• AlDente@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    Since these are not revolvers, they don’t add to the point of carrying on an empty cylinder.

    Outside of the revolver discussion, it’s important to note that both of these examples were the result of QA issues that have since been corrected.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Revolvers aren’t designed that way anymore.

      Counters with design problems in auto-loaders and shotguns.

      Welcome to arguing on the internet!

      • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Firstly, I don’t have an obsession with revolvers; it’s just that you responded to a conversation specifically about design changes in revolvers that mitigated the need to carry on empty cylinder.

        Secondly, this is another example of a limited QA issue that has since been corrected with a recall. It doesn’t seem to indicate that a modern revolver with properly functioning parts would be dangerous to carry with all cylinders loaded. Otherwise, are you to say all airbags are dangerous just because of the Takata/Honda issue that killed some people when the airbags exploded?

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          All airbags are dangerous, and this has been known for decades. It’s a literal explosive box sitting right besides your thumbs. The fact they save lives doesn’t make them any less dangerous. Now, if that’s valid for an item developed exclusively to save lives, imagine what we can say about a weapon intended solely for killing and maiming.

        • CharlieActual@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          bsession with revolvers; it’s just that you responded to a conversation specifically about design changes in revolvers that mitigated the need to carry on empty cylinder.

          Secondly, this is another example of a limited QA issue that

          … Whatever. Information free positions are impossible to discuss, you have a great evening and good luck with that stuff.

    • CharlieActual@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s not the statement I was replying to. The “this only happened to revolvers like 100 years ago” was the focus, which is just factually wrong. Still happens, sooo… great? I guess. Have a nice day