Is there such a thing as "too close" ?

It's difficult to Monday morning quarterback these types of things with a black and white response.

If you haven't taken a force on force class with sim rounds, you really don't know.

If you have taken a force on force class with sim rounds, you still don't really know. But you have an idea.

The "belly gun" is one I used to carry when I would carry my main sidearm at my strong-side. The revolver was a Smith and Wesson 360PD appendix. It was carried there for that very reason. In being a belly gun. Unlike a semi-automatic where the slide needs to reciprocate to chamber the next round, the revolver just spins in place and you can dump all 5-6+ rounds into someone with much less chance of a stoppage.


So yes, they are better in that. What's best in all is avoid stupid places, at stupid times, and with stupid people.

Distance is always best and nothing, I mean nothing goes like you think it will. In any scenario, you can conjure up.


With all this said, I highly recommend a force on force class.
Click to expand...

Which is why the answer to the OP question may very well be "no". Because our job as responsible citizens and family folk is to stay out of trouble, keep our loved ones out of trouble, and be able to respond accordingly when trouble do hit us. We may have our minds set to doing good things and productive things, but the streetrat lurking in a dark corner trying to figure out a way to break in your house for easy crack money don't think like that. He has already chosen his battleground, with you as the unwitting and unsuspecting participant. And tools and training, good training that is, do just that, to provide you with the resources to turn the tables on him.

This subject is really thought-provoking and is a lot like defensive driving. After all, I am not worried about cruising into another lane and hitting someone. I know that will never happen because I am physically and mentally fit to drive and I thoroughly make sure the equipment I am driving is in road-safe condition, always. BUT...that doesn't mean someone else might not cruise into my lane and hit me. For someone driving a compact car, that is already a nightmarish scenario. And I drive a Kenworth flatbed...A lot of times with a Caterpillar backhoe strapped to the cargo slab. Trying to swerve or make sudden movements to avoid another motorist, especially on a wet or frozen motorway, is just asking for loads of trouble. Defensive driving and driving experience help me stay focused as well as observant of my surroundings, so when someone makes a traffic error that can result in an emergency, I would know how to react. Hopefully.
 
Rachen your definition of psychopath is as wrong as your conclusion regarding Askins behavior. Askins, by his own admission killed because he could, without remorse. By definition psychopathic behavior. Rationalization of inhumane behavior in response to real or imagined
inhumane behavior is not how rational humans behave. I accept that in war good men can cross the line. Askins was not a good man who went too far. He was a psychopath taking advantage of power and position to do his evil.
 
Given that squibs aren't entirely uncommon and usually result in a bulged barrel but not an exploded barrel, I wonder if saying you'll be showered with barrel fragments is overselling it a bit. I agree bore obstructions are obviously bad, but what we're talking about often doesn't form a perfect seal and shouldn't result in nearly the pressure spike of a obstruction inside the barrel as simple over the top of the bore. There are absolutely instances of shootings where pistols have been discharged against an assailant without detonating the pistol in the process (and I wonder if part of that is due to the recoil operated action of pistols allowing for some gases to escape out the rear of the chamber as the case is being extracted, but I am far from the expert of some people here). There are also retention positions for shooting that help mitigate that issue.

None of this is meant to say that knows can't and aren't extremely effective close quarters weapons, I just don't know if pistols are as prone to detonation as is described above.
Click to expand...

Yeah I concede on that one. I was being a bit exaggerating about what a bore obstruction can do but just to illustrate how dangerous it can be and how much we all want to avoid it. Garlic cloves and banana peels have often resulted from the use of improper ammunition, debris clogging the bore, or firing a squib which gets stuck inside the bore and then subsequently firing another round into the barrel. These would be just as undesirable as having a barrel "detonate". Not only is your gun possibly permanently ruined, but if there is still a fight going on and you only have that gun at hand, things will turn bad very quickly. Even though we today have a whole world of physics and ballistics info at our disposal, looking at and reading accounts of actual gunshot wounds or NDs involving objects being hit, it seems that what a bullet would actually do upon the ignition of the cartridge is still up to pure chance. If there is a chance where firing into a contact range target would damage my gun and possibly injure me also, I would not want to attempt it.
 
