M2

For one, he hasn't played the insanity card yet; that's just media speculation at this point. Secondly, McVeigh wanted to use a "necessary defense" at his trial, alleging that he was in "imminent danger" from the government. his lawyers refused. He still went the route that the US Governments actions at Waco (Branch Davidians) were illegal therefore the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma city was "a justifiable response." We all know how that worked out for him. So, how can you claim that there is no way that insanity can play into this Holmes' actions in Aurora? One could easily argue that a sane person would never do such a thing, so I see it as being totally plausible for that very reason. You need to explain your comment that anyone that disagrees with that needs to "recage their idea of sanity" as I don't get your point. You're saying that a person who walks into a crowded movie theater and open fire on hundreds of innocent people is sane because forethought and planning where involved? That's a pretty warped sense of sanity in my opinion! Still, it doesn't mean he gets to wander away scot-free; if Holmes' defense does successfully pursue the insanity angle than he still needs to be removed from society and be placed in restricted custody for the rest of his life. Not saying that is the case just yet, but it is a possible course of action...

An underaged female drinking so much that she passes out at a party doesn't get my "utmost respect." That doesn't condone what happened, but a little personal responsibility is also in order. Plus, the identities of the two offenders were ordered secret by the court; most likely because they were also juveniles. Now she's broken the law as well, and to what end? How is identifying her attackers getting her justice? The First Amendment is not absolute, and she (and her lawyers) know that. She tried to take the law into her own hands, and now she's getting stung by it. What a fucking mess...

A little food for thought...

WTF?

Kudos to Mitt Romney for defending the Second Amendment through all this. I'm still not a big fan of the guy, but his recent comments have brought me closer into the fold...

I'm sure this will come as a shock to some, but my belief is... The answer isn't less guns, but more! I've already stated I think it would be a horrendous situation to be in, a crowded, dark, smoky movie theater with someone shooting and people running and screaming in all directions. I would say there are numerous reasons as to why not to take a shot at the culprit, but there is one really damn good one as to why a person who is armed and capable should. It would have likely stopped the threat. Had there been several armed citizens in that theater who took action against the threat, it would have seriously changed the outcome. As stated, this guy was not brave, and the mere sight of a few muzzle flashes in his direction would most likely have caused him to go on the defensive and run. He does not strike me as the type to engage in a firefight, he is one of those gutless individuals who will only act when he has the advantage. Yes, as I have stated there are very good odds of hitting an innocent individual, but those persons' lives were already threatened by the shooter. How much more lethal would it have been with a person returning fire? Some would say double, I for one argue that it most likely would have stopped the slaughter much earlier. Sure, I can think of numerous reasons why returning fire wouldn't be the best choice in this situation; but the truth of the matter is that it still would have been the only choice. Most Americans have this inability to think beyond the "winner-loser" perspective, probably because we as a society are so sports-fanatical; but sometimes there just isn't a solution ("victory") to a problem but merely facts that must be endured and dealt with. This was one of those situations... Cheers! M2

Anyone ever seen a shooting simulator scenario that involved a BG with body armor? I have, and amazingly even seasoned law enforcement officers hesitate a moment to comprehend why their multiple center-of-mass shots are being ineffective in stopping the threat. It's unnatural, good hits on the target but not the desired effect. And "head shots" are nice in concept but extremely difficult under such conditions. I am far from an expert shooter, heck I consider myself to be just a little better than average in some regard; but I can tell you that it is a completely different situation from standing at a shooting range and taking well prepared shots at a piece of paper. Would have some lethal response slowed the shooter down? Most likely, but again it's a matter of weighing the risks involved. A dark and smoky movie theater crowded with hysterical people once they realized what was happening, it's a tough call. Sure most of us would like to believe we'd aggressively counterattack, but considering the circumstances I can completely understand why someone would chose not to. Remember the Gifford shooting in Arizona, there's a good chance that at least a few individuals were carrying there but no one engaged the shooter. All in all, it's a very horrific act by a real piece of shit, I agree with Rainman in that he appears to be enough of a coward that even just a few rounds fired in his direction most likely would have caused him to break off his attack and flee. It's just a matter of how much of an opportunity there was to do that with relative assuredly that you don't just simply add to the casualty list. In the end, the old police training adage that "action beats reaction" applies. Given the circumstances, I think some response would have been warranted no matter what the risk or probability of success... Cheers! M2

Admin Comment: Keep it focused, guys...thanks.

