jkh@jade.BERKELEY.EDU (Jordan K. Hubbard) (03/09/87)
Some people have been complaining that they have not been seeing mod.rec.guns for months, though I seem to be getting followup articles to things I post. I'd like to be sure that our news setup (which is very strange here) isn't eating things, however, and would appreciate it if I could get a short message from some of the readers of this newsgroup saying that this article has been received. Please include the time you received this in your message. I'd especially appreciate a message from people that are many hops away from ucbvax. If you're in Europe, I definately want to hear from you! (I've never been sure that this newsgroup gets to Europe as it is). Thanks. Jordan Hubbard uucp: ucbvax!jkh arpa: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu
jkh@jade.UUCP (03/30/87)
I have some questions over the appropriate (or inappropriate) qualities of
defense shooting discussions. There are a lot of dangerous myths floating
around, and a bit of what I see posted here is oriented towards defense
shooting. People asking for recs on .380 autos like the OMC aren't looking
to do target practice. You may already know the substance of what I have
to say ifyou are aware of combat results and local police shooting results.
Most pistols do fine a lot of the time. On rare occasions, against highly
aroused individuals, you'll get someone who can absorb firepower like an
elephant and have to resort to running or going for the spine or brain case.
A lot of people who own firearms and who shoot them continue to be impressed
by tales of Dirty Harry and so forth. And it just ain't so. Having a bad
plan, or unrealistic expectations, may be worse than having none. If you
have none you may just run, and against a terminally tough adversary, that
may be the best advice (not to mention the inevitable problems with the police
that result if you actually hurt someone).
I'm really divided on whether to submit an article like this, and feel that
it might be more appropriate on the mail.firearms discussion. We get enough
bad press as it is.
Your thoughts?
Frank
---------------
[ Reply from me, the moderator. Frank's article raises some Very Good Points.
(good stuff, Frank). - jh ]
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.. I have been very busy lately
and when I read your letter I thought "This is going to take some thought"
and filed it. Now that I'm replying, I see that this matter is of such
general concern that I've decided to post your letter and a reply:
I believe that the "Rambo" myths about weapons are doing our profession/hobby
a lot of damage. People are being led to believe that people shooting is a
clean (I.E. little blood, bodies don't writhe and scream on the sidewalk)
everyday occurrence. That it's done by tough good looking guys (in nice
imported clothes) that always walk away afterward, unscathed, with the police
shaking their heads in admiration (not throwing them over the hoods of cars
and handcuffing them.) This is made worse by the fact that many more people
are buying guns now that it has become fashionable. A majority of them don't
take the time to learn to shoot their new weapons (believing that it's so
easy that they'll "just do it" if the time ever comes) and those that do
learn to shoot feel that they're instant experts on the matter. Most don't
do reaction drills, instruct their family members ("Don't worry, I'll
protect you!") or even examine their living quarters for potential cover
and confrontation sites that will give them the advantage.
Even more important, there are the problems with attitude. When you (the
generic you) bought your first gun for defense and visualized using it to
defend yourself, did you picture yourself being hit? The shock of a 158 gr.
hollowpoint .357 round slamming into you, the warm sticky blood pumping
out of the wound with each heartbeat, coating your hands as you tried futilly
to stop from bleeding to death? No. Most likely you shuddered (as you're
probably doing now!) and did your best not to think of that.
More likely, your fantasy scenario involved unfriendly bullets plowing into
the wall just inches from you as you trigger perfect double-taps into your
assailant's (who happens to look like every Hollywood hood you've ever
seen) chest. In your scenario, midnight prowlers framed themselved in lighted
doorways, weapons plainly visible (as you stalked silently, with the skill of
a dozen Rambos, through the house). Hostile fire always misses or rips
through your sleeve (ooh!). You dive and roll, performing the most amazing
acrobatics to avoid fire, while firing rounds with deadly accuracy at your
attackers. At worst, you're hit badly enough to elicit "hero" cries from your
friends and the press, but never badly enough to justify drinking only milk,
through a straw, for the rest of your life.
Fantasy cops always pretend to scold you after you've blown away some "scum",
but give you a wink and a pat on the back afterwards. Your trials are always
speedy, and find you innocent of any wrongdoing. The judges commend you on
your proper use of deadly force in self defense.
Does any of this sound familiar? Have any of these situations appeared in
one of your projections of what you hope will happen if you're ever
involved in a confrontation involving firearms? I'm sure they have, many
of them have occurred in mine (where do you think I got the scenarios from?)
This doesn't necessarily make you (or I) a hopeless juvinile that should be
confined to straws and soft peas, it just means that we've succumbed to some
extent to the "Hollywood image" of what guns are all about.
