Soju

That is a good point. I recently started watching 'The Real Hustle" (British version), where they do actual scams and thefts, and use this technique a lot. The point of the show is to make people aware of criminals and their tactics. Even the most innocent seeming people can have the worst intentions. Unfortunately being a nice and trusting person is not always a good thing, and often can be the worse thing. If you are rude to a stranger, who cares? Of course being polite to strangers can be a hard thing to overcome, especially if that stranger is a gorgeous woman, but as Jessica Jane Clement has shown, they make the best criminals!

Wait, I'm confused here. How did this guy have a gun with him to begin with? Surely he couldn't have a permit in NJ, so I just don't understand how he had a gun. It isn't possible to have one because it is illegal right? Yes, I am being sarcastic, and no, I am not actually confused.

One thing is for sure, the media portrayal of what happened was biased and done purposefully to push an agenda. Based on comments by people here, a pro gun forum, the medias bias influence is working...

Unfortunately though their actions are illegal there isn't anything you or he can do. Stuff like this is why there is currently a lawsuit.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin.html Found this interesting.

Pinned 1. You have the ability to put it at the most convenient and effective length for you specifically. 2. You have more options than fixed stocks. There are generally more of them, with more options in terms of sling attachment points, cheek rest/rise, base plates/pads, and colors. Fixed 1. Simpler. 2. If it has what you want, and in the length you want, doesn't have any rattle to it like a pinned collapsible. 3. Doesn't require putting a hole in the stock and buffer tube. Personally, I feel you have more options and can tailer the stock more towards your needs and likes with a pinned stock.

Speaking of 'stand your ground', where exactly did this take place? It sounded like it took place in some guys yard or on his porch or something. Does someone else's private property qualify as "any place you have a legal right to be"?

I only cited the portion of the law based on him being the aggressor, as that is what I assumed him to be. If he was not the aggressor, then nothing I posted applies, and it is a completely different situation. I certainly don't know what happened, and based on the details I had was making an assumption that he was the aggressor. What I do know is that it is a crappy situation regardless of how it went down.

Is there a risk? No. Not at all. The only thing they can do, is cause a somewhat annoying noise over comms. This is more common with those fancy smart phones now, but it isn't like a huge thing that happens all the time, and it doesn't last either. Just a second or two, once or twice. Usually when this happens though, it is from a crew member. As mentioned above, if you have one of those gps thingamagys you can get them to work.

On a somewhat related note, it isn't often you see commercials on TV for firearms, but I just saw a commercial for Daniel Defense on. Cool!

The student also used a Serpa holster. Man, I thought 3 strikes meant you were out!

I think of the comparison of Man vs. Wild/Bear Grylls and Survivorman/Les Stroud similar to how I would think of Mindfreak/Criss Angel and say, Fool Us/Penn and Teller, or the original Street Magic/David Blaine (not his more recent stuff). The first group had some exciting stuff but relied on both camera editing and in some cases, complete fabrication. I'm talking stuff like where Grylls would say the only way out was across this gorge, and jump it, yet actually, if the camera were to just pan out you could see he could walk around the thing. It was cool to watch, but totally untruthful. That is similar to Criss Angel making a claim and doing something that looks neat, but is a camera trick and the 'audience' are paid extras/actors. On the other hand, Survivorman was some cool stuff, and Les Stroud was upfront about what he was doing and what was going on, similar to how Penn and Teller would straight up tell you (and sometimes show you) what they are doing, and do honest tricks (no paid audience, no camera tricks). Sometimes it doesn't translate to a TV show as well. This: is like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7tazXp2Pfo where this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeR3hHnEVoY is like this:

Well it sounds better then the more appropriate term "crash landing" which subsequently sounds better then the more correct word of "crashing".

As an Air Force aviator, I'll say a few things in reference to some of the stuff above. 1. No, of course not all pilots have huge egos. But the general statement of fighter pilots specifically, having egos, I'd say is pretty accurate. That isn't intended as an insult or meant to be negative. It is simply an observation. 2. There is a certain relationship between pilots, aircrew members, crew chiefs, and other maintainers that I have found most people don't realize. Wrecksters comments seem right in line with that. If we aren't giving the maintainers a hard time, and they aren't giving us a hard time and joking around, that is when something is wrong. 3. Being in the aviation community, and having been privy to various incident reports, and lengthy safety review board briefs about things of this nature, the way this was handled can not be overstated. That pilot did an amazing job and that isn't an easy feat. I mean, there have been situations where things were significantly less critical, that very minor mistakes lead to crashes and deaths. I don't know if some people realize, that even very minor mistakes, or not taking the correct action immediately, has and will continue to lead to fatal crashes. This could have easily been one. The fact it wasn't is telling of the pilots airmanship. 4. Damn was Betty annoying! I'm pretty sure he knew after the first dozen times there was a problem!

I've been trying my best to help people understand more about firearms in a positive way. I have been surprised on how receptive most people are actually! In fact, there are quite a few who have gotten into them and I'd like to think at the very least I didn't hurt that. The one thing I don't like, is the ranges are more crowded and it makes it more difficult to get out and shoot! I know it isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying.

If you do it any way else you are doing it wrong. That is what my mother always told me.

I agree and that certainly makes sense. Unfortunately that isn't what happened, and hence it being a problem. ^^ ^^ Agreed.

I recommend the Blackhawk Serpa holster.

Between $600 and higher, up to multiple thousands.

Sort of. I get that, to an extent, but how does that relate to getting her password to her account? If there was harassment/bullying going on, it would be visible and no need to get the password, or do these teachers/counselors/police have no idea how computers and the internet work? There are ways of going about things, and handling issues, and coercing someone to give up personal information with intimidation through presence of authority is NOT that way.

I'm confused. So you believe it is BS, but if there is a law that says it was legal then all of a sudden it is not? You can sugar coat BS, but it is still BS.

Temporary restraining order.

Please stop using leather holsters as well. http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/safety-warning-worn-leather-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

Again, you are talking about different things. Unless you know of a holster that magically transports the pistol into your hand instantly what are you getting at? Since a Serpa requires the lock to be disengaged, I'd consider the basic Serpa a level 1 retention holster. Can you name another level 1 holster that can be drawn significantly faster?

Exactly. But when has rational thought and reasoning ever been used when it comes to things like this? It's been a couple hundred years I think.