What happens when an avowed anti-gun crusader picks up a revolver?

[Gordon Fink]

My e-mailed response:

I recently read Louise Rafkin’s thoughts on learning to use a handgun for the first time. Though I’m glad to see that Ms. Rafkin has taken her first small step toward realizing that firearms are merely tools (that can be abused or misused just like any other tool), I feel the need to comment on a few of the points she made in her column.

First, the ever popular “guns don’t kill people; people kill people†slogan is a little more than just clever “spin.†The slogan is true in a very fundamental sense. Yes, firearms can be used to kill or injure (rightly or wrongly), but a gun can do nothing without a human to fire it. Firearms can be misused, just like kitchen knives, cars, and baseball bats can be misused. It’s the intent of the user that matters. As far as “accidents†go, firearms are not even currently among the top 10 causes of death and injury. (Swimming pools are far more dangerous in this respect.)

I was surprised and startled to read that Ms. Rafkin’s instructor let her look down the barrel of a revolver, as this violates one of the cardinal rules of firearms safety. Then again, I must question the instructor’s competence after reading her fanciful and incorrect explanation of the history behind metal-jacketed ammunition. Fortunately, Ms. Rafkin seems to have escaped unharmed.

I was also bemused by Ms. Rafkin’s description of a semi-automatic pistol as a “more powerful weapon†than a revolver. In general, semi-automatics fire low- to medium-powered handgun ammunition. The higher-powered handgun cartridges are most frequently reserved for sturdier revolvers. Perhaps the black color of the semi-automatic pistol frightened Ms. Rafkin.

I must also address Ms. Rafkin’s “insight†that she could “shoot dead everyone in sight†with her handgun. That thought from her was indeed “creepy†for me to read. (I hope she doesn’t also contemplate running down everyone in sight whenever she gets behind the wheel of a car.) However, if Ms. Rafkin did open fire upon innocents, she could expect to be shot herself by another armed citizen or police officer, and/or she would be subsequently arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison by the criminal-justice system.

Ms. Rafkin’s final comment deserves mention, as well. After describing her incipient enthusiasm for target shooting to an anti-gun friend, her friend suggests that she “[t]ry darts†instead. Let us remember that darts too started out as weapons and can still be misused to harm innocents, just like a gun … or a pair of scissors … or a hammer …

~G. Fink

 

[Parker Dean]

I agree with the propaganda theory. What struck me first was this line:

...I trade the now-warm revolver and pick up the semiautomatic. The feel of this more powerful weapon is different.

As has been noted the attempt is to make the revolver seem like a toy while that EEEEVIIIILLLL semiautomatic is far more dangerous.

I too fail to understand, no comprehend, the mentality of this passage:

I have a creepy split-second insight: I could - if I wanted to - turn, pull the trigger and shoot dead everyone in sight.

I've read the projection theories before and while I can see the process I just can't grasp the idea that people think like that. But since Anti's apparently DO think like that, the propaganda of the article works. Any good Leftie will immediately think "SEE! I told you guns make people murderous! It IS the guns fault!"

There are quite a number of other issues with this article, not the least that I too doubt she ever went to a range, talked to a RO, or is even a woman but I'll leave it be.

 

[Geech]

Regarding her looking down the barrel, the gun attached to that barrel was a revolver, if the cylinder is open that should be perfectly safe. After all, don't people usually clean revolvers from the muzzle?

 

[c_yeager]

Yes, and part of the well regarded "revolver checkout" does indeed invovle looking down the muzzle. I dont really see how this is necessarily a bad thing. And to be honest i think a LOT of anti-gun people (at least those that obssess with it) have the same "i would kill everyone around me if i had one of those" mentality. This is why they FEAR guns. They think that everyone else is a ticking time bomb just like thmeselves. Scary thought isnt it?

 

[swampsniper]

c_yeager, I think you just hit closer to the truth than you may know. Almost every one of several former "antis" I taught to shoot showed signs that made me a little edgey. There is just some indefinable signal they transmit.

 

[XavierBreath]

"I have a creepy split-second insight: I could - if I wanted to - turn, pull the trigger and shoot dead everyone in sight."

