Movie Guns XX

03Late again, but it's a good one. I picked this movie up at a PX in Kansas because of the 1911 on the front cover. I had no idea it was a new release, but it's a great movie. There are a few gunfights in it, and there are a ton of guns to see in this film.

This weeks Movie Guns is on the movie Street Kings. It's your typical dirty cop gets tangled in a web of lies, but there are some key things that make it unique. First off, Keanu Reeves must have received some excellent training as his gun handling and magazine changes are near perfect. Second, there are some guns in here that are probably the first to be seen on film, and last, this movie kicks ass.

Beware that there may be spoilers if you haven't seen this movie.

The first gun is Detective Ludlow's (Keanu Reeves) 1911 of unknown make. It has an extended slide stop, ambidextrous extended saftey, and adjustable sights. He drops the magazine to check the rounds and then does a safe brass check. Then he places the pistol on his sink while he gets ready for work.




Ludlow cleans the pistol before sheathing it in a paddle holster, and then goes out and sells a M2 Browning Machine Gun to some scumbags out of his trunk:



The exchange with the scumbags went like:

Scumbag: "What the fuck is this? We said a machine gun!"
Ludlow: "It is a machine gun."
Scumbag: ". . .the kind you can carry!"
Ludlow: (Grits teeth and shakes head) ". . .couldn't get any of those. This baby's got character. Korean war vintage. Maybe even mowed down one of your grand papasons when he was charging the wire at Incheon."

Good stuff.

Next, Ludlow gears up with a stainless steel 1911 and this Galco double magazine pouch:


He then goes into the scumbag's house with gun blazing! In the middle of it all he does a reload, and you can see that he keeps his finger on the top round in the mag to guide it into the gun.



One of the baddies has a Colt Python:


Another has a shotgun that I couldn't get a good picture of, and a third has this shiny Kahr K9:


Ludlow finds this chrome 1911 under a couch cushion and plants it on a dead bad guy:


Afterwords, in the hospital, Captain Biggs (Hugh Laurie) is seen with this off-safe Beretta 92F:


In a later scene Ludlow goes into a convenience store, and his ex partner, who thinks that he's there to kill him, takes him to the ground and puts a Beretta Inox in his face:


Ludlow was trying to warn him about these two guys who come into the store with a M3 "Greasegun" and a Smith & Wesson Model 76 sub-machine gun:



Ludlow pulls this weeks mystery gun from a Fobus ankle holster and returns fire, but then runs dry because he didn't have any reloads:



Notice the arrow straight backstrap on the gun that rules out S&W from what I can see. Let me know if you have an ID on this gun.

During a funeral for a cop murdered in the convenience store, a uniformed detail performs a rifle salute with these M1 Garands:


Ludlow and Det. Diskant (Chris Evans) go on the hunt for some bad guys and come across this one who has a Rohrbaugh R9 hidden in his waistband:



Another scumbag that they catch has a AK 47 on a table by the door:


We also have what looks like a Pro-Tech Tactical Response 3 that Ludlow pulls from his left front pocket:


Diskant keeps Ludlow covered with a nice high grip on this Glock 22 (or Glock 17, depending):


Ludlow and Diskant get ready for the worst case scenario in the arms room at their department. In the background is this H&K MP5SD:


Ludlow passes a Remington 870 with side saddle shell holders and Speedfeed stock to Diskant:


They get into a shootout with two BGs inside of an apartment. One BG has this two-tone Sig P239, and the other opens up with the S&W 76:



Ludlow fires back with the black 1911 from the beginning, and again does a great magazine change:


After Ludlow takes them out, he gets captured by two of his supposed buddy cops in his girlfriends apartment. Both of them are toting Remington 870's:


The two crooked cops take Ludlow into the California hills and shoot at him with Kimber Custom TLE 1911s which may be the 1913 railed version, or they could have a Dawson Rail put on so that they can take the Surefire 610s:



Last gun is this blurred picture of a 2-1/2" or 3" Smith and Wesson revolver. This is the clearest picture available, and it looks to me like it's a model 626. I could be wrong.


Throughout there were lots of indicators that a real life shooting enthusiast had some clout in the making of the film, like there were no random racking noises from shotguns, no clicking hammers on Glocks, and fingers were off triggers. It was also nice to see some realism on the reloads, with the gun raised up to eye level and fingers off of triggers or firmly on the first round in the magazine.

