Modify/Or not?

[JohnKSa]

Simple polish here and there can make a 10lb Glock trigger to 4lb?

They're more like 6-7lbs stock. It's possible some are heavier due to individual variation, or, more likely due to differing connector configurations.

You can get them down to 4lbs, but doing that by only polishing parts seems pretty unlikely. You'd probably need to at least change to a lighter connector.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

They're more like 6-7lbs stock. It's possible some are heavier due to individual variation, or, more likely due to differing connector configurations.



You can get them down to 4lbs, but doing that by only polishing parts seems pretty unlikely. You'd probably need to at least change to a lighter connector.

That sounds about right. I didn't think one can get that much reduction in trigger pull with changing something.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The Wikipedia article on the event (yes, I know -- Wikipedia!) says Asaam shot him ten times and killed him. It does not report that he killed himself. My fuzzy recollection from the time of the incident tells me that there were conflicting reports regarding whether or not he killed himself after having been shot multiple times by Asaam.

My fuzzy memory form actually speaking to Jeanne Asaam about it is that she emptied her pistol (may have been only 10 rounds) and that he killed himself. The autopsy report supports that. Did I mention that I can throw a rock from my front porch to the NLC parking lot?


https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...oryId=17126011


https://www.statesboroherald.com/nat...illed-himself/


https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...c12-story.html

[JohnKSa]

She hit him multiple times. He may have finished the job.

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

She hit him multiple times. He may have finished the job.

According to the autopsy report she hit him with every shot.

But that isn't the point I was trying to make.

The point I was trying to make was that she engaged him from less than a car length away. He was walking down the main entrance hallway, she was in a side hallway. She jumped out in front of him when he was 10(ish) feet away and ordered him to drop his weapon. He didn't and she started unloading. According to the autopsy she hit him in his right upper leg and as he started to fall her hits went straight up his right torso. According to a witness (Larry Bourbonnois) who was right there she shot to slide lock and Murray shot himself in the head with his own XD.

The director of security for my church was a CSPD cop who was actually there. I don't know how much of the after action briefing he was privy to because that day was his retirement day but he had enough friends still active in the police department the he would have them come to our church and walk us through that shooting over and over and over again.

I have no idea how much credence to give this but we were told that Jeanne Asaam was standing over the body with a gun in her hand when the cops got to her. One of the reasons she WASN'T shot was because she was wearing a distinctive security uniform.

[JohnKSa]

Interesting--I never saw a good follow-up on the shooting. Two decent lessons from that:

1. Even with good hits, you can't expect instant stops with pistol rounds.
2. Even without an instant stop, you can get a positive effect if you are getting good hits.

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Interesting--I never saw a good follow-up on the shooting. Two decent lessons from that:

1. Even with good hits, you can't expect instant stops with pistol rounds.
2. Even without an instant stop, you can get a positive effect if you are getting good hits.

The most important take away that I get from this is that Jeanne Asaam was standing there with an empty gun and Matthew Murray wasn't incapacitated. He could have just as easily shot her as himself.

I've had a chance to have a conversation with Jeanne Asaam. She is a very opinionated woman. You are not capable of doing what she did. Only the police (she includes herself in that even though she was terminated from her first job for misconduct and laid off from a small PD in the Co Springs area after the NLC shooting.) have the prerequisite training to take on an active shooter. YOU DO NOT.

She supports an AWB, she supports magazine capacity limits and if I understood correctly Concealed Handgun Permits should be May Issue and heavily regulated. Bottom line, she's pro gun control.

She is also very interested in promoting The Legend Of Jeanne Asaam. She insists that she killed Matthew Murray and she went absolutely bat s**t on me when I asked her about the autopsy reports. She ignored anything I said from that point forward.

[JohnKSa]

There are usually many lessons to learn.

Having an extra magazine and being able to reload quickly.
Using cover so you're not standing out in the open as a target.
The fact that scoring good hits can end an encounter favorably even when actual incapacitation isn't achieved.
I'm sure there are more.

As far as her opinion about what she did and what others could have or would have done, there is pretty good evidence that people with military or LE training respond to these types of incidents more often and more effectively than the raw statistics suggest should happen.

If you look at how many military/LE and ex-military/ex-LE there are out there vs. those who can carry concealed and/or are licensed to carry concealed. the latter category FAR outstrips the former. And yet, it seems that in mass shooting responses the smaller former category is quite heavily represented.

I'm not really commenting on her egotism or opinions, just noting that when you look at the numbers, there should be a LOT of mass shootings stopped by concealed carriers if it were simply a matter of the number of them out there. Clearly there are other factors at work.

