like, do remember to have a copy of The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on your person so that you may point out to your attacker that while
they're committing an immoral act, it would be just as immoral for you to use lethal force to
defend yourself or loved ones. And as you're being shot, bludgeoned or stabbed, advise them that
while you all have the same right to life, liberty and security of person, if they persist in this
course of action they may have to face a fair and free trial resulting in sanctions applied by
competent tribunal. I know that would make ME think twice!

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. And your friends and relatives would of course send

some very strongly worded LTTEs and blog posts out to the world condemning
your murder. Now *that* prospect will have the violent felon trembling in fear of
the consequences of his actions!

[jody]

40. Obviously you don't have facts to support your assertions. In that sense you are in good company

with the Scary Brady Bunch and the Vigorously Protecting Criminals (VPC) gang.

[one-eyed fat man]

41. you wouldn't defend yourself!!??!

The "right" is morally indefensible.
The gun lobby likes to use the acronym "RKBA" as a sort of code-shorthand for the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms." It's more honest to call it "RKAP," or the "Right to Kill A Person." The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." It doesn't equivocate, or make a distinction between criminal and victim; all have this right. The Declaration goes on to permit sanction by competent tribunal for true crimes, but not the taking of life. It also says that everyone has a right to a free and fair trial.

The so-called "right" to kill places a person at the mercy of someone not competent to sit as judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. It reduces humanity to the state of animals.

In other words, it's just as immoral for the victim of a crime to kill the criminal as it is for the criminal to kill the victim. A murder victim and a dead poor person shot in so-called "self-defence" look exactly the same in a morgue."

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. If you are being killed, you will just willingly accept your fate as "bad Karma?"

Will you call 911 an hope some morally deficient policeman arrives in time to keep you from being killed? (When seconds count, they're only minutes away!)

Are you telling us if rape is inevitable we should just relax and enjoy it, after all criminals need love too?

I guess, I just can't find it in myself to agree with your position. I would much prefer, that, if and when the cop finally does show up, he draws the little chalk outline around the scumbag who was going to rob and kill me.

[DrCory]

42. A Bit Over the Top...

"1) The "right" is morally indefensible.
The gun lobby likes to use the acronym "RKBA" as a sort of code-shorthand for the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms." It's more honest to call it "RKAP," or the "Right to Kill A Person." The Universal Declaration on Human Rights says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." It doesn't equivocate, or make a distinction between criminal and victim; all have this right. The Declaration goes on to permit sanction by competent tribunal for true crimes, but not the taking of life. It also says that everyone has a right to a free and fair trial."

If I have the right of "security of person" and no authority is present to protect me should I be under threat, do I not have the right to take actions necessary to ensure my security up to and included killing should the actions/intentions of my assailant be considered by me as likely to cause my death? Do I not, in your view, have the right or comptetence to judge the level of threat I am presented with? Does my right to life cease when another is determined to take it?

"A gun, on the other hand, cannot do anything productive."

What of the use of firearms in a law enforcement context? If the use of a firearm is necessary to bring a socially harmful element before a competent authority for sanction, is that not productive?

"A baseball bat can be used to bludgeon, but that's a corruption of its purpose; it's real purpose is NOT to bludgeon, but as sports equipment."

It can STILL be used to bludgeon, regardless of it's intended purpose. As intended purpose cannot prevent use beyond those parameters, that fact that ball bats HAVE been used to cause injury and death must compel you to call for their prohibition.

"The issue isn't arithmetic. It's moral."

Are you the internationally recognized arbiter of morality?

[DrCory]

43. In Other Words...

"Next, you asked if I could present facts showing...
Posted by bhbwl
...that prohibiting law-abiding citizens from owning guns will prevent criminals from using firearms to commit violent crime. It's a mistake for us to do that, since any clever person can make a statistic say what he wants it to say"

The facts kicked your ass and all you have left is emotional hyperbole.

[Dimensio0]

14. Please explain your assertion.

Justify your claim that DC's firearms restrictions constituted "common sense". Justify your other unsubstantiated claims.

[SteveM]

18. Especially if you believe in the Christian salad bar...

"Oh, I'll take that right, and that right, and... uh, no, no, not that right... and that right, and... no, not that one..."

O-kaaaay, do you have any proposal besides prohibition (knowing how that policy works, of course)?

[Caliman73]

21. Very true SteveM

I cannot understand that mentality. We need to defend free speech because it holds government accountable, but we shouldn't defend the individual's right to keep and bear arms because ...it's dangerous? Speech is dangerous too. Ask the survivors of the holocaust is speech is dangerous. Ask the survivors of the Rwandan genocide. Should we not ban free speech too? Every last one of the amendments to the Constitution were meant to protect the Individual citizen from being oppressed whether by other citizens or by the government. The 2nd gives the individual the right to keep arms for defense of the common good whether that means for the deterrence of crime against themselves, their family, and community or in opposition to a government that infringes on liberty.

