The Modern Pistol and How to Shoot It

The brute made quite a good thing of it, as the paragraph brought him various sums from sympathisers, and he was able to buy a heavier whip, and a stronger pair of boots, and a new horse, to thrash and kick.

Possibly the historian who wrote that Nero fiddled whilst Rome was burning was mistaken and poor old Nero was doing his best telephoning for the County Council Motor fire-escapes to come and save the Christians from the burning houses.

I misunderstand others. I did not appreciate a man’s piety when he refused to help me rescue a dying horse because it was Sunday.

The best instrument of all for killing injured horses is what is obligatory in all Belgian slaughter houses, not only for cattle but for sheep and pigs. (See Plate 18.)

It consists of a short pistol barrel of .38 bore with a bell-shaped muzzle which is applied to the forehead of the animal to be slaughtered.

A tap with a mallet fires it and the bullet goes through the brain and spinal column of the neck causing instant death. Its fault is that it may go off by accident if dropped on its plunger.

No Belgian race or horse-show can begin till a veterinary is present with this instrument, to be used in case of accident.

One can do very little to alleviate the torture of a horse standing with a broken leg, or lying with a broken back in the London streets, owing to the regulations.

PLATE 18. THE GREENER KILLER

This illustration clearly shows the position in which the Killer should be placed. It is advisable to have the barrel in a line with the pith, but so long as the “medulla” is pierced, instantaneous death is assured.

Thrice, within a few months, I have stood by a horse for hours unable to do anything for it, but to put a rug over it as it was shivering so from the cold (having been injured when in a profuse sweat), and moisten its mouth.

I was not allowed to kill the horse, only a licensed slaughterer is allowed to do that, and then only if the owner can be found, and gives his consent for the horse to be killed.

I have since seen one of the principal horse-slaughterers of London and got his telephone number, and arranged with him to send immediately to any part of London, at any time of the day or night, if I telephone to him.

But even then if we cannot communicate with the owner of the horse we will have to stand doing nothing, possibly for hours, beside the suffering animal.

The poor old worn-out, half-starved horses in London are not only worked to death, but when injured, they are not even allowed to die, without further torture.

There is another form of humane killer which I am not able to endorse, although the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals seem to think highly of it.

I refer to the instrument which consists of a pistol fixed at right angles to a pole called, I believe, the Humane Killer.

The pistol is fired by pulling a wire which runs down the pole to the hand.

I consider this instrument very dangerous to use for slaughtering animals but it would be very useful in trench warfare.

An ordinary firearm is dangerous enough if it happens to be pointed in the direction of the spectators. But what will be thought of a pistol which, when you carefully keep what corresponds to the barrel (i. e., the pole) from pointing at anyone, you find it shoots at right angles to your aim.

Several of us stood round a man demonstrating the operation of this weapon when unloaded. I said to him, “You cannot bring that pistol on to the forehead of that stuffed ox’s head without pointing it at one of us during the process.”

He was not able to do so. Each time he tried one of us called out, “You are pointing it at me.”

I will explain by analogy the reason of this difficulty.

Some men, in defiance of the conventions, cut cheese into small cubes, stick their knife into them and convey the cheese into their mouths, without cutting their mouths, and acquire great skill by long practice.

Take a sharp knife-blade, fasten it firmly at right angles to the handle, and ask an expert cheese eater to cut cubes of cheese and transfer them to his mouth with this safety (?) knife. He will cut his mouth before he has eaten half a dozen pieces of cheese.

CHAPTER LX

Only the pistols supplied by the range are allowed to be used, and these are given so that each shooter uses each pistol in turn and as all are purposely varied as to trigger-pull it requires a really good shot to win. He never knows if he is going to have a light or heavy trigger-pull.

This is the chief difficulty in these competitions, as also in actual duels. When a pair of competitors are each facing a separate man target, the director of the combat gives the word “Attention, feu, un, deux, trois.”

If they both hit anywhere on the figure, the one who fired first is the winner of that pair.

It is usual to have a timer, to decide who fired first.

The director cannot fulfil both offices effectually.

After all have fired in pairs, each with each of the other competitors, the totals are added up and the one who has won the most combats is the winner of the medal.

