Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!gauss.ucsb.edu
From: maarrrk@gauss.ucsb.edu (Mark Erickson)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: magazine safetys
Message-ID: <35396@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 91 15:05:52 GMT
Sender: magnum@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
Lines: 30
Approved: gun-control@cs.umd.edu


In article <35315@mimsy.umd.edu> boyd@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd) writes:
#
#	[stuff deleted]
#
#That is, you can deactivate your weapon by taking out the magazine. Personally,
#I think it is a bit stupid to make the action of a weapon dependent upon 
							   ^^^^^^^^^
#a removable part that get's a lot of abuse.  It is a political invention, just
#as so many other idiotic gun designs . . . .
#
#The above is IMHO.  Direct flames elsewhere.
#-- 
#             Mickey R. Boyd          |  "God is a comedian playing to an 
#          FSU Computer Science       |      audience too afraid to laugh."
#        Technical Support Group      |
#      email:  boyd@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu  |                  - Voltaire 

	Isn't an autoloader without a magazine just an expensive, 
	inconvenient single-shot pistol?  I seems to me that by definition 
	an autoloader is dependent on the magazine....

	I think that if my magazine was "tweaked," my S&W 4506 would 
	start having feeding problems long before the magazine safety
	malfunctioned.

	Also, the FBI S&W was specifically spec'ed out WITHOUT a
	magazine safety....  Interesting...

--maarrrk