Summations Only

When you shoot something the result may well be death, but in self defense that is NOT the goal.You are free of course to think otherwise and being ready and willing to kill someone or something is not the same as having killing as a goal. It is a good reminder for both parties though. The person I aim a gun at needs to be fully aware that his actions, his (or her) behavior could well result in his or her death.

No. A reasonable gun owner only points a gun at something they are willing to kill. More than once I have had a deer or boar in my sights and not pulled the trigger.Willing and want are not synonymous.

No, when I aim at something in a defensive situation I intend to stop a behavior. I do not intend to kill anyone. I am willing to do that if that is the only way to stop the behavior.I agree that I would not use a gun to threaten someone. That is just silly.

Definitely negligence and almost certainly either a lie or a gun that was tampered with.

Yup. And that there was an automobile accident.Willful ignorance is endemic.

Which is why you always left an empty cylinder under the hammer. It still can not be an accident but definitely is negligence. Most likely though still a lie.

Too funny.Have you ever tried that RAZD?

Sometimes you do but it is never as fast as not having to reload. In addition, when using an semi-automatic you do not go through the same motions as your source should certainly know.With a revolver it is the same motions as a rapid reload(again still much slower than not reloading) but with a bottom feeder simply swapping the magazine leaves you with an unloaded gun UNLESS it is done when the slide is fully retracted. I know of no holster made to support a semi-automatic handgun with the slide fully back and locked.

Yup. Maybe less but still way too much time.

Too much time between drawing my pistol out of the holster and actually firing.No one should ever take their gun out of it's holster until there is an almost certainty that it will be fired. A handgun is always safest when it is still in the holster.

What the hell is an armor piercing bullet and why would it be a concern anyway?

Probably not too many. How many police have their gun stolen right off their side?

So as suspected, simply not something to worry about.

Where is it impossible to discuss the possibilities of not arming psychos? In fact there are already laws on the books in most countries including the US making it illegal to sell a gun to a psycho.But bad folk do not obey laws.

Many things are seen as unconstitutional and it is right to test the issue when there are doubts. But both waiting periods and background checks were found to not be unconstitutional.But there is an issue in the US.We have no way to check many of the things needed to be checked. There is no such thing in the US as a registry of citizens. There is no way to check to see if someone is a psycho or potential psycho. There is no database of who has been treated for mental illness or even been hospitalized for mental illness. It isn't and in fact most Americans don't own a handgun. I try to make up for that though by owning more than one handgun. Even if that were true it is irrelevant to anything. The fact is that bad people do not obey laws and that includes the existing gun laws.There are serious problems in the US, one of the biggest is a seemingly innate disregard for the laws whether it is speeding or jaywalking or littering or resorting to violence.