July TGM articles raise many questions
Dear Editor:
The July 2018 issue of TGM contained a number of interesting commentaries and articles. Of the latter, one sort of stands out for me, that being the following: From page 5, an article headed Credit service blocks gun sales payments.
The offending party is Intuit, which claims that it thought or believed that somehow, contrary to existing federal law, re gun sales charged on credit cards, items were shipped directly to the purchaser. A large business like Intuit coming to such a blatantly erroneous conclusion is something of a stretch, making it all too likely that Intuit’s claim is a flat out lie. Even the most casual inquiry directed to their legal department should have disabused them of their “mistaken” understanding, and by the way, even more curious is the following. How on earth did they ever come to so erroneous a conclusion in the first place?
Seems to me that Intuit should be asked the above question in a court of law, where with the possibility of perjury charges looming, the truth might be found.
Re: Boycott Seahawks, not gun rights, page 5, same issue, following comes to mind respecting American professional sports team paraphernalia: hats, sweat shirts and such, whether or not these organizations have taken either pro or anti-gun, anti-gun-rights positions. Examine them respecting country of origin, aka where were these items made. Then, with a view to the outrageous price tags that come with such items, think about who benefits?
From page 3, Groups demand “readable” type on WA initiative petitions, might it be that the sponsors prefer that people not actually read the proposals that they push, one wonders.
From page 2, AMA adopts gun control policy agenda: who does the AMA actually represent, given that fewer and fewer practicing physicians are actually members of the group, which seems to have precious little to say about the thousands who, year in, year out suffer and die from what is politely described as “Medical Misadventure.” Old saying advises “Cleaning your own yard before pointing fingers at the weeds in someone else’s yard.” Too bad the AMA seems disinclined to take notice.
Alan Schultz
Allison Park, PA
Observant reader offers “Long Colt” correction
Dear Editor:
RE: Gun Mag Volume 7, Number 79, July 2018, Page 35, Review by Larry S. Sterett
Larry S. Sterett, in his review of The Illustrated Book of Guns, took strong exception to Editor Dave Miller’s inclusion in the book’s Glossary of the term, “Long Colt” as, “a type of ammunition.” This is, unfortunately, the perpetuation of a rumor which refuses to die (among a die-hard few ignoranticenti), when a very little research would have dispelled it and saved him the embarrassment of perpetuating an urban legend.
For example, Googling “long colt” got me, “About 4,620,000 results (0.34 seconds).” My 1994 Speer Loading Manual Number 12, for example, carries the following notation on page 509, concerning the 38 Special cartridge: “Smith &Wesson introduced the 38 Special in 1902 as a ballistic improvement over the 38 Long Colt cartridge.” Please, see, the attached photograph of some 38 LONG COLT cartridge heads (one is simply labeled “38 LONG”). But, don’t believe the experts at Speer or your lying eyes.
Mr. Sterett may be correct, however, that, “There was never a Short Colt . . ..” There was, however, “The 38 S&W . . . also known by other names, including the 38 Colt New Police, the 38 Super Police and the 38/200,” the original “38.” It is also known, among its aficionados (of which I am one) as the “38 SHORT & WIDE.” “Short” arguably does exist. “Long Colt” certainly does.
David M. Gross
Faribault, MN