If two or more have an equal score then these again shoot against each other to decide the winner of the medal.

It is not good scoring but quick hitting which wins.

A good hit counts no more than a bad one; a hit in faster time than the other shot, wins.

Winners are not the same men who win at deliberate shooting. Target shots seldom win, it is the lightning quick shot who wins, even if he cannot hit a smaller target than one eighteen inches broad by five feet high.

The whole art of this shooting is to be able to keep from missing by more than three inches either side of your aim, not caring what your trigger-pull is, or how it varies for each shot.

As to elevation, that needs no attention; you cannot miss over or under a five-foot target.

Bring up at top speed putting all the attention on not jerking to the side should your trigger-pull happen to be one of the heavy ones; aim slightly more to the right than the actual centre of the figure to allow for an occasional pull to the left with an extra heavy trigger-pull.

It is the very hard pulling pistols which give almost all the misses.

Men in constant practice in such competitions are in the best training for a duel or for self-protection.

With Clubs which use the Devilliers bullet the competitions are conducted on exactly similar lines, except that the competitors fire at each other instead of at iron targets.

Theoretically this is even better practice. It gets a man used to seeing his adversary actually before him and being able to study his movements and note if he is active, and try to be a shade the quicker of the two.

The inaccuracy of the Devilliers bullet as compared to the lead bullet (with a powder charge) is a great disadvantage.

You feel that there is an element of fluke in the shooting. You may make a very good shot and the bullet being too soft or the barrel too hot that bullet does not take the rifling properly and gives you an unmerited miss.

Seeing your adversary raise his arm as you do yours and trying to anticipate his let-off by hitting him before he can hit you, is the great advantage of the Devilliers bullet as training for a duel.

In snapping practice with an empty pistol, it is well to practice facing your reflection in a mirror to get used to the adversary’s arm rising.

When first trying it this necessity to get used to anticipating your adversary’s movements is very apparent, a man who can shoot very quickly and coolly at an iron target when standing side by side with his opponent does not see the other man, he is thinking only of time.

When facing his opponent and shooting at him he watches his opponent’s hand and tries to time him, that, is to say fire just before the moment his adversary’s arm is absolutely level to shoot, just as you time a pigeon out of a trap for when he is well clear and yet before he can make his dart.

A well-known pigeon shot said, “I do not understand all this talk about easy and difficult birds, all birds are easy if you time them right.”

The same with duelling, if you take your opponent just before he can get his swing on to you he is properly “timed” and “an easy bird.”

CHAPTER LXI

I am sure the better the police can shoot, the less apt they will be to draw a pistol unnecessarily; they are confident in their skill; it is the man who is given a pistol for the first time who looses off and hits the wrong man.

I think it is a mistake to arm police with a .38 or .32 pistol instead of a full-size .44 or .45 military one. A policeman has often to face great odds and a mob will not, like enemy soldiers in battle, spare him when down. A mob will kick him to death. It is wrong therefore to give him a less powerful weapon than a soldier is given.

I suppose he is given the smaller pistol, as in some countries the police do not carry a pistol openly as part of their equipment so when they do carry pistols they have them concealed.

I think also this concealment is a mistake; if a pistol is carried openly and the carrier is known to be a good shot, he can keep order without shooting, whereas a man with no visible pistol may be ill-treated because he appears unarmed and therefore harmless; and he has to draw in order to maintain his authority or in self-defence.

In the case of my Challenge Trophies given in the United States, the competitions are changed from revolver into automatic pistol competitions as the revolver is obsolete.

If a policeman is unarmed, he cannot be expected to keep as cool and have as good judgment in an emergency when his own life is in danger as he can be when armed with a good large calibre pistol that he knows how to shoot to such good effect that he is in no personal danger.

If, when a riot starts, he can instantly drop a ring-leader each time the crowd attempts a rush, or break the arm of any man trying to throw a stone, he can get the mob under control with much less bloodshed than if they get out of hand with impunity and the military have finally to be called out.

A cool deadly shot can keep a big mob at bay. It is when police shoot and miss that the crowd begin to jeer and lose all fear of the police.

It is a great mistake to fire over the head of a man to stop him, it only makes him think you are a bad shot.

