On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:38:33 -0600, Dave wrote (in article ):
A 1994 Department of Justice study estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually. 1993 National Crime Victimization Survey estimated 108,000 DGU's annually.
-BR
These posts had a plus for me I went looking at some rifles that were my grandfathers. I've never done anything with them just kept them stored in the house. Turns out one of them is a Colt Lightening made in 1888. Seems to be in good working order and has some value. Guess I'll have it looked at by an expert and decide what to do with it. Even have ammunition for it assuming properly stored ammunition is usable after 30-40 years. Not being a gun expert I'll be consulting one.
I've got a Colt 'Thunderer,' the .41 caliber version and the same model Billy the Kid was alleged by some to have carried. Mine has NEVER worked and the internals have for years been corroded to the point of being frozen. The exterior plating was well-worn even then. My father's father gave it to me in September, 1968 so I could take it to gunsmithing school at Trinidad State Junior College. Granddaddy had been a special agent for the Southern Pacific railroad in Navasota, Texas when he bought it off a college student in 1915 returning home for Christmas break and who did not want his folks to know he had it. I remember the purchase price being $1.50 including a very small paper bag of cartridges. I still have the cartridges; they didn't work in 1968 much like the pistol.
Back then I could manipulate the hammer into the cocked position and, while holding it with my thumb, manipulate the trigger until I felt the sear disengage. At that point I could release the hammer with my thumb which would fall with sufficient force to dent the cartridge primer. Alas, no ignition with Granddaddy's ammo - probably just as well. I've never seen another revolver with cylinder walls as thin as this Colt's and would certainly never have considered smokeless power even in reduced loads. Granddaddy recounted that he had only fired it once himself, at a 'polecat' which I took to mean a skunk. He didn't say whether it was of the two-legged or four-legged variety.
At Trinidad I couldn't wait to try to restore it and was elated when I found that one of my instructors, a Mr. Praeter (sp?) was an encyclopedia in all things Colt. He wouldn't touch it, wouldn't even look at it advising me to trash it. "Worst POS to ever come out of Colt," or words to that effect. I wonder to this day why Billy the Kid would have carried one. Perhaps it contributed to his untimely death? Nah . . . .
This is a short, concise history of the gun:
Dave in Houston
WOW! I guess Steve Gass needs to invent the "Bullet Stop" LOL
Wow. If it *is* indeed original and in good shape, you could auction that off and likely end up with with enough for a new shop. Not just the tools, the building as well. :-)
"Dave in Texas" wrote in news:R4xct.62558$WR.11943@en-nntp-
16.dc1.easynews.com: [...]So wait until some civic-minded soul decides to sponsor a gun buy-back in Houston, turn it in, and get fifty bucks or so for a worthless hunk of metal.
Worked for me.
"Dave in Texas" wrote in news:R4xct.62558$WR.11943@en-nntp-
16.dc1.easynews.com: [...]So wait until some civic-minded soul decides to sponsor a gun buy-back in Houston, turn it in, and get fifty bucks or so for a worthless hunk of metal.
Worked for me.
It has more sentimental value [to me] than that. Besides which how far would $50 get me?
Dave in Houston
From what I saw I don't think it would build a shop, but would pay for a saw stop. It appears all original and the worst thing on it is some minor start of rust, nothing solid & you can scrape a lot of it with your fingernail. I read enough to know I shouldn't screw around without expert advice. It's the medium frame so not as valuble as the larger frame. It's been in the family since it was new so we'll see what happens. I'll get it looked at when I go into town again.
Mike M
Dave, just for clarification, except for muzzle loaders and a few antique categories, firearms cannot be purchasd online in the USA without going through a licensed federal firearms license holder.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:10:29 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Well, my computer has been down for several days, but it's back up now. So, let me see if I can find that show I mentioned and then you can respond.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:44:08 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
that it is.
people." Mostly, I
I said that Guns are pretty much a single use item. That statement includes people or animals.
As far as my stating that guns were mostly a single use item, it was intended to say that guns are used for killing, whether it be man OR animal. So, it is true.
This is the second time you've accused my of lying you asshole and I'm not going to put up with your bullshit any more.
I've never used or needed a firearm for self defense, but I did own and use six or so rifles and handguns for target shooting for about a dozen years.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:04:54 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
And you're full of crap. As I said before you attempted to twist it into something else, Guns have mostly one use, and that's for shooting people OR animals. Does that qualify it for you???
Cars have many, many more uses than guns and there's no way in hell you can compare the two when it comes to general use. So STFU.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:50:01 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Constitution,
roads has been
fundamental right.
Back then, guns were needed for survival. Try using the little bit of brain power that you've got. Cars didn't exist then so they couldn't have granted privilege anyway.
IF you're going to compare the two with your bullshit logic, then ask yourself if your courts would have created the second amendment when cars were as much a fact of life as guns were.
Constitution,
public roads has been
fundamental right.
The courts had nothing to do with creating the Constitution.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:47:04 -0700, Doug Winterburn
Courts, men, government, it's people who were in power and that makes it all pretty much the same thing.
Constitution,
public roads has been
fundamental right.
The survival referred in the 2nd Amendment isn't talking about animals, it's talking about defending oneself.
That's an all to common misconception.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:24:24 -0500, -MIKE-
Mike, I don't dispute the value (and the need) of the 2nd Amendment at the time that it was created. I'm quite sure that firearms were a necessary tool for survival.
I'm just of the opinion that those times are gone for the most part. And sure, there's always going a criminal element around where having a firearm to protect oneself is a good thing. But, it's just not the same now as it was. In the end, I'm not looking to ban guns. I just think they should be a little more controlled.
Although, with the apparent increase in terrorism I hear about these days, an armed society might be a necessary evil. In any event, as a Canadian citizen, I think we're lucky to be a major trading partner and close friend to the most powerful country on the planet.
Don't think that I don't appreciate it.
Times are no different, imo. The guns are different and so is the need to have the same weapons as your enemy and the criminal element in our society.
Unfortunately, there's an element in power in our own (US) government who has no qualms expressing their concern to ban guns, entirely.
That's a telling statement. :-) I don't see an armed society as an evil, but i get what you're saying.
In any case, I appreciate your honest debate is all this. We should be able to vigorously debate these things without diving over them.
Once the government gets into controlling guns, it is a slippery slope.
And then you are at the mercy of waiting on local law enforcement to protect you.
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
that it is.
people." Mostly, I
No, it's not. They're also useful for target shooting, and for self-defense. My brother and I have both used them defensively without killing anyone.
You made a statement that is obviously not true, and I pointed that out. If that makes you a liar and me an asshole for pointing it out, so be it.
Make up your mind! "Guns are pretty much a single use item ... for killing" or "I did own and use ... [guns] for target shooting". Which is it?
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
What did I say here that's untrue? Is it your contention that *fewer* people are killed by guns than by ball bats and hammers?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.