Rachen your definition of psychopath is as wrong as your conclusion regarding Askins behavior. Askins, by his own admission killed because he could, without remorse. By definition psychopathic behavior. Rationalization of inhumane behavior in response to real or imagined
inhumane behavior is not how rational humans behave. I accept that in war good men can cross the line. Askins was not a good man who went too far. He was a psychopath taking advantage of power and position to do his evil.
Click to expand...

I have not delved fully into Askin's accounts but if that was what he said, then certainly, he is a psychopath. Just like that guy from the movie "War Hunt". Wasn't he killing POWs in the Korean War and then turned out to be a serial killer who also murdered people in San Francisco? I thought if maybe he had said: "I saw what these Germans did to these poor folks in Auschwitz and now I am gonna give em' a piece of my mind", we can sympathize with him. Remember that case a while back about how some dirtbag raped and murdered a 5 year old boy and got off on an insanity rap? The boy's father waited outside the courtroom and blasted the dirtbag pointblank with a .38 snubbie and it was on video too.
 
a gun that is good for "too close" like a Charter Arms Bulldog .44spl.... loses its advantage when the distance is in your favor....
 
Yes, but in the human population, there are always "defective products", no matter what race they are from.
Click to expand...
Unless you knew who the German POW was and what his criminal history was, this is totally irrelevant.

And yes, the POW was German, but killing people purely because of their nationality/ancestry is completely unacceptable--and if you think about it, using such an argument in support of killing Germans during WWII is tremendously ironic given that Germany's greatest crime was killing people purely because of their ancestry.
I think there was a movie made in the 1950s or so...
Click to expand...
If your frame of reference for this type of issue is movies, then perhaps you should do some other research before trying to discourse on the subject.
The SS were scum...
Click to expand...
1. You don't know that the German POW was SS.
2. Even if he were SS, it would still be a war crime to shoot him in the manner Askins described.
He would only be a psychopath if...
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should look up the definition of psychopath before trying to tell others what it is.
I thought if maybe he had said: "I saw what these Germans did to these poor folks in Auschwitz and now I am gonna give em' a piece of my mind", we can sympathize with him.
Click to expand...
1. The incident took place early in the war, before anyone outside of Germany knew about the concentration camps.
2. Askins' account does not suggest or even hint that he was shooting the German for any reason other than the damage being done to the vehicles.
3. Even had he known about Auschwitz, shooting a POW in the manner described would still be murder.
The boy's father waited outside the courtroom and blasted the dirtbag pointblank with a .38 snubbie and it was on video too.
Click to expand...
Gary Plauche was charged with 2nd degree murder for killing the rapist/abductor of his 11 year old son but pleaded to manslaughter and was given a 7 year sentence.
 
JERRYS. said:
no it is not. please tell me which ones still teach this?
Click to expand...
Jefferson County Combined Academy. They teach more cadets in CO than any other and are widely considered a leading Department in the Country.

Maybe not taught as a "rule" which some departments improperly ascribed to the Tueller drill, but more as a distance at which you have to take action. What action you take is of course situation specific and is based on a lot of factors, but still, that does not eliminate that 21 feet is a distance as which, in most cases, a person, depending on his demeanor and actions, might be a threat.
 
Last edited:
If there is a chance where firing into a contact range target would damage my gun and possibly injure me also, I would not want to attempt it.
Click to expand...

Again, I'd be interested in seeing the percentage of firearms that were rendered inoperable by being discharged up against a human target or even moreso that hurt the shooter himself. I don't think forming a perfect seal that results in a catastrophic failure is that common, and I saw your post where you admit as much. Certainly could cause issues with the pistol in terms of cycling. As for it being ruined, I can see the concern about that in terms of surviving the fight, but if I have to do that to survive I'm a bit stuck. As for as the monetary value of it, I will gladly trade $500 for my life. Even if the pistol does malfunction don't forget that at least it can be used as an impact weapon of its own.

This is in part why retention positions for shooting are taught. Even all that still, if someone is beating or stabbing me to death and my options are discharge the pistol in my hand or not discharge the pistol in my hand and instead try to get to my knife, I think I still discharge the pistol and then go to the knife if a malfunction results. Again, this isn't me ignoring the value of contact weapons, but I'm not switching to the knife on a whim. Part of that is my own lack of training with edged weapons. If you have such training, that certainly changes up the scenario.
 
