|
Choosing Self Defense Guns |
 |
 |
This article first appeared in our September 2008 members' journal
By Marty Hayes, J.D.
Much is written in gun magazines and on Internet forums about the kind of weapons we should employ in our self-defense plan. In this article, I will give my perspective as both a trainer and an expert witness in self-defense cases, while drawing on my experiences as a cop for about 30 years, since I still carry a special police commission.
Before talking makes and models though, I want to offer some perspective. Following a self-defense shooting, your gun will be confiscated. If the shooting occurs in the home, police are likely to confiscate all your firearms (more on this in a future article). But, for the purposes of this article, let’s assume that the police take only the gun you used into evidence. That gun will remain in the police evidence locker until it is either released by order of the judge after trial, or given back to you months, if not years, later after police and prosecutors determine that they will not press charges. This brings me to the first point: I wouldn’t use a prized pistol for self defense. I tend to carry guns about which I would not suffer any financial or emotional distress if they were forfeited. That means I carry stock guns, with perhaps a better set of sights. For example, on a recent motorcycle trip, I took along a Colt Defender and a Smith and Wesson Model 642. Total value of both guns combined adds up to under a thousand dollars, so if they sit in some police locker in Big Timber, Montana for five years, it’s not the end of the world.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
The Best Defense Highlights Tactics |
|
|
This interview with Rob Pincus first appeared in the Network's March 2009 journal.
by Gila Hayes
When Rob Pincus talks about training, his eyes light up, his words come faster, and his zeal is hard to ignore. In 2003, Pincus burst on the shooting scene as the director of shooting operations at the Elk Mountain Resort, developing a shooting and tactical facility dubbed Valhalla.
I caught up with Rob Pincus at the January 2009 SHOT Show, where we talked about his profession as a trainer (http://www.icetraining.us/), and his latest project, a television show he shares with Michael Bane and Michael Janich, called The Best Defense (http://www.downrange.tv/bestdefense/). In the interest of not diluting Pincus’ enthusiasm, we transcribe the conversation as closely as possible to how it occurred.
eJournal: How’d you get into this business, Rob?
Pincus: I jokingly say that I grew up with access to firearms with no adult supervision. My father was a police officer; to him a firearm was a tool. There were guns in the house, but in my family there wasn’t a passion for shooting. I just had to pick up that interest by myself. That interest led to me being out in the back yard shooting with a pistol and with a .22 rifle, without formal education or a lot of, “Do it this way, do it that way; you have to stand in this position or you can’t hit the target.”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Opinion: The Danger of Dogma |
|
|
This editorial first appeared in the Network's May 2008 journal.
by Gila Hayes
“I just don’t know what to do! First, I took training at my local gun range, but I wanted to learn more. When I went to another instructor, he told me that much of what I had learned was wrong and said that I had to change. I feel like I wasted my time!” exclaims the voice coming through my phone.
“Were the second instructor’s corrections about safety?” I ask.
“No, he got on me about how I was standing and how I held and pointed the gun,” she replies indignantly. “I’m afraid if I go to another shooting school, I’ll have to relearn yet another way to do this stuff. What a waste of time!”
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Is There Always a Trial After a Shooting? |
|
|
This article first appeared in the Network's April 2009 journal.
by Marty Hayes, J.D.
Recently, a Network member asked a question on our members-only internet forum, inquiring about the likelihood of a “righteous shooting” going to trial. Instead of answering him on the forum, I thought I would answer the question in the public format of our eJournal, because I would like my comments to reach to more than just the members who visit our forum. In addition, this gives eJournal readers a taste of the type of discussions we have on our members-only forum.
This member had just finished viewing the Network’s three educational DVDs, and asked this question:
“After having listened to the three tapes, and planning on a second viewing next week, I have several questions and observations. Let’s say you are involved in a self-defense shooting where there is no chance of retreat, the case meets the “reasonable man” standard, fear of death or serious bodily harm, you are a citizen in good standing, and the incident meets the standards of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy. You give the appropriate information to responding police and then contact your attorney. What are the chances of the DA saying there is no case against the defender (you) here and stopping the case there? Can your attorney, who knows something about you and your training, interact with the DA at this point and suggest there is little chance of a successful prosecution and argue for dismissal at this point?”
Isn’t this a great question? Now you know why I wanted to answer this publicly.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Rifles in Self Defense |
|
|
This interview first appeared in the Network's April 2009 journal.
An interview with John Farnam by Gila Hayes
The Network is fortunate to have firearms instructor extraordinaire John Farnam as a member of our Foundation’s advisory board. Beyond his generous assistance in these formative times for the Network, Farnam is a rich source of information about most anything to do with guns and ammunition, and is particularly outspoken in his views about armed citizens and self defense. We spent a little time with Farnam in February 2009, and he graciously agreed to sit down for an interview.
eJournal: I am eager to hear your views about rifles for private citizen’s self defense. We might think of a rifle as a military weapon, but I suspect you assign rifles a broader role.
Farnam: Absolutely! You’ve heard me say before, “We don’t carry pistols because they’re effective, we carry pistols because they’re convenient.” Pistols translate to the seat belt in a car; they’re for unexpected threats. Rifles are for expected threats. When we have an expected threat, that is when we would want a rifle nearby. Personally, I travel with one all the time.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
