There were two big developments Monday in the case of a motorist who was shot and killed along Greenwell Springs Road Friday after a fight with a police officer. Investigators say an autopsy shows the deadly bullet was fired by a bystander, not the officer. Police also announced that no charges would be filed in the case, either against the police officer involved or the bystander who fired the fatal shot into the head of George Temple.
East Baton Rouge Sheriff's spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession. According to Phares, that's when Temple attacked Harrison. Police say Perry Stevens was walking outside of the Auto Zone on Greenwell Springs Road when he heard Harrison yelling for help. Harrison was reportedly on his back with Temple on top of him. That's when Stevens went to his car and grabbed his .45 caliber pistol.
According to Col. Greg Phares, "[Mr. Stevens] orders Mr. Temple to stop and get off the officer. The verbal commands are ignored and Mr. Stevens fires four shots, all of which struck Mr. Temple."
Perry Stevens fired four shots into Temple's torso. Officer Harrison had already fired one shot into Temple's abdomen. With Temple still struggling with the officer, Perry continued to advance toward the scuffle.
"He again orders Mr. Temple to stop what he was doing and get off the officer. Those commands are ignored and he fires a fifth shot and that hits his head. The incident is over with, and as you know, Mr. Temple is dead."
Police are calling the shooting death justified. Perry Stevens has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Col. Phares would not give out any more details relating to the shooting. Both Phares and Baton Rouge Police Chief Jeff LeDuff stopped short of crediting Stevens with saving the officer's life. LeDuff says the entire incident is unfortunate.
"I spoke with his father at the scene briefly," said LeDuff. "I think this is a tragic situation all around."
9 News is told George Temple has a criminal record, and Officer Harrison was involved in a shooting while employed as a prison guard in East Baton Rouge Parish, where he was suspended for three days back in 1995.
East Baton Rouge Sheriff's spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession.
Reporter: Jim Shannon
Westboro Church members don't start fights, typically.
Their MO is to be complete d-bags at funerals and other gatherings and wait for some hot-head to assault them or some policeman/authority figure to violate their first amendment rights and then sue.
Their less a church and more of a collection of lawyers, allegedly.
Colt Anacondas are just iconic, not to mention handcrafted things of beauty. But the Blue Anacondas are much better looking, esp with rosewood or bubunga grips.
Thats not me though. Silver plated.....nope doesn't go well with my gear. To shiney. You didn't know that everytime we go out the Wire we have to look good and dangerous?...not going to mention the skull mask we wear at times.....goes well with my Oakly Ballistics.
Heavy gun, long barrel, relatively small boolits, at moderate speeds. 357 doesn't really recoil that aggressively. With traditional speed loaders or the binachi clips reloading is a cinch.
That teen must have been screaming loud enough to be heard over the gatling
I remember when we tested the GAU 19 50 cal gatling on my Hawk. Left button stamped above it had "God" the right hand button had "Better then God". Firsttime the weapons were locked forward and fired. It blew the pilot and copilot doors off from the muzzle blast. Was not fun...not fun at all
Out of curiosity what was this guy doing that provoked a bystander to fire 4 shots at his head? The article mentions no weapon and only says that he was on top of the policeman.Going by that story It seems to me that there was plenty of opportunity to use non lethal methods first.
Yeah, but if he was trying to kill the copper, who knows what would have gone through the shooter's head? We'd need a seance with an astropath to relive the scene and see what really went on to a T. A powerful one would also let us feel their thoughts and what not.
Palindrome wrote: Out of curiosity what was this guy doing that provoked a bystander to fire 4 shots at his head? The article mentions no weapon and only says that he was on top of the policeman.Going by that story It seems to me that there was plenty of opportunity to use non lethal methods first.
Sorry to interupt your gun porn.
Reading fail on your part, I'm afraid.
Fact 1: Only 1 shot at his head. The others were to his torso.
Fact 2: The officer called for help.
Fact 3: The officer had already shot the man once, being in fear for his own life.
Fact 4: The man had the officer down on the ground. He was either bigger, stronger, or otherwise had an advantage over the officer.
Assumption 1: One could presume that they were scuffling over the officer's gun or he was choking the officer.
But it's OK. You can turn this into another anti-gun thread if you want.
Fact 1: Only 1 shot at his head. The others were to his torso.
Fact 2: The officer called for help.
Fact 3: The officer had already shot the man once, being in fear for his own life.
Fact 4: The man had the officer down on the ground. He was either bigger, stronger, or otherwise had an advantage over the officer.
Assumption 1: One could presume that they were scuffling over the officer's gun or he was choking the officer.
But it's OK. You can turn this into another anti-gun thread if you want.
Only a slight reading comprehension fail I'm afraid. Facts 2-4 don't automatically mean that lethal force was required and fact 1 just means that the guy probably wasn't that good a shot.
