American Journal of Police Science
Jan./Feb. 1932, Page 72
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.
PISTOL REGULATION: ITS PRINCIPALS AND HISTORY
By KARL T. FREDERICK
Editor's Note: Part I of the following article was published in the September-October issue of Journal
PART II.
(4) Why Pistols Exist
We come now, in considering the arguments against the pistol, to one which is of great importance. It amounts in substance to the statement that a pistol is of no value in the hands of its possessor for purposes of self-defense and that it has no other substantial reason for existence.
The importance of the argument is shown by a recent statement of a pistol prohibitionist which was substantially as follows: "We shall never succeed in getting anywhere with the abolition of pistols until we can convince the general public that a pistol is of no value for purposes of defense."
Let us turn our attention first to the second part of the statement–that a pistol has no substantial reason for existence. Consider the question from the standpoint of the various classes of people already enumerated who use pistols.
The first class was the police, secret service, and other law enforcement officers. We may admit that our police forces as a whole fall short of perfection in efficiency. Complete efficiency is an ideal which is almost unknown and unattainable. It is not unreasonable, however, to believe, when any single principle is adopted with practical unanimity by the police forces of the world, that such principle is probably sound. When the police of the world equip themselves with the pistol as the primary and main reliance, they probably do so because it is the most useful and effective weapon for police purposes in existence. Grant that the standards of marksmanship the lower than we would like, grant that policemen are sometimes killed by thugs, grant that crime continues, nevertheless no one can deny that the pistol is the best all-around tool for its purposes that can be found for police work. It is commonly said, of course, that London "Bobbies" do not carry pistols. The statement, however, [Page 73] proves nothing. The London "Bobby" is chiefly a traffic officer, while police work in its true sense is centered in Scotland Yard. The fact that a traffic officer seldom needs a pistol is hardly a fair argument against pistols in the hands of the general police. Here, then, is one very substantial reason for the existence of pistols, namely, that police forces need them.
The second class of people who use pistols are those in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard and Organized Reserves-in other words, all of those who use them for present military purposes or who may require them for future military use and who desire to become proficient in order that they may, in case of future need, render more efficient military service. With this class of pistol-users the same argument applies as with the last, namely, the fact that pistols have been universally adopted for military use is a strong indication that for that particular purpose they are one of the most effective weapons that has yet been devised. No one would claim that the pistol could take the place of the field gun, the rifle, the airplane, or the mortar, but equally unfounded is the claim, which is sometimes made that "the pistol as a military weapon is obsolete." Most of us have heard the same statement made about the rifle and the bayonet. The statement was perhaps more common before the late World War than it is now, for that terrible experience punctured many plausible predictions. Remarks of this kind, however, have no weight in the light of the official records of the War Department.
The following statements are quoted from the report of Hon. Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War and Director of Munitions, made to the Secretary of War under date of May 10, 1919, and published by the Government under the title "America's Munitions, 1917-1918."
"The American pistol was one of the great successes of the war. For several years before the war came the Ordnance Department had been collaborating with private manufacturers to develop the automatic pistol; but none of our officers realized until the supreme test came what an effective weapon the Colt .45 would be in the hand-to-hand fighting of the trenches. In our isolation we had suspected, perhaps, that the bayonet and such new weapons as the modern hand grenade had encroached upon the field of the pistol and revolver. We were soon to discover our mistake. In the hands of a determined American soldier the pistol proved to be a weapon of great execution, and it was properly feared by the German troops.
"* * * The nations of Europe had neglected this valuable arm [Page 74] almost altogether, regarding it principally as a military ornament-which only officers should carry. * * *
"Only a few men of each infantry regiment carried pistols when our troops first went into the trenches. But in almost the first skirmish this weapon proved its superior usefulness in trench fighting. Such incidents as that of the single American soldier who dispersed or killed a whole squad of German bayoneteers which bad surrounded him struck the enemy with fear of Yankee prowess with the pistol. The 'tenderfoot's gun,' as the Westerners loved to call it, had come to its own.
"By midsummer of 1917 the decision had been made to supply to the infantry a much more extensive equipment of automatic pistols than had previously been prescribed by regulations-to build them by hundreds of thousands where we had been turning them out by thousands."
