Fri Feb 19, 2016, 11:43 AM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
5 Carry Mistakes: Responsible CarryingLast edited Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)
This really got me thinking.
https://www.sofmag.com/carry-life-5-carry-mistakes/ Any fair-minded analysis reveals that the roughly 13.5 million concealed-carry permit holders in the United States make astonishingly few mistakes with their firearms. Serious mistakes, where actual injuries occur, are rarer still.
... 1. Abandonment; The necessity of a firearm for which you are responsible leaving your control... 2. One Firearm; We appreciate that it’s a serious and potentially expensive business to select that perfect carry arm, only to have us assert there’s no such thing. We do so nevertheless. There are many, many reasons why this can be so, so we’ll pick just one, and generalize...wardrobe... 3. One Carry Method; To an extent, we understand that our number two implies this: A second defensive firearm will almost certainly call for a second carry method... 4. Abandonment, Part II; Have you considered that your carry firearm is “abandoned” at home, too, at least in the sense we previously reviewed?... 5. “My Skill Is Better Than Your Skill”; The key here is an out-of-fashion character trait—humility—and the surest cure is to get it through your head that nobody with any real sense is ever done learning. And especially not about something as consequential as armed self-defense... ETA: The gracious alert and learned jury votes are much appreciated. Thanks one and all.
|
16 replies, 6316 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | OP |
SecularMotion | Feb 2016 | #1 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #2 | |
SecularMotion | Feb 2016 | #3 | |
ileus | Feb 2016 | #4 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #6 | |
ileus | Feb 2016 | #8 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #10 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #5 | |
sarisataka | Feb 2016 | #7 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #9 | |
Purveyor | Feb 2016 | #11 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #12 | |
DonP | Feb 2016 | #13 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #14 | |
sarisataka | Feb 2016 | #15 | |
discntnt_irny_srcsm | Feb 2016 | #16 |
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:10 PM
SecularMotion (7,981 posts)
1. Soldier of Fortune is a magazine for contract killers
![]() |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #1)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:20 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
2. I don't think I've ever been called that before
I recommend setting the time to 8 minutes and 47 seconds. I strenuously object to anyone alerting SMs post. I really want this to remain visible. |
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:02 PM
SecularMotion (7,981 posts)
3. Guns for Hire
During the late 1980s, Soldier of Fortune was sued in civil court several times, for having published classified advertisements of services by (private) mercenaries. In 1987, Norman Norwood, of Arkansas, sued SOF magazine, because of injuries he suffered during a murder attempt by two men hired via a "Gun for Hire" advert in the magazine.
In February 1985 John Wayne Hearn, a Vietnam veteran, shot and killed Sandra Black for a $10,000 payment from her husband, Robert Black. Black communicated with Hearn through a classified advertisement published in Soldier of Fortune, wherein Hearn solicited "high-risk assignments. U.S. or overseas".
In 1989, four men were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the 1985 contract killing of Richard Braun, of Atlanta, Georgia. The killers were hired through a classified services advertisement published in Soldier of Fortune magazine that read: "GUN FOR HIRE". Braun's sons filed a civil lawsuit against the magazine and a jury found in their favor, awarding them $12.37 million in damages, which the judge later reduced to $4.37 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_of_Fortune_(magazine) |
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:20 PM
ileus (15,396 posts)
4. That's supposed to have something to do with CC how?
Response to ileus (Reply #4)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:23 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
6. Are you trying to thread-jack this thread-jack? n/t
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #6)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:31 PM
ileus (15,396 posts)
8. No just wondering what a magazine from the 80's has to do with legal CC.
Response to ileus (Reply #8)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 02:11 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
10. So.... Are you really "wondering" or is that an expression? n/t
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:22 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
5. Well there's an eye opener
Anything from any recent times like within 10 years?
Folks tell me things change over time. |
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #5)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:29 PM
sarisataka (15,217 posts)
7. Well there is the one
Little details that SecMo cut out of the last quote-
One consequence of the lost lawsuits was the magazine's suspension of publication of classified advertisements for mercenary work either in the U.S. or overseas. (in 1992) |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #7)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:51 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
9. Once evil always evil and...
...if you have a gun and you're not evil, you might become evil.
![]() |
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Original post)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:57 PM
Purveyor (29,876 posts)
11. Courtesy Report: Results of your Jury Service
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message On Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post: 5 Carry Mistakes: Responsible Carrying http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172187657 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS Is Soldier of Fortune now an acceptable source here on DU? Please hide. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 19, 2016, 05:56 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: the reporter should give reasons that it is an unacceptable source instead of asking us Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Whatever, it's the gun forum. Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future. ![]() |
Response to Purveyor (Reply #11)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:12 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
12. A warm thank you for the information
![]() |
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #12)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 06:55 PM
DonP (6,185 posts)
13. Who could have possibly alerted on the OP?
Maybe someone that thinks they are the Host here as well as everywhere else?
Someone that resents any OPs that they don't cut and paste? Possibly another self appointed Zampolit trying to keep all of DU "pure"? Meh, they failed so who cares. |
Response to DonP (Reply #13)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 07:23 PM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)
14. Regardless of the accuracy of the information...
...the source needs to be "approved". Maybe we need some book burnings, too.
|
Response to Purveyor (Reply #11)
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 09:58 PM
sarisataka (15,217 posts)
15. Somebody's alert didn't go as planned
so is seeking meta-solace in GD
![]() |
Response to sarisataka (Reply #15)
Sat Feb 20, 2016, 08:22 AM
discntnt_irny_srcsm (18,087 posts)