TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote:Unless, there is technical reason to ban carry - ex. - no guns by the MRI as they can drag you in or discharge by the magnetic field - the JOB KING-EMPEROR is an inappropriate model.

Really? I understand the magnetic field attracting the gun, but is there any evidence anywhere that they can cause a discharge? If so, what's the mechanism? Is the cartridge fired by the gun? Or is the primer somehow directly detonated by the field?

If the magnetism is as strong as what's portrayed on TV, maybe it could suck the gun out of its holster, straight to the side of the MRI machine, where it lands on its hammer with such force that the firing pin safety breaks and the gun goes off?

I guess you should only carry Glocks around MRI machines

I'd have to be one of those porcelain Glock-7's made in Germany, and that cost more than you make in a month!

The firing pin might be titanium, but given how that 1911 managed to go off, I wonder what the striker is made out of? (I guess in yours, it's porcelain )

Oooh, and I wonder if anyone has made a gun that's designed to not allow magnetic fields to disable its safeties?

Dave2 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote:Unless, there is technical reason to ban carry - ex. - no guns by the MRI as they can drag you in or discharge by the magnetic field - the JOB KING-EMPEROR is an inappropriate model.

Really? I understand the magnetic field attracting the gun, but is there any evidence anywhere that they can cause a discharge? If so, what's the mechanism? Is the cartridge fired by the gun? Or is the primer somehow directly detonated by the field?

If the magnetism is as strong as what's portrayed on TV, maybe it could suck the gun out of its holster, straight to the side of the MRI machine, where it lands on its hammer with such force that the firing pin safety breaks and the gun goes off?

I guess you should only carry Glocks around MRI machines

GEM-Texas wrote:Obviously, I think the employer rules are complete bull. However, to play devil's advocate - if there is a workplace shooting that occurs because an employee breaks the rules, the company is in the clear (according to the lawyers). If you are an employee and you get hurt and argue that you were prevented from armed self-defense - the lawyers argue that the company is not responsible for the acts of criminals and they are not liable. That seems to be the doctrine in the law articles.

There hasn't been to my knowledge a successful suit for not being able to carry and then getting hurt in a crime or rampage. The suits after such are usually because the perpetrator should have been known to be violent and removed or during a rampage, response was inadequate. Virginia Tech is a good instance of such.

I've been told by work place lawyers that they regard the financial risk of the legal gun owner going nuts or shooting an innocent in a rampage outweighs the financial risk of paying off victims.

Since companies and schools only care about the corporate health or institutional health and not much about YOUR health, I've supported the idea than employers, etc. have no right to control your behavior or carry privileges. No king of the castle or parking lot for me. Unless, there is technical reason to ban carry - ex. - no guns by the MRI as they can drag you in or discharge by the magnetic field - the JOB KING-EMPEROR is an inappropriate model.