This feeling is not as odd as many here might think, and many adults have felt it at one time or another when first handling a loaded firearm. It is a realization of the power and responsibility that one possesses with the weapon. I would prefer to shoot with someone who HAS felt this, and chosen not to act on it than a person who has never felt it at all. Obviously it is a fantasy thought. In Baton Rouge, during the last year of the serial killer, many anti-gun type women saw new value in firearms and went to classes to learn to shoot. Many of the same feelings were expressed.

The FMJ error is a typical police not knowing what they are talking about mistake. Had the instructor been a military woman, the instruction would likely have been different. The same goes for the pistol is more powerful error. Even pro-gunners often equate capacity with power. Power is a term that is hard to pin down. People who know ammo think in terminal ballistics. People who are new to guns think capacity.

The one thing that jumps out at me from this article is that the instructor means everything to a new shooter. Because a person has been in law enforcement does NOT make them qualified to instruct. Neither does 50 years of experience in shooting. A good instructor learns how to teach as well as how to quickly catch dangerous mistakes, and how to refer a student to a reference if an answer is unknown. Eventhough the instructor's credentials are not shown, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. You have to remember that the errors Louise Rafkin made reflect more on her ability to learn than the instructor's ability to teach.

I kind of have the feeling that the article is legitimate, that is was written by an anti-gunner, and hopefully the lady will buy a gun and continue shooting. At the very least, she educated herself. I give her credit for that, and for writing about it in a publication that is read by other anti-gunners. I feel she did OK.

 

[boltaction]

re: Bad Instructor

"It was when they realized it was more efficient to clean up dead bodies than treat the wounded," my instructor says gravely.

Do any of the other instructors that float on this board do this with their students?

Ray,

I agree with you. As an instructor, that hit me like fingernails on a blackboard. That type of violent imagery HAS NO PLACE in the class room. I am very interested in terminal ballistics, and would love to teach about wound channels, aorta shots, the "one-stop shot" problem, etc. but generally, YOU CAN'T DO IT. The only exception I ever made to that rule was a short discussion of terminal ballistics as part of a CCW class with two personal friends of mine as students - they were both already NRA members. Even, then, the material was presented very "clinically", and not with any of that "clean up the dead" stuff. Makes the skin crawl . Good thing she did not lose the anti right then and there.

PS - Do not mean to go off topic here, but this is like the word "WEAPON" - we do not use the "W" word in our classes...we teach that w***** is NOT the same as firearm, and I discourage strongly its use in the way. A gun is a gun, a hockey stick is a hockey stick - CAN either be USED as a weapon? Yes or no. Most of my guns are for punching holes in paper. Might I someday use one as a weapon to defend myself? Possibly. Same is true of the baseball bat out in garage - but I do not tell my son to go out and grab the baseball and "weapon" so we can hit a few around. So weapon indicates the mode of use; it is NOT a general descriptor. Calling firearms "weapons" places us in the hands of the antis.

Boltaction

 

[greyhound]

I also notice there was no mention of any of the 4 rules, or what condition the revolver was in when she was looking down the barrel.

If I was an anti, that article would pretty much reinforce my beliefs.

 

[Carnitas]

Some respectible reaseacher in phychology needs to investigate this possible connection between anti's and projecting thoughts of mass killing.

If you could establis that anti's are ticking timebombs but for the means to do evil we could simply properly diagnose them, help them understand their illness and that their fear is weapons is fobia and therefore shouldent be the cause of taking away others rights. No more then a person with a fear of fly is justified in pushing anti airplane legisltaion.

 

[Art Eatman]

When I run across articles like this, I like to write a polite and friendly letter or email describing some of my own background with firearms. After all, my mother gave me my first .22 rifle when I was eleven years old--almost 60 years ago. In spite of all the "inherent evil of guns", and my possession of quite a few over the last 50 and more years, I still pass the NICS test.

, Art

 

[chas_martel]

To Blue86Buick

In my most respectful manner,

your comment:

> I think that this is normal, and anyone who denies having thoughts of this >nature even occasionally, is lying to themself.