Last edited:
if someone is beating or stabbing me to death and my options are discharge the pistol in my hand or not discharge the pistol in my hand and instead try to get to my knife,
Click to expand...

in 1995 I was involved in a situation... my off hand/arm/wrist received some cuts defending against the assault while my gun hand drew and fired my handgun. the bad guy lived and got 7 years. I got several stitches and a week off work.
 
shurshot, don't confuse German soldiers of WW II with the Gestapo or even the SS. The soldiers were in no way causal to the Holocaust.

Last I heard, a low level of vandalism does not warrant a death sentence. To condone such could easily bring one's rationality into question.
 
Oh, so the non SS and Gestapo Germans were not involved in the holocaust, so that makes them "ok"??? Just "good guys", misguided and fighting for world domination on the wrong team without realizing it? They must have slaughtered Allied troops and bombed civilians too, without realizing how bad that was. My mistake. And, ball peen hammers are ok for prisoners of war to possess and not considered a deadly weapon? Again, my mistake. Thanks for educating me in rational thinking.
 
Last edited:
"I was there and as I walked down through the long lines of vehicles I noted that some of the drivers were lifting the hoods on their vehicles. I followed this up and saw one big burly Kraut had a ballpean (sic) hammer in his hand and he was going, quite systematically, from vehicle to vehicle and smashing the distributor caps after he lifted the hoods.
I followed him down the line, keeping one row of vehicles between myself and this scoundrel and right after he raised a hood and drew back to smash the distributor I shot him right through the kidneys with the old .45 Pachmayr." (Askins).

Askins MUST have been afraid as he used caution approaching the German, keeping a vehicle between them. Perhaps he didn't want his skull carved in if the German rushed him or spun and threw the hammer. One car width isn't that far away, well under 7 yards. It also might have went down quite differently than how he described it. He might have been very afraid, yet ego wouldn't allow him to describe the scenario more truthfully in later years. Who knows, not one of us were there to witness firsthand. This is from text sskins wrote. Given the tense situation at the moment and War time atrocities and stresses, I'm not passing judgment on Askins as others readily have, as I wasn't there in his shoes. We all may have handled things differently. Perhaps he WAS a war criminal. It's also possible the incident never even happened. :rolleyes: I just have difficulty taking ANY writer 100% seriously, whether it's ones description of himself being a cold blooded gunman, or shooting an elk on the run at 400 yards with a .44 Magnum, or a CNN article. Writers get paid for writing. Editors also have been known to heavily "edit" stories to make them more dramatic or to their personal agenda. Speaking from experience, once you sign the contract and cash the check, THEY own the story. And they can and DO change whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
Askins MUST have been afraid as he used caution approaching the German, keeping a vehicle between them.
Click to expand...
It's hard to attribute motive, but Askins gives no suggestion that he was afraid. Based on the retelling, it seems most likely that he kept the vehicles between the two of them so the German wouldn't see him and stop what he was doing.

But it doesn't even really matter. The facts are that he was a safe distance away when he shot and that makes it murder.
One car width isn't that far away, well under 7 yards.
Click to expand...
He didn't say "one car width" he said "line of vehicles. Unless the vehicles were parked in rows, nose to tail with no space between them to drive, there would have been more than just one "car width". But since the German didn't even know he was there it doesn't really matter. He shot the German from a safe distance when the German was totally unaware of his presence and therefore posed no threat.
...I wasn't there in his shoes.
Click to expand...
No, but he was and we can read what he recounted and judge from that.
I just have difficulty taking ANY writer 100% seriously...
Click to expand...
Ahh, the old Racehorse Haynes approach...

1. My client's dog doesn't bite.
2. My client keeps his dog locked up so it can't bite people.
3. I don't believe you really got bitten.
4. My client doesn't have a dog.

