• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About peterthefish

  • Rank
    Beyond it All

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Real Name
    Peter Fish

Recent Profile Visitors

713 profile views
  1. I do, thanks. I'm not the one ripping off wikipedia and passing it off as first hand knowledge. Lead and acetic acid alone form lead acetate. Period. That was the industrial process for producing lead acetate over a hundred years ago. Nor is it necessary to precipitate the lead salt to have a vector for lead exposure. The statement that "blood lead level in shooters is what you breathe in from gun exhaust, nothing else." is so oversimplified as to be false. Sure, that's a vector of exposure. But the reality is, for most people there's substantially more exposure from touching stuff contaminated with primer residue and then transferring that residue to their mouth when eating, drinking, or smoking.
  2. That's a nice job ripping some quotes from Wikipedia, but there's a difference between industrial processes for stoichiometric production of lead acetate and the production of it as a byproduct. Vinegar and lead alone at STP will react to form lead acetate. Dissolved lead acetate is absolutely toxic transdermally.
  3. Wait, so you mean USPSA doesn't define all striker guns as D/A? I'm guessing that's because SIG makes both SAO and normal DA/SA versions of the same gun (I.e. p226) so administratively makes it easier. I'm not saying a hammer fired SAO gun makes sense in production. I'm just waiting for STI to make a striker fired 2011 and own yet another division of USPSA. Looks like Hudson might beat them to the punch.
  4. The PPQ being striker fired doesn't make it a double action gun any more than being black makes it a Glock. If USPSA has a rule / ruling somewhere that all striker fired guns are DA, that's news to me. You see, a Walther P99 is a DA/SA gun. And a PPQ is just a P99 with some updated design and the DA parts removed. If was DA/SA and you take away the DA, it's now a SA gun. As for your "traditional hammer-fired single action only gun..." you could just say hammer fired SAO. And if you replace 'hammer' with 'striker' and 'hammer down' with 'striker forward' you've just described a PPQ's action, but not a Glock's. Finally, as I pointed out, there are in fact SA guns on the production approved list. If you don't understand why a firm might not bother to get a 1911 on the list (when no one would bother shooting one due to the hammer down start requirement placing them at a competitive disadvantage) then I can't help you. The problem is some folks seem to assume all striker fired guns work like Glocks. They don't. The PPQ system essentially merges the hammer and firing pin (into a striker) but otherwise functionally behaves like a 1911, not a Glock.
  5. I absolutely agree with this. Agents make a lot of mistakes, especially when dealing with less common coverages. Most states require less professional education to be an insurance agent than they do to cut hair. Generally agree here - the best strategy is to know what the range / host organization offers. However, it's not a bad idea to have a layer of protection you buy (and understand) above that. I strongly disagree with this, although I understand why the perception exists. The first thing insurance companies do when a loss comes in is to verify coverage. This means looking at the loss, and the policy language, to determine that the policy you bought actually covers the loss you are reporting. You wouldn't expect your homeowners insurance policy to cover you from a car accident would you? But the only reason it doesn't provide liability coverage for an auto accident is a tricky little "exclusion" the evil insurance companies try to use to get out of paying claims!!! Insurers have a duty to pay losses covered by the policy - expecting them to do otherwise is like expecting Walmart to refund you for something you bought at Target. The reality is, insurers make errors in coverage analysis, sure. But it's far more common (like 10:1) that an agent tells an insured "sure, that's covered by the policy" without knowing or checking the accuracy of that statement. And then when an uncovered loss occurs, the agent blames the insurer rather than walking back their opinion and exposing themself to an E&O claim.
  6. 1) Walther PPQ 2) what is a "standard, hammer-fired SAO gun"? 3) because production rules place hammer fired SAO guns at a competitive disadvantage. No one is twisting language here - I'm not sure you actually read the comments that lead to my post. A poster wanted to know if STI could apply to have the HOST approved for production. Six gun shooter said that the HOST could not be legal under production rules because it is single action. That is what lead to my post - there is no rule prohibiting SAO guns from approval for production. The question was not "are any STI guns / 1911s / whatever you have in mind production legal today". Any 1911 manufacturer meeting the volume requirements could request their gun be approved. There is no reason that approval shouldn't be given if it were applied for, and if a 1911 were approved for production, there's no reason shooting one wouldn't be legitimate.
  7. The rules on the book allow SAO guns but give hammer fired SAO guns a competitive disadvantage. Not talking about rule changes - this is within the framework of the current rules.
  8. He said SAO guns are not legal. That means that there is a rule prohibiting SAO guns from production. That is not accurate. As for your second contention: there are in fact SAO guns on the production list. The reason you will not see STIs listed is because the rules require hammer fired guns in production to start with the hammer down. Ain't nobody want to mess with that.
  9. Not actually a rule.
  10. You might not be guessing but your agent was. I have access to American Family policy forms - there is no exclusion for firearms activities for either the Liability sections of the HO forms or their umbrella forms. The only way that it might be excluded is via a manuscript endorsement - that would be exceedingly rare for an individual policy. In addition, you can access to umbrella policies sold by any insurer - just not through your current agent. If you think he's not guessing and I am, have him fax or email you the exclusionary language and post it up here.
  11. Don't expect it. Depending on USPSA's policy, match volunteers MAY be covered. A typical General Liability policy defines an insured as a party who is entitled to coverage under the policy - amongst those are; "Each of the following is also an insured: a. Your "volunteer workers" only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business," However, USPSA's liability coverage may or may not contain the above standard language, so you may or may not be on your own. Also, in the event that policy or policies was exhausted and you had additional assets, they would still be at risk.
  12. Your rep is probably confused. Your HO policy (that you're looking for an umbrella for) covers losses due to your negligence. There is no blanket exclusion for shooting sports. An umbrella typically follows form and provides higher limits. So you would just need an umbrella liability policy, not a policy specific to the shooting sports.
  13. Two avenues here: 1) First Party Insurance This is your personal Life and AD&D coverage. Hopefully you carry some - it's typically fairly cheap. You're more likely to check out on a way to a match than at a match, and you can't depend on the other driver having adequate insurance to cover your family. Accidents (traffic, goofing off, boating, slipping, etc...) are the single largest cause of death for folks under 45 so an AD&D policy (cheaper than term life) is a good way to stretch a dollar for coverage even further. The NRA offers a small benefit for members that's also available. I would guess if USPSA did they would also market it heavily (as the NRA does) - the life insurance companies typically use affinity relationships like this to acquire customers. 2) Third Party Coverage AKA suing people. If you are shot fatally at a range and it's your fault, no coverage. Life Insurance is the better bet here. If you're shot by someone else I would expect your estate to sue the range and any officers and directors, the sanctioning body of the sport, match staff (at a minimum the MD and the RO for the stage where it happened) and the shooter. This would likely net your estate and family a couple hundred thousand (assuming there was some negligence that was involved, but it could take years. As a general rule of thumb, if you're worried about the impact a loss would have on you or your family, cover yourself first.
  14. Yup. And again, while the odds of that are small, given the current climate of the state I don't have a hard time believing the AG would love the opportunity to make headlines about how supposed law abiding gun owners are anything but.
  15. Only if you don't make the trip to Boston to get a non-resident LTC.