Could the Tulsa shooters claim immunity under Oklahoma's Castle Law?

[gejohnston]

91. the aricle does not say that

The study simply said how would would be made, but not that the technology existed. Is the congressional study based on information from Red Eye Arms?

Here is the one company that claimed that it could make one.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1988_540430/theoretical-plastic-gun-triggers-sharp-reaction.html

Despite its offices in remodeled railroad boxcars, and the fact that the arms company has yet to produce anything more advanced than a computer drawing, the military takes Red Eye seriously. The idea of a lighter, rustproof weapon is heady stuff indeed. Another Red Eye executive, Dwight Brunoehler, calls the guns "dishwasher safe." They would be "rinse and fire" weapons, he says.

It looks like one could get a really fat military contract or two if they had one. So, it looks like DoD got ripped off again.

If it does, exist why isn't FN, IMI, HK, Colt, Norinco, etc all over it? Are any of these people making it and selling it to any military?

But there is a lesson in all this. There's a reason the same pattern keeps coming up. You make a claim, I ask you to back it up with evidence, you come up with some gun blog, and then I finally go and find some real evidence that proves you wrong.

This is the first time I used a gun blog, which is appropriate since it is a technical matter. As usual, you find some flimsy reference, and I find real evidence that proves you wrong.

It's because there is so much misinformation out there about guns that people like you can really live in a bubble fantasy world.

Projecting again?