I hope you liked this weeks post. I'm going to start working on the next one tonight or tomorrow. If you like cool guns then check this movie out this weekend.

Update: Mike's Spot notes in comments that the snubby revolver Ludlow uses in the convenience store is a Charter Arms Off Duty .38 Special. I'd say that's a definite match. Check out the backstrap.

Thanks much!

Update: Ludlow's duty gun seems to be a S&W 4506. The gun is seen in the picture where he is taking out the BGs in the 7th picture of this post. I believe that the scene switches back and forth between the 1911 and the 4506. I will have to check.

Update: Shame on me for not pointing out that the S&W 4506 was identified by joneric70 in this thread in the 1911Forum. Sorry hoss.

Did the "No Guns" sign stop a school shooting?

A teen was shot right outside of a high school in DC, which is fortunate because if he shot the teen inside of the school it would be twice as illegal as if it were done in some other school because of all of those effective gun laws. The only option then would be for DC lawmakers to make it three times as illegal, right?

Oh yeah! It's Ballou High school we're talking about. This seems to be a reoccurring theme there, and what was it that Mayor Fenty said about the last shooting?

"Any violence near any of our schools is unacceptable," District Mayor Adrian Fenty said. "We're going to find out who did this."

You mean you're going to "Get Them?" Normally you just play catch-and-release. Call me skeptical.

Stupidity can't be cured with laws

When 18 year olds can't play Russian Roulette without getting hurt then you've got to say enough is enough. Raise your hand if you think this can be solved with some more "reasonable" gun laws.

"The victim was playing with a revolver, spinning the cylinder, placing it to his neck and then pulling the trigger,” Lt. Jeff Cooper said.

Is it me, or does it look odd that a man named Jeff Cooper has Lt. in front of his name. Someone should promote him.

Update: From the same news source comes this article about the second shooting at a local restaurant in a month that injured six people.

Officers said two people were firing shots at each other outside Bobo’s Chicken at Northeast 23rd and Hood streets. They think one side of the shootout may have involved people standing outside the restaurant and the others were in a car.

"We're looking at it as a gang-related shooting right now," said Mike Klika, of the Oklahoma City Police Department.

Bobo's Chicken? Anyways, the owner wants to do something about the violence, but has yet to say what that is. Maybe they should put up a sign since, you know, they work so well.

I'm working on it, I swear

Movie Guns that is. The world just doesn't want me to have it done on time.

A long sentence for the little bastard

A teenager cut a business owner's throat during a robbery after the man gave him the money. "Giving them what they want" didn't work out so well. Anyways, the business owner lived, and the teen was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Velez was 17 when he and three others robbed the $3 Car Wash. After stealing money, Velez slashed manager Maurice Lavender's throat with a box cutter as he lay face down on the floor.

Allen cited the horrific nature of the crime when sentencing Velez to more than the state guideline of 27 years.

Velez had previously served time for burglary and larceny.

A prior record and he still didn't learn his lesson. Too bad the three life sentences didn't stick, but as it stands he will be about 60 years old when he gets out. That's a hell of a lot better than the pathetic sentence DC dished out yesterday for a jewelry store robber who shot the owner, who also survived.

Notice a pattern here? Virginia's violent crime rate for 2006 was at 281 (latest data found) while DC's violent crime rate for 2006 was at 1,508. That's per 100k people. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Yikes! Read the comments! This kid is lucky he didn't get these guys on the jury!

Update: Meanwhile, this scumbag is facing the death penalty for murdering a local man with a knife. The man worked at a family Chinese food restaurant and was ambushed and killed while out delivering food. The entire town is outraged so the death penalty will likely stick. Too bad his scumbag girlfriend isn't getting charged for murder.

"Reasonable" regulation of firearms

I ran across a thread at The High Road about a guy who is moving from California to NYC and is finding out how unreasonable the "reasonable" gun laws are there.

Just how bad is it? Owning a handgun is impossible unless your a cop or security guard, and you can expect to pay almost $450 just to apply! When your application is denied you lose that money! Keep in mind that this is just to own one in your home or business and is not for carry. Compared to a handgun, owning a long arm is a bargain at $250.

What a joke. It is amazing that a guy from California is disappointed in the gun laws in another state.

