comment on article in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


February 14, 2003, 06:13 PM
Anyone so situated that they can read the above, First Light by Dan Majors, Section B, might find the following, my comments thereon of interest.


I think that you did a fair job, with the above mentioned, I appreciate the touches of humor therein, however I think that you missed a few things. If you care to read on, you will see what I refer to.

1. You mentioned the news photo appearing on the same page as your article, in the context of guns being destroyed. Looking at the photo, one sees any number of "long guns", rifles and perhaps some shotguns. So far as I can tell, there was a single revolver, see 5:30 low in the photo. Handguns are, or so Mr. Ortiz, et al would have it, "criminal weapons", at least that is their story de jour, so why is it that all these "long guns" are being destroyed?

2. As for this new S&W .50 caliber magnum revolver, it would be essentially a hunter's weapon, as Ken Jorgensen of S & W noted, except for some that would likely be purchased by collectors, many of whom wouldn't remotely consider actually firing any of the guns in their collection, as doing so decreases their value. Some others would might be bought by special interest target shooters, Silhouette Shooters come to mind, but that would likely be that. Of course, one can never be absolutely certain about either people, or the things that they go out and buy, for whatever the reason might be.

3. As for the not surprising output from Tom Ortiz, of the Violence Policy Center, an off-shoot of Handgun Control Inc., now calling itself The Brady Group, given that his knowledge of firearms is likely limited to "I'm opposed to them", why would you include anything from him in the first place, and if you choose to so do, it's your paper space, why not include something from the pro-gun side? Let's leave the manufacturer out of this aspect of the thing.

4. Re your mention of Clint Eastwood, AKA Dirty Harry, and his famous .44 Magnum, formerly known as " the world's most powerful handgun, which could blow your head clean off", Harry cheated a bit which. If you have seen the films in the Dirty Harry series, you might remember. There was one scene set in the police pistol range, an indoor range. Harry was practicing with his S & W Model 29, when a couple of young motor officers entered the scene. Turned out that they were part of a secret cabal that was involved in "taking out" the bad guys, an activity that Inspector Callahan eventually disrupted. Anyhow, one of these uniformed officers, looking on in awe, asked Harry about the much touted recoil of his .44 Magnum. Harry sort of grunted, and allowed that he "used a light .44 Special load, which in a revolver this heavy didn't recoil much at all". Like I said, Harry cheated a little, but it's "a jungle out there".

5. Re your mention of this new .50 caliber magnum being "the biggest handgun ever made", perhaps close, but most definitely no cigar. While it might well be the biggest handgun ever made, looking at current production, re its weight and or bore diameter, during black powder days, there were any number of pistols made, that had bores larger than .50 caliber. Obviously, they were single shot guns, that didn't fire metallic cartridges, but they were used, and they were big hunks of iron.

6. Getting back to the offerings of Mr. Ortiz, are you sure you do not mean Tom Diaz, or perhaps Josh Sugarman, who according to is the Executive Director of VPC, and his comment on the "threat to law enforcement", and or things that "boggle the mind", as presented by this new revolver, please consider the following. First, how many police officers are shot, in Pittsburgh or anywhere else, with other than their own service weapon? Secondly, how many police officers are shot with the previously all powerful .44 magnum, which is less powerful than the "new kid". Answer to the first question is few. Answer to the second question is fewer still, if not none. Given that virtually no .44 magnums turn up in criminal hands, and they have been around for years and years, it's unlikely that many, if any examples of an even larger, more expensive, less readily available, more powerful, harder to handle handgun will turn up in the hands of people who might be given take a shot at police officers. So re the Ortiz/Diaz/Sugarman "new order of threat to, law enforcement", Quo Vadis, Domini. By the bye, as to the real armed criminal, they usually opt for handguns that are readily available, such as those carried by, you guesses it, police officers. These weapons might not be the most powerful around, but in any era, they are the ones judged to be at least "adequately powerful".

7. Finally, I've been involved with competition shooting for close to 40 years. I started out with High Power Rifle competition, where I used a surplus M-1 "Garand" rifle, and ended up having used a number of different rifles, both military and commercial pieces. More recently, for the past 15 or so years, I've participated in handgun competition, mostly simulated combat shooting, where I used the .45 caliber Government Model Pistol, with full power ammunition, or it's handloaded equivalent most of the time. You may have heard the old wives tale about "the brutal recoil of the .45 caliber Government Model Pistol, that virtually leaps out of ones hand upon firing", this is the pistol that I used, and still use. Quite frankly, I'm still waiting to experience the much touted "brutal recoil of the Government Model Pistol". Iam, by the way, not especially strong. On one occasion, I fired exactly three shots from a Smith Model 29, .44 caliber magnum, the Dirty Harry gun, except that this one was loaded with 240 grain factory loads, standard, over the counter ammunition. After having fired these three shots, I unlatched the cylinder, unloaded the revolver, which belonged to another person, and put it down on the bench. I didn't like the feel of my hand, my wrist or elbow, after three shots, and mind, I can fire the .45 caliber Government Model Pistol virtually all day, without problem. The point of the foregoing is that there aren't going to be all that many trained, disciplined shooters who will go out and buy one of these new revolvers, and actually shoot it. In all likelihood, there will be many fewer "Street Punks" or "stick-up artists" who will, simply because the thing will be to much to handle.

So, while the ongoing argument over and or about "gun control" produces more heat than light, one seriously doubts that the subject of your article will amount to a serious threat to anything other than some game animals, and or various types of inanimite targets. Ortiz/Diaz/Sugarman et al, being that "gun control" is their meal ticket might be less than willing to admit this, but the facts remain what they are, and the world isn't flat either.

RSVP. if you feel like it.

If you enjoyed reading about "comment on article in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Greg L
February 14, 2003, 06:47 PM
Too much logic there, it will be ignored. :banghead:

You may want to send it in as a letter to the editor (probably too long though for that ) or as a guest column (you may want to expand on a couple of things to make it a little longer in that case).


Standing Wolf
February 14, 2003, 09:29 PM
Oh, stop confusing the leftist parasites with facts!

February 14, 2003, 09:58 PM
You make sense to me.

But, almost without exception, the only thing that'll actually change a sheep's mind is being hogtied, sodomized and left to suffer because they lacked the tools to defend themselves.

Even that won't do it usually.

They were born to suffer.

Let 'em go to hell their own way.

February 14, 2003, 11:54 PM
One time I read about a 16 gauge "Howdah" pistol that was developed by the British for fending off tigers during their days in India. They used about 3.5 drams of black powder and a big round ball.
I wonder how many cops have been killed by those?
But that doesn't matter.
If it is a big, loud gun, then it has to be bad.:rolleyes:
I have given up on tyring to reason with the anti's. A little emotion can be a good thing, but basing you decisions only on emotion is just idiotic.
Clearly, they are generally a bunch of idiots who will not be troubled by a little thing like the truth.

If you enjoyed reading about "comment on article in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!