Gun Expert or Gun guy ?

I once spoke with the head curator of firearms at the Smithsonian. She didn't know the answer and consulted their website. I told her it was wrong and she became defensive. To deescalate I suggested we do email and later sent an email which was given to another cuator. He told me that a false muzzle (for muzzle loading target rifles) were an early suppressor. I told him that was an interesting interpretation and suggested he reference two pages of a specific book. At that moment I realized my expertise in that narrow area was greater than theirs.
 
44 AMP said:
How about when the court accepts a witness who by training, experience, education, training, skills or certification as an expert. In court the opposition brings in their "expert" and then case becomes a battle between experts before the trier(s) of fact.
Click to expand...
Realizing, of course that it is scripted fiction, I've always found the court room "battle of experts" in the movie My Cousin Vinny to be both entertaining and an amusing depiction of what can happen.
Click to expand...
It's not just scripted fiction. In my real life profession, I have served as an expert witness on multiple occasions. Whether in depositions or in the actual courtroom, the first questions I have to answer are about my education and experience in the field for which I am professing to be an expert. In court, the attorney for the party who hired me first asks a bunch of basic questions intended to qualify as an "expert," and the other side (especially if they have read my report and consider it damaging to their case) then asks a bunch of questions in an attempt to get me disqualified as an "expert." To date, that has never happened to me.

I have been involved in cases with dueling experts. In one, in particular, I was able to use the other party's expert's own field test data to demonstrate that, according to the ASTM standard he used for his field testing, his own data demonstrated a conclusion exactly opposite to what he claimed it demonstrated. Unfortunately, in the real world, some expert witnesses are objective experts, and others are nothing more than opinions for hire.
 
In one, in particular, I was able to use the other party's expert's own field test data to demonstrate that, according to the ASTM standard he used for his field testing, his own data demonstrated a conclusion exactly opposite to what he claimed it demonstrated. Unfortunately, in the real world, some expert witnesses are objective experts, and others are nothing more than opinions for hire.
Click to expand...

Yeah "hired guns" (as in experts who will render whatever opinion they're paid to render) are common enough, but it's usually pretty easy to shoot them down. I was in a federal criminal trial once where the defense brought on a hired gun. The prosecution team had stressed because they didn't arrange an expert pathologist to prove a very basic element of the crime charged. The element was so basic that it was essentially easily assumed by everyone, but it was mistaken oversight by the otherwise on point prosecution team. You can't assume anything in court. Long story short, the defense's hired gun was so focused on pushing very old and dated research that wasn't really relevant to hopefully create reasonable doubt that he didn't catch the prosecutor baiting him into testifying to prove one of the basic elements of the crime FOR THE PROSECUTION!

Not quite the same as your scenario, but quite close.

At my job I am considered an gun "expert." I am a certified armorer for several platforms, and one of two people at my agency that can teach firearms or who can repair our firearms. That said... I could be called an "expert" by some... but I certainly don't consider myself an "expert." Especially amongst many members of TFL. Maybe a peer to many, but a pupil to many others. To answer the original question... it depends on the definition of "expert." But, to the general populace most of us here would probably qualify as an expert.
 
5whiskey said:
Yeah "hired guns" (as in experts who will render whatever opinion they're paid to render) are common enough, but it's usually pretty easy to shoot them down. I was in a federal criminal trial once where the defense brought on a hired gun. The prosecution team had stressed because they didn't arrange an expert pathologist to prove a very basic element of the crime charged. The element was so basic that it was essentially easily assumed by everyone, but it was mistaken oversight by the otherwise on point prosecution team. You can't assume anything in court. Long story short, the defense's hired gun was so focused on pushing very old and dated research that wasn't really relevant to hopefully create reasonable doubt that he didn't catch the prosecutor baiting him into testifying to prove one of the basic elements of the crime FOR THE PROSECUTION!

Not quite the same as your scenario, but quite close.

At my job I am considered an gun "expert." I am a certified armorer for several platforms, and one of two people at my agency that can teach firearms or who can repair our firearms. That said... I could be called an "expert" by some... but I certainly don't consider myself an "expert." Especially amongst many members of TFL. Maybe a peer to many, but a pupil to many others. To answer the original question... it depends on the definition of "expert." But, to the general populace most of us here would probably qualify as an expert.
Click to expand...

I'd generally agree with that assessment. I've been on a few TV shows as a subject matter expert, as well as working on cases of gun failures, shooting reconstruction and self defense shootings as an expert. I've been hired by SHOT, NSSF, half a dozen manufacturers and several attorneys for my expertise.

But, there are a LOT of areas of expertise within the broader topic of firearms. Ballistics, Shooting, Ammunition, History, Design, Manufacturing. Within those are bunches of others.

Sadly, there are "experts" who have some credentials, but lack the real depth of knowledge. In most cases where I am pitted against an LE expert, they are more functional practitioners than true experts. And sure, there are many who will say what their client needs, as their advocate. :mad: I had a recent video call with two attorneys and their client. When the attorney said, in reference to me, that they needed a strong advocate, I stopped her. In more words than this, I basically told her that she is the advocate for the client, I am the advocate for the truth, no matter how it comes out. While I am guessing the other attorney over ruled her in retaining me, she was not happy with my answers. I won't let attorneys move me off of the fundamentals very far, which usually bothers them.

I've been called to the stand three times in my career to testify for the side opposite of who hired me. Some attorneys won't hire me for that reason, but for me, it is a tip of the hat to my integrity that I advocate for the truth regardless of who pays my bills.

A hobbyist certainly could have the depth and breadth of knowledge to be a subject matter expert in some areas of firearms. Just because someone has not been paid professionally in a field does not prevent them from being an expert. A colleague of mine comes from a family that designed and built amusement park rides. Combined with his engineering education, he is one of the foremost experts on amusement park rides failures and accidents. I have another colleague whose family business was fireworks shows, he is a foremost expert on firework display incidents. In most cases, (my opinion) there is a combination of education and experience that makes someone an expert.

An expert witness is a person with specialized knowledge, skills, education, or experience in a particular field who is called upon to provide their expertise in legal proceedings to assist the court with understanding complex technical or scientific issues.

While that definition uses "or", to me, there needs to be more "and". :) If what an "expert" opines upon is common, or the common man would know or understand, then that is not expertise.
 
Last edited:
Just because someone has not been paid professionally in a field does not prevent them from being an expert.
Click to expand...

no, it does not prevent them from being an expert, nor does being paid professionally in a field guarantee expertise, or quality.
 
44 AMP said:
no, it does not prevent them from being an expert, nor does being paid professionally in a field guarantee expertise, or quality.
Click to expand...

True on all counts.

But I've been on cases where tradesmen, who I would not classify as "experts" in their field, were admitted as experts in order to explain standard of care to the Jury. Maybe average in their industry, but an expert when compared to the common man.
 
What makes someone an Expert ?
Click to expand...

I took a class from Ken Hackathorn down along the Texas coast. Few attendees except for the local cops were locals. Ken said he was a firearms expert. That is because he knows guns and is from out of town. Then this hispanic man mentioned he was from Van Horn and Ken said he was an expert as well. Pretty much only the cops, the host, and 2 others weren't experts. :D

Generally speaking, our group defaults to whomever knows the most about something, that is the "expert" on that topic in our group.

For the record, I may not even qualify as a "gun guy." I am just a trigger puller or hunter who uses guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top