Well the purpose of this thread is abundantly clear, I may as well provide at least a small counter balance.
Palindrome wrote: Out of curiosity what was this guy doing that provoked a bystander to fire 4 shots at his head? The article mentions no weapon and only says that he was on top of the policeman.Going by that story It seems to me that there was plenty of opportunity to use non lethal methods first.
Sorry to interupt your gun porn.
Reading fail on your part, I'm afraid.
Fact 1: Only 1 shot at his head. The others were to his torso.
Fact 2: The officer called for help.
Fact 3: The officer had already shot the man once, being in fear for his own life.
Fact 4: The man had the officer down on the ground. He was either bigger, stronger, or otherwise had an advantage over the officer.
Assumption 1: One could presume that they were scuffling over the officer's gun or he was choking the officer.
But it's OK. You can turn this into another anti-gun thread if you want.
ooooooor, since he took 5 shots to the torso and only went down when he was shot in the head, we are dealing with another zed outbreak. Guy was infected, and just happened to turn right then.
Jihadin wrote: Make sure your trained to operate, maintain, and deployment of your particular choice of LMG
ooooooor, since he took 5 shots to the torso and only went down when he was shot in the head, we are dealing with another zed outbreak. Guy was infected, and just happened to turn right then.
This is the part the gumment is trying to hide, but we know. WE KNOW!
Yeah, let's turn this thread anti-gun The man who attacked the policeman could have been an average joe who is fighting police corruption. The officer he attacked was a mafia boss in the area, moonlighting as a traffic cop. The officer also killed his attacker's goldfish, thus giving him another reason for revenge. Let's keep this story rolling!
I've said it before, for every citizen who stops a crime, another citizen ends up shooting an innocent bystander or taking out an ice cream van, so I'm yet to be convinced about people walking around with weapons on the streets.
ooooooor, since he took 5 shots to the torso and only went down when he was shot in the head, we are dealing with another zed outbreak. Guy was infected, and just happened to turn right then.
This is the part the gumment is trying to hide, but we know. WE KNOW!
I was planning on saying the same thing: took a bullet to the torso from the cop, kept attacking, and kept going after the cop after taking FOUR MORE bullets to body. A headshot is required to kill him. It's here people. The apocalypse...it comes...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, let's turn this thread anti-gun The man who attacked the policeman could have been an average joe who is fighting police corruption. The officer he attacked was a mafia boss in the area, moonlighting as a traffic cop. The officer also killed his attacker's goldfish, thus giving him another reason for revenge. Let's keep this story rolling!
I've said it before, for every citizen who stops a crime, another citizen ends up shooting an innocent bystander or taking out an ice cream van, so I'm yet to be convinced about people walking around with weapons on the streets.
Shooting innocent bystanders is more of an NYPD thing this month.
But since you are in the UK you don't have to worry about people walking around with weapons, safe as houses there my friend.
If there's one thing that gets my goat about America, its the assumption that the UK = England! But you guys already know that and are trying to wind me up, ain't that so?
When Matty is in the UK, do you think he worries about getting mugged? I doubt it?
Anyway, it's not the muggers you worry about in the UK, it's the TV licence guy!!
Anyway, drop in sometime for a holiday, it's not that bad
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If there's one thing that gets my goat about America, its the assumption that the UK = England! But you guys already know that and are trying to wind me up, ain't that so?
When Matty is in the UK, do you think he worries about getting mugged? I doubt it?
Anyway, it's not the muggers you worry about in the UK, it's the TV licence guy!!
Anyway, drop in sometime for a holiday, it's not that bad
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If there's one thing that gets my goat about America, its the assumption that the UK = England! But you guys already know that and are trying to wind me up, ain't that so?
When Matty is in the UK, do you think he worries about getting mugged? I doubt it?
Anyway, it's not the muggers you worry about in the UK, it's the TV licence guy!!
Anyway, drop in sometime for a holiday, it's not that bad
.
That sounds like Germany.
"HEY, I CAN HEAR YOU IN THERE!!!! I CAN HEAR TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Coffee!!!! That's enough to get you deported!! This is the land of Tea. Are you familiar with the Boston Tea party and London's thinking behind it
@whembley, yeah it's Britain's secret shame - you have to give the government money if you own a television set :(
I know what you're thinking, it would NEVER happen in the USA, and you're right to think that, but here in the UK we're more progressive when it comes to taxation
Back OT Guns are bad and that's my final word
Automatically Appended Next Post: Slightly OT, and to save me a wikipedia search, where does the term Yank/Yankee come from? It's something I've always wondered, but couldn't be bothered to find out
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Slightly OT, and to save me a wikipedia search, where does the term Yank/Yankee come from? It's something I've always wondered, but couldn't be bothered to find out
Guiness is probably the most overated stuff on God's earth.