Military needs, therefore, supply a second substantial reason for the existence of the pistol. The fact that this need of pistols for military purposes is not limited to the uniformed forces of the nation deserves further emphasis. This country has been engaged, since the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, in six major wars and in many minor ones. It has a very definite military policy. That policy forbids the maintenance of and reliance upon a great standing army. The country relies rather upon a citizen soldier), for defense. Perhaps there will never be another war; perhaps the world is sufficiently enlightened and wise to avoid great conflicts in the future; perhaps racial hatreds and the clash of national interests will never again be sufficiently acute to bring about a resort to force; but until these possibilities have been amply proved, it would seem to be the part of human wisdom to pay attention to human experience. To prepare against a day of need is generally believed to be the part of wisdom, and, consequently, there is substantial reason for the existence of pistols and other small arms and for their use by the manhood of the nation in order that they may acquire the necessary skill through practice. This is an intelligent, indeed a necessary, item of any rational program of preparedness.
That familiarity with the use of small arms and skill in their use does not of itself lead to war or make war more likely is again indicated by the experience of Switzerland. Conversely—that unfamiliarity with or ignorance of the use of small arms is not of itself productive of peace and good order seems to be indicated by the experience of China. [Page 75]
The third group of users of pistols consists, as has already been indicated, of bank guards and bank employees, express and mail agents, watchmen, messengers, and other guards of the same general sort. Here, again, the pistol has been generally adopted for the reason that, all in all, it is the most effective weapon which has yet been devised for the use of this particular class of persons. It is unnecessary to enlarge upon this argument which has already been discussed in connection with the police. Nevertheless, in respect to this great class of men who may be generally denominated "guards," there is a most substantial and compelling reason for the existence of the pistol. The numbers who are involved can only be estimated; that they are very large is obvious. Perhaps an estimate of two million may not be excessive.
The fourth class of users of pistols consists of target-shooters and sportsmen. A more law-abiding and estimable group of citizens would be hard to find. Their interests, however, are apt frequently to be lost sight of in the somewhat warm discussions of those who long to abolish firearms. No element of protection either of the individual or of society is involved in their use of the pistol. Nevertheless it is obvious that pistols must exist or pistol target-shooting and the use of pistols by sportsmen will cease. It is perhaps not vital that they should continue. As one of those who hate firearms said some time ago: "If they must shoot at targets, let them use a bow and arrow; it would serve them just as well." Nevertheless there are strong reasons why a sport which develops so many desirable qualities and which contributes so much to the physical and mental health and well-being of the participant should not be abolished. Tennis and golf are likewise not absolutely essential, but there are substantial reasons for their existence as is amply shown by the interest and devotion of the many people who pursue these recreations, as well as by the many benefits to health, both physical and mental, which they produce.
The fifth group of persons who possess and use pistols legitimately and desirably consists of that great mass of the general public who desire a suitable weapon for purposes of self-defense or for the defense of family or of property. We will have more to say on this matter presently. It is a fact, however, that the pistol is generally regarded as the most effective weapon which has yet been devised for this purpose, and here we find a fifth extremely substantial reason for its existence.
The sixth class of pistol-users are criminals. Here, and here [Page 76] alone is the pistol put to an improper use. Here, and here alone, alone, is it harmful to society. The harm, however, originates in the user and not in the tool. The problem, therefore, consists in the desirability of preventing crime. A crime is just as bad for society whether it is accomplished by the aid of a pistol or by some other means. The means of crime are unlimited. What we want is to stop crime and not merely to stop the use of some particular instrument in crime. To the extent, however, that we can deprive criminals of pistols or deter them from using pistols in the accomplishment of their nefarious ends, we will accomplish a useful purpose. The trouble with much of the discussion regarding pistols, however, is that many people seem to think that pistols are useful only for criminal purposes. They forget or ignore the many other substantial and compelling reasons for their existence.