Sounds like a sick web of lies

Two people were shot in a car by "two masked men" near where I live. So what, you might say. Read more and it gets weird.

The man shot is married to a woman who is in prison for molesting a teenage girl, and he was in a car in the most dangerous part of town at night with his intoxicated girlfriend at the time of the shooting, a girl who was later arrested for public intoxication. These two idiots would have us believe that they were just minding their own business when all of this went down.

Uh huh.

I have no idea what they were up to, but something isn't right.

And DC wonders why they have crime

This is not an example of criminal control. Notice the scumbag in question walking in the door with a handgun pointed. He told the store owner he was going to shoot him, and he made good on his word.

So DC just handed a 25 year old attempted murderer who has a "dark side and showed no remorse for his crimes" a 25 year sentence. Whoopity do! He won't even serve all of it, but even if he does he will be 50 years old when he walks free. Any chance he will be remorseful then? Hardly. He will definitely have a state sponsored PH D in hate, crime, and violence when he gets out, so we will likely be hearing about him successfully killing someone in the next 20 years or so. And his three friends? Considering they didn't pull the trigger I would think that they would get an even more embarrassing sentence.

Why we don't box them up for life when they do stuff like this is just outrageous. Life is not 20 years! Life is life. Forever. Put them away and let society forget their name.

Instead we have a system that breeds seasoned, mature, experienced killers. Way to go. This is why DC has such a stupid high crime and murder rate. And they blame it on the guns!

Unbelievable

Update: Here is what criminals can expect when they cross the Potomac River into Virginia:

A mixer worth more than $500 could prove far more costly to Washington resident Kevin Brown.

A Stafford County jury Thursday recommended that Brown, 48, serve a whopping 44 years in prison for stealing the mixer and other items Jan. 23 from two county stores.

Contrast with his history in DC's revolving door justice system:

Brown's long criminal record, which includes multiple drug and theft-related convictions in the Washington area, apparently didn't sit well with the jurors.

Virginians don't appreciate the criminal profession? Who knew? Apparently Brown is just shocked at the severity of the recommended sentence:

He was clearly stunned by the lengthy sentence suggested by the jurors. "Forty-four years for a [expletive] mixer?" court personnel quoted him as saying.

You should have stayed in DC asshole.

No fun for firefighters

Most firefighters that I know can't wait to bust into a burning building, but what if that building was filled with ammunition?

I would be more concerned about the plastic jugs of powder than the live ammo which needs to be contained inside of a firearm to present a lethal hazard.

I'm back

Sorry for the hiatus. I've been on travel yet again, and it's only going to get worse. I started this weeks movie guns, and it should be up soon. Everything should return to normal starting today; that is, if I can just be home for any length of time, and there's plenty to do around here.

Shootout in South Carolina

There's not enough information to be sure, but I'm leaning more to the self-defense side from what is here. I could be wrong. The headline is kind of damning though: Man accused of fatally shooting teen at party.

Here's the gist:

Reeves' children claimed that a cell phone was stolen. Someone accused Clark of taking it, and he scuffled with another person and was struck several times before leaving and threatening to return with friends, police said.

Reeves' son went to the family's other nearby home to get his father, who brought a loaded pistol and unloaded shotgun over to the lake house. The father was told that his daughter had been attacked at the party and watched as his son was attacked by three people.

After Clark returned with friends, Reeves shot him, prosecutors said. Partygoers scattered, and friends took the injured teen to a fire station. He died at a hospital.

Then some more shooting:

Reeves returned to his home afterward and was sitting on the front porch when one of the slain teen's friends drove by and shot at his home in retaliation, police said. Reeves fired back with a shotgun, police said, striking two teens who were in the car. They were not seriously injured.

It's doesn't sound like the teens were model citizens for sure. Yes, the dad brought guns too but he didn't do a freaking drive-by. Right or wrong - time will tell - he thought he was acting in self defense. He is being charged with murder.

Why didn't the bad guy disarm her?

I mean, that's what the Brady Campaign would have you believe, that a home intruder would merely take you gun away if you pulled it and use it against you. It's futile to resist they say.