My servant got me out of a very nasty predicament when we were travelling one pitch dark night through a forest we had never been in before. We were being led by a guide who we felt sure was taking us in the wrong direction in order to lead us into an ambush and rob us. We had been walking away from where the compass told us was our proper direction for hours.

My servant without a word loaded my rifle and handed it to me.

The guide immediately turned and in half an hour we were back at our lodgings.

He had seen me kill a galloping bear in thick high cover a few hours before, and he did not like the look of my double-barrel rifle pointing at his back.

CHAPTER LXII

The best way out of the difficulty is for the shooter to collaborate with the skilled mechanic and then between them they can evolve something really useful. This is the way most improvements are evolved, the shooter constantly testing the invention and pointing out its faults to the gunmaker who alters till the thing works well.

If an expert mechanic (even if he is a gunmaker), who is not a shooting man tries to invent a firearm improvement by himself, and he finds it works in the workshop, he thinks that is all that is necessary, and the invention is a failure as no shooting man will use it.

The expert shot who is unmechanical, cannot put his ideas into practical shape, and if he does not go to a gunmaker and ask his help, the invention never takes shape; in this way some invaluable inventions never see the light, for want of a little mechanical knowledge.

But there is a third type of inventor, who is absolutely hopeless and the despair of any shooting man he shows his invention to.

This is the man who knows nothing about shooting but he has his own ideas as to how shooting is done, and is too conceited ever to try to learn anything.

He is the type of man who says “Oh, we will muddle through.”

Such a man has a vague idea that, as he himself cannot shoot, therefore his own individual difficulties if he tried to handle a firearm are the difficulties which all shooting experts labour under.

He does not know that an expert laughs at the difficulties of a beginner, which never trouble a man when he has become expert.

As well might a man the first time he is put on a horse imagine that, because he has to fly up and down off the saddle at each movement of a cantering horse, that the expert also has to take care not to fall off.

The expert can sit on a cantering horse without the least lifting from the saddle, whereas the beginner flops up and down.

In the same way the expert shot has passed the stage which the inexpert inventor tries to invent against.

A horseman would not buy a saddle with straps to tie down the rider, invented by a man who did not ride.

The non-rider thinks such things absolutely necessary to keep from falling off, the expert horseman not only knows such things are unnecessary, but would be a danger in case the horse fell, as the rider could not fall clear.

In the same way inventors of firearms, if they are not shooting men, invent dangerous things for overcoming dangers which do not exist except in their own imaginations.

This would not matter so much if they would listen to experts but they refuse to learn, and actually try to instruct experts.

I had a man come in recently to show me a terribly dangerous pistol he had invented.

He was pointing it about in all sorts of dangerous directions and finally put the muzzle against his own body whilst he tried to cock it.

I suggested to him he had better first see if it was loaded.

He smiled at me in a pitying superior way, but opened the breech and took out a loaded cartridge.

“Why it is loaded,” he casually remarked, re-inserting the cartridge and beginning again to fumble with the lock, whilst he held the muzzle against his body.

I said, “Don’t you know you can kill yourself if it goes off,”—“that is the great beauty of my invention,” he informed me radiant with delight, “I have made this thing,” pushing the trigger with his left thumb, “so that it only moves at a pressure of fourteen pounds so it is quite safe.”

These know-alls work up through all the steps man has gone through in perfecting firearms, instead of taking up the work from the highest it has come to.

Most likely the first inventor of firearms found he shot people accidentally when “pulling at this thing” (as my friend the inventor called the trigger), then discovered by experience that, however heavy the trigger-pull is made, it is sure to kill somebody accidentally if pulled hard enough, and finally came to the conclusion that it is safer to have a light trigger-pull if the muzzle is not pointed in a dangerous direction, than to have a half-ton trigger-pull and keep the muzzle pointed against one’s body.

PLATE 19. WINANS’ REVOLVER FRONT SIGHTS

In the matter of sights an optician, even if ignorant of firearms, may be able to give a valuable hint to an inventor, but this usually applies to sights for accurate aiming at distant stationary objects; for a pistol it is more often expert shooting knowledge which is useful in designing sights.

