East_TN_Patriot

I haven't heard Obama try to roll any of it back. Obama recently gave a speech supporting all of this crap. I haven't heard the ACLU step up to the plate on this. Hell, even Hillary says it's too much: Clinton: TSA Should Try to Make Airport Screening Less Intrusive - FoxNews.com

Yes, people are saying it. People on this forum have said that carrying anythings less than a 9mm (more often than not they say nothing smaller than a .40) is a waste of time and you might as well be throwing spitballs. I've pulled up multiple sources that time and again show that people are just as likely to die from a small caliber round as a larger caliber round assuming both hit center mass. "Stopping power" and "Knock-down power" are a myth. I also faced an individual who did not retreat, which is why I said most. I never actually had to fire at anyone, but came very close in two instances. I recall very clearly that I was scared to death, but very focused. I had always practiced in dynamic training situations, including drills our department required that included methods intended to induce high-stress, high heart rate, and heavy respiration. For instance, running 1/4 mile with full gear and body armor before actually starting the shooting house with strobe lights, sirens, and firearms instructors screaming in your ear while you were under a time limit. And this was a course for patrol officers. I'm not a bad azz, just realistic. Thinking that a larger caliber will give you some magical advantage when you can't hit vital areas of the target is what is delusional. Again, I cited a peer reviewed study in another thread that studied fatal shootings in Chicago back in the early 1970s. They found that caliber was a non-issue when the shots were placed center mass or in the head. Shots that didn't hit center mass were almost never fatal. In previous threads I have also mentioned the Trooper Mark Coates shooting where he was killed by a gunman who was using a North American Arms .22 derringer and fired the fatal shot after he had been shot 5 times with Coates' .357 magnum duty revolver. The magnum rounds hit non-vital areas (arms, legs, stomach) and the suspect fired the single round into the center mass of the Trooper, right above the panel his body armor near the armpit. That bullet struck the aorta and the officer bled to death in less than a minute. Plenty of people die every year from shots fired from .22, .25, .32, and .380 handguns. Many international police and military organizations have traditionally issued .32 and .380 handguns to their members (I strongly suspect that people were actually killed from rounds fired by these folks and they didn't always aim for their eyeball). A study of the New York City Police Department showed that after they switched to the 9mm from the .38, the outcomes of their shootings didn't change at all. Their hit ratio didn't improve, their fatal shooing rates didn't change, and the switch from revolver to Glock did nothing overall except make the officers feel better that they had modern semi-auto handguns. If two shots hit the same area, clearly the larger caliber would cause more damage, but if that area is a vital area, you are going to be just as dead either way. To suggest that a .380 to center mass won't kill a man is simply incorrect and the data shows it. Normally I would agree, but the Hornady TAP ammunition was specifically designed for close-quarters combat. It was originally marketed to police agencies for use in tactical rifles (TAP stood for Tactical Application Police). It's a frangible ammunition that is designed to break apart on impact with the body and inflict maximum damage with no over-penetration. In this case, the rounds did not hit center mass. The point here is that the .40 rounds that hit center mass did the job that the super-duper .223 ammo couldn't do when they didn't hit vital areas. It doesn't matter what super powerful, super cool, super modern caliber you are firing; if you can't hit a vital area, it's virtually useless. To believe that a larger caliber gives you some incredible advantage over being able to aim and fire properly is dangerous. I don't know for sure until I actually had to do it, but I do know that I never even came close to failing a firearms qualification, including the dynamic range exercises. I have qualified on every handgun, long gun, and shotgun placed in my hands while I was an officer. I wouldn't have been a state certified police firearms instructor unless I was exceptionally proficient with my shooting ability because the standards at the time were pretty strict. All that said, I would like to think that my practice, training, and mental preparation would allow me to do it, but one never knows until they get in that situation. And again, if I can't hit the target, it doesn't matter what I am shooting. I'm not necessarily saying you are making any particular argument except that I am addressing the overall shot-placement vs. caliber debate, which you brought up in a way that was clearly intended as a dig at those who don't agree with your view. I'm challenging it with factual information; sorry if you don't like that. If you can find any combat shooting expert that says shot placement isn't absolutely essential, then I will be more open to giving credibility to the caliber argument. Now there is something we agree on...

