Up until now I respected Ayoob.

[thatguy]

Masaad Ayoob’s recent article about some guy convicted of manslaughter after his wife died of a GSW to the head contained some insults directed at us. He made disparaging remarks about Internet discussion forums and the people who frequent them joining others (such as Clint Smith) at Handgunner and American Handgunner magazines who have insulted and belittled forum members.

I think maybe these people want to be the sole source of info and don’t like competition. These forums are what they are- places where folks meet and talk. Sure, some people offer themselves as experts who shouldn’t, but for the most part it’s just shooters sharing info and offering commentary based on their own experiences. Readers should take it for what it’s worth. I don’t think it is right for Smith, Ayoob and others like them to warn readers to steer clear of these forums.

When my subscriptions expire for the two above mentioned publications I will not renew. I don’t need to pay people to insult me. Besides, these magazines are little more than shills for manufacturers, anyway, and frankly I haven’t learned anything new from any of them in at least 15 years.

BTW- In Ayoob’s story about the shooting, he claimed that this case supported his opposition to handloads for defense because the man was convicted of shooting his wife after the lab was unable to duplicate his load. Ayoob says a factory load would have cleared him. I doubt it. I wasn’t there, but reading the facts as presented by Ayoob I have trouble believing the man’s story about his wife shooting herself and I suspect the man did shoot his wife. In any event, this was not a self-defense shooting so Ayoob is wrong to offer this as evidence against using handloads for self-defense.

I want to strongly emphasize that I am not criticizing Ayoob on anything other than some of his opinions that he expressed and with which I disagree. I still admire his accomplishments but he has said some things with this recent article that cause me to step back from my previous support. Perhaps I misinterpret, but the feeling I got from what he wrote was that he had no respect or use for these forums or the members and I think that I am correct since he steered his readers away from the forums.

 

[Kramer Krazy]

When my subscriptions expire for the two above mentioned publications I will not renew.

If you are that unhappy with it, let them know how you feel by canceling the subscriptions, now, with a letter explaining why. Simply letting your subscription expire won't give them any reason why.

 

[WT]

Don't take it so hard. I've had a THR Moderator insult me because of my views.

What magazine was it in? Could you post the quote from Ayoob's article? I'd like to see what he has to say about internet forums.

Ayoob is entitled to speak his mind.

PS: I met a LEO who said his a** was saved by Ayoob's testimony in criminal court.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Besides, these magazines are little more than shills for manufacturers

omigosh, what's next? An entire issue of G&A that's a Surefire ad? Oh, wait,
there's the Sept 05 issue that says "Surefire Presents: Combat Tactics."

Seriously, you're 100% on target.

 

[pax]

<moderator hat on>

First, an observation as moderator: Massad Ayoob is a member on THR. So far, everyone's been pretty good to keep their opinions of him limited to what he says, and that's good. Let's keep it that way.

Those who wonder what I'm getting at need only remind themselves that insulting other members on THR is grounds for having one's posting privileges removed. So long as the criticisms stick with discussing what he said, and not criticizing him as a person, they'll be acceptable here.

I hope that is clear enough.

</moderator hat off>

On a personal level, I have a cynically amused observation to make: on the one hand, so far those who've posted here have been quite offended that someone who writes for a magazine would have something negative to say about online fora.

And then on the other hand, posters on THR have insulted gun magazine readers and writers for years -- if you doubt me, run a search on the term "gunrag" or "hack" or even just "magazine writers."

Dunno what's so amusing about that. Something about the shoe being on the other foot for a change, I guess.

And I have to note that if anyone in the industry has been given cause to dislike online fora, it would probably be Ayoob. That man is subject to more online vitriol in a day than most folks collect in a year.

pax

 

[waterhouse]

He made disparaging remarks about Internet discussion forums and the people who frequent them

What exactly did he say? Since Ayoob has posted here himself, I doubt he meant every single person who posts on an internet forum (since that would include him.) What was the context?

