Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Concealed Carry & Self Defense
o

Notices

Concealed Carry & Self Defense All aspects of Concealed and Open Carry, Home and Self Defense.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-13-2017, 01:19 PM
otasan56 otasan56 is offline
US Veteran
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Hartford, VT
Posts: 261
Likes: 58
Liked 85 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
There are three safeties on a Glock, and the presence or absence of a safety is unlikely to have altered the outcome of this tragedy. Proper firearm handling, on the other hand . . .
I meant to say no THUMB safety on Glocks. I carry a Glock 17 since 1989, BTW.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-13-2017, 01:52 PM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: bootheel of Missouri
Posts: 16,855
Likes: 6,981
Liked 28,085 Times in 8,897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by otasan56 View Post
I meant to say no THUMB safety on Glocks. I carry a Glock 17 since 1989, BTW.
Yeah, been meaning to discuss that with you but I've been busy . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by otasan56 View Post
I carry my Glock 17 in a Glock plastic holster here in VT. Or, I carry IWB at 1130 no holster.
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #53  
Old 10-13-2017, 02:29 PM
ChattanoogaPhil's Avatar
ChattanoogaPhil ChattanoogaPhil is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 7,937
Liked 20,623 Times in 5,958 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
The entire account makes no sense. I'm confused as to how, if he was standing in between the victim and the dog, he managed to shoot the woman without facing her, without wildly waiving his firearm around.
If nothing else it's consistent with the rest of the story. The shooter said the dog was hungry. I guess the dog must have mentioned that after the woman was shot. The shooter has no idea how he shot the woman but after firing two shots at the dog, which hasn't been found, knows the dog wasn't hit.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:03 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsmJim View Post
No question the shooter should not have been armed. An armed citizen "on patrol" without proper training is an accident waiting to happen.
Yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsmJim View Post
OTOH, in my neighborhood in recent months there have been 3 cases of dog attacks with severe consequences...a young child was maimed by a dog... To make matters even worse, the dog owners are fighting to "save" the dog from being euthanized, and the sorry judge is actually considering their case!
That's their right to do so. And you aren't giving the full particulars of that case...just saying the little girl was maimed by the dog. With only your account of it to go on, we don't know if the dog was loose, or she went into the dog's yard, or was she teasing the dog or fooling with its food, or what.

Also, the court, by law, is required to hear cases brought before it, even if they end up being almost immediately dismissed. Just because the judge is "considering" the case doesn't make him a "sorry" judge. It's his job to follow the law, and the law dictates that he hear the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GypsmJim View Post
The root cause here is the irresponsible dog owner. They should be held just as accountable as the shooter.
Not necessarily. Unfortunately, dogs get loose in spite of an owner's best intentions or efforts. That doesn't make the owner irresponsible. Liable? Possibly. Irresponsible? No.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:32 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
I've read the linked article several times. I don't see anything that says there were two dogs involved, or that the idiot with the gun had a concealed carry license. And frankly, the more I read the article, the stupider Michael Williams sounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Protected One View Post
I caught the story on local TV, where they were speaking with him (and several neighbors). He stated in his comments that there were two dogs - one attacking the woman and the other keeping people away. He also said that he had a cpl.

The news reporter said the police detained him briefly before releasing him and that police say he was cooperating fully.
It was apparent while listening to him talk that he was not an idiot, but rather someone who didn't invest quite enough time in handgun training.
Let me put it this way, so you can understand it. You'll note that I said I read the article several times. That's what I based my comments on, not on your coming along later saying you saw a report about it on local television, which you didn't mention in your OP.

The linked article doesn't have any of those "he said" or the "reporter said" things in it, and it doesn't mention any neighbors or number of dogs, either.

Your opinion is that the man isn't an idiot. Fine. My opinion is that he meets the criteria to be classified as one in my book.

I don't even know why this thread is in the Concealed Carry & Self Defense section, cause it's one of the worst examples of "self defense" I've ever seen. What it is, though, is a textbook example of how an idiot can kill an innocent person.