Yes, and I still say that. Bigger may be better overall, but a .22LR that you can shoot effectively is better than a .44 magnum that you can't aim properly or fire accurately. In this case, a wild bear is a little different than a human target. The anatomy of a bear is quite different since they have more flesh to penetrate, so I would opt for a larger caliber myself. Bears aren't as easily scared off as most human targets - please note that I said most. In any case, here is yet another source that backs up the claim that you are clearly not in support of (be warned that there are some graphic pics in this): FBI Defensive Systems Unit The final line in this powerpoint? "Shot placement is everything in a gunfight and always the key to stopping a threat." In the case reviewed, a guy was killed by a .40 handgun after surviving shots from an M4 rifle using .223 TAP ammo. One must make the best decision between several factors including caliber, shooting ability, capacity, ease of carry, reliability, etc. Even cops do this. Following the "caliber is everything" argument, all cops should carry large frame, long barrel magnums. Oh... wait... they used to, but then cops decided to switch to smaller calibers. That's weird...

Yes, I was looking at them myself and I agree with you both. They had some problems with the trigger and had a recall on them that was a real pain for those who needed them repaired. I do like the addition of the beavertail, but the build quality - as is the case with most of S&W firearms these days - is poor. I'm not even particularly impressed with their newer wheelguns.

I think I would find another doctor and just pocket carry that day so it's not really any different than your wallet or keys. If you have to undress, you just leave the handgun in your pocket and lay your pants on the chair. My doctor always leaves the room to let me undress and get dressed again, so he wouldn't know the difference anyhow. I have even considered some sort of bag, but I just can't get used to the idea of a man-purse. Whenever people give me that "I don't understand why anyone would carry a gun" line, I ask them if they: 1) Lock their doors at night 2) Have car or life insurance 3) Keep a gun at home I also use a similar line of logic for the "why does anyone need a gun that will (enter anti-gun talking point here)" thing. 1) Is your car capable of driving over 70 mph? 2) Does your car have room for more people than you have in your family? 3) Can you take the bus to work/school instead of driving? 4) Etc., etc., etc.... The obvious points here being that owning a gun is no different than virtually all other decisions in life. Too bad the anti-gun crowd has done such a good job making people think like that.

I've only gotten one good deal at a pawn shop. It was a large locally owned shop where I worked in Florida. I would stop in a couple times per week to look over the pawn tickets to look for stolen items I had taken reports for. They would usually have some good deals on tools, and one day they made me a great deal on a Smith & Wesson .22 pistol. I got it, cleaned it up, shot it for a few years as a plinking gun, refinished the metal with some Brownell's oven-cure coating, and traded it to a gun shop for a better S&W .22 pistol getting more in trade than I put into it. Unfortunately, I haven't come close to a deal like that before or since. Most of the pawn shops I have visited around Knoxville have junk guns that are very over-priced. The remainder have decent guns that are very over-priced. I have found the best deals here on TGO and a couple of local gun shops.

I carry +P Gold Dot in my 642 for defense ammo, but the earlier Airweight Smiths are not +P rated, so unless it is marked on the barrel, your revolver isn't designed to stand up to the extra pressures. I'm willing to use the +P in it occasionally just to remind myself what the kick feels like, but I virtually always shoot standard pressure rounds in mine. It's a great little gun and it stood up to 8 years as a daily back-up gun with no ill effects.

I don't typically carry any additional firearms, but I do have a bugout bag with some basic essentials including a good survival knife and ways to provide myself with food, water, and shelter. I also have a nice camp axe and a really nice (considering what it is) military entrenching tool. I think it is German, but it has a really heavy wood handle, a solid pick, and a decent size shovel blade. It would be great for many uses, including a blunt force weapon in an emergency. I also carry a collapsible baton that I used when I was a cop. I do have a metal lock box in case I do need to leave my firearm in the truck. I need to get a larger one so it will fit a full-size pistol. I also have a Kel Tec Sub 2000 that I can easily carry with me if the need came up.

I have found that most pawn shops are way overpriced on their firearms. There is one near my home in Powell that was asking more for the used guns than what the MSRP is on them new. They also had an old pepperbox revolver tagged for over $1000. Funny thing is that they had a copy of the Blue Book entry that showed the value at $875 sitting right there with the gun. Lately, the best deals I have found on used firearms has been right here on TGO.

