Yosemite Sam said:
NixieTube said:
...
It prevents the trigger from moving toward the frame unless the *entire trigger* is being pulled, through the center. Meaning that it cannot move rearward if it is just "brushed" rearward from either side. I think it's just a little plastic shoe that doesn't touch anything else in the firing mechanism ....
Not exactly, at least the way I have always understood it.
That also makes a lot of sense. I don't know what kind of misfire data they get back on their pistols, but I'm sure the truth is in there...somewhere
"Did you drop it or did you really accidentally pull it while you were practicing? Ya know, when you kinda got your finger in there but not really?" etc., etc.
It'd be interesting to see how hard you really have to slam the gun (I won't say drop) whether it's a Ruger or a Glock to make it fire because of rearward trigger movement without the little tongue being there to prevent it. My guess is that you'd have to really, really whack it hard. I just find it hard to believe the inertia of the trigger mechanism is enough to cause the gun to go off, even if it is dropped, even without the new safety tongue, unless you wanted it to -- really badly. I guess if you slammed it down with Kung-fu velocity, because you really hated the pistol and wanted to create a nonexistant safety issue that Ruger would have to recall all the guns because of, maybe. And let's make no mistake: there are probably lots of other people who manufacture guns and work on them who really weren't all that happy about Ruger producing the SR9. Particularly not where they were selling it in terms of price or geography.
I have always had a feeling that the initial SR9 recall was caused by someone who deliberately mishandled the pistol, to force Ruger to recall it. I haven't ever heard anything to the contrary, and it would be interesting to really know.
In the meantime, that's probably a more useful explanation than mine.
And yes, where I live the "number of safeties" requirement probably leads the nation in terms of dictating what you can buy. What's coming next are biometric permissive action links on guns of any kind.
In the next 10 years as the technology develops and the Attorneys General in states like Massachusetts become insistent upon adopting it, handguns *and* long guns sold to the public are going to be digital, and they are going to be fireable by the owner only, upon confirmation by the gun (and the police) that it was fired by the person the gun was licensed to. It's going to happen in Massachusetts as surely as the sun rises in the East. Remember that Massachusetts isn't just one of the stomping grounds of the biggest gun-grabbers in the country: there are also a lot of MIT engineers here. And politics makes very strange bedfellows.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_patents_biometric_heartbeat_sensor/
Apple has patented a mechanism for validating the owner of its technology through their heartbeat. Actually what it is doing is much closer to taking a fingerprint of the user through the "acoustics" of their circulatory system. You know how doctors stick all those little tabs onto you when taking an ECG? Steve Jobs has had a lot of ECGs in the past 10 years and he didn't waste any thinking while he had the time. It turns out that you can do something similar to that with a device that someone is holding in their hands. And everyone is unique. It's coming to their iPhones and other devices soon. When it does, and if it is successful, you had better believe that restrictive AGs are going to start demanding it is a part of every gun made for sale in their state.
I can read the op-ed article now:
"Why do we allow people to buy guns that can be fired by anyone other than their owners? Recently, an 11 year old girl in Worcester, Sandra Dominiguez, a Girl Scout and an up-and-coming cheerleader at her local school, was talking on her biometric iPhone, which uniquely identified her and prevented anyone else from using it. It fell from her hands and onto the floor in a pool of blood when her 16 year old brother shot her to death while accidentally firing a gun that was owned by his father. It's time that all guns people own have better mechanisms to absolutely stop these tragedies. Our children's cellphones will protect them better than the guns in their own households, but right now guns are run amok here in Massachusetts. Anyone can use them and anyone can fire them to kill anyone with them, but even things like cellphones we give to children don't allow that. Please text message the Attorney General to insist that she require biometric permissive action links on every gun owned in the Commonwealth, so that at the very least this kind of tragedy can never happen again."
That's going to make a very persuasive media soundbite where I live, and it's going to happen sooner than later. Gun enthusiasts are going to be sitting there talking about this little piece of plastic or metal thingamabob on their gun, or a tiny little tab that presses up on a lever somewhere, 19th century technology, and the guys with the electrical engineering degrees are going to be employed designing permissive action links for the guns and the bullets that won't let you fire the gun unless all the conditions are met, period.
Apologies for getting a bit far afield.
It is my centennial post.