Is absolutely wrong.

You are being very presumptive. It is NOT NORMAL and there are many of us
that have never had one of these feelings.

In my not so humble opinion you should seek help before touching a gun again.

Good luck.

 

[hansolo]

Anti: CA style

"Duncan" refers to my state as "California"; First of all, it is a handful of politicians fault that we CALIFORNIANS suffer limited 2nd Amendment rights.....also, there are a handful of states that are even MORE persecuted than CA.

If you feel, as I do, that folks who support the 2nd should stick together, please don't shoot youself, and OTHER firearm enthusiasts in the foot by rediculing The state called home at different times by Charleton Heston,
Tom Selleck, Rob Leatham.

 

[carp killer]

"Duncan" refers to my state as "California"; First of all, it is a handful of politicians fault that we CALIFORNIANS suffer limited 2nd Amendment rights.....also, there are a handful of states that are even MORE persecuted than CA.

If you feel, as I do, that folks who support the 2nd should stick together, please don't shoot youself, and OTHER firearm enthusiasts in the foot by rediculing The state called home at different times by Charleton Heston,
Tom Selleck, Rob Leatham.



Just relax, I'm quite sure Duncan didn't mean that the individual gun owner stuck in Kali is a Marxist. But I think he was pointing to the government in the state capitol, who have said the the U.S. Constitution is a worthless piece of trash and that gun owners in this state are the chattel of the state. And that a Kali gun owner has to obey the edicts of the state first and formost and the Federal law be damned.

 

[dav]

Too pat

This story is written too perfectly. It contains lots of "anti" spin hidden in a "pro" story.

I simply cannot accept that any of what is purported to have taken place did, in the manner described.

I think it is a work of fiction.

 

[blue86buick]

chas_martel:

your comment:

...

Is absolutely wrong.

You are being very presumptive. It is NOT NORMAL and there are many of us that have never had one of these feelings.

In my not so humble opinion you should seek help before touching a gun again.

Good luck.

May

I need to clarify. Heck, maybe I should edit that post and delete the contents...oh well, too late for the internet. As I said, I have never had those thoughts involve a gun. Secondly, I do not TRY to have them. That would be sick. As Xavierbreath said:

"I have a creepy split-second insight: I could - if I wanted to - turn, pull the trigger and shoot dead everyone in sight."

This feeling is not as odd as many here might think, and many adults have felt it at one time or another when first handling a loaded firearm. It is a realization of the power and responsibility that one possesses with the weapon. I would prefer to shoot with someone who HAS felt this, and chosen not to act on it than a person who has never felt it at all. Obviously it is a fantasy thought.

(assuming fantasy to mean non-reality, not a mystical desire)

That is exactly what I'm referring to. Although, he says "when first handling," where I differed is I mentioned recurring thoughts. They are NOT even close to being frequent, or on any regular basis. Just like someone who's not good at darts (like me) hitting the center of the bullseye, sometimes it happens, most often it doesn't.

Again, the important part is, when they have happened, they have NOT been acted on. That is key. [added]I have been thinking about this since I posted, and realized where I was not clear, and had an epiphany.

Point 1: These are NOT desires. I do NOT want to spin my car, and barrel roll it down the freeway 50 yards, or off the side of the off ramp. I DO wonder, "What if?" Tis the nature of being curious and of a technical mind. I do NOT want to kill or injure anyone, ever, for any reason (as is the sentiment shared by many, if not all, people here on THR). However, I hope that God gives me what is necessary to do so if needed (as is the sentiment shared by many, if not all, people here on THR).

Point 2: As a ___-religious person (PM me if you want to discuss the ___), I have come to the belief that these thoughts are not of my own creation, but of Satan's. Once created, it is my own, and up to me what I do. It is when I have God on my side, that I can overcome Satan, and not follow through. If you think that's a load of BS, fine. Your opinion; you're entitled.[/added]

However, if it comes to it, I will respectfully follow your advice. I consider myself an intelligent person...when I drink, I don't drive. When I'm going to drive, I don't drink. When I think straight, I shoot. If I stop thinking straight, I'll get rid of my guns until I get help.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Anti's Fascinated With "The Power of Death"

Anti gunners are frequently fascinated with gun owners wielding "The Power of Death" (you really can hear the capitol letters when they speak!), and initially find it hard to relate to firearms in any other terms.

