Combat Handguns column "It happened to me"
Has anyone else read these stories and laughed at the sheer stupidity of the people submitting the stories? I guess for the $100 bucks they're good fiction, but the stories mostly show the writers in a really bad light. For example, in the latest issue, someone writes that he decided to defend himself when he was being robbed in a convenience store. Nothing wrong with that, but then he goes on to write that although he kept shooting at and missing the BG, he finally hit the guy when he was 75 feet away! And the BG was running away the whole time.
What is Combat Handguns thinking? If readers take these stories seriously, and act in a similar manner in real life, they're opening themselves up to arrest, criminal and civil prosecution, etc.
These stories read like CCW versions of Penthouse's Forum. "Dear Combat Handguns, I never thought this would happen to me but...". What's really sad is that there are other articles in the same magazine that give good, responsible advice and tactics for CCW.
I plan to write to the magazine to ask them to somehow verify the stories they accept for publication. The NRA's Armed Citizen is an excellent way to communicate the use of firearms to stop crime. Combat Handguns is doing a disservice to its readers by printing these ridiculous stories.
What is Combat Handguns thinking? If readers take these stories seriously, and act in a similar manner in real life, they're opening themselves up to arrest, criminal and civil prosecution, etc.
These stories read like CCW versions of Penthouse's Forum. "Dear Combat Handguns, I never thought this would happen to me but...". What's really sad is that there are other articles in the same magazine that give good, responsible advice and tactics for CCW.
I plan to write to the magazine to ask them to somehow verify the stories they accept for publication. The NRA's Armed Citizen is an excellent way to communicate the use of firearms to stop crime. Combat Handguns is doing a disservice to its readers by printing these ridiculous stories.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
When Combat Handguns first got going, I was published TWICE in that column. Back then, they were only paying $50. Both incidents were real and true but since I never filled out a police report, unverifiable. As my actions served to deter and I didn't have to shoot, this reflects the reality of 90% of the self defense uses of a handgun. If you doubt the stories, think of them as "what if" scenarios. I tend to believe them simply BECAUSE they do put the writer in a less than favorable light. Hey, life is unfair. Sometimes things happen and you have to react. Upon later reflection you say "Gee I wish I'd done it a bit differently...." That's just the way it is sometimes. Folks will write in and give their reactions to what you did and you'll hopefully learn from it. Hopefully somebody will learn BEFORE it happens to them...
Joined
·
357 Posts
11:00PM ,Clerk shoots 1911 at perp point blank (6 misses)!Perp flees, clerk follows perp outside, squeezes of a careful last shot(clerk knew it was his last round),round hits perp from 75 ft and perp goes down.Clerk is fired for violating company policy(ccw),Clerk is exhonerated and has his weapon returned the next day!Whats wrong with this picture?
Joined
·
363 Posts
I also read this and thought the same thing as you guys... this guy needs a new scence of direction with his firearm mentallity. The perp was fleeing the scene and was no longer a threat. shot in the back at 75ft... if i were the cop i would have suggested that the D.A. Atleast strip him of his CCW. That basicly goes against all that we stand for..
Joined
·
4,164 Posts
Been there, done that and got the T-shirt. Been on several buy/bust that had some “gun play” at the end. Once my partner shot the bad guy car with his SMG, he missed the bad guy. This was point blank shooting on full auto. Things happen. Been on another where several missed the bad guy at first. Lots of lead went down range that day. Another point blank. When you are shooting at someone he/she is shooting back at you; the tunnel vision kicks in and the hearing shuts down. Also you are “PUMPED UP”, you are going 100 mph, but you see everything in “slow motion”. It is no wonder that the un-trained individual will miss their target and do other things that we can set back and conduct “arm chair quarterbacking” on their actions. When we go the range we wear hearing protection, eye protection, and other items. But on the street we will not have these items. This is a big factor in a gunfight. This is part of my two cents worth.
frankmako
frankmako
Joined
·
357 Posts
I do not think anyone is armchair quarterbacking,myself personally I am calling BS on the whole story.Read the column!It sounds like pure fiction,if it is not the clerk is very lucky he was not prosecuted .The funniest part is at the end of the story ,the clerk says his former employer was getting threatening phone calls from a friend of the dead perp.The clerk tells his ex co-worker to tell the caller his name and where he lived ,and the calls stopped after that.This gunfight went down at 11:00 PM yet the clerks gun was returned the next day!Come on ,what planet does this guy live on.Under the questionable circumstances I would think it would take weeks (minimum)for the clerks weapon to be released.frankmako said:
Joined
·
360 Posts
Well, shooting someone fleeing in the back is (close to) attempted or actual murder, unless the crook has committed a very specific act such as rape or murder to which you were an eyewitness. At least in Alabama. Would you get away with it? Maybe, but only after a jury trial. I asked our sheriff about a lesser sort of circumstance and he said one should expect to be arrested on the spot. I read the article in the magazine and thought it was appalling. People do stupid things under extreme stress, no question, and cannot be judged as if it were some video game, but unless you were seriously hurt in an attack, you are unlikely to be able to defend shooting someone so far away, running away, in the back. Good grief.