A number of years ago—in 1921 to be exact—a Mr. John R. Thompson, of Chicago, published broadcast an advertisement in which he offered "$1,000 to anyone who will give one good reason why the revolver-manufacturing industry should be allowed to exist in America," and he added "to enjoy the facilities of the mails." This gentleman was reported to have been a recent victim of a holdup while enjoying a friendly game of cards, and being a man of wealth and considerable energy, he immediately determined to stop that sort of thing by ending the manufacture and distribution of pistols and revolvers. Although he had already espoused the cause of pistol prohibition and had decided for himself that there was no good reason for the existence of pistols, he undertook to offer this prize and to pass judgment upon the merits of such replies as he should receive. The writer addressed to him a letter in which he pointed out some legitimate uses of pistols which have already been mentioned and called attention to several of the compelling reasons for the manufacture and use of pistols and revolvers. We were never favored with a reply from the author of the advertisement, but we had the satisfaction of noting that no further advertisements upon the subject ever appeared. We did not expect that Mr. Thompson would award us the prize. We thought it quite likely that that gentleman would, in due time, publish an equally widespread advertisement stating that no good reason had been submitted to him for the manufacture of revolvers and that he would thereupon call for legislation to abolish the mischievous implements for whose existence there was no good reason. There was some degree of satisfaction in noting that he did not venture upon this course. While he did not openly admit his error, he [Page 77] promptly abandoned his campaign. His experience is typical of many. The man who is most ready with a cure-all, the man who is prepared to make sweeping statements upon the subject, and the man who knows that crime can be ended immediately by abolishing pistols is almost without exception the man who knows nothing about the subject, who understands nothing about pistols, and who has never discovered that they have many important and legitimate uses which far outweigh the unfortunate fact that they are a too frequent tool of violent crime.
Pistols for Defense
The statement that a pistol has no value for defensive purposes has been frequently made and is sometimes thoughtlessly accepted. At a meeting of the Firearms Committee of the National Crime Commission held in Chicago in January, 1927, an eminent gentleman inquired whether anyone present had ever heard of a single case where the pistol had been successfully used in self-defense and seemed to be much chagrined at the fact that one of his auditors was prepared to tell him about many such cases. The New York Evening Sun of May 22, 1925, reported the late Chief Magistrate McAdoo of New York as saying: "We will never get anywhere in fighting the pistol until we convert public opinion to the belief that the revolver has no value as a weapon of defense." The New York Times of May 19, 1922, reports Police Commissioner Enright as saying: "Having a gun in the house is no protection. A man is awakened in the middle of the night, and even though he had a gun, it is probably in a closet or drawer. Even if he had it by his side, the crook has got the drop on him and he has no chance to use it. If he could use it, he probably couldn't shoot straight enough to hit the side of a barn door." A letter published in the New York Times of May 26, 1922, from George P. Le Brun, who claims to have aided in the preparation of the notorious Sullivan law, says: "It has been proved time and again that a pistol in the house is no protection." The New York Times of September 11, 1925, reports District Attorney Banton as saying that "he never had heard of an innocent man who had been able to make good use of a pistol to defend himself or his property." In August, 1922, a committee composed of judge Swaney, of Chattanooga, Judge Kavanagh, of Chicago, ex-Governor Whitman, of New York, Wade H. Ellis, of Washington, and Charles W. Farnham, of St. Paul, declared that the pistol "serves no useful purpose in the community today." And the New York Times of June 24, 1925, again reported [Page 78] Magistrate McAdoo as saying: "I reiterate the pistol is of no value whatsoever to law-abiding people." Such statements as these receive wide publicity and a certain credence from those who know nothing about the subject or who have no opinions of their own.
The facts are quite different from the statements which we have quoted. Few people, to be sure, have taken the trouble to collect any data respecting the use of pistols in self-defense. Such instances are usually to be found in the newspapers, and it is obvious that any one person can scan but a few of the thousands of newspapers which daily and weekly appear in the United States.
We may know that the statement is untrue, but being unable to put our fingers upon the specific evidence which will prove its falsity, we are embarrassed for a convincing answer, and, consequently, a man who says that the pistol is worthless for self-defense "gets away with it" for the time being at least. One recalls vaguely many exciting stories relating to earlier days. Some of the characters in those stories were desperadoes and they killed with the pistol just as gangsters now kill with the pistol. Nevertheless, many other characters were of a different stripe and enforced the law or kept order, defended their own lives or the safety of their families by their ability to shoot a pistol and to shoot it straight. These stories of Zane Grey, Emerson Hough, and many others, some of them fanciful, some of them true, lurk vaguely in the minds of all of us, but they do not afford sufficient ready material for a convincing answer to the anti-pistol men. The records of self-defense in more recent days are less dramatically told and are apt to be lost with the newspapers that contain them. Any man, however, who will make it a point during the course of a year or two to clip the accounts of successful defense by the pistol will be-surprised at the growth of his scrap-book. The author has tried to do this for the last half dozen years or so. The following are but a few of the many instances which, without any special effort and without the aid of a clipping bureau, he has chanced to encounter.