Well here is a video news report from CNN on a 85 year old woman who took control of a burglar with her pistol. No shots fired, as is the norm. The bad guy didn't even try to take her gun. Why? Because criminals chose victims like this old lady because they know that she can't physically resist, and when the elderly have the proper tool for defense the tables are turned. So the reason he didn't make a move for her gun is because the he didn't want to get shot.

It doesn't play out like in the movies folks, where the victim can't bring themselves to pull the trigger. Look at this woman. She's not a bloodthirsty killer, but I would bet you a years pay that she would have smoked that guy if he did make a move. Nuff' said.

Here is the same story from No Looking Backwards, but with a little more detail.

I don't think so

There's an article on CNN's website about cops using GPS for tracking criminal suspects. It does make one think a bit, but overall I think it's a bad idea without a warrant. Read the whole thing if you want to catch the gist of why, but the reason for my post is that in the article there's a quote that just stood out from the rest of the article:

"Law enforcement has a legitimate right to try to solve crimes and track suspects, provided that there are protections so that the innocent are not improperly snooped upon," said Norman Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Negative. Law enforcement doesn't have rights. They have powers that are given to them which, in theory anyways, can be rescinded. They are expected to try and solve crimes and track suspects, but there is no "legitimate right." Be careful what you wish for.

Something else that caught my eye:

"It's a wonderful tool for law enforcement [GPS]," Reimer said.

"The question always comes down to how much are we willing to give up in freedom and privacy for how much marginal increase in our security."

Indeed.

College presidents want to treat adults like. . . .adults!

It's good to see that this has so much support:

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

That is very compelling. The quote of the day is in regards to the stupidity of the current drinking age:

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization.

You don't say? I'm sure some bureaucrat out there thinks that the law is just not enforced vigorously enough. And cue the foot stamping by MADD:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Yeah, because enforcing the underage drinking laws that we have is working out so well. Way to go. MADD reminds me of another well known lobby that doesn't use logic, but instead relies on emotion to make their point.

Who could that be?

DC dose of stupid

Michael Gorbey was handed a 22 year sentence for being a nutjob in front of the US Capitol. He would be the guy in the soft body armor with a shotgun and sword that claimed he had an appointment with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He's crazy, got it.

The dose of stupid comes from the old bag Eleanor Holmes Norton, and it's a twofer. In regards to the Supreme Court ruling in the Heller case encouraging more activity like this, Norton says:

"Perhaps we see here . . .the strict gun laws here. . .protect more than the residents of the District of Columbia. They also protect the Capitol of the United States of America."

Um, no. Perhaps your naive ass has been re-elected way too many times. The DC gun ban was alive and well during this whole ordeal, and it didn't do a thing to protect anybody. Here's why:

Court records show Gorbey is a convicted felon and has been in and out of prison since 1991 for convictions on larceny, domestic violence and illegal gun and drug charges.

Gun laws did nothing to stop this man before or after this event. Gun laws have done nothing for the absurd amount of shootings in the District. Keeping violent people locked up will do more than you silly laws and signs.

The next bit of dribble that spews from her mouth is this bit where she tries to tell DC Metro Police that they're incompetent because they didn't find the bomb in Gorbey's truck until three weeks after his arrest:

". . important for homeland security. . .um . . . that the police . . .um. . . be trained, as they clearly had not been well enough trained at the academy in light of homeland security to look everywhere."

Nobody is arguing that DC Metro Police are not the brightest, but this woman clearly shows that she's about as brainless as it gets. I mean, this is a woman who believes that your all of your rights are collective, belonging to everyone. Why DC residents keep voting for this woman is amazing.

Guns in schools

A Texas school district is allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns in schools if they have a concealed handgun license and if they go through training in crisis management. This has been all over the news this weekend, and it looks like the news coverage has been decent.

It's good to hear that someone is giving this a chance, but I think it will soon be ignored by the press because when in the next ten years nothing happens there will be nothing exciting to report on.

Movie Guns XIX

On time and chock full of 1911 goodness is this weeks Movie Guns covering the film Way of the Gun. I was going to save this one for another week because I knew it would take some work, but I took it on anyways considering the sheer awesomeness that this movie is made of.

