fields magazine

anonymous asked:

What are some non verbal indications that someone is good with guns (any and all)? Like, how someone holds a gun, their stance, where their holster is, etc.

In most cases it’s easier to know when someone doesn’t know what they’re doing. With that, there are enough that I wouldn’t pretend to be able to create an exhaustive list. The big ones that will send anyone with firearms training up the wall are trigger discipline and barrel control.

Trigger discipline is about keeping your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. It’s a really simple thing, and something everyone handling a gun should practice. Hollywood hates it. Or at least, some directors in Hollywood (apparently) think their actors should have their fingers on the trigger at all times, “because it looks more dangerous.” Which, you know, it actually is. Stupidly dangerous.

Most people who know what they’re doing will rest their index finger along the frame over the trigger. This isn’t the only way, some will simply have their finger sticking out at an awkward angle (and a lot of people will do that during reloads).

Barrel control is keeping the firearm pointed in a safe direction at all times. “Safe,” is a bit of a loaded term here, since, if your goal is to use the gun on someone, you’re going to be pointing it at them. Again, this is basic safety. This is a little more involved, because no matter what you do, the gun will be pointed somewhere. The important part is remembering that, and not pointing the gun at someone’s thigh when you’re not using it.

As with trigger discipline, this is an incredibly basic element of gun safety, that a lot of people who don’t know what they’re doing will easily miss.

There are a lot of other potential tells, someone who drops their magazines rather than retaining them, probably doesn’t know what they’re doing. (This is the practice of discarding a partial or empty magazine when reloading, instead of keeping it.) TV and film love presenting people dropping mags, probably because it looks more dramatic, but it is a pretty good sign that someone’s only education came from mass media.

Concealment isn’t cover. This is one of the few that does tend to separate trained shooters from untrained ones. In a shock to no one, bullets pass through objects in their environment. Taking cover means far more than hiding behind a car door or couch.

So, concealment means you cannot see your opponent. Cover means they’re hiding behind something that will take a bullet. Most of the time, just because you can’t see someone, doesn’t mean you can’t shoot them. Someone hides behind a wall in a home or office? Yeah, you can shoot straight through that. Drywall, almost all furniture, most parts of a vehicle, most garage doors… none of that will stop a pistol round. When you start dealing with rifle rounds, even things like exterior walls start getting iffy. Trained shooters will fire through concealment. Amateurs who learned how to shoot from Call of Duty and reruns of old Arnold movies will try to take cover behind a couch.

Firing until you run dry. This is a little trickier because trained shooters will do this on the range. No one’s shooting back, and you’re going to immediately repack the mag anyway. In the field though, emptying your magazine is a seriously dangerous situation. Reload partials when you have the opportunity to, don’t wait for it to run empty, and have a non-functional gun when you need it.

The problem with all of this information is; it doesn’t really answer your question. It tells you things to look for with someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing. Not how to identify someone who really does. This is because it’s far easier to identify things that an incompetent shooter will do, rather than tells that are exclusive to someone who really knows what they’re doing in contrast to someone who has a basic understanding of gun use.

Some of these also aren’t easy to operationalize. For example, with stance, There’s Weaver, Chapman, Center Axis Relock,  Modern Isosceles, and many more. There isn’t a, “correct,” or, “elite,” way to do choose one of these, and many experienced shooters will tailor their stance to match the situation they’re in on the fly. The exact way they do that, or if they choose something that isn’t a functional stance, like Gangster Style (holding a handgun horizontally at arm’s length), can tell you about their training and how comfortable they are with a gun, but it’s not something you can easily explain in abstract. (At least not without going into all of the pros and cons of the various stances, and spending a lot of time going through all of the debate on the subject.) There’s also a lot of blending between some of these stances, and “adapted,” “reverse,” or “modern” variants of them.

It’s easy to distinguish someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing from someone who’s had some basic training, but distinguishing between someone who knows what they’re doing, and someone who is actually good with the weapons can be tricky.

I am sorry if that doesn’t really answer your question.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

“I most emphatically would not mind being stranded on a dessert island, but I’m afraid I couldn’t get by with a single male ! Life being what it is, different human beings are inclined toward different long suits and virtues charmes, if you prefer in which they’re specialists. So if you don’t mind, I’ll take the excursion with a dozen gentlemen, all tried and true. I hope you won’t mind the fact that they all hail from Hollywood. Not having met Toscanini, William Saroyan, Lucius Beebe, Sir Anthony Eden, Hank Greenberg or Mahatma Ganhi, I’m not in a postion to judge very well. Here they are :

  • GLENN FORD heads the list because he knows how to make a fire with two sticks and that can be very helpful, unless you’re fortunate enough to be stranded with a flintrock or a cigarette lighter that works.
  • ROBERT TAYLOR is definitely an ungetalongwithoutable. Palm trees and sand can become very monotonous. Handsome Bob would provide some excellent scenery in his own right.
  • BRIAN AHERNE is a must, if only because he could read the Oxford Book of English Verse so beautifully. And what’s an island or a romantic adventure, without poetry ?
  • CARY GRANT because he never takes anything seriously. He would be the balance wheel fot this gay lark. Neither flood nor famine would perturb him.
  • DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS JR., by all means. Because he is consumed with the ambition to play Hamlet. What would be a more logical setting for him to practice up ? For want of a better subject, I would be his Ophelia.
  • CLARK GABLE rates a portfolio in this unholy twelve because he is Clark Gable, which is recommendation enough.
  • BING CROSBY – Imagine an island interlude without Bing’s crooning ! I’d just as soon not be stranded. Bing could come and name his own price.
  • JOHN CARROLL for his wonderful sense of humour, his gift for making a lie seem truer than a multiplication table, no matter how fantastic the tale. When he wasn’t spinning tall tales he could be wrangling with the natives and conning them out of their bridgework.
  • GARY COOPER would be super. A wonderful shot, he’d bag us wuld turkey. A level-headed citizen under pressure he’d be our Rock of Ages.
  • GEORGE SANDERS – Worth his weight in rubies. Sinister but nice, he would be on hand to keep the lady conscious that life can be real, life can be earnest, as only such a distinguished screen « wolf » can do. A little harmless frightening would be okay.
  • W. C. FIELDS – Dead weight ? Not on your life ! Mr. Field in motion is superb entertainment, which is a must-needed commodity on any desert island.
  • EDWARD JUDSON – Because adventure is exciting, romance is fascinating, glamour is soul-satisfying and Edward Judson is my husband.”  

                                                                                     Hollywood Magazine, 1941

3

“Losing” Amos. I.

His Daughter(My Mother; Ojubayo)’s Wedding. September, 1991.

My Grandfather, Amos died late 2014. It was until about then I realized how casual my idea of him was. I constantly asked myself why I couldn’t see beyond his heavy grins. Why I couldn’t define him as more than the man who was never not glad. Was that all there was or did I just completely miss the point of having people before me? Was there a chance we could have been a lot closer and then maybe I’ll have inherited his hunting rifle? These were the unsettling thoughts that meddled with my conscience. Not the phase of losing someone but that of losing them with not all your heart.
Here are self-portraits in which I am contained by attires he owned at certain dated times in his life.
Maybe this is inspired by an urge to find consolation or my intimate affection for a time before or me just being Adeolu. Regardless, I’m forever glad I happen to find myself in this state.
Not exactly sure if I’m meant to be a couple of feet up in the air less than a year from my complete femur fracture but I think I’m pretty good with the chances of my doctor seeing this.

Vintage Supreme Ad