A Few Examples
The New York Times of March 19, 1924, reports the following: "A holdup man who said last night to Louis Bernet in his store at 126 Willis Avenue, the Bronx, 'Gimme all you got' never spoke again. Fishing a pistol from a desk drawer in the pitch-black room into which he had been backed, Bernet emptied it with such deadly accuracy that four bullets lodged in the robber's heart and he dropped dead without a cry. A confederate, jerking open the door when Bernet [Page 79] began to shoot, fled through the store into the street and escaped. * * * For Bernet, who is 63 years old and lives alone in three rooms behind his store, the police had only praise. He was not arrested and will not be. 'They held me up last year and the year before,' said he. 'Tonight this fellow said, "Gimme all you got"--well, I gave it to him.'" Here was a man who had twice been held up without the means of self-defense. He probably had the anti-pistol crowd to thank for his helpless condition. He came, however, to the conclusion that their statements were nonsense, provided himself with a pistol, and the story quoted above was the result.
In 1924 the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. printed a booklet entitled, "A Little Message to Bankers,'' in which it pointed out the folly of the anti-pistol propaganda. At the end of this booklet appears the following: "Since 'A Little Message to Bankers' was first conceived and prepared, there has been a case so strikingly in point that we record it. On the afternoon on March 4, 1924, four gunmen attempted to rob the People's National Bank of Hamtramck (within the city of Detroit). There were on duty the cashier, teller, and two clerks. One holdup man stood guard at the door, one remained in an automobile, and two covered the cashier and teller with pistols. The cashier, instead of throwing up his hands, dropped to the floor of his cage and pushed a button which sounded an alarm in a police station nearby. One of the gunmen climbed the cage, and as he touched the inside floor the cashier and teller simultaneously fired, killing the bandit instantly." One of the remaining bandits was fatally wounded, a third was captured, while the fourth in the car escaped. The booklet adds that the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., which insured the bank, sent a check for $1,000 to be divided between the cashier and teller.
The New York Times of October 15, 1925, reports that on the preceding evening two robbers attempted to hold up Henry Israel's drug store at 903 Teller Avenue, the Bronx. "Israel was held up and robbed last Friday night and since then borrowed the pistol of his brother David, a deputy sheriff. He had the pistol close to hand when the holdup men walked in. As soon as they got inside he recognized them as the men who had robbed him on Friday and at once reached for his pistol. By the time the shorter of the two men could call to him to hold up his hands, Israel fired two shots. He saw the short man put his hand to his abdomen and both ran from the store." The wounded man was soon after discovered and arrested.
We hardly need to speculate on Henry Israel's present state of [Page 80] mind. He tested the theory of the anti-gun group and was held up and robbed. He realized the folly of the theory that "a pistol is useless for defense" and armed himself with the result recorded above.
The New York Herald-Tribune of October 6, 1925, printed an Associated Press dispatch from St. Louis, Mo., dated October 5, which reported that James Quinn, a former member of the Navy and now the proprietor of a road house, had killed three out of five men who attempted to hold him up and rob him. The other two escaped. Apparently Mr. Quinn's service in the Navy had left him quite unimpressed by the doctrine that a pistol is not only a useless but a dangerous weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen and that it has no value for self-defense.
The next case is taken from the New York Evening Sun of July 30, 1926. Three bandits attempted to hold up a truck loaded with alcohol. "As the three men jumped out and rushed at him with their guns in their hands, Markowitz (the driver) 'let them have it' –six shots in all, three of which hit the bandits and one the car. * * * He (Markowitz) told the police that four years ago bandits had held him up in Brooklyn and stolen a truck of alcohol in his charge and that since then he had been on the alert for a similar holdup. He also said he was especially careful this morning because a Government truck had been held up yesterday on its way to the distributing company to which his load was consigned." The report states that two of the men were wounded and that all three were captured.