All they see in their minds is coffins and dead babies.

Case in point: A good friend of mine _was_ what I would characterize as a "marginal anti", meaning that he theoretically supported 2A in the abstract, acknowledged the "right to hunt" and perhaps keep rifles in the home, but got weirder when it came to handguns, and even weirder at the thought that perfectly normal people carry them around with them.

Early on, shortly after I got my first pistol, he made some comment about how my hard won FID was a "license to kill", demonstrating the sort of death fascination from which the anti impulse springs.

In a flash of inspiration, I immediately corrected him.

"I DO NOT have a license to kill. Actually, I have EXACTLY the same rights that you have. I have the right to defend myself and my family, just like you. The ONLY difference between you an me is that I possess effective means to actually perform that defense, and you don't. Now, I'm not saying that guns are for everybody, or even for you. It's an intensely personal choice, but it is that: a legitimate choice that no one has the right to interfere with."

He looked sharply at me, and was silent for a long time. Eventually, he started nodding.

 

[raz-0]

YEah, I have to go with the contingent that thinks the antis have some sort of mental hang up.

Every time I read the anti trying a gun type of article, there is always some sort of weilding the power of death/god/etc. type of revelation. Also, a high percentage of them include the "I could kill anyone I want" bit as well.

Personally, the only epiphany like thought I had when first shooting ran along the lines of "what you are doing now is not forgiving if you screw up."

 

[Legionnaire]

I have to go with the contingent that thinks the antis have some sort of mental hang up.

Agreed. That's why Jeff Cooper (I believe) coined the term "hoplophobe." A phobia is a "irrational fear."

 

[goon]

I fell in love with guns long before I even knew what I was in for.
I had a hell of a collection of toy guns as a kid, and a few of them were made out of wood and steel.
They were made by a company called Parris.
I had a couple muzzleloader style pistols and a rifle. I wanted to see what made them tick, so I took them apart.
I was fascinated by the moving parts, and how they worked.
How did someone come up with the idea of a doglock, then a flintlock, etc.?
That guy must have been a visionary.
John Browning, Paul Mauser, John Garand, Mikhail Kalishnikov: all those guys must have been geniuses (still are in the case of Kalishnikov).

As far as the point the author made about how she could go nuts and start shooting people; that is true.
When it comes down to it, I can do anything I want. Legal or not, I have the power to do anything that I am physically capable of doing.
There would surely be consequences for some of those choices, but I could do them anyhow.
The laws don't really prevent you from doing anything, they just tell you what the consequences will be if you do something.
At the end of the day, I control me.
Not the law, not my neighbor, me.
I don't hurt people because I don't want to.
The law has got nothing to do with it.

 

[Moparmike]

Goon, your philosophy is desperately needed in 95% of the Liberals heads. I propose you start preparing for some philosophy grafting.

 

[hillbilly]

Here's what I wrote to Louise Rafkin, just minutes ago.





I noticed this description of you at the end of the column.

"Aside from writing, Louise Rafkin is a lifelong martial artist and teaches
self-defense and Indonesian karate in North Oakland. "

In the column, you describe realizing that at the range, you thought you
could turn and shoot every one there and were scared of that power.

Tell me, do you also walk down the street thinking about all the people
whose necks you could break and ribs you could fracture using your
Indonesian karate knowledge and skills?

Or, are you, the lefty anti-gun crusader, perfectly capable of controlling
your homicidal instincts when it comes to your hands, feet, elbows and
knees, and only get those thoughts when you hold an obviously magical object
called a gun which obviously emits secret brain waves which control your
thoughts about killing people?

Of course.....guns have those secret magical powers over human brains,
right?