There are very few mistakes in this one, if any. Some of the tactics used were not very sound, but overall this movie has great gunhandling with realistic tactical, strong-hand, and weak-hand reloads; revolver reloads; shotgun reloads, as well as gratuitous gunfights. You will find snubby revolver and 1911 porn throughout the whole flick. Let's go:

We start out in a hospital where two bodyguards, Jeffers (Taye Diggs) and Obecks (Nicky Katt), are protecting the principle, Robin (Juliette Lewis), when the two main characters, Parker (Ryan Phillippe) and Longbaugh (Benicio del Toro), kidnap her. During the initial ambush Parker has a blued Colt Series 70 and blued Colt Combat Commander on Jeffers and Obecks who both have H&K USP .45s that they draw from Inside the Waist Band (IWB) holsters:




A gunfight breaks out once everyone is outside, and Longbaugh is blasting away with this Remington 870 Express when it stovepipes. Longbaugh quickly clears the jam and starts shooting again:


It's refreshing to see some actual realism when a gun jams on film and the actor knows how to quickly fix it and start shooting again, instead of ignoring it and acting like he's firing. Look closely (click on the picture to expand) and you can see the quad magazine pouch on his weakside hip. Parker and Jeffers both have these as well, but Jeffers' mag pouch holds two double stack .45 mags for his USP, while Parker's holds four 1911 magazines.

Parker and Longbaugh get away, and while driving Longbaugh reloads the Remington 870 the way it should be done; by dropping a shell into the open breech and jacking the bolt closed, then pushing the rest of the shells into the magazine tube:


Jeffers is seen in an alleyway with this Mossberg 590 Mariner while hunting for Parker and Longbough:


Next we have Robin's doctor, Dr. Allen Painter (Dylan Kussman), who is brought in to treat her while she's a hostage. Parker finds this stainless steel Walther PPK in his bag:


Longbaugh later takes it apart (while it's loaded!!) to give it back, and I caught this frame where it looks like the trigger guard is broken:


Here's a scene where Mercer (Geoffrey Lewis) is playing an improved version of Russian Roulette by loading these six revolvers with one round, sticking them in a pillow case, spinning the pillow case, and then removing a random gun and sticking it to his head before pulling the trigger:

This is the closest I can get. I see what looks like a S&W Model 360, and a Taurus 65 with a 3" barrel. One of them looks like a Ruger SP101, but I can't be certain.

The next scene has Robin, Parker, and Longbaugh holed up in a hotel. Longbaugh has a Colt Series 70 in this leather IWB holster that looks like a Milt Sparks Summer Special:



The door to their hotel is rigged with this double barrel shotgun which will go off when opened:


At one point Parker puts his 1911 to Longbaugh's chin when Longbaugh saves him from getting blown away by the double barrel shotgun, which is now being held by Robin:


Robin shoots a huge hole through the door, and here Parker and Longbaugh are figuring out how to get the gun away from her:


A few minutes later Jeffers, Obecks, Mercer, Robin, and these two Mexican police officers with Ruger GP100 revolvers are all standing outside:


A firefight breaks out and Jeffers manages to miss everyone many times at distances of about ten feet. Longbaugh is sniping at everyone from a distant ridge with a scoped IMI Galil AR, with Parker spotting for him:


Both Mexican cops, Obecks, and Mercer get hit. Mercer manages to survive and get away for the time being, and Jeffers fires at the ridge with his H&K USP:


Sarno meets with the mortally wounded Mercer, and flashes his sidearm of choice: this S&W Model 640 in a IWB holster:


Now we're gearing up for the final firefight at a brothel somewhere in Mexico. The owner of said brothel is carrying this Browning High Power:


Parker shows up with his holstered Colt Series 70 and the Remington 870, and he has a shotshell pouch hanging on his hip. Longbough has the same pistol, and has taken the scope off his Galil AR. Both are wearing soft body armor:


Longbaugh cuts loose with the Galil in the initial contact with Jeffers, Sarno, and his buddies:


He basically walks the gun down the wall while trying to hit Jeffers, who is on the other side. Notice the 23 holes which are way too close together and do not account for shot angle. The magazine only holds 25 rounds, and Longbaugh is firing on semi-auto as can be seen when you watch closely:


The fight spills out into the hallway and Parkers 1911 can be seen in this leather IWB holster which also looks like a Milt Sparks Summer Special:


This guy has a Taurus 85, but gets shot in the foot by Longbaugh before getting finished off:


Longbaugh then does a tactical reload on his Colt 1911:


Things really get heated when everyone shoots it out in the pavilion outside. Here is Parker shooting the Remington 870, which amazingly doesn't blow the bad guy down:


Both Parker and Longbaugh take care to not sweep each other with their muzzles, and work together to clear rooms. They were trained pretty well on their tactics, with the exception that they miss their targets alot and keep shooting long after the target disappears, but they get other things right like stacking on a door and giving a tap on the shoulder to let one another know that they're ready to go.