Yep, and I've seen the outcome of people who used it to lubricate their firearms. When I worked for a gun shop, I saw several guns come through the door with functioning problems caused by the WD-40 that had reacted to the heat and turned it into a thick glaze kind of like shellac.

It's interesting to see the comments where people have no problems giving up their 4th amendment protections for "safety," but I suspect that they will defend their 2nd Amendment rights tooth and nail even though gun grabbers use the same logic that gun regulations are needed for our "safety." Sad state of events in the US. 9/11 was carried out by terrorists who specifically tailored their methods to work in accordance with established policies at the time, and their box cutters would be detected by a simple metal detector. Since then, all of the attempted terror attacks originated overseas (Paris, Amsterdam, and Yemen). Many pilots are now armed, cockpit doors are locked, undercover Air Marshals are on more flights, and (most importantly) passengers won't allow any terrorist attack to be carried out without a fight. Terrorists know this, which is why the latest attack involved cargo. With all of the factual information proving that these scans, pat downs, and handling of peoples private areas are not based on any real-world need, it blows my mind that people are so willing to throw away their right to travel around our nation free from government intrusion. Now we are being told that just by showing up at the airport at all, we can be subject to a TSA search. Go with your spouse or kids to see them off or meet them on arrival? You can be subject to a search. Where is this going to stop??? Do we subject ourselves to vehicle searches on the road leading to the airport? Don't laugh; it happened in the months following 9/11. Wake up people! Whenever we are willing to give up our liberty in the name of safety, we are opening a door that we can't close very easily.

I carry at the 4 o'clock position where the barrel can tuck into the hollow of my butt cheek. I carry my handguns in my own IWB holsters that I make so I can adjust the cant to what I like best.

I carried one as a duty weapon for a couple of years and found it to be an accurate and reliable firearm. I ended up trading it in for a Sig P229 to make it easier to carry off-duty, but I wouldn't hesitate to get another one if the mood struck me.

Wow... someone here needs to lighten up a bit. Heck, if you calculated the costs of most gun related chemicals by the gallon, you'd find that all of it is pretty pricey. I think I will go grab a bottle and give it a try.

Exactly. Plenty of folks are killed every year with a .22, .32, or a .380. Is a full-size handgun in .40 or .45 better for self-defense? Clearly it is, otherwise law enforcement wouldn't use them - although studies of shootings by the New York Police Department showed no significant difference in the characteristics of police shootings after they switched to 9mm Glocks from .38 revolvers including number of rounds fired, hit ratio, or increases in shooting deaths. However, for concealed carry, large frame handguns are typically not practical. Also, when you consider the very low likelihood that a civilian will need a firearm for self-defense and the conditions under which that shooting will be taking place - within arm's reach of the attacker - pretty much any reliable firearm that you have readily at hand will do. If you put a .32 ACP into the torso of the attacker, they will very likely stop their attack. If one thinks that shooting someone with any handgun round will suddenly cause them to fly backward through the air, they need to stop watching movies for their facts. "Knockdown power" is a myth. "Stopping power" is a myth. Proper shot placement is not. I figure having been a police firearms instructor qualifies me to know a little bit about the topic, so folks can roll their eyes all they want. Facts are facts, and the facts show that caliber is a very small factor in the outcome of a shooting incident.

I get pretty tired of all the silly "mouse caliber" comments from folks - especially when the comment comes from someone who then recommends the 9mm, which is regularly referred to as the 9 Mickey Mouse, but I digress. The evidence consistently shows that shot placement trumps caliber. Period. The way some folks talk, one would think that nobody ever died of a gunshot fired from a handgun for most of human history since police and civilians (and most world military forces) carried small calibers for most of the 20th century, especially the .32 ACP and the .380 ACP. I posted some data from a study of gun homicides in Chicago and it showed exactly what I am saying: higher calibers (larger than .38) were only very modestly more effective than smaller calibers as long as the shot hit the decedent in the head, neck, or chest. If the rounds struck anywhere else, the little difference that existed before was completely gone. As a former police firearms instructor, I am very comfortable carrying my Seecamp .32, my Bersa .380, or my Smith .38 revolver. Remember, a .380 in the pocket is far better than a .45 in the truck. On that note, I have fired some of the little .380 handguns out there and they all seem to be reliable. My advice is to just head to the gun shop and look at different ones to see which you like best, which fits your hand best, which fits your pocket best, and which fits your budget best. I have heard good and bad about all of the .380 guns listed here, including the P238. Seecamp makes the smallest .380 around, but it will cost you a pretty penny and they are pretty tough to get since the factory makes each by hand and they have a pretty long waiting list.