Melissia, I was hoping for an authentic - straight-from-the horse's mouth reply. But Thanks anyway.
Back OT Guns are bad (I'm rolling out the cliches so I don't get done for spamming )
Anyway, fair play to any citizen that shoots down a crook, and I'm off to the pub for a drink or two hundred. Have a good weekend.
Jihadin wrote: Hollywood does glamorize an assualt rifle at times
If you want to look cool, take this:
Since when did a giant sandwich board saying "I am overcompensating" look cool? Because that's what Colt Pythons are, outside of bear country.
Also: The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso, in addition to what I assume would be the officer's either 9mm parabellum or else .40? If someone is still attacking with that much jacketed lead in them, then I would say that the officer was definitely in danger and this is a clean shooting.
azazel the cat wrote: Also: The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso, in addition to what I assume would be the officer's either 9mm parabellum or else .40? If someone is still attacking with that much jacketed lead in them, then I would say that the officer was definitely in danger and this is a clean shooting.
Instant one-shot stops are a myth, outside of hitting the CNS.
I'm well aware that Hollywood's handgun myths are just that. Notwithstanding, my point is that was still a lot of force transfer into the torso. I'd normally assume something like PCP to be a factor when we're talking about four .45 hits, if the attacker wasn't upwards of 400 lbs. Hence, the "definitely in danger" part.
The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso,
I agree with you that this was a good shoot, but all I can say to the above is that handguns are terrible, as firearms go. Pretty much any time you are shooting one at something that doesn't feel like laying down and dying you are going to wind up shooting more than once (Unless you are really awesome at CNS hits.)
There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.
To call a handgun a terrible weapon is a bit much, a good center mass shot with a JHP .357 will stop just about anyone, a .45 has stronger ballistics and carries 400-650 ft lbds of energy depending on range, there's nothing terrible about that, its all on where the bullet hits I.e. soft or hard tissue.
I will say that's low compared to a rifle, but in close quarters rifles are at a distinct disadvantage.
One other thing to consider, if the guys adrenalin was way up he may not have known he was shot, to him it may have felt like someone punching him in the back.
That's my 2 cents, but I am glad the guy stepped in to help the officer, one bad guy dead and one less national news story about a police officer getting killed.
The guy was still fighting the officer with four .45 slugs in his torso,
I agree with you that this was a good shoot, but all I can say to the above is that handguns are terrible, as firearms go. Pretty much any time you are shooting one at something that doesn't feel like laying down and dying you are going to wind up shooting more than once (Unless you are really awesome at CNS hits.)
A .45 is a big round. There's a reason its often called a "manstopper"
9mm are what baddies shrug off with nary a blink, a .45 will normally put someone down for good. Even taking drugs or something into account.
IronWarLeg wrote:There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.
That's not why they're trained to fire for center mass. They're trained to do that because it's the most forgiving target for their aim.
When a law enforcement officer opens fire, they are intending to use lethal force. No police officer will ever intentionally shoot to wound, and they do not carry firearms that are designed to do so, either.
"less lethal" refers to tasers and bean bag guns; not .40 Beretta 96A1
IronWarLeg wrote:There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.
That's not why they're trained to fire for center mass. They're trained to do that because it's the most forgiving target for their aim.
When a law enforcement officer opens fire, they are intending to use lethal force. No police officer will ever intentionally shoot to wound, and they do not carry firearms that are designed to do so, either.
"less lethal" refers to tasers and bean bag guns; not .40 Beretta 96A1
EDIT: At least, that's what cops in Canada use.
sounds about right...
Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".
Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".
Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.
??? huh... didn't know that.
Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)
I doubt that's the only reason, but it does make sense. If a guy gets wounded, it has the potential to be more of a disruption than just killing him, because it could possibly take several of his companions out of the fight in order to take care of him.
Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".
Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.
??? huh... didn't know that.
Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)
I doubt that's the only reason, but it does make sense. If a guy gets wounded, it has the potential to be more of a disruption than just killing him, because it could possibly take several of his companions out of the fight in order to take care of him.
You'd think this would make the most sense, right? But historically, it's really just a "gentlemen in warfare" sorta deal. I'm not sure if the military still uses FMJ rounds or not, but if they still do I'm wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a cost issue than tradition.
And yes, full metal jackets are less lethal than hollow-point rounds, as the HPs just explode and transfer more energy into the target. FMJs will penetrate deeper, often resulting in a through-and-through wound wherein a considerably amount of energy carries through the target, rather than being completely transferred into it.
FMJ's are less lethal because they're less likely to break up inside of the body. More likely to punch through the target causing a wound, and easier for surgeons to patch you up. A soldier hit with an AR round is going to drop most likely, and be taken out of the fight. It's a Geneva Convention requirement. We like war to be humane, you see?