It was my combination of sculptor and shooter which gave me the idea of my front sight, any one not a sculptor would not be apt to stumble on the idea of undercutting the sight so as to give a deep shadow below and so make the top stand out light against a dark lower portion. (See Plate 19.)

In the same way some entirely distinct branch of learning may be of use to the inventor of firearms; but in all cases, this must be subservient to practical shooting knowledge; the man who tries to force his ideas onto a shooter, against the shooter’s expert knowledge, makes a mistake.

The highest authority can always learn something new from an expert; but the man ignorant of a subject who tries to teach an expert merely exposes his ignorance, like a politician who tells a general how to conduct a campaign.

CHAPTER LXIII

The Universe can, even with our limited knowledge, be reduced to a few simple elements, governed by a few simple “laws.”

It is, from a solar system, to a sub-microscopical organism, subject to the same “laws” and working as one whole.

Probably, it will be ultimately discovered that there is only one “Law” and one Element in the Universe.

All has to obey this “Law,” there is no such thing as “luck,” “chance,” or destruction. All has always existed through incessant permutation; and will exist, from all eternity, through all eternity.

The ancients, and the modern Mahometans knew this. The ancients called it Fate, the Moslems call it Kismet. If a man tries to make an automatic pistol contrary to the Laws of Nature, it naturally will not operate properly, he loses his temper, says it is just his luck, but he reasons wrongly.

If he studies the laws of mechanics, which are one form of the Law of Nature, and complies with them, his pistol will act properly; if not and he is ignorant of the laws of mechanics, his pistol will not act properly; it is not his “hard luck” but simply that he is trying vainly to work against Nature, and Fate holds him in a steel grip.

If he obeys the Laws of Nature, which are another name for Fate, he can go on like a train following its rails, but he can no more make a pistol constructed on wrong principle function properly than he can stop the sun in its course.

Simplification is the goal to be striven for in pistol shooting as it is in sculpture.

I saw two men, as I was writing the above, mowing a field.

One, an elderly man, was working in the conventional manner, cutting short deep swaths with a half blunt scythe set at the wrong angle to the handle, working in a cramped position.

The other, a young man, was examining his scythe.

He altered the blade at an acuter angle to the handle and gave it a twist sideways so that the cutting edge should lie horizontal when in use.

Then he sharpened the blade as carefully as he would strop a razor.

Putting himself into a firm position so that he could swing from the hips as an athlete about to throw the discus would, he made long clean sweeps with his scythe, taking a short depth, but this with a clean cut, and the cut grass thrown clear to the side, his return being only just clear of the grass, like a good sculler feathering.

At the least sign of bad cutting, he re-sharpened the scythe.

Although I know nothing of mowing, I could see at once that this was an artist and a workman at his job, and one who used his brains and took a pride in doing good work.

I asked if he was not the champion mower of the district. I was answered “not at all—he is only the carpenter.”

This is the sort of man who invents.

He diagnoses faults and thinks out how to correct them. He did not, like the other man who had been mowing all his life, work as his father and grandfather had done, because it was the conventional manner. He thought out for himself and improved by simplification.

It is evident that the cut should come on gradually, not jump into a thick bunch of grass all at once, so he set the blade at an angle which made its entry into the grass deeper progressively, and so on with all the rest.

The inventor who knows his business, when he has made something to accomplish its object, does not rest there. This is only the “blocking out” as we sculptors call it.

Then he begins to simplify.

Anything not absolutely necessary is eliminated; he sees if some member cannot be dispensed with by making another fulfil two or even more functions.

This is how Nature works, many organs have several functions; the function of our tongues is not only speech but to help swallowing, to judge if what we put into our mouths is too hot or too cold to swallow, if it is fit for food, or corrosive, etc.

The automatic pistol is still capable of great improvement.

All the recoil is not made use of, some is wasted and diverts the aim by jumping the pistol about.

The noise of the discharge is an evil, it ought to be made to do work, not deafen.

To invent a sound-deadener to put on the pistol is working on wrong lines; it is not simplification but it is complication.

Instead of first making a noise and then inventing something to destroy that noise, why not avoid making that noise?

The idea that ugliness does not matter is also a fallacy.