Getting back into the fight, Sarno's guys are seen firing Mossberg 500s:



And this revolver which looks like a S&W 360, but I could be wrong:


Sarno is shooting his S&W 640 from the high ground, which he reloads with loose rounds from his jacket pocket:



Longbaugh fires his 1911 from all kinds of difficult possitions, like here where he is on the ground:



Parker does a one handed reload with his 1911, at one point even using his teeth, and gets back into the fight:





And later Longbaugh does the same thing:


Now don't kill the messenger, but I have to tell you that both of the Colt 1911s that Parker and Longbaugh have are not chambered in .45 ACP. Notice from both pictures of the one handed reloads that the magazines have a crimp that runs the entire length. That would make them 9mm, or perhaps .38 Super, but I doubt it. Here's a better picture of the magazines, and they have eight witness holes making them nine rounders, and there's also a shell casing which is obviously a blank in the top left corner:


Also if you look at the pictures of the 1911s at slide lock you can see that the barrels are larger at the muzzle than in the middle of the barrel, but they don't have a bull barrel. Oh well! This movie still rocks. There's a ton of rounds fired, and I can only imagine the fun that everyone had making the shootout scenes. This film is a must see and must have for anyone who likes snubby revolvers or 1911s.

That's it for this week folks. Tune in next week.

Update: DaveP in comments notes . . .

"the trigger guard on a [Walther] PPK is hinged at the back bottom; you pull the front down to disassemble the slide from the frame. That's why it looks "broken".

And:

Caliber of the Colt ".45"'s: Most movie guns are converted to use blanks only; what you see is a spent blank cartridge. This also explains the magazines looking different, as they may actually be 9mm or 10mm magazines used to feed the (differently shaped and a different size than .45ACP) blanks correctly.

I should have known about the Walther as I have one, but it sits in the safe so I have'nt had to take it apart in a while.

Sword violence

In Maryand.

Shoplifting not grounds for deadly force

In the "Gunshine State" no less.

Store owner shoots at a shoplifter as he's walking out of the store. Store owner is arrested for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm in public. So much for "Castle Doctrine" allowing gunowners to gun down anyone when they're threatened.

I have mixed feelings about this, but over all I think it's a good call. The shoplifting teen in question was caught by the cops and charged with theft. That's how it's supposed to turn out. Someone walking out of a store with property is not a deadly threat, however, if the same store was owned and operated by Theodore Roosevelt than I would imagine that there would be two dead thieving teens when the police showed up, and I doubt anyone would question his actions.

Just a thought.

These tactics need to be addressed

Tasers may be helpful tools, but they are used more and more for things they shouldn't be used for.

There is a class of weapons that law enforcement and military used to refer to as "non-lethal," but it was discovered that this was not always the case, so now they are called "less than lethal" devices. In my understanding, they are used as a last resort before a firearm is introduced in an effort to stop a threat before he or she can harm themselves or others. I've watched Tasers being used and they are, no doubt, effective. The problem that I see with them is that police are more commonly using them as a compliance tool, instead of that whole last resort thing. This may just be how the officers are trained, but not all of the cases that hit the news are products of training. See the above linked case if you don't believe me, or read this piece from it and save yourself some time:

A coroner's report found that Pikes was handcuffed and on the ground when first stunned with a Taser and might have been dead before the last two 50,000-volt shocks were delivered.

This would be a case of stupidity. How a dead man could confuse a police officer into thinking that he was still a living threat can not be corrected with training. So where is the bottom line? Radley says it best in one of his many posts about Tasers:

"As for (b), witness the glut of videos of Taser-ees who don’t seem to pose much of an actual threat to police, themselves, or anyone else, who get the shock treatment for little more than mouthing off, being uncooperative, or otherwise not showing due deference and respect to a police officer. I think you should, in most cases, show due deference and respect to a police officer. But people who don’t oughtn’t be subjected to a paralyzing jolt of electricity. Not unless they pose a threat. There are better ways of dealing with people than assaulting them. Even if you do think not immediately obeying a police officer’s orders warrants a stun, there have been plenty of incidents in the news over the last few months showing how such a policy can go wrong–see the stories about Taserings of people in insulin shock, people who don’t speak English and can’t understand officer commands, or, like the story above, people who simply can’t hear, for example."