1. Askins was a good guy because the German was a "bad guy".
2. Askins was a good guy because he was a U.S. soldier.
3. Askins was good guy based on the details of his account.
4. Askins was a good guy because his account might be inaccurate and the whole thing may not have even happened. :rolleyes:
Oh, so the non SS and Gestapo Germans were not involved in the holocaust, so that makes them "ok"??? Just "good guys", misguided and fighting for world domination on the wrong team without realizing it? They must have slaughtered Allied troops and bombed civilians too, without realizing how bad that was. My mistake. And, ball peen hammers are ok for prisoners of war to possess and not considered a deadly weapon? Again, my mistake. Thanks for educating me in rational thinking.
Click to expand...
1. Shooting a POW is murder, regardless of whether they're "good guys" or "bad guys".

2. Killing troops on the opposing side is not grounds for execution and certainly does not justify murdering the person. Both sides killed troops on the other side and both sides bombed civilian targets.

3. This idea that one side are the "good guys" and the other side are the "bad guys" is simplistic to the point of being childish. It is almost inevitably true that each side considers themselves the "good guys" and during the era before the information age it was also pretty common for the rank and file soldiers to be unaware of the realities of what their government's goals might be. It is certainly incorrect to assume that German soldiers were generally aware of the atrocities being perpetrated by their government or of the details of what their government was up to. From the memoirs I have read, it was quite common for them to be under the impression that they were "unifying Europe" and to even be somewhat confused about why there was opposition to what seemed to them to be obviously constructive goals.

4. A contact weapon poses no threat to anyone if the person who has it is too far away to use it. A contact weapon poses no threat to anyone unless the person who has it is threatening someone with it.

But all of that is only borderline relevant because the reality is pretty simple.

I don't know where you got your unorthodox ideas about when it's ok to shoot a POW, but they are incorrect and no amount of ranting or sarcasm is going to change the facts.

The bottom line is that shooting a POW from a safe distance, when the man poses no threat to anyone, is murder. As if that weren't already blatantly obvious, you've gotten it straight from the mouth sof persons who have served in the U.S. military.
 
So if a man is 7 yards away with a hammer, a larger, stronger man, that's a safe distance? Is that what you wrote?

"4. A contact weapon poses no threat to anyone if the person who has it is too far away to use it. A contact weapon poses no threat to anyone unless the person who has it is threatening someone with it."

I disagree. Ever see Surviving Edged Weapons, the 80's LEO film? Old, but well worth viewing. Knife or blunt instrument... 21 feet isn't "too far away to use it". Quite the contrary. And remember, often, the weapon is not obviously a "weapon", hidden from view or not held in a threatening manner... until it is deployed as such. To believe otherwise is either naive or "childish".
 
Last edited:
So if a man is 7 yards away with a hammer, a larger, stronger man, that's a safe distance? Is that what you wrote?

"4. A contact weapon poses no threat to anyone if the person who has it is too far away to use it. A contact weapon poses no threat to anyone unless the person who has it is threatening someone with it."

I disagree. Ever see Surviving Edged Weapons, the 80's LEO film? Old, but well worth viewing. Knife or blunt instrument... 21 feet isn't "too far away to use it". Quite the contrary. And remember, often, the weapon is not obviously a "weapon", hidden from view or not held in a threatening manner... until it is deployed as such.
Click to expand...
You're being ridiculous.

1. You know nothing about the relative size and strength of Askins and the POW that would allow you to state with any accuracy that the POW was larger and stronger.

2. You don't know that the two were 7 yards apart.

3. The hammer is not a weapon until there is some obvious intent to use it as a weapon and there is the means to do so. Otherwise people could go around shooting any roofers or carpenters they see.

But that's not what makes your arguments ridiculous.

On the one hand you're parsing the account for detailed information and claiming with a certainty just how far they were apart, who was larger, who was stronger, what the German's war history was, etc., and on the other hand you're suggesting that the whole account could be inaccurate and may not have even happened because you don't trust writers.

You need to pick one approach or the other if you want to be taken seriously--or, alternatively, you could just admit that your only goal is to win the argument and that the facts don't really matter to you at all.
 
Ignore my questions and then launch a personal attack? And I'm ridiculous? I expected more from you John.
I have seen pictures of Askins, he wasn't very big. He described the German as big and burly. He kept a vehicle between them. Did you even read what he wrote?? His words, not mine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top