I was objecting to a pistol a man was shooting (and of which he asked my opinion), on the ground that it was so ugly. “What has ugliness to do with a pistol?” he said. “In my opinion, everything,” I answered.

Nothing correct mechanically is ugly, that is the Law of Nature.

The early, impractical, automatic pistols were extremely ugly; the best at present, the U. S. Army Colt, has graceful lines, and the perfect one will be beautiful.

The essence of architecture is beauty in utility.

Look at a first class hand made gun built by an Artist; it has the graceful lines of a classical piece of sculpture.

An automatic pistol should be as simple as possible, the simpler the less likely to go wrong.

The supposed antagonism between Art and Mechanics, between Science and Religion are imaginary.

If we simplify Art to its essential essence and perfection as the Ancient Greeks did—what do we find?

Sculpture is proportion and the essential planes.

What else is mechanics?

Science reduces all to the ONE UNIVERSAL FIRST CAUSE, and this is also the foundation of all religion.

In pistol shooting, all resolves itself into aligning the pistol and discharging the bullet.

The shortest distance from one point to another is the straight line.

Therefore do not “flourish” or “brandish” the pistol up and down before discharging it.

Merely bring it to alignment and discharge it in so doing.

Time is wasted if the trigger is pressed after alignment. Therefore begin pressing the trigger as the pistol is coming to the level.

This is the whole art of pistol shooting.

The way to advance any art, however humble, is for each to help the other with his experience.

Nothing is so inimical to success as convention.

All progress is made on the lines of pruning off all not absolutely essential, in other words by simplification.

APPENDIX A

I think it advisable to give the following World’s Records made by myself with revolvers and black powder as they are now unbeatable, the weapons and cartridges being obsolete.

They stand in the same category as the “high wheel” trotting records.

If there were similar records, diagrams, and details of scores made with sling, long bow, crossbow, Persian bow, American Indian bow, blow pipe, javelin, matchlock, wheellock, etc., available, of what inestimable value they would be to the historian and archeologist.

Instead, for want of such records, all knowledge of the capabilities of these weapons is vague and legendary.

Under each diagram I give all details. Most of diagrams are the actual size and all have the position of each bullet-hole accurately shown.

DIAGRAM 1. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.

Stationary, 20 yards, 10 shots, South London Rifle Club, May 21, 1889; .45 Colt Cavalry Revolver, Military sights, Eley ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 2. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.

Stationary, 20 yards, 11 shots, South London Rifle Club, August 21, 1888; .44 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. gallery ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 3. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.

Nine shots at 20 yards, North London Rifle Club, May 5, 1897. Black powder; .44 Smith & Wesson Revolver, gallery ammunition.

DIAGRAM 4. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.

Twelve shots at 20 yards, at the North London Rifle Club, Sept. 4, 1895. Black powder; .44 Smith & Wesson Revolver, gallery ammunition.

DIAGRAM 5. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.

Nine shots at 20 yards, at South London Rifle Club, Sept. 22, 1892. Colt .45 Target Revolver. English “Mark I” regulation ammunition. Black powder.

DIAGRAM 6. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.

Ten shots at 20 yards, at South London Rifle Club, July 3, 1888; Smith & Wesson .32 break-down model. Black powder.

DIAGRAM 7. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
TWENTY YARDS DISAPPEARING TARGET.

“Military” target, Wimbledon, 1888; .45 Smith & Wesson Revolver. Eley’s ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 8. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
TWENTY YARDS DISAPPEARING TARGET.

North London Rifle Club, May 29, 1895; .45 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 9. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
TWENTY YARDS DISAPPEARING TARGET.

“Any” Revolver, Bisley, 1896; .45 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 10. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
SIX SHOTS IN 12 SECONDS.

“Any” Revolver, Bisley, 1895. Rapid firing; .44 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. gallery ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 11. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE
FOR MILITARY REVOLVER AND SIGHTS.

Bisley, 1895. Six shots in 12 seconds at 20 yards; .45 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 12. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
TWENTY YARDS RAPID-FIRING TARGET.

Bisley, 1895. .45 Smith & Wesson Military Revolver, Winans sights. U. M. C. smokeless ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 13. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
FOR 3-INCH BULL’S-EYE TRAVERSING TARGET, 20 YARDS.