No one sheds a tear for the thug who wrestles with police while biting and spitting as these things are a dangerous hazard to everyone in the area. It's the poor guy who gets zapped for protesting a traffic violation, or for being a punk that make everyone pissed. I'm all for the cops having the tools they need, but I'm not into buying said tools with my tax money if they're going to be used to shock some mouthy kid.

Odd

Arkansas Chairman Bill Gwatney was killed by a scumbag while in his office. There are a few details, but I'm sure we will see much more very soon. While my heart goes out to his family, I see little difference between him getting killed and some other individual who was killed leaving behind a grieving family. I'm waiting on the details as I suspect that they may have an impact on everyone.

Grammatically correct

I updated my blog header again to add the apostrophe. For some reason I couldn't get it to appear with the font that I had chosen, but now it works. Strange.

I'm pretty terrible with punctuation considering my last writing class was over a decade ago, and my career doesn't really demand that I'm grammatically correct. I'm planning on going back to school before I die, so maybe I'll brush up on my skills some.

Today's dose of stupid

You may or may not have heard about what is going on in Helena West, Arkansas, but here's the gist: police have set up a 24 hour curfew for the past week, are patrolling the town with "military rifles," and stopping people and asking their business in an effort to stop the rampant crime.

The police chief said the officers in the field carry military-style M-16 or M-4 rifles, some equipped with laser sights. Other officers carry short-barrel shotguns.

So much for these rifles only being suited for killing people by spray firing from the hip.

Many dealing crack cocaine and marijuana in the city carry pistols and AK-47 assault rifles, he said.

Uh huh. AK's, sure sure. I have no doubt there are murderous scumbags in the town, but I highly doubt criminals are dealing drugs while carrying one of these. I call BS.

This is what I was referring to in the title of this post:

"The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."

Is that tricky speak or what? Who in their right mind can say something like that with a straight face? Did this man not learn in elementary school that Constitutional rights are enumerated in the Constitution? I suppose that he thinks that since he's not physically pissing on the actual document that there is a few degrees of separation between his illegal actions and the people that elected his uneducated ass. Here is more if that doesn't make you sick:

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."

This is in America folks! That's right. You have no business being out at 3 in the morning because this councilman says so. If I lived in the town and had to go out at night I would probably be carrying a military weapon too, to protect myself from both the uniformed and non-uniformed threats. I go where I please, thank you very much.

How is it that this sort of behaviour is happening in our country and we're not doing anything to stop it? This country is falling apart because we don't lock up criminals; we elect them.

Sticks and Stones

An 8 year old boy was attacked by a bear in a Tennessee National Park. Dad and older brother fight the bear with stuff to stop the attack, which worked. . . .eventually.

John Pala, a 43-year-old health insurance salesman with no backwoods experience, twice pulled the bear off his son before he and Evan's 10-year-old brother, Alex, pummeled it with rocks and sticks, then ran for safety.

It is just absurd that this man was allowed no other option of protection from hungry critters on land that is supposed to be public. National parks are not bastions of safety; you go there to see wild animals. Sometimes wild people are there too which are just as dangerous. I'm not saying to hand out guns to park visitors, but the small amount of individuals who would carry arms for their safety should not be denied those tools that make them safe. And just in case you're wondering what happens to a fluffy bear that attacks a person:

Park officials track down bear suspected in attack and shoot it to death.

That's right. Armed men found the bear and killed it. If the park was so damn safe then why didn't the two Rangers go in with pepper spray and a net? Maybe because animals are dangerous, and as mentally superior beings we should have more sense then to go about sightseeing in the woods with nothing more than rocks and sticks to protect ourselves. Unarmed, we might as well fling poo at the beasts. From the story highlights:

Bear, for no apparent reason, pounces on boy playing in creek, park official says

Does a bear need a reason? - Bear pounces on boy playing in creek. It is known that the bear had a rough childhood and a nasty vicodin habit, park official says. Stupid, no? The reason the bear attacked is because it's a freakin bear! A person wonders into its habitat and it did what its primitive little mind tells it to. Because it's a bear.