Thank God we don't have people like this "patrolling" my neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-13-2017, 03:35 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtgianni View Post
AD while drawing. He fired twice but didn't hit the dog. I would consider that his training was a failure.
You really believe he had any "training"?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-13-2017, 06:52 PM
mtgianni mtgianni is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW MT
Posts: 6,690
Likes: 10,392
Liked 5,972 Times in 2,942 Posts
Default

Most States require training for a CWP or equivalent time spent in armed public service. I believe most also require a "qualification" of 6 rounds or so at a Bullseye target. I will reserve my opinion but the issuing authority declares such to be "training".
__________________
Front sight and squeeze
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-13-2017, 07:25 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtgianni View Post
Most States require training for a CWP or equivalent time spent in armed public service. I believe most also require a "qualification" of 6 rounds or so at a Bullseye target. I will reserve my opinion but the issuing authority declares such to be "training".
That's true, of course. But to refer to it as "training" is using the term about as loosely as possible.

Speaking for North Carolina only...yes, I received training so I could qualify for my CHL.

Training: A one-day "class" wherein bare bones explanations of the rules and law involved in carrying a concealed weapon are provided to applicants.

Qualification: A quick trip to an outdoor range where the applicants are required to fire a total of 30 rounds at a standard "bad guy" target. This consists of 10 rounds at 3 yards, 10 rounds at 5 yards (yawn), and 10 rounds at 7 yards. All that's required of the applicant is that they keep the shots on the paper.

Even if I'd never fired a handgun in my life (and there were people there who hadn't), I would have considered the training to be minimal, inadequate, and boring.

Would I want to be around some of the applicants at a later date if I knew they were carrying a gun? What would your first guess be?






Disclaimer: Just doing my part here to contribute to thread drift.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-14-2017, 03:00 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,499
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

The correct answer if one has to use deadly force on an attacking animal in a case of this nature is to get as close as possible, nearly contact, before shooting. This is to ensure a) hitting the attacking animal, and b) NOT hitting the victim. The flaw here MAY have been firearms training related, but certainly was related to horrible tactics. To a great extent, this applies to all contact attacks on a human, whether by a dog, wild animal, or human using a contact (knife, club, etc.)or personal (bare hands/feet, etc.) weapon.

A shot in a case such as this might have to be taken at a distance, but that is not even close to optimal.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #60  
Old 10-14-2017, 03:43 PM
kcphelps's Avatar
kcphelps kcphelps is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SE Idaho
Posts: 113
Likes: 840
Liked 55 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomkinsSP View Post
There was a case a few years back where a guy fought off a carjacker. Using a FN 5.7. He shot 20 rounds and missed 20 times. Really makes you think about where all of those 'loose rounds' are going to end up.
He'll get a carbine next I bet.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-14-2017, 03:44 PM
Absalom's Avatar
Absalom Absalom is offline
SWCA Member
Absent Comrade
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,834
Likes: 10,103
Liked 27,995 Times in 8,452 Posts
Default

I’m not going to get into technicalities addressing hypotheticals, but let me just say I don’t envy the prosecutor or, if it comes to that, jury who has to figure out what actually happened here.

Two dogs attacking, one holding people off while the other attacks the woman? Umm... right.

Then, quoting Mr. Williams from the second linked article: “And this dog trying to attack, attack, attack – ‘til I found my left hand and the gun went off. And she said Mike you shot me. And I picked her up.”

Indeed. I’d like to know what the “attacking” dogs did during the time Mr. Williams picked his victim up and deposited her somewhere, hopefully after stowing his weapon, and then returned to take more unsuccessful potshots at the dogs.

And nobody appears to have got bitten. Some attacking pitbulls, that.

I hope there are eyewitnesses who can tell a more cohesive story.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #62  
Old 10-14-2017, 04:29 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom View Post
Then, quoting Mr. Williams from the second linked article: “And this dog trying to attack, attack, attack – ‘til I found my left hand and the gun went off. And she said Mike you shot me. And I picked her up.”
This makes no sense to me at all. Had he somehow misplaced his left hand? Maybe had it in his pocket and forgot where he put it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom View Post
I’d like to know what the “attacking” dogs did during the time Mr. Williams picked his victim up and deposited her somewhere, hopefully after stowing his weapon, and then returned to take more unsuccessful potshots at the dogs.
I'd like to know that, myself. Who knows? Maybe walking around, sniffing, peeing on bushes, just hanging out like dogs do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom View Post
And nobody appears to have got bitten. Some attacking pitbulls, that.
No one even knows if they were "pitbulls" or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom View Post
I hope there are eyewitnesses who can tell a more cohesive story.
I would hope so, too, but don't hold your breath.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-15-2017, 08:59 PM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

To the poster who sent me a pm questioning how the man could have possibly shot her... Your mailbox was too full to receive my reply, so I post it here.

