Respect (or lack there of) for older Gun Writers

[fastbolt]

An old saying comes to mind when reading some of the proclamations posted by some of the younger, brash and fervent shooting enthusiasts who promote 'operator' mentality nowadays.

You can learn by your own mistakes, or learn by the mistakes of others.

Many of what I like to consider the 'elder statesmen' of firearms training and writing have been able to leaven their thoughts with actual experience, or gleaned critical lessons from the carefully vetted experiences of others over a few decades.

Ignore the wise ones at your own risk. They may not really care if you blaze a trail of your own mistakes because you ignore them and their hard-earned experience.

Granted, I many have some slight bias toward giving them the benefit of the doubt in listening to the long-in-the-tooth trainers, being of such an age myself, and perhaps having earned some occasional bits and pieces of wisdom through the years I served as a firearms trainer, and having worked in LE, myself.

 

[fastbolt]

Without perusing the entire thread, one thing that I have noticed about a lot of "mature" gun writers, is they seem to get stuck in an era or a mindset that they have become very familiar with and then tend to stagnate, to the point that much of their writing is outdated and has been superseded. I don't see many of the older, established gun writers doing much to keep up with the times, mostly its just waxing nostalgia and wistfully comparing new trends with "the good old days".
Jerry Miculek being one of the exceptions, as he has kept up, become familiar with, practiced with, and uses the newest tech he can get his hands on. He's a competitor though, and has to...writing is secondary, although I'm sure will become more prevalent as he ages.

A valid point for some. No doubt.

However, it might be prudent not to be dazzled by each and every new bit of technology wizardry that works its way into the world of gun owners, shooters and firearms training for self defense (which includes LE). The nature of personal confrontation can benefit, for good or ill, from the slips-streaming of ever-new technology and gear, to be sure.

However, once the glitz and shine from the latest gear wears off, we're still talking about the same fundamental human nature of personal confrontation (i.e. fighting). Like I once told some folks I helped train (having borrowed it from someone else, of course), when you talk about fist fights, knife fights and gun fights ... there's a single common premise running through them all.

The latest tech and gear is all well and good, but don't lose sight of the critical importance of the gear user. And the laws involved in self defense and use-of-force, and any new laws, or updates to existing laws, etc. Keep an eye on your health. I've seen my fair share of people who had to shoot from a kneeling position, and then needed a hand in getting up from it. The more injuries and maladies I've suffered in my life (and my 60's are in the rear view mirror), the more I've had to make some adjustments to things, as well as figure out some refinements I wish I'd considered in my youth.

Much has been said (warnings) in ignoring the lessons of history. What makes anyone think that doesn't apply to the 'history' available from folks who have learned and trained in the use of firearms as weapons for some decades?

 

[trackskippy]

As Ive said earlier, the guys who have been around the longest, have more to draw on, but if they reach a point where they think they have it all figured out, and stop learning, then they do tend to get left behind.

This isn't something that you ever "graduate" from, and you never stop learning. Otherwise, you do get left behind.

 

[JohnKSa]

I never really cared for Craig Boddington, until I met the guy.

Yup. Nice guy. Very knowledgeable with lots of experience. His writing tends to lean towards a technical style which isn't "reach out and grab you" type reading and it sometimes sounds stilted, but the content is always good. I have some of his books including, I think, one I got him to sign.

Jerry Miculek being one of the exceptions, as he has kept up, become familiar with, practiced with, and uses the newest tech he can get his hands on.

Jerry is always looking to improve. If he finds a better gun or a better technique than the one he's using, he's going to switch--doesn't matter how much time he's invested in what he's currently using. He's all about results, ego doesn't figure into it, nor do the "but I've been doing it like this for..." and "but they've been using this (gun/technique) successfully for..." arguments.

Rittenhouse was lucky that the Prosecutor was caught basically lying through his teeth and that the dirt bags Rittenhouse defended himself against were dirt bags eith mile long records.

Also very helpful that there was video showing attackers coming at him clearly trying to hurt him.

People don't like the idea of what happens in court, or maybe some of them just don't understand the process, but the bottom line is that people (jurors) have preconceptions and biases and those can either hurt or help the defendant. It's clear from some of the exchanges here about picking one type of gun over another that there can be a lot of emotion invested in how a person feels about one type of gun vs. another type--and that's in a discussion where all participants are likely to be pretty pro-gun. A short talk with the average person on the street about black rifles can be really illuminating for those who think that juries only operate based on the facts of the case and that their personal choice of self-defense weapons couldn't possibly hurt them in court.

 

[benEzra]

Last year, during debate for permitless concealed-only carry. He directly asked me if using an automatic weapon to defend my family was excessive. I told him no, I said bad guys travel in packs. That as a cop, I carried such firearms for the specific reasoning that superior firepower balances a lone party facing a larger superior force. He went quiet. But in Broward County, FL; just a question like that is common and it is used in the courts by prosecutors to paint the plaintiffs as being excessive. And the local pool that a jury is pulled from thinks the same way since they elect people like Sen. Pizzo into office.