Park Rangers need to stop meddling with our rights, and let the public protect themselves with modern defensive tools, because anything else is just primitive.

Inside the victim zone

I still consider DC a "Gun Free Zone" despite the new registration system that doesn't let DC residents own firearms, and I mean that in the most non-respectful way possible. The question begs to be asked of why there are so many shootings in a city that is supposed to be "gun free."

Congress is finally trying to do something about it after, like, thirty years. Shame on them for not addressing this sooner.

There's no word on whether the shooters were NRA members or had concealed carry permits, nor was there any mention of whether the guns were even registered to begin with, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Porno store owners are not naive

Fake cop tries to steal porn under color of authority. Store owner declines his gracious offer, and finally calls real cops when the man persists. Good on him for not giving in.

We all know how I feel about being scammed by fake cops. Be a strong citizen and stand up for yourself.

Anti-gunners are so clever

I found this hateful and nasty anti-gun opinion piece by Bill Cope from Boise Weekly on a thread at The High Road. What a load of BS. Here's a taste:

It's just that these 'open carry' clowns got me to thinking about it. You heard about them ... those simpletons who put on that big show by going to the zoo with their rods hanging out?

Nice, huh?

"'Scuse me for interrupting, but pass me another stuffed pepper there, would ya'? And then explain how this has anything to do with those dumb turd 'open carry' gun crackers.

And this:

"Yes, Billy. You're right. And anyone with the sense God gave a cucumber knows it. But you know how it'll play out as well as I do. The dumb turd gun crackers will claim that having pistols everywhere you turn cuts down on crime. They maintain two million crimes are prevented a year 'cause so many ambulatory dildos like them had gats in their pants. And pass those cucumbers over, if you would."

To be fair, this guy bashes more than just gun owners. SUV drivers and those who don't believe in global warming are also treated to this mess. Stuff like this needs to be spread far and wide to show the kind of mentality that exists in the anti-gun crowd.

Why do you carry a handgun if the first place?

There has been some gnashing of teeth over the circumstances, or rather the outcome, of this article on .380 ACP effectiveness that I originally heard about through Uncle's site. There's a piece at Too Lazy to Fail that addresses some of the concerns and it has merit. Give it a read.

I wanted to expand further and say that there are many reason why some people don't carry large handguns, so you have to think of why you carry a handgun in the first place. Because it's convenient, handy personal protection.

Remember the first rule of gunfighting: Have a gun. I ridicule the generic arguments over what calibers are effective because it's all macho posturing. Caliber effectiveness goes beyond the size of your threat, the depth of its chest cavity, the layers of denim, or the distance to the target. Your personal circumstances play the largest role in determining what works best, and if you can't afford to practice with .45 ACP, or your mom would freak if she discovered your concealed .454 Casull, then downsizing is a typical option. It's hard to argue that a .22 Long Rifle is inadequate if that's all you have with you.

I have heard of similar outcomes as the one above with just about every cartridge. I read an article in a gun magazine recently, perhaps from Mas Ayoob, where a home intruder was shot in the face with a .44 Magnum from a Ruger SuperBlackhawk. The bullet impacted just below the left eye socket, but the intruder lived to tell the tale. I have heard about a home intruder hit in the face with another .44 Magnum, this one from a Marlin lever action rifle, and that scumbag lived as well. I know an individual who survived a .38 Special round through the brain from muzzle contact. None of these rounds are considered inadequate. We hear stories all the time from Iraq where multiple rounds from a rifle failed to end the fight.

You have to carry what is realistic for your environment, and be as proficient as possible. That is one reason why I'm such an advocate of 9mm, because I can afford to practice much more than I can with .45 ACP.

The size of the weapon is a big concern. I can't carry at work because none of the guns that I own are small enough to conceal with my attire. In a post below you will see my compact .45 ACP 1911 that is way too big for me to carry at work. The same goes with the Glock 26 and Kahr PM9. I would be better off carrying a tiny .380 or .32 ACP than nothing at all, and that is something that I will have to think about.

My point is to not get discouraged over your choice of caliber because of the outcome of one shooting. Carry what works for you all the time.