God Bless
God Bless
Joined
·
765 Posts
In NC, if you shoot a fleeing man in the back, you would be charged so fast it would be incredible (in most cases). I understand being pumped up and all but the shooter is responsible for the use of his weapon. I don't agree it is armchair quarterbacking but rather learning from this story. None of us know what we would do in this situation but I hope I would be more responsible than the man in the story.
Joined
·
5,163 Posts
This particular story is one of the most egregious examples of "tall tales" the magazine has ever published. I'd rather they print a "what-if" scenario one month and then publish the best responses to the scenario the next month; we'd learn a hell of a lot more from that than from some fiction writer who doesn't even spin a credible tale.
Joined
·
5,105 Posts
They are just filling space. I have been rereading my past magazines from 199 to 2003, some of trhe stories they are printing now wer in previous issues, some stories have apeared at least 4 times. some have minor changes but are still the same story. I feel the magazine needs a better editor.
Joined
·
14,340 Posts
Yep, I read that story too. I was waiting to read that the shooter was writing from prison to tell us what would happen if you shoot some one fleeing in the back. Of course that's not how the story went.
I couldn't figure out why CH would publish such a thing - very irresponsible.
I couldn't figure out why CH would publish such a thing - very irresponsible.
Me, I think that if a person just used force against you in the form of a weapon, it shouldn't matter if you did shot them in the back while running away, they may not be a danger to you any longer but they are still a great danger to others.
But I degress.
Yes, getting the gun back the next day did seem abit "odd" but I just had an odd thing happen to me and know that stranger things can happen. I no longer just discount something just because "I" think that it couldn't happen or that it just seems too "odd" to be truthful.
I don't discount anything right off that anyone tells me anymore but I will look into it for myself to prove them right or wrong instead of just calling them a liar right off the bat.
As for the anti's, nothing that we do gives them fuel for the fire, they make up their own fuel and then fan their own fires. Why are we so worried or upset that a BG got shot? Even if it was in the back? He's a BG, He's a danger to society, He deserved what he got no matter what because he chose to try to victimize others and then people want the GG to be victimized because he put a BG out of commission (either for a short time or permantely).
Quite honestly, if this were true, it turned out the way it should have, the BG is in the hospital then prison and the GG is still walking the streets.
Wayne
But I degress.
Yes, getting the gun back the next day did seem abit "odd" but I just had an odd thing happen to me and know that stranger things can happen. I no longer just discount something just because "I" think that it couldn't happen or that it just seems too "odd" to be truthful.
I don't discount anything right off that anyone tells me anymore but I will look into it for myself to prove them right or wrong instead of just calling them a liar right off the bat.
As for the anti's, nothing that we do gives them fuel for the fire, they make up their own fuel and then fan their own fires. Why are we so worried or upset that a BG got shot? Even if it was in the back? He's a BG, He's a danger to society, He deserved what he got no matter what because he chose to try to victimize others and then people want the GG to be victimized because he put a BG out of commission (either for a short time or permantely).
Quite honestly, if this were true, it turned out the way it should have, the BG is in the hospital then prison and the GG is still walking the streets.
Wayne
Joined
·
14,340 Posts
Wayne,
By law, we are only allowed to use deadly force if we are in fear of our life. We are not allowed to shoot someone if they are no longer a threat to us and no longer a threat to someone else. We can't shoot them for what they did, or what they might do in the future.
The BG was running away from the store. He was not an imminent threat to anyone. The store owner shot through his doorway, through his front window, and with one shot left in his gun, took a careful aim at the BG, IIRC, 75 feet away, and shot him in the back.
We can't shoot someone because in our way of thinking they deserve it. Further the shooter was likely a greater danger to the community at that point than the BG. This guy was shooting into his community and I seriously doubt he was checking his background for safety.
By law, we are only allowed to use deadly force if we are in fear of our life. We are not allowed to shoot someone if they are no longer a threat to us and no longer a threat to someone else. We can't shoot them for what they did, or what they might do in the future.
The BG was running away from the store. He was not an imminent threat to anyone. The store owner shot through his doorway, through his front window, and with one shot left in his gun, took a careful aim at the BG, IIRC, 75 feet away, and shot him in the back.
We can't shoot someone because in our way of thinking they deserve it. Further the shooter was likely a greater danger to the community at that point than the BG. This guy was shooting into his community and I seriously doubt he was checking his background for safety.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