[44 AMP]

there should be a LOT of mass shootings stopped by concealed carriers if it were simply a matter of the number of them out there. Clearly there are other factors at work.

Probably dozens of significant factors and who knows how many others in total there might be. Anytime you focus on ONE factor, expecting across the board similar results you are missing what is often called the "bigger picture".

Among the myriad of things is being in the right place at the right time, recognizing what is going on, in time to act, having both the will and the ability to act and then actually acting.

There is one point on which I'd comment my opinion, and that is that I'm sick and tired of the automatic assumption that someone without (approved) formal training is not capable of acting. And the other side of that coin, that people with formal training will always act, and act CORRECTLY.

People (and animals) are individuals, and while we often follow similar patterms each one of us is capable of acting within or outside of the "accepted norms of behavior".

There is an old "African" saying, which goes something like this,
"one day you meet a lion on the trail, and the lion runs away.
The next day you meet the lion's brother, and your family wonders why you do not come home for supper..."

My point here is that, while you can look at "the numbers" and expect one thing, individual people can, and do act in ways the numbers don't predict.

[JohnKSa]

Among the myriad of things is being in the right place at the right time, recognizing what is going on, in time to act, having both the will and the ability to act and then actually acting.

Based on the numbers, it is far more probable that someone who can legally carry concealed will be in the right place at the right time with the ability to act as opposed to someone who is current or ex LE/military.

There are something like 20 million persons with licenses to carry in the U.S. That doesn't even count the millions more who can carry without a license in states that don't require a license. There are fewer than 1 million LE personnel and fewer than 2 million military personnel. Even assuming that there are 3x that number when counting ex military/LE, that still means that there are far more than 2x more persons who can carry legally that aren't LE/military or ex LE/military and yet when we look at the people who effectively use firearms against mass shooters the numbers are quite different than one might expect.

What it comes down to, as far as I can tell is the lack of the will to act.

There is one point on which I'd comment my opinion, and that is that I'm sick and tired of the automatic assumption that someone without (approved) formal training is not capable of acting.

I don't think that's the issue. I think that without the training, people are mostly unwilling to act. Not always, obviously.

...individual people can, and do act in ways the numbers don't predict.

Yes, of course. That's how statistics work. They predict trends and overall big picture situations, not the actions of an individual. At the individual level they can only comment on probabilities based on the actions of the overall population.

[44 AMP]

What it comes down to, as far as I can tell is the lack of the will to act.

Certainly, a valid point. I also think one should add to that, will to act at the moment, and also will to act in defense of others...

And that also leaves out people who would act, but don't due to the specific "tactical" situation. All these and more play a part.

I've read accounts from people who were armed during shooting events but did nothing to stop them. They tend to fall into about 3 different groups. Some people could have acted and simply couldn't do it (lack of will at the moment) and almost uniformly those people express regret because now they feel they could have and should have done something.

Some are people said they were prepared to act, but only if they or their family were directly threatened.

And the third group, people who tried to act but were prevented by not being able to get a clear shot and the risk shooting would cause to bystanders.

Which one of those (or someone with a different reaction) is statistically going to be there when the shooting happens? I got no clue and I don't think anyone else does, either.

And of course, there's still more factors, one big one being the location CHOSEN by the killer. While there have been rare exceptions, generally these people choose places where on scene armed response is unlikely.

I can't and won't dispute your figures, but lets look at them and what they mean as more than just numbers. 20 million permit holders, 3 million cops + military, maybe 3x that ex cops and military, now we're up to 32-33 million people, which is close to 10% of the us population COULD be armed. How many of those ARE armed at any given moment???

10%? maybe?? So, now we're down to about 1% of the national population, and you know that group is NOT homogenously distributed across the nation. So that further reduces the odds of a "sheepdog" being where (and when) the wolf is rampaging.

I also think it likely that the high percentage of ex LEO and military being the ones most often present (when anyone is) is because those are the people most likely to be armed because they are the most used to being armed.

Wear a gun occupationally for several years, it becomes something you are used to, and so its more likely you would do it on your own when the job doesn't require it, more so than someone who never did. (just my opinion, of course)

I've known a number of ex LEO and military people who "didn't feel dressed" without a sidearm. Known some people without that background who feel the same way, but far, far fewer of them...

[JohnKSa]

And that also leaves out people who would act, but don't due to the specific "tactical" situation.

There's no reason non-mil/LE people would be more likely to be faced with unworkable tactical situations than mil/LE people, as far as I can see.

Some people could have acted and simply couldn't do it (lack of will at the moment) and almost uniformly those people express regret because now they feel they could have and should have done something.

Some are people said they were prepared to act, but only if they or their family were directly threatened.