Did he imply that we aren't as good as he is in terms of firearms knowledge because we aren't expert witnesses/instructors? Or did he imply that some people on internet forums say things that are completely incorrect with regards to the law (see any thread on "shipping guns" for an example, and yes, I've been guilty of saying incorrect things as well) or other firearms related info?

 

[Correia]

I haven't seen his quote, but if he is talking about misinformation on the internet, then he is pretty much right. Sorry guys, but there are a lot of really dumb opinions posted on this board, and on others. I've seen advice posted here that is legally wrong, and sometimes tactically stupid.

And I help run this place.

That said, most of the things posted here are correct, and the dumb stuff is usually corrected by smarter posters. But anybody who gets all of their legal information from the internet is bound to get into trouble.

I'm not excusing gun magazines either. Anybody who gets all of their info from gun magazines is going to get into trouble too. Gun articles are just an author's opinion, which is often wrong, or no more educated than what you get online.

And I write for gun magazines.

Basically what I'm saying is that it is up to you to seek out information and figure it out yourself.

If Massad Ayoob bashed the internet, so what. Let me use the search engine and I can find about a thousand posts where he has been bashed by the internet. Lighten up.

 

[thatguy]

KK- I am not hopping mad about this, just disappointed. I don't feel compelled to cancel my subscription, I just don't feel inclinded to continue it once it expires.

Corriea- Yes, much misinfo and bad behavior on Internet forums and I am quick to tell others to not believe everything they see or read anywhere on the Internet. But I still took mild offense at Ayoob's words since his dennouncement of the forum members would include me. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I felt. You're right about people "bashing" him, but let's recall that he's a public figure and that's part of the deal. That doesn't excuse personal attacks, but general criticism is expected and allowed.

I am getting the sense that some magazine writers are becoming hypersensitive and perhaps see these forums as competition. Some of them may resent anything that threatens their lofty positions as the only "experts" in town and they don't appreciate any competing sources of info or opinions.

Just my take for what it's worth.

 

[84B20]

thatguy,

BTW- In Ayoob’s story about the shooting, he claimed that this case supported his opposition to handloads for defense because the man was convicted of shooting his wife after the lab was unable to duplicate his load. Ayoob says a factory load would have cleared him. I doubt it. I wasn’t there, but reading the facts as presented by Ayoob I have trouble believing the man’s story about his wife shooting herself and I suspect the man did shoot his wife. In any event, this was not a self-defense shooting so Ayoob is wrong to offer this as evidence against using handloads for self-defense.

I read Ayoob's book In The Gravest Extreme when I got my first CCW, about a dozen years ago and from what I remember he talked about using the same loads as one's local PD just to make it more difficult for a prosecutor to imply during trial that you are a vigilante type. I think that also depends on where you live. Here in New Mexico I don't think that is as much an issue but in California where I used to live it could be. He also said don't advertise that you carry to anyone but times have changed. I still mostly follow his advices accept, obviously, here on THR.

 

[Grump]

In any event, this was not a self-defense shooting so Ayoob is wrong to offer this as evidence against using handloads for self-defense.

In that case, you haven't a CLUE about how eagerly judges will sometimes look for any excuse to get "evidence" admitted, so the jury (in a jury trial) or the judge (in a bench trial) has a better chance of "finding" the "facts" upon which the legal decision must be made.

Now, I draw a different conclusion than Mr. Ayoob does regarding the LEVEL of hazards associated with using handloads in the self-defense context. But I agree with him that no matter how "clean" or "good" or "righteous" your SD shooting is, all it takes is (a) one fishy fact or (b) one slimy prosecutor or (c) one heartbroken survivor or (d) one totally disabled crime perpetrator who wants to sue, to cause YOU huge problems and to spend huge resources to fight--even successfully.

Many true SD events (with or without guns, thankyourverymuch) have been mis-characterized as intentional and/or criminal. Once you face that type of accusation, all that "irrelevant" stuff we harp upon so self-righteously starts to come in to court, including all of your Internet postings that the other side can get a hold of. Don't count on them being too dim to look, or too unsophisticated to find what they're looking for.