But learning how to take people out with your bare hands, with elbow strikes
and arm-breaking joint locks and lethal kicks, and even eye-gouging doesn't
affect human brains.....especially the brains of anti-gun crusaders with
enlightened lefty views who are clearly superior than all those
knuckle-dragging folks who like those evil, magical guns.

I mean c'mon, folks who like guns live in the South, or other parts of that
vast cultural wasteland known as "fly-over country" between the two
enlightened coasts, right?


But, I am glad that unlike lots of other anti-gunners, you actually did go
to a range and see what it is you've feared and hated for all these years.

And you found out that shooting might actually be fun and a discipline and
interesting.....sort of like breaking boards with your bare hands, only a
lot louder.

 

[Dilettante]

To Blue86Buick
In my most respectful manner,

your comment:

> I think that this is normal, and anyone who denies having thoughts of this >nature even occasionally, is lying to themself.

Is absolutely wrong.

You are being very presumptive. It is NOT NORMAL and there are many of us
that have never had one of these feelings.

Actually I agree with Blue86Buick. It is normal. So is thinking about jumping when you stand near the edge on top of a tall building.

The same woman probably doesn't think about running over people in her car because she actually drives cars in regular life. If she continues shooting, this silly image will also stop appearing in her head. Instead she will be thinking about how to improve her stance, grip and aim.

Supposedly the guys who build skyscrapers get used to it too.

 

[c_yeager]

I think there is a fine line here. When i pick up a firearm i am effected by a sense of "respect" or even awe for the power that comes with it (especially when i was getting started in the hobby). This respect is one of the things that makes so many people (myself included) so fanatical about safety. Now i think these fealings are normal. I also think there is a destructive little voice in most people that contemplates what could be done with such power. Another poster likened it to the thoughts of jumping off a tall building or structure when standing at the edge. Now the difference between what is "normal" and the writer of this article. Is that the little voice is rarely loud enough to be articulated in the words that she used. I think there is probably a little insanity in all of us. But, in some its much louder than others.

I should probably add that for some reason i think this article is completely bogus. It just doesnt have the "ring" of a first hand account of something that actually happened.

 

[TallPine]

I think it is a work of fiction.

Me. too.

 

[XavierBreath]

Hillbilly,
I have to say that I found your letter to Louise Rafkin humorous, and it's logic inescapable.

There are several differences that I would like to point out about these fantasy thoughts, however. Skill in the martial arts in so far as killing is not gained in an instant. It is gained over time, and these fantasy thoughts do not occur. For someone who is not familiar with firearms, they think that only a gun is needed to kill, and are unaware of the skill involved to employ it effectively. The erroneous nature of the fantasy does not stop it from occuring because the fantasizer does not realize the error. Once the person learns more, and feels more in control and adept these feelings go away. Much like the stepping off a ledge feeling, holding a loaded gun for the first time can give an adult these feelings. Doctors and nurses have reported these feelings when starting their practice and making life and death decisions. Soldiers who have never held a weapon report this feeling when loading a weapon for the first time in Boot Camp. It spooks the Navy enough that they keep instructors trained to shoot anyone who deviates from instruction during Basic Arms training (or at least that is what the recruits believe, I don't know for sure, I was only a recruit, not an instructor. Still had the same effect though ). I don't know, but the Army probably does the same. These thoughts are nothing more than the realization of the power and responsibility one holds. Children seldom get this feeling, at least not until they have seen enough Rambo movies and formed a belief system of right and wrong and have a firm grasp of life and death. This usually does not occur until early adulthood in our society.

Fundementally, I see a difference between pro-gunners and anti-gunners. Pro-gunners seem to form opinions based on logic and their own experience. Antis seem to form opinions based on emotion and the experiences of others.

While I do not agree with everything that was said in this article, I commend Ms. Rafkin for having the courage to investigate her fear, to find what she thought was a competent instructor, and to go to a range and learn to shoot. I especially commend her for writing an article about her experience, that to me at least seems to be unbiased, and then publishing that article for other anti-gunners to read. She should certainly not be crucified by us because she made some errors in her article, or because she had a fantasy thought. She should be welcomed to our side of the table. A converted enemy of one's cause is more valuable than a person who never held another side.