Now for law enforcement purposes they use differant rounds for multiple reason. As has been mentioned, the lethality factor, they will shoot only if they intend to kill. If they're in a situation they need to use the firearm, then they need to ensure that the job gets done. Secondly, a round that shatters in the body is much less likely to exit the body, or exit the body with as much force as a round with an FMJ, making collateraly damage a smaller concern.
Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".
Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.
??? huh... didn't know that.
Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)
My military buddies have said the same thing. A guy that can't shoot back is a guy that can't shoot back, but a wounded guy takes up a lot of resources. Medics on the field, recovery from the field, hospitals, etc. Dead guys are easy to take care of, wounded soldiers are a logistical nightmare. They don't shoot to wound, but a wounded guy has benefits.
Fact 1: Only 1 shot at his head. The others were to his torso. Fact 2: The officer called for help. Fact 3: The officer had already shot the man once, being in fear for his own life. Fact 4: The man had the officer down on the ground. He was either bigger, stronger, or otherwise had an advantage over the officer.
Assumption 1: One could presume that they were scuffling over the officer's gun or he was choking the officer.
But it's OK. You can turn this into another anti-gun thread if you want.
Only a slight reading comprehension fail I'm afraid. Facts 2-4 don't automatically mean that lethal force was required and fact 1 just means that the guy probably wasn't that good a shot.
Well the purpose of this thread is abundantly clear, I may as well provide at least a small counter balance.
Fact 1 in fact means he was an EXCELLENT shot. Four shots center of mass and one in the head? That's fantastic shooting by anyone's standards and follows proper technique to aim for body shots. As they're much more likely to hit. Per Marine Corps combat shooting this would be a controlled pair (two well aimed shots to the torso) followed by a failure drill. (Two well aimed shots to the torso and a shot to the head)
Edit: Yes the military pretty much exclusively uses FMJ ammunition, usually with a ballisitic tip. This is per the Geneva conventions and the US Law of Land Warfare/Law of Armed Conflict (which says the same gak as the former essentially). It boils down to Hollow Points being considered cruel or something along those lines. Still kills things well enough so *shrug*
There's also no "shoot to wound" doctrine on the books any where in the world to my knowledge.
IronWarLeg wrote:There is a reason law enforcement is trained to fire center mass, you can hit a lot of places in the torso and not cause a fatal wound.
That's not why they're trained to fire for center mass. They're trained to do that because it's the most forgiving target for their aim.
When a law enforcement officer opens fire, they are intending to use lethal force. No police officer will ever intentionally shoot to wound, and they do not carry firearms that are designed to do so, either.
"less lethal" refers to tasers and bean bag guns; not .40 Beretta 96A1
EDIT: At least, that's what cops in Canada use.
That was my point exactly, officers are trained to shoot center mass in addition to it being the largest target available on the body, its lethal. I think we would be arguing the same point
Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".
Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.
??? huh... didn't know that.
Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)
I doubt that's the only reason, but it does make sense. If a guy gets wounded, it has the potential to be more of a disruption than just killing him, because it could possibly take several of his companions out of the fight in order to take care of him.
You'd think this would make the most sense, right? But historically, it's really just a "gentlemen in warfare" sorta deal. I'm not sure if the military still uses FMJ rounds or not, but if they still do I'm wouldn't be surprised if it's more of a cost issue than tradition.
And yes, full metal jackets are less lethal than hollow-point rounds, as the HPs just explode and transfer more energy into the target. FMJs will penetrate deeper, often resulting in a through-and-through wound wherein a considerably amount of energy carries through the target, rather than being completely transferred into it.
This is also true, military has to use FMJ and it is in direct relation to the amount of damage a JHP does to your target. And yes the military still uses FMJ, its part of the Hague Convention of 1899, bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. Its most often thought to be part of the Geneva Convention, but that is wrong. On a side note we didnt sign anything in the Hague convention, we just abide by it anyway.
Oh and a lot of different departments down here use different side arms, but the majority that I have seen use Glock 9mm, while some still use the Baretta M9 (like the military), and even others still have revolvers (these are mostly your small town forces, pretty much all inner city police have switched over to a semi auto.)
Never heard of officers (or military) shooting to "wound".
Oddly enough, for I dunno how long (perhaps still?) that's exactly the reason the military used full metal jacket rounds -to wound rather than kill.
??? huh... didn't know that.
Thats just seems... weird coming from the military. (full metal jackets are less lethal?)
well ...there was also a convention we may have signed to agreeing not to use dum dum rounds. It is doctrinally accepted that shooting to wound may be preferable because of the psychological impact of a screaming casualty versus the silent dead, added to the logistical implications of having to treat, transport, and treat again a casualty. Soldiers shoot to kill in most cases and wounding is a happy accident.