FACT: the Internet is nicknamed the "Errornet" for some pretty good reasons.

FACT: this Board itself is riddled with posts with half-baked assertions, bad conclusions, plain mistakes of fact and opposing and irreconcilably different opinions. What will you choose to rely upon?

BTW, the quality of gunrag writing, especially on technical matters, has declined noticeably over the years. Most of it is plainly mere entertainment and re-hash of older articles. Like the "drive-by media", many of our writers' research is limited to what's called "secondary sources", or just reading what's already been written. Even on these Internet gun boards, notice how the writings of certain authors are cited as Gospel? Search "Kuhnhausen" and all derivations of his name and see what you get. That handloading guy (Jameson?) and a few others are rare, bright shining stars of firsthand experimentation and well-reasoned exposition. But I've also seen some real "howlers" of attempted science and outright WRONG historical summaries and woefully defective reasoning.

So, go ahead and get your knickers in a bunch and stomp off in a huff. Did Ayoob really insult YOU, or the last nitwit whose posting YOU criticized?

I have a dim recollection of something written about it not being wise to "rely" or similar language on what you dredge up on an Internet BB or chat room. No such statement of skepticism can be fairly characterized as a wholesale indictment of every word ever posted. But it may be wise to carefully weigh the credentials, expertise, honesty and reasoning skills of those faceless, almost-anonymous posters on the Errornet before using their free advise to give your own opinions a 100% "validated" score. Very frequently, you do get what you pay for.

Even as a non-lawyer, Ayoob has a pretty good grasp of what can happen with the evidence after a shooting event gets to court. You can spend $10,000.00 or more on a good, successful defense that results in early settlement and NO TRIAL and NO APPEAL and NO REPORTED LEGAL OPINION to locate on Lexis or Westlaw. So, next time anyone challenges Ayoob to find "just one" case where a "good" shoot resulted in criminal prosecution for intentional homicide AND handloads got the shooter into trouble, I will flame, flame, flame away. It's an unfair question because it defines the "proof" of the point too narrowly. There have already been cases where factory ammo and "Which gun? The deadliest!" issues became relevant, and even "prior bad acts" evidence got in despite what appears to be a pretty clear evidenciary rule AGAINST admitting that type of gun collection information.

It's only a short step for any judge to apply the same reasoning to a self-defense shooting. It may add only 5% to your total defense, and you might very well WIN, but do you want to pay an extra 5% when you're already in for $100K? $200K?

Consider the antigunners' oft-cited "facts" about most homicide victims "knew" their attacker. We already know that they unfairly broaden the pot to include all gun-killings of any sort, justified or not. Face it, folks, the FBI's own stats show that there is a large percentage of such circumstances. So, if YOU are a bit more likely to be murder-killed by someone you know, wouldn't it also follow that you are also a bit more likely to have to DEFEND YOURSELF against someone you know? Police and prosecutors are skeptical because of the human trash they deal with daily. Don't give them more stuff to work with by appearing bloodthirsty. If you have factory loads, GSR characteristics can be easily duplicated because the loads are known (extremely useful if distance from muzzle to impact is important to prove or disprove your story!!!). Are your loads known? If not, they should be. I have my own approach to that, but discussing it in an Internet forum would be too close to giving legal advice to unknown strangers, whose individual facts/circumstances I do not know....and I don't want to get sued by someone who botched it and got himself/herself into trouble.

No relationship, no duty, no specific advice, no lawsuit that could survive summary judgment.

I also give Mr. Ayoob permission to cite this post any time and in any place he wants. to you who are insulted!!!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

As with any source of information, you take what's useful to you and disregard the rest. This applies to gun magazines, instructional books, training videos, training courses, the Internet, gun store clerks, police officers, etc.

I agree with Corriea; the dumb stuff seems to get corrected by many of the more knowledgeable posters.

The Internet allows regular joes to share their experience, knowledge, and opinions with others. The broad range of topics and the depth of discussion can be found nowhere else.