Well, actually they were liberal, just not as we define liberal today. Conservative means that you don't want change, liberal means you support change (although some, including me, argue that these are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive characterizations of political ideology). Clearly, the founders were not conservatives, at least as they saw it in their time. They were very liberal for their temporal moment because they had adopted the Enlightenment principles of free will, rationality, natural rights, and the social contract. These were extremely liberal views for their time since they essentially challenged the entire foundational structure of western society at that time, a structure that was grounded in religious justifications for social class, social structure, government, economy, and even human behavior. To challenge this system was to challenge all of society and God as well. The founders were very radical indeed. I think the best way to classify them is with the label "classical liberal" because it reflects the very radical ideas they incorporated into our society, but clarifies them from the current progressive liberals who have a fundamentally different view of what they think society should be. I guess in a way, the modern-day liberals are no more radical than the founders were in their day and I suspect the conservatives of 1776 were as outraged as the conservatives of today in response to challenges to the established social order. I'm not trying to suggest that political systems are value-neutral, far from it, but just trying to illustrate the difficulty in applying the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when discussing time periods over two centuries apart. Sometimes I wonder what people will be saying in another 200 years about us and the current conservative movement. Will we be seen as patriots or as supporters of a tyrannical and unjust social structure just as we say about the British of the 18th century? I would hope not, and I strongly believe that the classical liberal form of government the founders established here is the best chance for maximizing liberty and opportunity.

This is true, but not just because of the people becoming "part of the system." The issue is that they have no choice but to become part of the system because that is how the system has been set up. To hijack Obummer's car analogy a bit, the system is set up in such a way that it doesn't matter who is driving the car. The issue is that the car is running. The bureaucratic system we have is specifically intended to preserve the functioning of our government regardless of what happens. As soon as a politician enters office, they are instantaneously part of that very bureaucratic system that dictates their powers, function, and how they carry out those powers and functions. They are subjected to so many regulations, laws, and safeguards that they have no choice but to act as part of the system. By radically acting outside of the rules, which would be required to implement radical change, they are not able to actually do anything because the bureaucratic model prevents that sort of action from being allowed or successful. When Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.", this is essentially what he was referring to. It's not just arbitrary power or any particular political ideology, but it is the essence of the bureaucratic form of government to continuously legislate and regulate to such a minute degree that it can exist and function with virtually no oversight or input from political leaders. As long as the car is moving, the bureaucratic form is working as intended, even if it is running off the road and running over pedestrians in the process. What I am getting at is that we should not expect to see significant change in the next 2 years because the politicians who have been elected were elected under that specific bureaucratic model of government, they serve under it, and exist as a part of it, thus inherently making them part of the very problem they are trying to overcome. It's a very slow and difficult process to make the big changes, which is exactly what the system is intended to do. It took us decades to get where we are and it will take decades to change it. On a different note, I agree with the OP's article, however. Palin and Rove represent two different branches of the political right. Palin is the more libertarian, grassroots, and classical liberal conservatives while Rove represents the more elitist, big business, neo-conservatives that came onto the political scene after the Reagan era. I think that Rove is a DC "insider" who has become so influenced by the forces of Washington that he no longer sees the world as someone who is not part of that political atmosphere. After spending so many years running with the big dogs, he's skewed his own perspectives. Palin is the opposite at this point, but I suspect had she actually been elected VP, she would come out of Washington very different than when she went in. I think this is where the term limits help out. It forces the politicians to leave and take their insider views with them and they are replaced by fresh perspectives.

OK, sounds like I am on the right track. I have several I am in the process of doing this for, but in my experience it's the springs, the ejector, the extractor, and the firing pin that usually break. None of them are rare by any stretch, but the parts are pretty cheap and I'd just prefer having them around for my own repairs than trying to order them later on. I'm kind of surprised nobody else had any input on this.