Cops shoot for the torso because it's a large target to make misses less frequent. There's also hydrostatic shock from the bullet passing through the cavity and a denser area to stop the boolit. That's also why they don't aim for gut shots, too squishy.
IronWarLeg wrote:Oh and a lot of different departments down here use different side arms, but the majority that I have seen use Glock 9mm, while some still use the Baretta M9 (like the military), and even others still have revolvers (these are mostly your small town forces, pretty much all inner city police have switched over to a semi auto.)
I could see that. If my life depended on it, I'd definitely want to launch something better than 9mm parabellum.
IronWarLeg wrote:Oh and a lot of different departments down here use different side arms, but the majority that I have seen use Glock 9mm, while some still use the Baretta M9 (like the military), and even others still have revolvers (these are mostly your small town forces, pretty much all inner city police have switched over to a semi auto.)
I could see that. If my life depended on it, I'd definitely want to launch something better than 9mm parabellum.
Except modern 9mm loads have come quite a way and are certainly adequate for personal defense. While .40 S&W is a good balance between strong ballistics(not *that* much more than 9mm, AFAIK) and size/capacity, there's an argument to be made that you should carry whatever you're capable of shooting accurately quickly, and for many 9mm is just fine.
I've only used my 9mm Beratta once in combat. Just once. It was later determined it was an authorised kill. The target got within 2 feet of me making my M4 impractical to use. The target was quite EVIL looking and determined to snuff out my life hence I put three rounds into the threat....
IronWarLeg wrote:Oh and a lot of different departments down here use different side arms, but the majority that I have seen use Glock 9mm, while some still use the Baretta M9 (like the military), and even others still have revolvers (these are mostly your small town forces, pretty much all inner city police have switched over to a semi auto.)
I could see that. If my life depended on it, I'd definitely want to launch something better than 9mm parabellum.
Except modern 9mm loads have come quite a way and are certainly adequate for personal defense. While .40 S&W is a good balance between strong ballistics(not *that* much more than 9mm, AFAIK) and size/capacity, there's an argument to be made that you should carry whatever you're capable of shooting accurately quickly, and for many 9mm is just fine.
Around 450-750 leaving muzzle. I personally use +P in my carry so its higher than that. At home I have another loaded with Glaser rounds, its designed not to penetrate the aluminum skin on aircraft, in other words it wont go through sheetrock and end up in a neighbors house if it came down to it.
Around 450-750 leaving muzzle. I personally use +P in my carry so its higher than that. At home I have another loaded with Glaser rounds, its designed not to penetrate the aluminum skin on aircraft, in other words it wont go through sheetrock and end up in a neighbors house if it came down to it.
Edit: for my join date I lurk alot lol this was my 100th post
That's fine, but is muzzle energy really a solid enough metric to go by? Personally and for now, I'd choose something as I said I can shoot accurately quickly, and practice with often -- for me that's 9mm parabellum, but I certainly won't rule out looking at other cartridges later. And of course to each their own.
Around 450-750 leaving muzzle. I personally use +P in my carry so its higher than that. At home I have another loaded with Glaser rounds, its designed not to penetrate the aluminum skin on aircraft, in other words it wont go through sheetrock and end up in a neighbors house if it came down to it.
Edit: for my join date I lurk alot lol this was my 100th post
That's fine, but is muzzle energy really a solid enough metric to go by? Personally and for now, I'd choose something as I said I can shoot accurately quickly, and practice with often -- for me that's 9mm parabellum, but I certainly won't rule out looking at other cartridges later. And of course to each their own.
I hope I didnt come across as saying that the 9mm is a bad round or anything, if I did I apologise, I was putting up the statistics for your earlier post that show that the .40 s/w is actually pretty darn close to the 9mm
Muzzle energy is ok to go with in the case of a pistol, most shots take place in close range, so the amount of energy you lose before impact is fairly small.
My wife is actually considering a 9mm to replace her .38 snubby, Says its too heavy in her purse.
I'm thinking about adding a Walther in .380 to my arsenal, if it's good enough for James Bond it's good enough for me, and I usually play on team .45 ACP or .40 S&W
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'm thinking about adding a Walther in .380 to my arsenal, if it's good enough for James Bond it's good enough for me, and I usually play on team .45 ACP or .40 S&W
They make them in small enough frames they make very comfortable concealed weapons, I looked at a couple .380's and shot them, for my big hands they were actually pretty comfortable and the smaller kick helps with target re-aquisition greatly.
Jihadin wrote:I've only used my 9mm Beratta once in combat. Just once. It was later determined it was an authorised kill. The target got within 2 feet of me making my M4 impractical to use. The target was quite EVIL looking and determined to snuff out my life hence I put three rounds into the threat....