Many of you out there are responsible gun owners to the highest degree. You
carry your guns muzzle up (or down, depending on terrain) at all the right
times, you load 5 rounds in your revolver and rest the hammer on the empty
chamber, you shudder at the thought of carrying your .45 cocked-n-locked.
You've never had an AD (Accidental Discharge), and all your kids took the
Hunter's Safety course before they could walk.
But have you ever shot anyone?
I haven't, I hope to god I never have to. It doesn't strike me as a pleasant
event in for many reasons, both moral and legal.
I fully expect that if such an event is ever necessary, I will probably puke my
guts out afterwards and faint. That is if my hands stop shaking long enough
to actually hit my assailant before he turns me into hamburger. In fairness
to myself, I feel that it would probably go better that this, in light of all
the drills I have done and the braincells I have expended in thinking about
this, but I also owe it to myself not to have ANY MISCONCEPTIONS about what I
am and am not capable of!
I urge all of you who have ever contemplated using a gun in self defense,
keeping a gun around the house, or (especially) carrying a handgun on
your person to spend as much time as possible thinking about the possible
ramifications of your actions. A gun is not a talisman. It will not keep
you from harm strictly by being around. Statistically, it will INCREASE your
chances of getting in harms way since you may try to stand up to situations
you might have previously run from or tolerated (I advocate running. A pair of
nice sneakers will be a better investment that a .44 Magnum!) If you're
going to keep a gun around, YOU HAD BETTER BE READY TO USE IT. Everyone
tells you this, I know, but I don't think people really realize what this
means. I will give a few examples:
1. It means that you had better have a good lawyer who's home telephone
(or service) number you have memorized.
2. It means that you had better have what you will say to police in the
event of a shooting REHEARSED. More good people have gone down under the
weight of what they've said during the heat of the moment. After a shooting
you will be at your most vulnerable; having a practiced procedure will
really help you during a time like this.
3. You had better decide what a shoot/no-shoot scenario is to you. You can
go down legally for shooting when it was unnecessary (like the homeowners
who inadvertantly shoot their paperboys each year). You can also go down
permanantly if you freeze with indecision while a "bad guy" is drawing
down on you.
Finding out the legal angles on self-protection is very important. Every
gun owner's worst nightmare is being put in a federal prison (with lots of
guys/girls named "Killer" who think you're rather cute) for defending
him/herself (or a third party) against an armed assailant.
Carrying a gun, while attractive from a protection standpoint, has its
own problems. Most localities require that you be a good friend of the
police chief or mayor before you're issued a concealed weapons permit.
It's also pretty obvious that most times you're likely to get into trouble
are when you least expect it, outdoors.
In October of '84 I was stopped by police on a traffic stop. I was on my way
from my friends house to mine (a distance of 5 blocks) and had forgotten to
switch on my headlights as the streets were very well-lit. Having been out
earlier to a rather bad section of town, I was still armed. The police
searched me and found my .45, at which time they arrested me. I spent 30
some-odd hours at the city jail (which is no picnic in San Francisco, let me
tell you) before I was bailed out by friends. I spent the next 8 months
going in and out of court while my lawyer collected evidence, the
arresting officers went on vacation, the dates were postponed due to
overcrowding, etc. $2000 and 9 months later I beat the weapons charge
on Illegal Search and Seizure and ended up pleading guilty to
"Evading pursuit" (of which I was *not* guilty!) to make the judge happy.
At that point, I wasn't interested in fighting it any more (would you be,
after 9 months of suspense?) The point here is that you have to make your
own decision on the pros and cons of carrying a weapon and remain aware
of the potential consequences of doing so.
I am by no means an expert on these matters. As I said, I'm no
"Massad Ayoob," I've never shot another person. I wasn't in Viet Nam,
I have never been a police officer, I'm just concerned by the amount of
disinformation that's been creeping around these days. Arguments about
whether "9mm is better than .45" or "I'd take a 9mm Beretta 92SB-F over
a Sig-Sauer P-226 any day!" are all fine, and have their place, but
let's keep it realistic when it comes to defense.
Enough said!
Jordan Hubbardjkh@jade.UUCP (04/03/87)
In-Reply-To: <2971@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Excellent article. A good time to remind people to get a copy of *In the Gravest Extreme* by Massad Ayoob on the question of when to use lethal force. [ Jon - I've been wanting a copy of this book for a long time, but loathe ordering things through the mail. Do you (or anyone else) know of a bookstore in the S.F. Bay area where this type of material may be purchased? (my apologies to non-bay area sites that will not benefit from this footnote) - jh]