I'm in the process of getting the most essential spare parts for my various handguns to keep on hand for repairs. My first thought is to get at least one spare of each spring, one firing pin, one extractor, and one ejector. Are there any parts that one should keep on hand? Am I going overboard with the springs? Any advice from more experienced gunsmith types is appreciated.

I have one of these as well and got it after quite a bit of research looking for a good all-around survival knife. It's a very good jack-of-all-trades kind of knife, which is what it was intended for. The fellow on www.knifetests.com Home does destruction tests on various knives and found that the Gerber held up well. It also has a nice sheath that has a set of ceramic sharpening rods incorporated into it. I would prefer if it didn't have the serrations on the blade, but the purpose of them is to cut through the aluminum skin on aircraft so aircrews can escape. The top ratings on the knifetests.com site generally go to the Busse knives and Fallkniven knives. It's a great site to see what these blades can hold up to. He starts with some basic tests of the cutting edge, chopping ability, and durability under what you would expect to see in a real survival situation. Then he goes over the top to see how much these things can handle before total failure (including busting concrete and chopping through steel).

I worked at a gun store for a few years as a part-time job while I was a LEO and the woman who was part-owner of the store carried her firearms using a small-of-the-back holster. She was very petite and she always said that the SOB rig was the only one she could carry comfortably without printing terribly under her clothing. Specifically, she wore this model of holster: Galco SOB holster Also, while looking up that link, Galco has a page called "Women's Top Picks" that you may want to look at.

Exactly. Shot placement trumps caliber every time. Here is proof of this obvious fact. First, here is data from the following study: Zimring, Franklin E. (1972). The medium is the message: Firearm caliber as a determinant of death from assault. The Journal of Legal Studies, 1:1 (Jan., 1972), pp. 97-123 Zimring examined fatal shootings in Chicago and presented the following data on the percentage of known caliber attacks that resulted in death. These numbers show that shot placement is what is important and not caliber. Caliber was only marginally better in shots to the head or chest, but was totally meaningless when the shots hit the victim elsewhere. .22 .25 .32 .38 >.38 Head and chest 36% 70% 67% 76% 83% Abdomen, back, neck 35% 29% 10% 38% - - Shoulder, arm, leg 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% Here is a real-world case that offers proof of these findings. This link is to the Officer Down Memorial Page of South Carolina State Trooper Mark Coates. Coates was killed by a single shot fired from a .22 NAA derringer by the killer, who was firing it using his weak hand after sustaining 5 of 6 shots from Coates' .357 magnum duty revolver. The Trooper was struck in the armpit and the bullet traveled to his aorta and killed him within minutes. The killer was struck in the arm, legs, and abdomen. He is still alive serving a life sentence in state prison. Let me say this again: SHOT PLACEMENT TRUMPS CALIBER EVERY TIME.

Hmmm... my thought is "what ever happened to acting like a mature adult and ignoring stupid people instead of turning around and cussing at them?" Seems to me that if you have managed to have a gun pulled on you twice, then you need to rethink the places you go, the people you hang around with, and the way you act while you are in public. I was a street cop for 10 years and never had a gun pulled on me and I was actively looking for armed criminals. I also need to think you and your buddy need to rethink your defense strategy. If you don't think some guy with a .22 derringer can't kill you, think again. There is a video of a South Carolina State Trooper I have shown to trainees for a decade that was killed by one. This story pretty much left me shaking my head for everyone involved.

All you have to do is find another Mason and ask them (members are not allowed to actively solicit memberships). You will fill out an application/petition for membership and there is a small fee that has to be submitted with the petition (depends on the lodge, but it's usually somewhere around $100 that covers your first year of dues and some of the costs of the initiation). You will then go through a small background investigation and interview to make sure you are sincere and of good moral character. The only other requirement is that you have to believe in a single Creator of the universe. That's all there is to it! If you need help locating someone near you, let me know and I'll help you out. Once you are in, you will get the secret decoder ring that helps read the map on the back of the Declaration of Independence and the location of the secret stash of gold and treasure we have hidden in... WOW! I almost let that one slip there!