Spoiler:
Camelspider 6" long
I'd have emptied the magazine into it, then stood there repeatedly dropping the hammer on an empty chamber for a good ten minutes afterwards.
I'm a fan of the M1911, personally. .45 ACP should handle most non-bear problems, it's kick is nonexistent, and i just don't fathom a practical need for more than 7+1. And I like single-action, but that's just a preference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't eating a sandwich in the carriage he got fragged in.
Princeps was eating the sandwich when the Ferdinand's coach stopped right in front of the cafe he was in.
Three shots into it moving back away from it. Little SoB scared the crap out of me and it freaking MOVED ( high rate of speed). Other then that my 9mm just collected sand dust.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm thinking about adding a Walther in .380 to my arsenal, if it's good enough for James Bond it's good enough for me, and I usually play on team .45 ACP or .40 S&W
Not the best way to pick a gun. Bond's Favorite (capital intentional) gun was a .25 Berreta.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I'm thinking about adding a Walther in .380 to my arsenal, if it's good enough for James Bond it's good enough for me, and I usually play on team .45 ACP or .40 S&W
Not the best way to pick a gun. Bond's Favorite (capital intentional) gun was a .25 Berreta.
Yup. Nice and light -in a lady's handbag. It jammed on his last job, and he spent six months in hospital in consequence.
When you carry a 00 number, you have a license to kill, not get killed
9mm rounds bounce off t-shirts and a .45 will blow any target up to and including hippopotami back twenty paces.
Caliber wars happen all the time on firearms forums, and for every documented case of a one-shot stop with any given caliber, there's another documented case of it taking four. Or six. Or eight. Shot placement is what counts, not the size of the bullet, especially with modern defensive loads.
Wheelguns are always fun, I carried a chief's special with .38+Ps for around two years before I got my first semi-auto. Still do carry it now and then, there's just something classy about a revolved.
Nowadays it's usually this beast:
Especially now that my college campus has authorized concealed carry for state permit holders.
Regardless of what gun you're carrying, I would still suggest the best thing you can do is keep your head down and sprint away in the opposite direction.
Unless of course you're defending your home or workplace, which is a different matter.
I'm trying to find a study by the FBI that shows the Conceal Permits actually drove down gun-related crimes... but, gah... not having luck.
That's because studies show that there is no correlation.
I've found some college studies... but, doesn't look right.
My brother got me thinking of this... he lives in Arizona, and it's one of the two "open carry" states (Colorado is the other one?).
And I asked him how's the gun related crimes? He said:
"I't's horrible here... but, they seem to be related to gang-cartel crimes than anything else."
So, I got thinking if there were a correlation with providing concealed weapons to the amount of gun related crimes.
Maybe it just shows that those who want to commit crimes, will do so anyway... *shrugs* I need to get to the range,..
There are a lot more than just two open carry states. You can open carry in Ohio as well.
Also, to legally carry a concealed weapon in most states you have to have a license, and gangbangers and cartel members aren't going to get (or be allowed to get) licenses.
I'm trying to find a study by the FBI that shows the Conceal Permits actually drove down gun-related crimes... but, gah... not having luck.
That's because studies show that there is no correlation.
I've found some college studies... but, doesn't look right.
My brother got me thinking of this... he lives in Arizona, and it's one of the two "open carry" states (Colorado is the other one?).
And I asked him how's the gun related crimes? He said:
"I't's horrible here... but, they seem to be related to gang-cartel crimes than anything else."
So, I got thinking if there were a correlation with providing concealed weapons to the amount of gun related crimes.
Maybe it just shows that those who want to commit crimes, will do so anyway... *shrugs* I need to get to the range,..
There are a lot more than just two open carry states. You can open carry in Ohio as well.
Also, to legally carry a concealed weapon in most states you have to have a license, and gangbangers and cartel members aren't going to get (or be allowed to get) licenses.
Huh... didn't know that...
Dunno where I got that from.... thatnks for correcting me.
My brother got me thinking of this... he lives in Arizona, and it's one of the two "open carry" states (Colorado is the other one?). .
There are a lot more than just two open carry states. You can open carry in Ohio as well.
currently 42 states allow open carry, 12 unrestricted,13 require a license, and 17 have unclear laws or have certain restrictions source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States (the image on the right labelling the states which allow open carry)
I think Whembly was going for Vermont style or "Constitutional" carry which is permit-less concealed carry. Alaska, Vermont and Arizona are the three states in the US with this style of carry.
I can say from living down there that constitutional carry didn't change gak down there, besides more law abiding citizens being able to carry and saving every one who had a permit some cash in the future. The cartel thugs came over the border with whatever the hell they wanted.