Not being there or having access to any investigation reports I can't say definitively what happened. However I can easily see at least one scenario of how it could have happened. Imagine him arriving at the woman and positioning himself between the woman (who is on the ground injured) and the dog. Now imagine him carrying his gun at the 4:00 position in a canted holster. When his draw clears the holster his gun could easily have been pointed at her, and if he put his finger on the trigger immediately, with all the adrenalin flowing he could easily have pulled the trigger prematurely.

Forum members and others like to talk about how "I would do this or that" in a given situation, yet I've know professionally trained people who, when confronted with a REAL situation found it to be a little different. I therefore reserve judgement.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #64  
Old 10-24-2017, 08:49 PM
GypsmJim GypsmJim is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,233
Likes: 22
Liked 5,549 Times in 1,940 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContinentalOp View Post
Why? He wasn't "on patrol" when this incident took place. It states, in the very first paragraph:



While I agree that a non-LE/security individual shouldn't be conducting such patrols, it's irrelevant in this case because he wasn't doing that. He was on his own property, taking care of it.
The article went on to say that he "regularly patrols the neighborhood to protect children". That goes to his mindset. It's irrelevant that he was on his own property. The key is that he was using a firearm when he was not properly trained.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-24-2017, 09:01 PM
GypsmJim GypsmJim is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,233
Likes: 22
Liked 5,549 Times in 1,940 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Yep.



That's their right to do so. And you aren't giving the full particulars of that case...just saying the little girl was maimed by the dog. With only your account of it to go on, we don't know if the dog was loose, or she went into the dog's yard, or was she teasing the dog or fooling with its food, or what.

Also, the court, by law, is required to hear cases brought before it, even if they end up being almost immediately dismissed. Just because the judge is "considering" the case doesn't make him a "sorry" judge. It's his job to follow the law, and the law dictates that he hear the case.



Not necessarily. Unfortunately, dogs get loose in spite of an owner's best intentions or efforts. That doesn't make the owner irresponsible. Liable? Possibly. Irresponsible? No.
The full particulars of the case were that the little girl was playing in the backyard of her apartment complex when the (pitbull) dog came out of an open apartment door and attacked her. Looks like the owner had no intentions of securing the door. Liable? Absolutely. No leash, opening a door with no expectation of safety. Irresponsible? Oh yeah.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-24-2017, 09:04 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,918
Likes: 41,503
Liked 29,156 Times in 13,783 Posts
Default Intent.....

It wasn't intentional. He acted in good faith to try to stop an attack. Manslaughter.

That is durned unfortunate through. And it goes to show all of us that in the heat of the moment you can make involuntary moves and not have good control over where the bullet ends up.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-24-2017, 10:00 PM
Mistered's Avatar
Mistered Mistered is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wickiup Junction, OR
Posts: 874
Likes: 11
Liked 1,134 Times in 461 Posts
Default

Quote:
The entire account makes no sense. I'm confused as to how, if he was standing in between the victim and the dog, he managed to shoot the woman without facing her, without wildly waiving his firearm around.
I see the root of the problem as 'demographic'. I am seeing an inner city environment, a very good guess the guy had little to no firearms training and probably less 'ancillary' practice and most likely no experience with dogs and probably an irrational fear of them. At the risk of sounding 'flowery' This man was most likely nearly driven mad with fear - no longer humanly rational and almost on the same level as the animal itself. He was acting out of primal instinct as the fight or flight condition completely overwhelmed him and his shots were most likely wild and out of control.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-25-2017, 04:01 AM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

I don't think it's demographics at all. I think he has a hero complex--not exactly unheard of in gun circles--and I don't think he's fully competent. Probably not to the standard we normally think of for disability, but more than enough to prevent him from aiding in his own defense, and enough to have played a role in his decision-making. Simply put, I don't think he can be judged based on the "reasonable person" standard.