But what I value most about the Internet is THERE ARE NO MORE SECRETS! Editors, writers, trainers, manufacturers, etc., don't have control over the content.

 

[roscoe]

I cannot recall any statement made on this board that was ever in error in the slightest.

 

[Kodiaz]

This is off topic but I have made one extremely offensive statement and one statement that was also offensive but not reprehensible and was never sent a letter from a mod. I don't know what you said for a mod to give you a hard time in a PM but I can only imagine that it was either a personal attack or some really bad disinformation.

 

[84B20]

Grump,

Amen to that!

 

[sm]

I agree with pax, Correia, Shawn Dawson and Grump.

For the record - I am NOT a moderator. I mention this because I rec'd 3 complimentary PMs and one Nasty email last evening. Three out of Four ain't bad - I'll take 75% and run with it. Nasty one, that certainly would never be able to be posted on this forum - simply took my suggestion they read the Forum Rules in regard to attacking the idea, not the poster. Nasty PM author did not like the way I moderated and let me and THR have it.

When I little I was to taught, whenever I read something , or viewed something via TV or a Movie, to NOT accept the work as being Gospel. Instead it was MY responsibilty to investigate, research and find out the truth , and as such works applied to my life.

To make you Think for yourself Steve.

All any of us can Truly do is share OUR Experinces. These may or may not apply 100% correct for someone else - they may allow someone to investigate and research for themselves and take what is applicable to them for their use and task.

Ayoob. Yes I have read his works. I respect the fact that he and many others are willing to be under the magnifying glass, take the heat, put up with crap and everything else to pass forward - and most of all - Get Folks to THINK for themselves.

Many of us have indeed been part of the Judicial System. Be it an attorney, witness, juror, victim or interested party because the trial affected or concerned us in some way.

If one has never sat through a trial - I highly suggest you do. Like the Internet, TV and Movies, what is portrayed and what actually goes on - are not always the same.

Also one has to consider the Judicial Flavor where something occurs such as / not limited to- how Firearms are Viewed in various jurisdictions.

I was Foreman on a Rape case. You parents with teenagers no matter gender, should take these teenagers to sit on a trial. Definitions of Sexual Assault, Sexual Preversion, Rape...etc., will awaken and scare most folks. I later attended a trial in another state, very very similar case, that state's interpretations would have allowed the case I was on to render a verdict of Guilty on the Rape charge, best my state could prove "beyond a resonable doubt" Sexual Assault. Interpretations of the law, Views of the state ...etc.

Another tidbit my Mentors and Elders shared - One pretty much knows their position going in on a disagreement, LISTEN to your oppostion's position, arguments and sources to back them up and then view from a non- involved 3rd party off to the side LISTENING.

Think - not re-act.

I have "questioned" pax and Correia on matters. NOT arguing, instead I wanted clarification to better understand their views and learn from it.

Ayoob , and many others are valuable tools. One does not have to agree with them, one should out of common courtesy and respect LISTEN and Think for themselves .

Never met Ayoob, have read his works like others. And like others I would like to someday and "pick their brain". They may not agree with me, nor I them...I bet a dollar we would all learn from thinking and sharing.

Nasty PM asked me earlier about a shotgun to take to a Gun Class. I suggest he do a search under some members that have attended some. I suggested and gave some links to threads and to some thread on reviews of what that gun class suggest one bring to class.

I did , me being me, suggest he buy a simple wood stock basic shotgun and let the instructor - "instruct" about gun fit and what he needed for his tasks.
I simply shared a wood stock does allow easier fitting to a shooter. Once instructed and training done...then get a syn one to match those measurements. Fact is - not enough meat to shorten many syn stocks.

I wish this person well in the class. I was always told to show up with a good attitude , even if one shows up with no gun or equipment - at least bring a good attitude and willingness to listen and learn.

I assisted in teaching, (still do some , just not like I used to ) many students did not have anything but a willingness and good attitude, the abilty to listen and ask questions. We had various guns, holsters, ammo, shooting glasses , ear protection...show up with the willingness and attitude - don't worry about equipment, we gotcha covered on that.