Screaming about the need to disarm people when you have squad sized elements of men with assault rifles (Real fething assault rifles mind you, which is to say a full automatic/select fire weapon in a "intermediate caliber" not what CNN calls an assault rifle which is a semi-auto that looks scary) coming across your border regularly strikes me as more then a little silly.
I told my wife never ever accept a position near the southern border. I've no desire to go back to the mentality of being in Afghanistan when I'm out and about with my wife here in the US.
Screaming about the need to disarm people when you have squad sized elements of men with assault rifles (Real fething assault rifles mind you, which is to say a full automatic/select fire weapon in a "intermediate caliber" not what CNN calls an assault rifle which is a semi-auto that looks scary) coming across your border regularly strikes me as more then a little silly.
Even more silly considering that the BATFE is responsible for an unknown amount of those guns being in the cartels' hands.
honestly, a better alternative to disarming the public would be to make the consequences for felons being caught with a gun or using a gun in a crime harsher (ie murder is death penalty, and not the death row "we will get to you one day" death penalty) law , that doesnt affect law abiding citizens, and it would be more discouraging to criminals than the current laws in California. also, im a big fan of "shoot first, ask questions later" mantra.
jordanis wrote: honestly, a better alternative to disarming the public would be to make the consequences for felons being caught with a gun or using a gun in a crime harsher (ie murder is death penalty, and not the death row "we will get to you one day" death penalty) law , that doesnt affect law abiding citizens, and it would be more discouraging to criminals than the current laws in California. also, im a big fan of "shoot first, ask questions later" mantra.
Numerous studies and a simple look at other countries show that that doesn't actually work. If anything there appears to be a counter intuitive effect, but that's probably because more socially liberal countries tend to have lower crime rates to begin with.
We are already #1 in the world when I comes to locking people up in prison, with nothing really to show for it. Can we focus on being #1 at something else?
d-usa wrote:We are already #1 in the world when I comes to locking people up in prison, with nothing really to show for it. Can we focus on being #1 at something else?
Operations like Fast and Furious make up an almost meaninglessly small amount of cross border gun traffic. Mexico is turning into a failed state and any gun held by its own security aparatus can be purchased by the cartels. The American military can't even keep track of it's own weapon stockpiles, expecting the same of mexico is silly.
Even more silly considering that the BATFE is responsible for an unknown amount of those guns being in the cartels' hands.
Also, thanks for providing the reference, though it entirely fails to back up your inference that the cartels are just walking over here and buying massive amounts of guns from our dealers, instead of stealing them from their own government after said government purchased the firearms from manufacturers and arranged shipping to their country.
Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: People that complain about F&F killing Americans: are you sayin that without those guns people wouldn't have died?
d-usa wrote: We are already #1 in the world when I comes to locking people up in prison, with nothing really to show for it. Can we focus on being #1 at something else?
Out of all the developed nations the US has highest gun related death rates.
youbedead wrote: maybe you were thinking of states tha tlet you carry concealed without a permit
Okay...how's this?
To use the state I currently live in as an example:
In Tennessee, you can apply for, train and be granted a "carry permit" this allows the granted person to carry a firearm with it's ammunition co-located with it... They call it a Carry Permit, it grants the bearer the ability to concealed carry, or open-carry their firearms around.
Basically, because we dont have "concealed carry permits", and instead have essentially "permits" you can carry legally without a "concealed carry permit" bending things abit there, but it works
youbedead wrote: maybe you were thinking of states tha tlet you carry concealed without a permit
Okay...how's this?
To use the state I currently live in as an example:
In Tennessee, you can apply for, train and be granted a "carry permit" this allows the granted person to carry a firearm with it's ammunition co-located with it... They call it a Carry Permit, it grants the bearer the ability to concealed carry, or open-carry their firearms around.
Basically, because we dont have "concealed carry permits", and instead have essentially "permits" you can carry legally without a "concealed carry permit" bending things abit there, but it works
I think the 'How's this' was in reference to his next statement.
But anyways AZ got it better. Are you over 18, are you not a felon, congratulations here's your gun. You can carry it concealed if you like, oh and if it was made in AZ you don;t even have to register it, yay.
youbedead wrote: and if it was made in AZ you don;t even have to register it, yay.
You don't have to register your gun here, for any reason. As a matter of fact, I don't believe it's possible to register your gun here, if you wanted to.
youbedead wrote: and if it was made in AZ you don;t even have to register it, yay.
You don't have to register your gun here, for any reason. As a matter of fact, I don't believe it's possible to register your gun here, if you wanted to.
If it was was manufactured outside of AZ then it has a registration number and is connected to you (as it would fall under the jurisdiction of the national gov). Any gun made and sold here doesn't even need a registration number.
youbedead wrote: and if it was made in AZ you don;t even have to register it, yay.
You don't have to register your gun here, for any reason. As a matter of fact, I don't believe it's possible to register your gun here, if you wanted to.
