Powder River Precision XD Striker Safety Lever

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

I appreciate where you're coming from, but at the same time, I find it hard to believe that my aftermarket striker safety lever would be sole item responsible for my damnation in court as long as everything else is in the clear. I find it hard to believe because otherwise, we'd see a flourishing area of the news/press/media covering winning lawsuits filled by "victims" of gun owners.

I find it hard to believe how you find it hard to believe.

I agree that there are many citizens who use a firearm in self-defense, and in most cases they are seen as a good shoot by the police, and that's that. But, if based on a police report, a DA felt that you for any reason didn't have a clean shoot and that it was worth charging you, don't you think that DA would use ANY information at his disposal to get a conviction against you? Once a DA makes that decision, they want to win. Plain and simple. Whether you want to believe it or not, whether most of us who frequent this site agree or not, there are people out there who believe we are CRAZY for simply carrying weapons. And these citizens are on juries just like the rest of us. Image what they'll think when the DA tells them you've "hot-rodded" the gun to make the it easier and faster to fire. They'll think you're certifiable.

Most of us here know that a trigger job or the like, when done by a professional gunsmith, is relatively harmless. But explaining that to those who are unfamiliar, or downright scared, of guns is a whole other thing.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

I just can't see how it's that much of an issue when we don't see the lawsuits being won left and right by people who are shot in self defense. If charges were filed based on the gun being modified and we saw more lawsuits won, I'd be concerned. Anyone can file a lawsuit...whether or not it goes through its paces is another story.

A few reasons you don't see it.

First, there aren't that many justified shootings. Prof. Lott said in his book that 98% of the time when a gun is even brandished in self-defense it isn't used. Of the 2%, 75% of the time the shot is a warning shot. That means that only .5% of the time a gun is drawn in self defense is it actually fired at a human target. Pretty low odds, IMHO, given the chances of actually having to draw a gun -- and the .5% number actually assumes (in the context of our conversation) that the use is actually justified. My point is just that they're pretty darn rare.

Second, we don't hear about them. Most of them are a couple of lines in a newspaper and then they're out of the public eye. Papers don't like to report on justified shootings -- most mainstream papers are incredibly anti-gun. Every story of a person defending himself from a criminal is a slap in the face of the newspapers that have made a industry predicated on the backs of little kids who get slaughtered by gang-bangers because of evvvvvviiiiiillll guns. They don't want to report this stuff.

Third, and this is the biggest factor: They settle. Something like 96% of cases are dismissed, settled, or are decided on SJ. If it doesn't see trial and result in a surprising or newsworthy verdict, you aren't going to hear about it (hell, I'm not going to hear about it unless I'm trolling the case reports for the particular county where the trial happens). To be honest, you don't hear about many verdicts in civil cases, period, because they usually aren't considered "news" unless the amount is insanely high, or the P or D is particularly notable, famous, or sympathetic in the community.

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

there are people out there who believe we are CRAZY for simply carrying weapons. And these citizens are on juries just like the rest of us. Image what they'll think when the DA tells them you've "hot-rodded" the gun to make the it easier and faster to fire. They'll think you're certifiable.

Absolutely 100% correct!

[jtkratzer]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

A few reasons you don't see it.

First, there aren't that many justified shootings. Prof. Lott said in his book that 98% of the time when a gun is even brandished in self-defense it isn't used. Of the 2%, 75% of the time the shot is a warning shot. That means that only .5% of the time a gun is drawn in self defense is it actually fired at a human target. Pretty low odds, IMHO, given the chances of actually having to draw a gun -- and the .5% number actually assumes (in the context of our conversation) that the use is actually justified. My point is just that they're pretty darn rare.

Second, we don't hear about them. Most of them are a couple of lines in a newspaper and then they're out of the public eye. Papers don't like to report on justified shootings -- most mainstream papers are incredibly anti-gun. Every story of a person defending himself from a criminal is a slap in the face of the newspapers that have made a industry predicated on the backs of little kids who get slaughtered by gang-bangers because of evvvvvviiiiiillll guns. They don't want to report this stuff.

Third, and this is the biggest factor: They settle. Something like 96% of cases are dismissed, settled, or are decided on SJ. If it doesn't see trial and result in a surprising or newsworthy verdict, you aren't going to hear about it (hell, I'm not going to hear about it unless I'm trolling the case reports for the particular county where the trial happens). To be honest, you don't hear about many verdicts in civil cases, period, because they usually aren't considered "news" unless the amount is insanely high, or the P or D is particularly notable, famous, or sympathetic in the community.

