quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You clearly missed where Ed Bowie and I got that cleared up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I know how that function is not currently working for Christ's sake (corrected spelling)

quote:

Yes he pointed out that they were coated with a substance other than Teflon.

quote:

Some were given to me with the assertion that they were Teflon coated.

quote:

They were constantly referred to as Teflon coated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I know how that function is not currently working for Christ's sake (corrected spelling)

quote:


And what does any of this have to do with this thread.

quote:


Yes he pointed out that they were coated with a substance other than Teflon.

quote:


I never saw an ad for them.

quote:


Some were given to me with the assertion that they were Teflon coated.

quote:


They were constantly referred to as Teflon coated.

quote:


Edbowie gave me the correcting link, problem solved. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: VideoAdminGamma

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I know how that function is not currently working for Christ's sake (corrected spelling)

The

quote:


And what does any of this have to do with this thread.

quote

quote:


Yes he pointed out that they were coated with a substance other than Teflon.

function

quote:


I never saw an ad for them.

works

quote:


Some were given to me with the assertion that they were Teflon coated.

fine

quote:


They were constantly referred to as Teflon coated.

for

quote:


Edbowie gave me the correcting link, problem solved. 

me.

Quoted material will appear between [quote "close bracket" and [/quote "close bracket". Close bracket equals this >>>> ] .

Hope this helps and if you have questions about quoting just send me a mail.

Thanks for being a part of CollarMe,
Gamma

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I know how that function is not currently working for Christ's sake (corrected spelling)

Odd, that function seems to be working just fine for everyone else here. As for correcting spelling, it was spelled exactly as I intended, thanks.

quote:

Yes he pointed out that they were coated with a substance other than Teflon.

I seem to recall doing the same.

quote:

Some were given to me with the assertion that they were Teflon coated.

People close to you seem to keep giving you bad advice/information, at least in so far as firearms are concerned.

quote:

They were constantly referred to as Teflon coated.

Not by anyone with a clue or a bit of knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

~Fast Reply~

Getting back to the OP.....she wasn't arrested for protecting her daughter. She was arrested for firing her leagal weapon in the air which is against the law where she lives. More detailed articles indicate that the woman and her daughter played their own role in this situation. In other words, this wasn't some innocent kid getting jumped.

If you are speeding to the hospital with a loved one needing medical attention, your speeding may be justified, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get a ticket. You still violated the law. Same with this wooman. She isn't facing some heavy prison sentence, but regardless of her reason she broke the law. So she pays her fine and is done with it.

As to the "attacker" not being arrested....Lady!??( I respond through my phone, sorry I don't remember your na?e), for a jouralism major you are a bit blinded by your anger (which is justified) regarding your daughter' bullying (my best wishes to her). The last bit of information we are given on this incident tells us a number of things.

1. These kids didn't come to the girl's house, the mother and the girl went to where the incident took place. Possibly looking for trouble.

2. That article also pointed out that it was unclear who hit who first. If the girl swung first, legally the guy was defending himself. Not saying that's what happened, but we don't know from that later article exactly who swung firat. Personally, given what I read, both kids should have gotten charged, along with the mother. Perhaps then all of them might think about alternative ways to settle their problems.

Bottom line is that while I understand why the mother fired in the air, she still violated the law and must deal with that. Firing in the air is not self defense in any way shape or form. It also isn't a felony charge carrying a heavy sentence. So the whole thing is just sensationalism to draw readers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am not mistaken but I didn't buy them they were given to me.
Look up black talons

As I already mentioned in this post, Winchester Black Talons were never manufactured with a Teflon coating and they were certainly never advertised as such. So yes, you are most definitely mistaken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am not mistaken but I didn't buy them they were given to me.
Look up black talons

As I already mentioned in this post, Winchester Black Talons were never manufactured with a Teflon coating and they were certainly never advertised as such. So yes, you are most definitely mistaken.

Oh yeah, I know all about them Black Talon bullets. They're manufactured for Winchester by Lucifer himself. When they hit a human these razor sharp talons come out spinning at about 20,000 RPM and traving throughout the body ripping up flesh until your dead. If they hit body armor, the type worn by police officers, there's a special coating that allows the bullet to pass through the armor and then the talons come out and go straight for the heart.

When the media got wind of what these billets were capable of it created such a furor with public that Winchester pulled them off the market and sold them only to law enforcement. They have to be careful though because I've heard they'll sometimes explode when dropped and kill everyone within a 10 foot radius.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
And nobody minds that Glaser Safety Slugs expand in a similar and destructive manner, because the manufacturer was smart enough to market them with the word 'Safety' instead of 'Talon'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie
And nobody minds that Glaser Safety Slugs expand in a similar and destructive manner, because the manufacturer was smart enough to market them with the word 'Safety' instead of 'Talon'.

Can you put these 'Safety Slugs' in a Colt 'Peacemaker'?

Frigging hell. The apogee of marketing of the gun culture. Delightful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Yea, this thread seriously drifted off topic.

The original story led us to believe some gang came to this woman's house and attacked her daughter, which is what caused her to fire in the air. It certainly set a poor examplle to the teens and DID violate local law. Absolutely nothing mentions the penalty of the offense. But like with my speeding ticket example, while jjustified, it doesn't entitle you to a pass.

The later story that filled in some blanks? Worse example for teens, and considering the boy and girl both hit each other, I questtiion her parenting skills. Lose her permit? Suspend it maybe with some kind of class on gun safety and law necessary to get it back.

And I still say both teens should charged. Then face community service and anger managment so they learn how to bettter resolve disputes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Yea, this thread seriously drifted off topic.

The original story led us to believe some gang came to this woman's house and attacked her daughter, which is what caused her to fire in the air. It certainly set a poor examplle to the teens and DID violate local law. Absolutely nothing mentions the penalty of the offense. But like with my speeding ticket example, while jjustified, it doesn't entitle you to a pass.

The later story that filled in some blanks? Worse example for teens, and considering the boy and girl both hit each other, I questtiion her parenting skills. Lose her permit? Suspend it maybe with some kind of class on gun safety and law necessary to get it back.

And I still say both teens should charged. Then face community service and anger managment so they learn how to bettter resolve disputes.

I'm not sure what bothers me more about this, the incident itself or the apparently blatant inaccuracies of the first story. I see this happen all too often, where there's some sensational headline about an ostensibly outrageous incident which turns out to be quite a bit different when more facts come to the public's attention.

I can usually filter out the bias in political articles, so I can expect that, but just plain sloppiness and inaccuracy in journalism is ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

But that's the whole point isn't it? The thrust of the story was that she was arrested for protecting her daughter and even in the first story, that isn't what happened. I thinl all the parents here agree they will protect their child whatever the cost to keep them from harm, but you even said you would go to jail to do it. So you recognize that if you violate the law while protecting your child, you are willing to face the consequences.

And let's face it, the consequence is likely to be a fine, nothing else. If she actually was protecting her daughter, isn't that a very small price to pay?