OK, here is the 30-day (give or take) review of the Suunto Core Regular Black... To be honest, I wasn't sure at first but now that I've been wearing it for a few weeks I am convinced that the Core is a great watch. It is thinner than the Highgear Summit it replaced, but I am finding that to be a good thing as it's easier to access under sleeves or a jacket. I keep it set on the barometer and I get a six-hour indicator of any increase or decrease in air pressure, good for determining which direction the weather is taking. We had some storms roll through this past week and it seemed to be fairly accurate in reading the air pressure. I think the altimeter is a bit off, I set it via my GPS and it still seems to be about 10-12' off. Since it works off barometric pressure I can understand the deviation, perhaps the Suunto GPS watches are more accurate. The compass is dead on, although I don't really have much of a need for it. Still, it's nice for the few times I have used it. The glass face has held up well despite a few bangs against it, but I will admit I liked the Core All Black's glow-in-the-dark dots on the bezel and I wish this one had 'em. But it is much easier to read outside than the negative face, my only complaint is that give its size the numbers could be much larger. It is the same diameter as my old Summit, but the numbers are roughly 20-25% smaller. There's a lot of usable area that Suunto could have used to enlarge them making them even easier to see. For 95% of you this wouldn't be an issue, but for us older gents it can be a challenge. Compared to the Casios I looked at, the Suunto feels to be a better quality device. I have an issue paying $200-300 for a Casio, for me they're suppose to be inexpensive watches and even their higher end models still feel "plasticy" in comparison to the Core (they're closer to the lower Suunto Vector model). The 'buttonology' could be better, I wish I could switch from the barometer to the altimeter without having to go through the menu although it will give you an altimeter reading while set for the barometer. I also like the beefier band versus the Vector, it is very comfortable and can be snug without constricting bloodflow. For the price I got mine via Amazon.com ($190 delivered), I think it is an excellent deal and would recommend the Sunnto Core to anyone looking for a quality but not overly expensive timepiece. Cheers!

Wow, tough to believe it'll be three years this November. The Webster Commission just its findings to the FBI...

The mag is single-stack so it is proprietary to the XD-S, however Springfield is already offering 7-round extended mags (next to the stock 5-rounder, not at the same scale)... vs. Although at $39.94 MSRP, I'm in no rush to get 'em. Oddly enough, I put the thinner backstrap on the grip and didn't like it as much as the thicker one. Cheers! M2

Hide your guns!

WTF?

What The Fuck? Additionally...

Had no problem whatsoever. To be honest, I am not even sure if my ring finger was on the grip or under it, but the recoil was so nominal that it didn't matter. It was easy to keep on target. I didn't over-think it, I just shot it the same as I would any pistol of its size and give how well it performed, no adjustment was necessary. But Springfield does off a 7-round magazine. I just don't feel it's necessary given what I'll be using this particular pistol for. Cheers! M2

OK, I just got back from shooting my new XDs and here’s a report… Things went pretty much as expected, I put 90 rounds through it, mainly Winchester White Box FMJ but also some Federal Hydra-Shok JHPs (I won’t carry a pistol until I’ve shot some SD rounds through it) and it was absolutely flawless. Not a single hiccup, everything fed and ejected as expected. Almost boring in its reliability, which is a good thing. I wish all my guns were so “boring” in this regard! So, the pros. First, as I stated, it’s typically Springfield. 100% reliable, accurate and I was amazed at how comfortable the recoil was for such a small pistol. It is easy to get on target and keep it there, I fired numerous mags in quick succession and kept all the rounds on target. The cons? Well, that’s a tough one. It does spit brass a good ways away, but I didn’t have any in the face like a few have reported. They were a good ten feet to my right, but honestly the only time that’s an issue for me is at the range when I collect the stuff for reloading. My second “criticism” is that I wish Springfield would give us a magazine loaded like the one I got with my XD. I was using an aftermarket 1911 loader which worked fine (the springs were stiff on both mags), but a XDs version of a Springfield XD loader would be gratefully appreciated (Springfield, are you listening?) Otherwise, about my only other “complaint” is that the gun got dirty. But I was thoroughly impressed with it. I brought my XD-45 Service along to compare the two, and the bigger pistol is more accurate (longer barrel) and easier to shoot (heavier); but I’ve also got a lot more trigger time with it so shooting it comes more natural for me. But as for the XDs, it is everything Springfield claims it is and more. It is characteristically a XD…well built, reliable, and extremely accurate. Even with only 90 rounds I know it is a dependable carry weapon and have no qualms in doing so. Six rounds may not be as good as 13 my XD holds, but not all situations allow carrying such a large pistol (although I have been doing so for six years now without any issues). I will still most likely garb my XD first but if things warrant a smaller weapon, the XDs works period, dot, no question about it. Cheers! M2

More fun videos from North Korea! 13 Of The Strangest Videos Uploaded To North Korea's Official YouTube Channel

Suck up.

If you're ever anywhere near Mons around the August timeframe, definitely check out Tanks in Town! And the Menin Gate at Ypres is impressive, as are the battlefields in the area. Cheers! M2

Don't forget that retired officers still hold their commissions...

Nope, but I have shot other compact 1911-style pistols, and none gained my confidence to a level of staking my life on one. Plus, while I do own a Taurus PT738 TCP; I am not the biggest fan of .380 either for just shooting or self-defense. My Tuarus cost me about $250 if I recall correctly, that Sig is almost three times that... Cheers! M2

Suck up. And to clarify, yes, you do need to be a commissioned officer to make inputs on a thread that's subject matter is 75% scantily clad women and the other 25% people telling other people they're stupid! Now go sit in the corner.

Fuck gender equality! You either can, or you can't. It's that simple.

Hoss, I don't own one but since an Officer-length 1911 is 3.5" and this XDs is 3.3", I would say they barrel-wise they are close; but the XDs is slimmer and the grip shorter. I don't trust short 1911s, every one I've shot has had issues feeding ammo/ejecting casings. They're nice looking, but the reliability just doesn't seem to be there from my experience. I don't think the 1911 was meant to be that short... Hopefully I'll have a range report this Saturday. Cheers! M2