As reprehensible as the failure of his actions is, how he describes what he did, and why, is worse. Missing the actor and hitting the victim happens all the time, in all sorts of situations, to all sorts of shooters.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-25-2017, 05:16 AM
ImprovedModel56Fan ImprovedModel56Fan is online now
US Veteran
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 7,330
Likes: 7,503
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,547 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtgianni View Post
Most States require training for a CWP or equivalent time spent in armed public service. I believe most also require a "qualification" of 6 rounds or so at a Bullseye target. I will reserve my opinion but the issuing authority declares such to be "training".
Done a count on that lately?

BTW, serving in the military is often or usually NOT armed public service.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #70  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:34 PM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Well, I just confirmed with the prosecutors office that no charges have been filed against the man.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #71  
Old 08-15-2018, 07:51 PM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default Update!

The man was sentenced to 5 years probation with the first 3 month to be served in the county jail, AND...he looses his right to own a gun.

In court the family of the woman said they didn't believe there were any dogs attacking, but he swore he was telling them the truth.
__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Last edited by Protected One; 08-15-2018 at 07:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-15-2018, 08:30 PM
GoodSam's Avatar
GoodSam GoodSam is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 20
Liked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Default

Without reading all the details I can't fault the guy for trying to help the woman. How can any decent person just stand there and let dogs rip an innocent person to shreds if they have the means to do something about it? I would've wanted the guy to take the shot if I were the woman being mauled.

It's a difficult dilemma though when a situation like this doesn't present a clear shot with two fast moving, twisting, turning dogs and a human thrashing around the ground with each other.

A scenario like this may be better served with a few blasts of pepper spray or maybe a good knife along with a lot of aggressive yelling. Then again, there is always the risk the dogs will turn on you.

Last edited by GoodSam; 08-15-2018 at 08:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-15-2018, 08:40 PM
nachogrande nachogrande is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Gods waiting room, W/C FL
Posts: 3,736
Likes: 3,334
Liked 4,548 Times in 2,010 Posts
Default WASN'T THERE EITHER, NO ASSUMPTIONS TO OFFER.

As a pre teen walking my lab on a leash, he was attacked by a group of feral dogs. I unhooked his leash & attempted to whip the other dogs with the chain leash at app 3'. With all the moving around I managed to hit my own dog the most. (felt horrible). Although "with friends like that, who needs enemies" first came to mind, "There but for the grace of God go I".
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-16-2018, 09:44 AM
Protected One's Avatar
Protected One Protected One is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,400
Likes: 3,245
Liked 4,624 Times in 1,697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nachogrande View Post
As a pre teen walking my lab on a leash, he was attacked by a group of feral dogs. I unhooked his leash & attempted to whip the other dogs with the chain leash at app 3'. With all the moving around I managed to hit my own dog the most. (felt horrible). Although "with friends like that, who needs enemies" first came to mind, "There but for the grace of God go I".
Did your dog survive the attack?
__________________
Stay protected my friends.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #75  
Old 08-17-2018, 06:08 PM
oldiegoldie oldiegoldie is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 583
Likes: 2,762
Liked 579 Times in 293 Posts
Default

are stun guns effective in warding off an attacking dog? i carry a Vipertek stun gun in my back pocket when out with the pup. would good pepper spray be a better bet? of course i've always got a pistol, but consider it a last resort.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-22-2018, 03:46 PM
Chief Wiggums Chief Wiggums is offline
Member
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 702
Likes: 386
Liked 1,189 Times in 467 Posts
Default

Great , another George Zimmerman...….


"Williams, who said he patrols the neighborhood in his car to protect children, says he wasn't aiming and doesn't know how the bullet hit his neighbor..."
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-22-2018, 11:11 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome Good intent...Bad outcome  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

Don't fret, it only happened eight months ago.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2A intent Bkreutz The Lounge 7 08-31-2015 09:07 PM
19-2 Snubbie Outcome Kevin G The Lounge 10 10-10-2012 12:00 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)