Beware of Fake Experts

Probably because the reporter himself doesn’t know much, he recalls the advice of someone who had no business instructing people in guns:

Unlike many entrepreneurs teaching “concealed carry” classes from sea to shining sea, he urged students to leave their guns at home. […] Anybody pulling a gun must shoot to kill without hesitation. The soldier reasoned that most Rice students simply weren’t prepared to do that.

Leaving the gun at home. That sounds like a winning strategy, doesn’t it? Most real instructors have more respect for their students than this.

Our instructor further advised that shotguns are the weapon of choice for home defense. Unlike a heavy-caliber handgun, a shotgun will put an intruder out of business without a bullet passing through a wall and killing a sleeping child.

Any shotgun load worth a damn will shoot through walls. Any instructor who says something like this is cluelessly endangering his students, and is going to get someone killed by accident.

Meanwhile, NRA fundamentalists pretend that America will be a freer, safer place if more poorly trained, inexperienced, unfit, would-be Bruce Willis heroes were waddling around shopping malls carrying pistols.

Well, at least now we know what you think about us. You might, however, want to look in a mirror in regards to “poorly trained, inexperienced, and unfit,” if you believe shotguns can’t shoot through walls, and are more suitable for home defense for everyone in all situations. For some people, a pistol makes more sense than a shotgun for home defense.

UPDATE: More fake experts, via SayUncle. This one lives in a world where it’s wise and appropriate to carry a .44 magnum revolver for defense against Alaska bears, but a 7.62x39mm Krink is just going to piss the bear off and “embed in the bear’s fat.”

UPDATE: The report would be the kind of guy I’d prefer didn’t own a gun. Sean has managed to find this previous article by the same journalist:

This time last year I was plotting to kill a man. I was going to walk up to him, reintroduce myself and then blow his balls off. I was going to watch him writhe like a poisoned cockroach for a few seconds, then kick him onto his stomach and put three bullets in the back of his head. This time last year I had a gun, and a silencer, and a plan.

No wonder he wants to ban guns. He doesn’t trust himself with them. And for good reason!

15 thoughts on “Beware of Fake Experts”

  1. “…poorly trained, inexperienced, unfit, would-be Bruce Willis heroes were waddling around shopping malls carrying pistols.”

    He’s merely trying to be provocative. Maybe he gets paid according to the number of comments his article generates.

  2. I do not want be Bruce Willis. But other than that, yes, I think America would be better if all the poorly trained, unfit, inexperienced people were carrying, all the time, wherever they are waddling.

    It would make every robber and rapist in the nation think twice about victim selection, if nothing else.

    Where in the 2nd Amendment does it mention limiting freedom to just the experienced people? I do think people should train, be fit, gain as much practice as time and money permits, but it is clearly not a requirement.

  3. The article is so bad that I have to wonder how many writers out there know a lot more about guns than they let on, so that they can continue to write for the anti-gun rights media. If ignorance is job security, ’tis folly to be wise.

  4. I want to call up a local new station, claim to be an expert and then cite the apparent ammo capacity of the pistols in Die Hard as why we don’t need extended mags. Obviously they are already large enough.

  5. “He stressed that he couldn’t turn them into infantry soldiers with a few sessions in a gym basement.”

    Ummm, don’t schools like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, inter alia turn out people who are better trained than police officers in just a few days?

    No offense, sir, and thank you for your service to our country, but you are not there to train the infantry. You are there to train people to be dangerous, at the proper time, in self-defense.

    “Anybody pulling a gun must shoot to kill without hesitation. The soldier reasoned that most Rice students simply weren’t prepared to do that.”

    Ummm, no, Col. Blimp that is not the purpose of pulling a gun. If we have to pull a gun, it is to stop the threat. I could care less if he dies, I just want to live.

    Look, go back to the VFW bar and tell everyone what a bad ass you were jumping out of helicopters with a knife in your teeth, but, Col. Blimp, you have no business teaching anyone about self-defense with firearms.

  6. I like how he admits to several felonies in his “want to kill a man” article. Maybe someone should alert the ATF?

  7. Heh, I’ve had mice in the past, and squirrels and possums in the attic, but no problems with sleeping children that have concealed themselves behind my walls. How bout know your target and what’s downrange?

  8. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this dude admitted to at least a couple of federal felonies with the silencer admission.

    Unless, of course, he made the whole thing up.

  9. And I want to know if the local cops or BATFE are going to investigate that clown to see if he still has the silencer stashed somewhere?

    “What? Tax stamp? What do you mean, I’m under arrest?”

  10. This is a good article sir. It’s baffling why so many people in the science of ballistics blab at the mouth for attention spewing false information. And the guy who thought a 44 magnum would stop a bear quicker than a semi automatic 7.62×39 is epicly failing at everything.

Comments are closed.