That's my point right there. If the papers are so anti gun and anti self defense with a firearm, they'd be eating up every opportunity they could to present where a lawsuit went in favor of the criminal. Since there are so few shootings, and even fewer go to court, why should I be worried? If I've already said my gun isn't coming out of the holster unless it's going to be fired and that's only happening in a situation where my life is going to end or I'm going to be severely injured if I don't, I shouldn't have anything to worry about. The first issue is going to be whether or not my life was in danger and the shooting was justified. I won't even draw unless pulling the trigger is justified.

I understand the your precaution, as you stated, 98% of the time a shot isn't fired...so 98% of 2,500,000 over the course of a year don't involve a shot...that's 50,000 incidences where shot(s) are fired. 75% are warning shots...that leaves 12,500 shootings per year on average where the shot(s) are fired at the human target. That's 34 per day, every day.

[Kaos]

I think it's gone beyond the point of reason here.

Can we leave it at...to each his own and good luck n@?

-K

[Lycanthrope]

Sounds like a decent modification. I'd use any mod that helped me hit the target faster and more accurately. Plenty of worked over carry 1911's have some of the takeup taken out.

Besides that, I'd have no problem using my USPSA gun for self defense.......

"Hot rodded??.......No sir, that's just a gun that I use for games....I never really thought about having to use it for self defense.....I mean...look at the red grip on that thing.....".


Lycanworriesaboutmakinghitsnothiscourtcasethrope

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

Since there are so few shootings, and even fewer go to court, why should I be worried? If I've already said my gun isn't coming out of the holster unless it's going to be fired and that's only happening in a situation where my life is going to end or I'm going to be severely injured if I don't, I shouldn't have anything to worry about. The first issue is going to be whether or not my life was in danger and the shooting was justified. I won't even draw unless pulling the trigger is justified.

*sigh*

I've spent a ridiculous amount of time trying politely to explain why you're incorrect as matter of law and practice -- yet you continue to ignore the substance of my posts and repeat the oft-chanted and tired mantra that all that matters is whether the shooting is justified. You are wrong. I cannot say this any more plainly.

There are numerous factors that I've covered here and in other posts on the exact same issue. There are numerous articles by expert witnesses and other lawyers that take the same position I do. The fact that you continue to espouse an erroneous position makes the argument why anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon should be required to take a training course that involves at least 20 hours of instruction on the law and the aftermath of a deadly shooting.

Why should YOU be worried?

You obviously aren't, and there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Given your learned opinion on the matter, I'm sure that the detective on the case, the ADA, the judge, and the jury (if it gets to that point) are all going to ignore the cogent legal arguments that any sane prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney will advance in the event that you have to use your gun because you know, you're this guy, and you're really well-intentioned, and you don't think that the way that the law has been applied in the past to other cases is going to apply to you. That's cool, I'm familiar with that defense -- it's called the snowflake defense: It's predicated on the assumption that everyone is unique, special, and that his opinion on the way things should be counts just as much as anyone else's, and certainly more than the way the law actually is.

So don't you worry a bit. I'm sure your position is correct; I mean, hell, you probably know more about the law that I do, or any self-defense expert.

[synergy]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

You're getting your panties in a twist over me doing some research with people who actually do own XDs and have put tens of thousands of rounds through them and asking people who work on XDs for a living? I'd say it sounds more like you making stuff up.

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads...true#Post62272

I get many calls about building custom guns. The XD is the one gun that I calls on all the time to fix. As an instructor I see a far higher failure rate with them than any of the other new poly guns. The extracters lose tension at a high rate at very low round counts. The multi piece guide rods come apart way to often and completely lock up the gun. Also the magazines have had problems of being to soft and dent with hard use and create many feeding problems.
Don't get me wrong if you get a good one they shoot well but the over all quality control seems low.
The last thing that really creates a problem for many is the fact that the grip safety locks the slide. I have seen this many times under just training stress cause people trying to clear a malfuntion not keep it depressed and not be able to move the slide.
So after all that, M&P.

CHECK 360
David Bowie

http://www.bowietacticalconcepts.com...mtheowner.html

You also may want to look up who Massad Ayoob is, before you go disagreeing with an actual attorney on here, who's spoken with him on this subject, in depth.

Feel free to copy and paste this over on XDTalk, too. That may even help you break 6k posts there in under a year!