Like I said, I wish the Nasty PM person well in class.

I should no better than assume, still I betcha that is all Ayoob wants folks to do. Be receptive to ideas, think, ask questions, and not take the easy way out and put blame on others because they did not research, investigate or think.

Oh I do not mind getting attacked off forum - I learn from it. I'm the one that is going to benefit from it.

Regards,

Steve

 

[Jeff White]

Ahh..the errornet...the disinformation superhighway

Mr. Ayoob is exactly right. The internet has made the rainy Saturday morning gunshop talk a world wide conversation. And there are plenty of people, maybe even some members here, who continue to spread the same old myths and urban legends that are told over coffee at the gunshop or across the table at the gunshow. That's the downside.

The good side, is that since it's a world wide forum now, there is a good chance that someone who knows the truth and maybe even has personal experience will chime in and debunk (or attempt to) the myth/urban legend.

I haven't read the article in question, so I can't comment on what was specifically said. But I do believe that Mr. Ayoob was probably referring to those people who post on internet forums who have no personal knowledge of a subject, who have the standard isssue American male attitude that they came out of the womb knowing all there is to know about shooting, self defense, martial arts, driving and making love, and have now found a worldwide audience for their knowledge on an internet forum.

Like it or not, the internet is a vast electronic wasteland. There are many rich mines of information, but you have to be smart enough to find them and patient enough to wade through all the disinformation to recover the information.

Jeff

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I would rather listen to Ayoob whether I agree with him (75%)
or not, than some of the people who would like to shut him out.
That said, I would hope we are all mature enough to listen and
disagree respectfully, even if the discussions do get heated at times.

 

[Justin]

As a moderator, I'll just point out that it's my job to keep discussion on topic and to throw out the riff-raff.

Distinguishing truth from bull pucks is up to the reader.

 

[pax]

Justin ~

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27836



pax

 

[taliv]

all i'll add is that there is a good reason participation in online forums is growing rapidly, and magazine subscriptions are shrinking.

i've long since canceled my gun magazine subscriptions

 

[buzz_knox]

I agree with Corriea; the dumb stuff seems to get corrected by many of the more knowledgeable posters.

Sometimes. But then you do have the occasional spectacle. For example, when someone tells Pat Rogers he doesn't know what he's talking about, when Pat explains the specs of the ICQB, or states that the Desert Eagle has never been a sidearm for Force Recon, no matter what some SEEL says.

 

[depicts]

How could Mas Ayoob criticise anything on the internet forums. We all know that everyone here tells the truth 100% of the time, never exagerates, and they can all shoot 2 inch groups at 300 yards with snubbies.

Not only that, they are all handsome (or beautiful), smart, patriotic and great parents. They Don't beat their dogs and never cheat on their income taxes.

Shame on you Mas for dispariging these fine people!!

 

[Woodsmoke]

I like the way you put that, Jeff. You have to bust through a lot of rock to get to the gold on this here internet.

I will say that I am thankful to Ayoob for his determination. He has been writing about cases involving self-defense for some time. His conclusions from the various cases he has covered have changed over the years. That is not say that he is inconsistent.

It is to say that those who seek to take away our right to self-defense use ever more interesting and evolving arguments to achieve that end. Ayoob's argument has been consistent. Perception = Reality. If you are perceived in any way to have committed a crime then you will be pursued by those seeking to further their career or their cause.

Ayoob offers sound advice proven in many court cases. An appreciation of sound advice cannot be fully realized until you have been accused of something you didn't do. At that time it becomes paramount to separate the wheat from the chaffe. I believe we should thank Ayoob for such labor.

 

[hso]

It's just the internet! The place where any pimple head who's whole life has been focused on beating Grand Theft Auto and surfing porn sites can pose as an expert in SWAT tactics and weapons.

And we wonder why someone might question it?

 

[El Tejon]

If you dish it out, expect to take it.

*I'm talking about THR, not Mas*