You’ve been trained so hard! Why wouldn’t you want your firearm to be as efficient and effective as possible!? If you do, why would you not want to say it!? Insurance purposes!? The courts!? So silly!
1 Like
It’s cheaper to do it yourself. It’s not rocket science either. I could get a good gun for a grand right out of the box. I could get the same gun in parts for $800 or less. What’s the difference if a manufacturer puts on the same stuff I do except with them it’s “out of the box”? It’s still the same stuff. Many times, on certain little parts where the dealer or manufacturer may skimp, understandably, a guy like me could get a better part than the manufacturer might with the savings I’ve created. I say mod the thing until it’s as efficient and effective as it can be. Courts are gonna do court things no matter what. Justice or politics, a stock gun will not save you in court after it saves you in public. It’s just less likely to save you in public some times.
2 Likes
It’s more like brain surgery.
1 Like
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not. I’d compare it to working on a car, but a little easier. Less systems. We don’t even know how many systems the brain has yet, like, bad comparison! Unless of course you were being sarcastic, in that case 
, good one!!!
3 Likes
The goal is to stop, not to kill.
3 Likes
So your a shoot him in the knee kinda guy, not recommended for meth heads but you do you. I’m sure your training says aim for center mass. As it should. Thaaaats about where the hearts at. So your training says shoot to kill because to kill is to stop. You, me, really all of us, everyone except the psychos, meth heads, and pharma executives ever wants to have to kill somebody! I say if a meth head is trying to kill you, it’s best to have a firearm that makes you the best possible shooter for that moment. Seems obvious.
1 Like
I’m a “the goal is to stop the threat” kind of guy. You would have to ask a/your lawyer, but from what I can gather, telling the courtroom you modified your gun to make it a deadlier probably isn’t the best/most preferred answer. Words matter.
4 Likes
I was trying to be sarcastic but now that you mention it I can understand how doing a modification on a gun without knowing precisely what you are doing can be dangerous. I would think the manufacturer has guidelines that they have to follow and I can see how a jury would frown on someone modifying the guidelines.
1 Like
Depends on the gun and on what you are doing. Are you replacing a part with another part that was manufactured by a company that knows precisely what they are doing? Does that replacement part maintain all functions of the factory part?
People do replace some parts on some things all the time, for example, I’ve never owned a car/truck that was 100% factory stock, and that’s just fine. But I’m not, like, disabling the brakes on half of the wheels then driving on public streets or something. And when I carried/carry a modified gun, I didn’t remove or deactivate any safeties.
3 Likes
Does it make me more accurate? Does it increase my ability? The justice system should not be accounted for in this. Aside from a “Please Try Me” sticker or a picture of the Grim Reaper, modifications are not an indication of intent. I say, modify, it’s not that hard and kind of fun.
3 Likes
I am just not getting it. If the Consensus is that a modification can be used against you in a court of law. It seems like a hey y’all watch this kind of a thing. If I knew it would help me in a life or death situation I would do it. It you think a modification will help you in a life or death situation then who am I to object.
2 Likes
I’m just saying if it’s the kind of court of law that would result in a simple modification worsening your chances of freedom then you never had a chance to begin with. No stock gun will save you in a court room like that. I understand if you’ve been conditioned to be afraid of those courts but my arguments are sound and the truth is like a Lion, it defends itself.
2 Likes
Depends on the gun and on what you are doing.
1 Like
If my assumption about manufacturers is true about them being legally responsible for making guns that are safe to use. Then I would rather have more of the law on my side than less. I am just shooting from the hip here IDK for a fact.
1 Like
I don’t think anyone here has been conditioned to be afraid. I think the point being made is that there is a level of risk, that each decision has to include.
For instance, I am risk adverse, I carry a completely unmodified Glock. Either a Glock 30 or a Glock 41. Every 6ish months I will chat with a LEO as to what ammo they use. I try to eliminate as many risk variables as I can.
When you are talking modifications to improve your abilities. I don’t think that the miniscule increase in performance is worth the additional risk. Same with ammo, I like DRT ammo (Dead Right There) but I don’t use that brand because again the slight difference for performance is not worth the additional risk.
The Truth as you succinctly put it is a bit more nuanced. As the Truth is going to be decided by a D.A. who is deciding if he can influence a jury enough.
1 Like
Oh, it’s a fact that manufacturers aren’t to be held responsible for the guns they manufacture in regards to a mass shooting or gang shoot out and especially not a defensive shooting. They passed a law a while ago giving the gun manufacturers immunity to those things. Now if an unmodified gun has an N.D. Due to a malfunction in the assembly like Taurus did, they can be sued for that. The gun owners are 100% responsible for every bullet that leaves their gun.
2 Likes
I totally disagree and that’s ok. The training from the uscca and nra are totally fear based and emphasize not shooting unless you have to to avoid legal hassle over training the constitution and your God given right to defend self and property. It’s that training and mind set that fuels gun control. You’re weighing legal consequences across from life and death. I think I know what weighs more on my scale. Also, I think you need to weigh your legal consequences across from your ability to hit the correct target. Adding a red dot to a milled slide has PROVEN to be more efficient.
2 Likes
Ok. The training that the USCCA and the NRA produce are designed to make sure that an end user understands the risks that are associated with that end users decision.
2 Likes
Yes, we disagree.
1 Like
Don’t forget the second part of that, it’s important.
1 Like