Both of these ultimately fall into the category of not having the will to act--either because they couldn't bring themselves to do it or because they specifically chose not to be motivated by the circumstances.

And the third group, people who tried to act but were prevented by not being able to get a clear shot and the risk shooting would cause to bystanders.

This is a separate category--people who are motivated to act but feel they are not able to act due to the circumstances. This can be a good reason not to act, assuming the assessment of the situation is accurate. There's no reason I can think of why this would preferentially select for one group (LE/mil) vs. the other (non-mil/LE).

How many of those ARE armed at any given moment???

This is another big factor.

However, if you look at the numbers, if we are going to assume this is the reason, we are forced to the conclusion that people who can carry legally--even those who go to the trouble to get a permit--almost never actually do carry.

I did some analysis on the WalMart shooting in El Paso, TX awhile back and it was really revealing. The statistics say that there were almost certainly (99% confidence) about 2 dozen, and maybe as many as 40-50 permit holders in that store. And yet the guy kept shooting until he was done and then left the scene without ever being accosted by an armed citizen.

Either all the permit holders in the store choose not to engage, or most or all of them weren't actually carrying, or both. Pretty much the same difference either way.

Even without getting into those who can legally carry without a permit, it turns out that permit holders outnumber police officers by around 25 to 1 in the U.S. and yet, if we look at how often off-duty police officers stop intervene in mass shootings, the number is about the same as it is for armed citizens even though it should be more than 20 times less frequent. The big picture seems to be clear. Permit holders don't carry and/or they don't intervene in mass shootings nearly as often as one would expect based on how numerous they are.

[44 AMP]

I think you're looking at total numbers and making a flawed assumption about distribution and results based on that.

I did some analysis on the WalMart shooting in El Paso, TX awhile back and it was really revealing. The statistics say that there were almost certainly (99% confidence) about 2 dozen, and maybe as many as 40-50 permit holders in that store.

This makes me curious about the source of those statistics, and how you are applying them to that store. Remember that correlation is not causation, and statistics showing only total numbers leave out the vitally important information about numerous other factors.

Simply taking the number of permit holders in the area (# of permits reported as issued by the issuing agency, in my area its the Sherrif) and dividing them up into the general population, is a mathematical statistic, but its not a representative sample of the population at any given point, location or time.

Now here's another question, how many of those permit holders that could have been there, and could have been armed, could have been carrying firearms modified in some way??

If you can find that in the statistics I'd be interested in seeing it.

[JohnKSa]

This makes me curious about the source of those statistics, and how you are applying them to that store.

The state publishes the number of permit holders in the state and also the number of permits issued in each county.

The news stories published the number of persons in the store at the time of the shooting.

From there it was pretty simple math to see what percentage of the population of that county has permits and apply it to the number of people in the store. Then I calculated the confidence level of the estimate based on the relative population sizes.

Once it's clear that there were around 2 dozen permit holders in the store with a very high level of confidence and possibly as many as 50, and with the known information that no armed citizens intervened, there's only one uncertainty left. How many of them were actually carrying?

The thing is, even if we assume that none of them were carrying, that's still a pretty significant statement and it doesn't really change the overall analysis.

Either non-le/mil permit holders carry at a much lower rate than le/mil or they intervene less often relatively speaking. Regardless of which one it is, or if it's a combination of the two, the fact still remains that there's a significant difference in the likelihood of a given permit holder responding to a mass shooting as compared to someone who is le/mil or ex-le/mil.

[stagpanther]

I used to live in a housing development that ended up being contested turf of two gangs that were in turn backed by drug cartels. I saw shootings as they happened and was once shot at myself. I did carry, but in every case my first instinct was run for cover as fast as I could, no exceptions. Even a zipping bullet with a near miss is a scary thing.

The shootings I saw were mostly spray and pray but with absolutely no concern for collateral hits. I saw one hit when a guy was standing at a street corner stop sign and a car pulled and emptied what was a 45 acp single stack (talked to the cops on scene after the action) from inside the car at 3 to 4 feet away--every one of the shots missed but one, that shot went through the guy's side, and then the guy took off running in my direction and he was running even faster than I was. Another notable firefight I saw was a screaming match between two girls that escalated into a sort of OK corral thing when the dudes came out and started sending rounds down the block in both directions--my house was on that street and I saw this from the window. Nobody but a house was hit--but these are the kinds of shootings you often read about where stray bullets enter a home and kill some innocent child.

One I heard about and had to go see for myself but was not in my hood was a pull-up and several magazines from an AK type weapon had been emptied into a townhouse. The front of the house looked like Swiss cheese.

[Skans]

I only purchase used guns. Modifications? The previous owner must have done that.