Focus on enforcing the laws against theft, violence, murder, and other detrimental behaviors, not on a tool that can be used for good purposes as well as bad.

[JonQ]

22. I also find it funny

the way people interpret the other 9 amendments differently.

For instance, no one would argue that the 1st, and 3rd-10th confer personal, rather than collective rights, that they refer to what individuals may, and the government must not do. Free speech is for every individual, not groups, it's not to be doled out by the government, or restricted in the name of safety, etc. And the same with the rest of the amendments.

But then for some reason certain people will then go on to say that the 2nd confers collective rights, that it represents the right of the government to form and arm a militia. Huh? By that definition it really does not fit in with the rest of the bill of rights, either logically or ethically.

Besides which that doesn't make much sense. Why would the framers of the constitution, pretty smart guys, feel the need to guarantee the right of the government to do something that every government has done since the beginning of time, and which no one would really even dispute it's right to do, namely defend itself from foreign aggression? Apparently they were dead serious when they wrote 9 of our most basic rights to be taken literally and never changed, but were just kidding around with that 2nd one.

Very much like those bible beaters who will take a passage from the bible to attack some group, say homosexuals, and point out that this passage clearly says they are evil and must be killed and it is the bible and must be taken literally! But then when you get to the parts about no premarital sex, or giving to the poor, or not judging other people, well those are allegories, they didn't really mean for you to take the whole thing seriously.

[Xela]

23. New rules are pathetic...

And this cartoon illustrates it very well.

Thanks for sharing,

Xela

[spin]

24. Smith and Wesson announces Heller commemorative revolver...

and also plans to present the six plaintiffs - Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller - with one of the revolvers.

The plaintiffs should be able to register their new weapons as they are not the dreaded semi-automatic, bottom feeding machine guns that the wise and illustrious D.C. leaders are trying to ban.


https://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=78445&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15702&isFirearm=Y

[tburnsten]

25. Unfortunately, they boogered it a little

I want one badly. Really badly. It would be my first J-frame revolver, and my smallest revolver other than my four inch N-frame Highway Patrolman, and my six inch L-frame 586, but the one thing they screwed up, was the 'vs.'. In Supreme Court cases, I believe it is written 'VS'. I still want one and I think I will see if I can get the wife to let me get one for "her" christmas present to me! She might go for it, she does think my revolvers are neat.

[spin]

27. I own a J-frame similar to the Model 442...

A model 642. This little revolver is my primary carry piece and I conceal in in my front pants pocket in a pocket holster. It's very light and convenient. You just drop it into your pocket on your way out of the door.

It is, however, double action only and many people find double action shooting challenging. Practice cures this. Being a very light weight weapon the recoil with 38+P rounds is a little intimidating but the regular 38 rounds are easier to practice with.

I was surprised that S&W chose a J-frame as the commemorative model. Since D.C. doesn't offer concealed carry permits to the average citizen, I would have thought they would have chosen a larger frame revolver. L-frame revolvers are extremely good choices for a home defense weapon. Of course, the J-frames can also be used for home defense.

[tburnsten]

28. An N-frame would have also been a good one

To symbolize the Supreme Court giving Fenty a good Smite-ily Mightily.


Yeah I would have rather had either an exposed hammer or, even better, one of the models that looks like the enclosed hammer models but has a little tab so you can still cock it and fire single action. That would be the bee's knees, and allow for more accurate, deliberate fire, i.e. more fun.

[pipoman]

30. I have a 638 (shrouded hammer)

which is my primary carry now days. Anyone who gets one should definitely do most of their practicing double action as it isn't practical to cock the shrouded hammer in a defensive situation. In fact my firearms instructor/qualifying instructor would only let me qualify double action and strongly urged me not to practice single action at all.

[spin]

34. You had a wise instructor...

In a defensive situation double action with a revolver is the way to go. Sure it takes practice, but its a lot faster and at close range the object is to hit your target rapidly in the center body mass.

A single action western style revolver was used for many years but the double action revolver was in my opinion a step forward. To fire single action on a double action revolver in a serious situation is to fail to use the improved technology of the weapon.

Currently many people prefer the semi-auto pistol over the revolver and there is no doubt they have some advantages for law enforcement. They are, however, more complicated and many are more prone to failure than a revolver. Both are good choices and both have their own advantages and disadvantages for civilian self defense. I practice double action on my revolvers for self defense and use single action for target shooting at distance. As a civilian there little chance of my having to use a weapon at more than 15 yards. Most encounters will be no further than 21 feet.

Since I don't consider my Model 642 a target weapon, I don't view the fact that I can't fire single action a drawback.