The Ayoob Files: "F*** You and Your Automatic Rifle!" - The Gary Fadden incident...

[SteyrAUG]

Didn't Ayoob also once say that one should never use any weapon "designed" for personal defense (i.e. ARs, home defense shotguns, etc.) as a defensive weapon? I recall once hearing that having a weapon for defense strongly suggests that you have an aggressive streak and will be used as evidence that you probably provoked the situation. I can't remember if that was him, or just a running rumor in the gun community.

And that's probably my one criticism of Ayoob, in his desire to function in the capacity of "expert witness" I think he strayed into the "good guns vs bad guns" debate that prosecutors love and lost sight of the purpose of the second amendment.

Granted there is some time and place and had Fadden employed a Remington 870 shotgun he probably wouldn't even have been charged, but it's one thing to recognize certain realities and another to endorse them. Thankfully today AR-15s and even SBRs are far more commonplace so it isn't as much a consideration as it might have been back in the 80s.

It's unfortunate that we don't live in a world where a guy who has a clean enough background to own NFA weapons and has to defend himself from gang banger biker scum doesn't simply get an "atta boy" from responding officers.

[Ed L.]

Didn't Ayoob also once say that one should never use any weapon "designed" for personal defense (i.e. ARs, home defense shotguns, etc.) as a defensive weapon? I recall once hearing that having a weapon for defense strongly suggests that you have an aggressive streak and will be used as evidence that you probably provoked the situation. I can't remember if that was him, or just a running rumor in the gun community.

I don't think he ever said exactly that. A problem with Ayoob and his "looks bad in court" outlook is that many idiots on gun forums have taken this philosophy to absurd levels which Ayoob himself would never agree with. He did go overboard with some theoretical things--like he said the name Colt Trooper would sound less aggressive in court than the term Colt Python.

Keep in mind that Ayoob originally started writing in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At that time most police officers were armed with revolvers and may not have even carried hollowpoints. He started teaching classes to the public in New Hampshire in the 1980s. Many of his students came from nearby states like NY, NJ, MA, which were not the most pro-gun places. At the time he started writing, the phrase "home invasion" was not in the dictionary.

It's different today. Most police are armed with high capacity automatics loaded with hollowpoints, and often carry an AR-15 style "patrol rifle" in their car. High capacity handguns are the norm for civilians and the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US--with more companies manufacturing them than any other model of rifle.

Also, compare the number of places that now have a castle doctrine and issue CCW permits to the time when Ayoob first advanced that argument.

Looking at all of these factors, it is a whole different world.

I can find lots of accounts of people who used ARs and Aks for home defense and never even wound up in court. The majority of home defense shootings where the gun is legal to own and was legally owned by the shooter do not end up in court. At the time he was writing a lot of this, the world was a much less gun friendly place.

In a lot of the cases that Ayoob wrote about, the person who wound up in court had made several bad choices or even blunders to get there, or was the victim of really bad circumstances. Or they got caught in a situation where they had to shoot someone they knew--like a daughter's abusive boyfriend or husband. Often when someone has to shoot someone they knew there will be questions about whether they were a participant to an argument that escalated or an actual self defense shooting--unless there is some is some clear cut evidence like a kicked in door at their residence.

I know he once wrote something along the lines that a 28" barreled shotgun with a normal magazine would look less menacing to a jury than a 18" barreled riot gun with a 5 or 6 shot magazine. But this was at a time when you would have to buy an extended magazine or an 18" for some shotguns because they did not come with them. Now you can walk into any gun store or even a big box sporting goods and find quite a few of them on the rack. I would always take an 18" barreled riot gun because it holds more rounds and the shorter barrel is more maneuverable and harder for a close in attacker to grab. He never actually advised anyone to choose a 28" barreled shotgun over an 18" barreled one with a higher magazine capacity.

Also, when talking about things that might look bad in court, he was preparing people for possible objections that they might encounter for using more effective equipment. For example, when I took two course from him in 1987, he advocated hollowpoints and explained how to defend the use of them if the issue came up--they are less likely to overpenetrate and more likely to stop someone with less rounds being required to fire. That was in 1987. Now every police department uses them. So if things did go to court and the prosecution raised the issue it would be easy to point out that they are used by virtually every police department and why they are used.

Some times he goes overboard on lawyer proofing. At one time, back when revolvers were more commonly carried, he was recommending that people have them modified to fire double-action only. That way if they shot someone in self defense an attorney could not accuse them of cocking the gun and having it accidentally go off. Think about this. In a situation where you are asserting that you shot someone in self defense Ayoob is worried that a lawyer is going to try to claim that your shooting was an accident and not self-defense as you claim.

He based it on the Alvarez shooting, a situation in the early 1980s where a cop in Miami was holding someone at gunpoint and the person made a move toward a gun that they had concealed and the cop shot them in the head with his revolver. It wound up going to trial. Ayoob wrote articles about this and pointed out that an expert witness for the prosecution tried to claim that the officer had the revolver cocked when it wasn't. The expert witness said something along the lines of, "In my experience revolvers that are cocked go off more easily so I believe that the officer had the revolver cocked which was negligent.

The reason that the other side was trying to establish negligence is because the defendant in this case, Miami Officer Luis Alvarez, initially claimed that the shooting was accidental, which was a key factor in this case which brought into focus questions about what type of modifications Alvarez might have done to his gun, or other factors that could lead to a negligent discharge.

As I said in another thread, at one time he was cutting edge. He was very engaging and entertaining. Like him or hate him he really was a pioneer in bringing an emphasis to legalities and the legal aftermath to the firearms training world. He is not a bad person to take a class from, but there are many teachers who have far surpassed him in terms of teaching shooting skills and imparting street experience.

[ST911]

Keep in mind that Ayoob originally started writing in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At that time most police officers were armed with revolvers and may not have even carried hollowpoints. He started teaching classes to the public in New Hampshire in the 1980s. Many of his students came from nearby states like NY, NJ, MA, which were not the most pro-gun places. At the time he started writing, the phrase "home invasion" was not in the dictionary.

This is key, and not unique to Mas Ayoob. Our early pioneers did their work within a context of law, technology, media, overall society that changes over time. The same applies to those carrying their own torches and pioneering new things today.

[Sam]

Is this thread about Ayoob or the Gary Fadden incident?

[SeriousStudent]

Is this thread about Ayoob or the Gary Fadden incident?

Be happy they're not fighting.

[SteyrAUG]

Be happy they're not fighting.

There is always going to be some overlap. But the important thing is we are actually talking about guns, defensive shootings and things related to those events.

[BWT]

Honest question - is it foolish to have an SBR as a go-to home defense rifle?

God Bless,

Brandon

[Firefly]

Honest question - is it foolish to have an SBR as a go-to home defense rifle?

God Bless,

Brandon

“Anything is legal if you’re innocent”
—Hunter S. Thompson

[26 Inf]

Honest question - is it foolish to have an SBR as a go-to home defense rifle?

God Bless,

Brandon

I think it depends on your situation. I refuse to leave loaded weapons unattended, so my SBR is locked away, I can get to it, or my HD sluggun, in 15 seconds or so.

My 'go to' therefore is a pistol. I make a choice not to play the lock it up, get it out, lock it up, get it out, game, so the pistol it is.

In terms of using it in an HD situation, as long as it is a legal SBR, realistically there shouldn't be a problem. Especially if the shooting takes place within your castle.

[SteyrAUG]

Honest question - is it foolish to have an SBR as a go-to home defense rifle?

God Bless,

Brandon

In 1987 it might be an issue, today it really wouldn't be something I'd think about unless I lived in a Big D state.