Was he specifically asking about automatic weapons, or was he just too ignorant to know that civilian Title 1 firearms are not automatic weapons?

I have met a few prohibitionists who think that any modern-looking civilian rifle is a machinegun, or that “semiautomatic” means “full auto” rather than firing one and only one shot when the trigger is pulled. I assume he is in that cohort?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Ken Hackathorn is the one I really don't like. His being against red dot sights and weapon-mounted lights just really doesn't sit well with me. I just find him to be stuck in the 1990s. Some of the logic he uses is very similar to the logic that anti-gunners use.

I'll just comment here that Hackathorn didn't say he was against red dot sights and weapon mounted lights, just that weapon mounted lights are "overrated." I wasn't offended by that, but I tend to agree with him.

A WML on my carry pistol isn't useful for the realistic scenarios I consider. On a defensive rifle, shotgun, or bedside pistol my opinion is different, but day-to-day carry I gain nothing from a light, and I think most are probably in that position.

He's got another video on optics, and if I remember it correctly his take is "red dots provide advantages, but if you've got lots of reps and lots of years training without one then it'll probably take something like 1,000 rounds fired through a red dot before you're as good as you are now without, and you'll likely have the same problem going back to irons." Take that for what it's worth, but it's not "against" red dots.

However, once the glitz and shine from the latest gear wears off, we're still talking about the same fundamental human nature of personal confrontation (i.e. fighting). Like I once told some folks I helped train (having borrowed it from someone else, of course), when you talk about fist fights, knife fights and gun fights ... there's a single common premise running through them all.

Yep. And I think part of the difference of opinion here is that men have been killing each other since before men had evolved, and all those old weapons (rocks, sticks, wakizashi, Colt Single Action Army revolvers, .357 K-frames, 1911s, whatever) are about as good at ending a fight as they ever have been - they're arguably better due to technological innovations.

And there's a small but loud contingent that seem to have the opinion that if you're not carrying a high capacity 9mm, with an optic and a WML, in appendix carry, then you're doing it wrong. Now, if you want a high-cap 9mm with all the doo-dads on it pointing at your junk then you do you, man, just don't call me names over it if I make different decisions.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Was he specifically asking about automatic weapons, or was he just too ignorant to know that civilian Title 1 firearms are not automatic weapons?

I have met a few prohibitionists who think that any modern-looking civilian rifle is a machinegun, or that “semiautomatic” means “full auto” rather than firing one and only one shot when the trigger is pulled. I assume he is in that cohort?

He knows the difference... he meant legit MGs.

 

[Boom Vang]

Are you aware that scientific jury simulation studies support that opinion?

Yet actual juries don't support that opinion. Kyle Rittenhouse, call your office

Rittenhouse was lucky that the Prosecutor was caught basically lying through his teeth and that the dirt bags Rittenhouse defended himself against were dirt bags eith mile long records. That's what swayed the jury.

He was acquitted because the jury believed he acted in self-defense. The "scary AR15" used had no effect on that judgement.

In a righteous self-defense incident, the firearm and ammunition involved are irrelevant. Any and all are considered deadly force, and must be justified under the applicable standards for self-defense. Any other advice is designed to sell magazines or garner internet clicks. Consult a competent attorney if in doubt.

 

[Kleanbore]

He was acquitted because the jury believed he acted in self-defense.

And the evidence was unquestionable.

In a righteous self-defense incident, the firearm and ammunition involved are irrelevant. Any and all are considered deadly force, and must be justified under the applicable standards for self-defense.

But first, the investigators, the charging authority, and if it comes to that, the jury, must conclude that it was in fact a "righteous self defense" incident

'If there are no videotapes that support that, and/or if there is conflicting testimony, that well have to be decided, and a lot of things can come into play in that decision.

Any other advice is designed to sell magazines or garner internet clicks.

Bull. The study I mentioned was a scentific analysis performed for research in a university setting.

Consult a competent attorney if in doubt.

There is no doubt.

And oh by the way, some of the most competent self defense attorneys and expert witnesses in the country agree with the conclusions.

 

[benEzra]

The study I mentioned was a scentific analysis performed for research in a university setting.

Do you have a citation? I vaguely remember one from a decade or two ago and I seem to recall that the only statistically significant effect in that one was in edge cases, but I’m sure there have been others since then. I’d be interested in reading this one.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do you have a citation?

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Network_2012-10.pdf

 

[357smallbore]

My personal opinion is:
I wouldn't give a plug nickel for any of the so called gun writers today. They got nothing I want to hear or read. Nothing against Ayoob, just don't care for his writing
My group of writers I followed and loved to read their articles and see their photos are:
Skeeter Skelton
Bill Jordan
Elmer Keith
Bob Milek
Jon Sundra
John Wooters
Jack O'Connor
Rick Jamison
Clay Harvy