Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

Look, NYC is infamous about cops handling their weapons poorly. I thought everyone who pays attention to current events knew this, but I guess I was wrong.

As for your claim that we never face these stressful situations, that's flatly false. Guns are used ~ 2 million times a year to stop crimes (probably more now, those figures are some years old), and there are a number of active shooters who've been stopped by citizen concealed carriers.

But you of course wouldn't know of them because the national MSM for some inexplicable reason doesn't report these incidents. If your Google Fu is up to snuff you can find them. Try including "mall" and "church" for starters

Is that impressive? The cops in flyover country come to the job with quite a bit more experience than that. 10-15 years of hunting, target shooting, safety training in school at multiple grade levels, and the supervision of experienced adults probably doesn't completely transfer to open carry as a peace officer. However, this "13 days" figure will make me a little nervous the next time I'm around a young cop in NYC.

A Glock trigger inherently has a lot less travel, all it's doing is providing some travel and therefore physical feedback before it releases the already cocked striker inside the gun (cocked by the slide).

So I don't personally know, but what I know from first principles per the that they're different, and the above matches with the reports I've read from people who have used them that say it's ... suboptimal. NYC street police marksmanship certainly doesn't contradict this.

And here's a critical detail about "was specially requested by law enforcement": the whole exercise was not to make it feel like a revolver, but to decrease negligent discharges. Which almost every other law enforcement organization in the nation solved (as much as it can be solved :-) with training---see Rule 3 (Keep your finger out of the trigger...). Marksmanship was irrelevant.

Another example of "poor tools" was their "leaders" insistence on using Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) bullets instead of eeeeeevil Hollow Points. Eventually the resulting needless injuries and deaths forced them to get with the program. I can't recall a single other major law enforcement unit with this policy, at least not for long.

The 9 mm Europellet sucks, if you care about stopping people vs. killing them; much much MUCH more so with FMJ ammo. However I can understand law enforcement units going with it instead of .45 ACP before .40 S&W appeared on the scene, which I'm sure was some time after NYC adopted the Glock. Then again they've had many chances to upgrade caliber as they cycled through new batches of weapons.

And, BTW, I think Glocks suck, but obviously lots of people disagree with me. Going back to training, the manual of arms of a Glock is point it and press the trigger. No manual safety for a criminal to have to engage before he can shoot you after grabbing your gun, no death lever to forget to engage before you can shoot. That also bears on training.

For me the internal striker is a show stopper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8460074

Glock the company is pretty sleazy (hey, look at the brand new lawsuit, and there's been lots of other drama), not that this was necessarily recognized when they were first on the market. To my knowledge they've never had an official "recall"; let me assure you they're not that good, not with all the models and generations of models they've produced.

Firing when out of battery, i.e. before the slide has locked home and the brass is sufficiently supported (which is iffy to begin with, especially with their .40 S&W models at least as of some time ago), is another HUGE no no in my book. And pretty much everyone else who's not the Glock equivalent of an Apple fanboi.

As usual, take this with a grain of salt. The handguns I own and carry concealed were designed by John Moses Browning (PBUH), and adopted as standard issue by the US Army in 1911 (sic; the US military is still using a machine gun he designed 7 years later). With of course improvements, the trigger pulls are ~ 3.5 pounds. I carry one every time I walk out the door. I've never had a negligent discharge because I keep my finger off the #(*&$% trigger until I'm on target, and of course keep the safety on. Which from personal examination in detailed field stripping plus a century of experience shows it takes the super-magnet of an MRI machine to defeat.

But I'd shot well over those 10,000 times you're supposed to need to become an expert before buying them, and I don't recommend the model to novices.

I will never willingly carry a striker fired weapon: no external hammer, so if something, like a windbreaker tie or finger catches on the trigger, you can't DTRT with your thumb on the nonexistent hammer to stop it from firing.

Flip side is what one of my instructors called manual safeties: "death levers". If you forget to flick it to safe....

Another side is that manual safeties make guns somewhat "proprietary" as Massad Ayoob puts it. Some police officers have avoided bad outcomes when their weapons were grabbed, as the criminal struggled to make it fire they could take effective action. Not so much of an issue for those who carry concealed.

The U.K. != Western Europe, and I include the massacres prior to "several years" ago; you have to since these incidents are fortunately rare. Wikipedia has done a very good job of chronicling them, although you have to look at half a dozen entries because they're broken down by things like where it happened.

"This just further proves that the very people who have guns are dangerous individuals who cannot be trusted with guns."

Well, you're welcome to try to act on your prejudices (unConstitutional ones, I might add). Those of us who've read our 20th Century history know what such actions mean, and the only practical response.

I enjoy working with women who are trained in self-defense - I have a female friend who has a devastatingly strong and quick round kick to the jaw. However, as with most people, most women aren't.

This is a great organization mobilizing around this topic (although their website is sorta crap): http://www.2asisters.org/

Which all things being equal, if you care about effectiveness, is limited to a firearm.

I don't think that would fit into the case of "preventing a crime", the guy shot 3 people then started leaving, before he got shot

Except I never said that. I never insinuated that, if you think that's the case, then it appears you're trying to force your interpretations into my statements, and that's not cool.

Instead, what I've asserted repeatedly is this:

1) Sexism in gaming, tech and other industries needs to be addressed. Absolutely and positively.

2) Many who carry the banner of "Feminist" and many who carry the banner "Gamer" have taken unfortunate and problematic stances, as well as have made unfortunate and problematic statements to get "their" side more validity to the point where taking a side either way carries many severe consequences in the interest of moving a conversation forward.

3) Instead of simply jumping to one side because of how the other side reacts, I personally have decided to abstain from participating further until I see an opportunity where I personally feel comfortable participating and not be accused of being sexist/misogynist/whateverist or otherwise chided for not expressing myself in absolute support.

Is that a little less ambiguous?

I wonder what your next goalpost move will be.

Maybe the whole thing is manufactured by Putin. Maybe the entire chain of events is related to the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian is actually the Lindburgh Baby. Maybe Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is the son of the gunsmith who made the Magic Bullet. There are millions of hypotheticals out there, and no benefit to discussing all of them.

You're a literal conspiracy theorist; do you understand that you're equivalent to somebody posting that picture of the UFO and saying, "I believe!"?

The last paragraph explicitly calls out your theory. You can consider things from different angles all you want, but when the angles you're considering are provably fiction, it's hard to see how they have a place in a discussion of facts.

How are you standing by your original comment?

edit: What I'm really looking for is any evidence at all that you're trying to debate in good faith. All of you've done is present a bullshit hypothetical that's entirely unrelated, try to claim that you're "just presenting some facts", write off everybody who disagrees with you as "emotional", and then handwave it away when somebody actually calls you on your crap.