The Evening Sun of July 31, 1926, commented editorially as follows: "The Federal Products Co. of this city has in its employ a chauffeur who knows how to stop banditry. * * * If there were more chauffeurs as adequate as he is, there would be fewer gunmen in the streets."
The next case is taken from the Washington Post of December 29, 1927. "Two negro burglars, attempting to force their way into a store at 1307 New Jersey Avenue N. W., were put to flight early yesterday morning when Miss M. H. Williams, proprietor, who was alone in the place, opened fire on one of them with a .38-caliber revolver and ran into the street in pursuit when they fled. * * * Miss Williams said that the New Jersey Avenue store was broken into last week. Although of slight stature and of mild appearance, Miss Williams determined to check these outrages if given the opportunity. She placed a .38-caliber revolver on a table at the bedside as she retired. * * * Shortly after 1 o'clock Miss Wil-[Page 81] liams said she was aroused by a scraping sound in front. * * * She ran to the door * * * saw the robber perched atop the window trying to unfasten a transom."
It is interesting to notice that in almost all of these instances the person involved has already been the victim of a holdup. The absurdity of the argument that the way to stop violent crime is by disarming everybody—but chiefly the innocent and law-abiding victim—is brought out very forcibly in these cases.
The New York Evening Sun of March 8, 1928, reported the following from Wildwood, N. J.: "While Iver J. Russell, 24 years old, lay wounded on the floor of his gasoline station on South Wildwood Boulevard, between Wildwood and Cape May, last night, his wife exchanged shot for shot with two holdup men and drove them empty-handed from the place. * * * The robbers entered the place about 10:30 p. m. wearing black masks and hoods reaching down to their shoulders. Russel was alone in the gas station, his wife being asleep in an adjoining room. * * * The noise awakened Mrs. Russell. Taking in the situation hurriedly she snatched up a revolver and ran to her husband's aid."
The Washington Post of April 4, 1929, recounted the case of Sol Buckner, proprietor of a soft-drink stand, whose place was entered by two negroes with the command "stick 'em up," reinforced by a pistol. Instead of obeying, Buckner ducked behind the counter and reached for a pistol which he had at hand for just such emergencies." The result of the encounter was the death of one of the robbers, while the other escaped.
A final example is taken from the New York Herald-Tribune of April 6, 1930. A robber entered the jewelry store of Murray Kalish of 3828 Broadway, forced him into an anteroom and bound his hands, but failed to search him. While the thief was endeavoring to open the safe, Kalish succeeded in freeing his hands, drew the pistol with which he had fortunately provided himself and shot the bandit. The report says: "Kalish used the same revolver with which. he assisted three weeks ago in the arrest of a man suspected of forging American Express checks. * * * Kalish said he had been carrying the revolver because of the great number of daylight robberies. He had his first chance to use it several weeks ago when a man who said he was George Morris entered the store and attempted to cash a $20 American Express check."
The foregoing incidents and an almost innumerable number of similar ones completely disprove the loose statements which are made [Page 82] by the anti-pistol crowd respecting the value of pistols for defensive purposes. The fact that the late President Roosevelt often went armed and that he placed a loaded pistol at the side of his bed at night is well known to many people.
Before leaving this subject, it is worth while to refer to another example which shows the value of firearms, including pistols, for purposes of protection and defense. Some years ago the State of Indiana was suffering from an epidemic of bank robberies. During one year robbers had attacked thirty-eight banks and successfully made away with over $100,000. Conditions were growing worse. Nine robberies took place in ten days, just before the bankers decided to organize. Insurance rates were climbing. Robbery insurance in Indiana cost $3 a thousand with the threat that it might be raised to $6, whereas similar insurance in Iowa, which had already organized its forces of defense, cost only $1 per thousand. The State Banking Association, consequently formed organizations known as "Vigilantes," had them deputized as peace officers, made them members of the National Rifle Association, armed them with Krag rifles and .45 revolvers, and commenced a serious course of training. The result was immediate and startling. In one year the monetary loss from bank robberies in Indiana was reduced 84 per cent and the number of attacks upon banks was reduced 79 per cent. Of the seven attacks that took place in the first year of the organization, five occurred in counties which had not completed their organization.
It is not indeed amazing that anyone can be found who knows anything about the facts who will have the effrontery to assert that a pistol serves no useful purpose whatever, that it has no value as a defensive weapon, and that it, should be abolished?