If it was was manufactured outside of AZ then it has a registration number and is connected to you (as it would fall under the jurisdiction of the national gov). Any gun made and sold here doesn't even need a registration number.
Ah yes, the yellow sheet. I wrote up many of these when I worked at the gun store. However this is not registration as such, and only pertains to the original purchaser of the firearm in question. If the sale is made privately then no registration is required; you don't have to inform any part of the government that you have obtained a(nother) firearm. As I said earlier, I don't even think there is a mechanism for doing so.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wheelguns are always fun, I carried a chief's special with .38+Ps for around two years before I got my first semi-auto. Still do carry it now and then, there's just something classy about a revolved.
Nowadays it's usually this beast:
Especially now that my college campus has authorized concealed carry for state permit holders.
No Marine's Kabar would ever look so new My handle looks like a dog-turd after all the hell I've put that knife through.
Chief's special is a great gun. I've been thinking about picking up a S&W Model 360. It's a lightweight, five shot, .357. Not a bad price either. Only problem is it has one of those new-fangled fiber optic sights....
youbedead wrote: and if it was made in AZ you don;t even have to register it, yay.
You don't have to register your gun here, for any reason. As a matter of fact, I don't believe it's possible to register your gun here, if you wanted to.
If it was was manufactured outside of AZ then it has a registration number and is connected to you (as it would fall under the jurisdiction of the national gov). Any gun made and sold here doesn't even need a registration number.
Ah yes, the yellow sheet. I wrote up many of these when I worked at the gun store. However this is not registration as such, and only pertains to the original purchaser of the firearm in question. If the sale is made privately then no registration is required; you don't have to inform any part of the government that you have obtained a(nother) firearm. As I said earlier, I don't even think there is a mechanism for doing so.
Yeah that's what I was getting at, as far as I know private sales are supposed to be registered (at least if sent to another state as its supposed to go through a dealer in that case) but they not. This will obviously change based on you state
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regardless of what gun you're carrying, I would still suggest the best thing you can do is keep your head down and sprint away in the opposite direction.
Unless of course you're defending your home or workplace, which is a different matter.
That is the kind of talk that allows zombie outbreaks to turn into zombie apocalypses. Sure, putting a bullet into the head of that first infected SOB is traumatic, but it's worth it.
I think the 'How's this' was in reference to his next statement.
But anyways AZ got it better. Are you over 18, are you not a felon, congratulations here's your gun. You can carry it concealed if you like, oh and if it was made in AZ you don;t even have to register it, yay.
A few things: you must be 21 to carry a concealed handgun in AZ and the Firearms Freedom Act passed in Arizona and originating in Montana has not been tested, and no firearms manufacturer makes a gun in any state that passed the FFA wit a Made in stamp that allows the owner to bypass the federal check. A legal CCL will allow to bypass that check entirely. You don't have to register anything.
You can be 5 and own a hand gun. You have to be 21 to transfer one from an FFL and buy handgun ammunition. there is no law against a handgun's possession or ownership in regards to age.
AustonT wrote: You can be 5 and own a hand gun. You have to be 21 to transfer one from an FFL and buy handgun ammunition. there is no law against a handgun's possession or ownership in regards to age.
Some sates do have restrictions on handguns, though I don't believe any state has age restrictions for the private sales of long arms
i bought my handgun 2 months ago, a peashooter Walther p22 CA version (the barrel nut for a suppressor addon is soldered in place and cant be removed) getting a pair of Mosin's next month or maybe one for my birthday. building a gun rack on my wall for all my long guns(my bedroom has a deadbolt on it so it counts as a safe according to the guy at the gun store)
Grey Templar wrote: I believe you have to be 21 in most states to even own a handgun, much less have a conceal carry permit. So it kinda comes with the territory.
In AZ it's 18 to own/possess/carry (state law), 21 to purchase (Federal law) or carry concealed (state law).
jordanis wrote: i bought my handgun 2 months ago, a peashooter Walther p22 CA version (the barrel nut for a suppressor addon is soldered in place and cant be removed) getting a pair of Mosin's next month or maybe one for my birthday. building a gun rack on my wall for all my long guns(my bedroom has a deadbolt on it so it counts as a safe according to the guy at the gun store)
Built a locking bar into the rack (metal one) and it'll be extra secure. Go to a store like Dick's sporting goods where they have wall racks and ask if you can get a good look at their system. You can also use the Marine Corps method of the lock bar, plus a rifle cable lock to the rack itself, harder to do with non mag fed weapons like a nagant though.
The man who attacked the policeman could have been an average joe who is fighting police corruption. The officer he attacked was a mafia boss in the area, moonlighting as a traffic cop. The officer also killed his attacker's goldfish, thus giving him another reason for revenge. 