Wimbledon, 1888; .45 Smith & Wesson Revolver, Eley ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 14. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE.
FOR 2-INCH BULL’S-EYE TRAVERSING TARGET, 20 YARDS.

Bisley, 1896. .45 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. ammunition. Black powder. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 15. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE
ADVANCING TARGET.

“Any” Revolver, Bisley, 1896; .44 Smith & Wesson Revolver, U. M. C. gallery ammunition. Black powder. Target advanced from 50 yards to 20 yards. (Full size.)

DIAGRAM 16. AUTHOR’S WORLD’S RECORD SCORE
FIFTY YARDS TARGET.

Bisley, 1894. Twelve consecutive shots: Six with .44 Smith & Wesson Revolver, six with .38 Smith & Wesson Revolver. Smith & Wesson self-lubricating bullet. Black powder. (Half size.)

DIAGRAM 17. TWELVE HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCORES MADE BY
THE AUTHOR IN REVOLVER COMPETITIONS AT 20 YARDS IN 1895.

English regulation mark ammunition. Black powder. The diameter of the original bull’s-eye is 2 inches.

APPENDIX B

THE LAW RELATING TO REVOLVERS AND REVOLVER SHOOTING IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

It is perhaps advisable to explain something about the right of carrying revolvers in England, and the using them in cases of necessity, and first it should be explained that a revolver is a gun so far as the Gun License Act of 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 57) is concerned, and that a license fee of 10/ per annum has to be paid for the privilege of carrying or using one, though a license to kill game includes the lesser gun license. In fact it has ever been held that a small toy pocket pistol is a firearm for the purpose of the Act. There are various exceptions to the necessity of taking out this license, and it may be as well to enumerate them, especially as many people keep revolvers in their houses and would be astonished if they thought that a gun license was necessary for the so doing—but it is not, so long as the revolver is kept or used in a dwelling house, or the curtilage of a dwelling house. This is one of the exceptions to the Act, and a very proper and necessary exception it is, for it would be most unreasonable to enact that the mere keeping a revolver for the purposes of protection should compel one to take out an annual license. Moreover the enforcement of such a restriction would be almost impossible without an inquisitorial search through every house. Probably because there is very little reason for carrying a revolver about with one in this country the exception does not apply to the so doing, and the mere taking a revolver across the street would technically compel the taking out a license. The curtilage of a house is much the same as its courtyard, and would no doubt include a yard and garden adjoining the house, but not a field beyond.

Further exceptions are that no penalty is to be incurred by any person in the naval, military, or volunteer service, or in the constabulary or other police force, but it should be noted that this exception applies only where the person claiming it is in the performance of a duty or in target practice, so that the policeman or volunteer off duty would still be subject to the obligation of having a license.

Another exception is that of any one carrying a firearm belonging to a person having a license or certificate to kill game or having a gun license, if he is carrying it by order of, or for the use of, such licensed or certificated person, only he is bound to give his name and address and the name and address of his employer if called upon.

The occupier of lands using or carrying a firearm for the purpose only of scaring birds or killing vermin on such lands is exempt too, as also any one using or carrying a firearm for the same purpose on any lands by order of the occupier, if the latter has a game license or certificate, or a gun license. Again, a gunsmith or his servant carrying a firearm in the ordinary course of trade, or testing it in a special place, need not have a license.

Lastly, a common carrier carrying a revolver in the ordinary course of business is exempt.

To show how strict the law is, it may be added that the killing of vermin, which, as above mentioned, is allowed without a license does not include rabbits.

As the penalty is £10 for carrying firearms without a license, I have thought it advisable to enlarge somewhat fully on the above topic.

There are also various penalties and punishments which may be imposed upon persons misbehaving while in the possession of loaded firearms, or wantonly discharging them. Thus any one who is in possession of a loaded firearm and is found to be drunk, may be apprehended, and is liable to a penalty not exceeding 40/, or, in the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than one month.

Then, any person who in the streets of a town wantonly discharges any firearm to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, is liable to a penalty not exceeding 40/ for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justices, to imprisonment for not more than fourteen days (no hard labour).

It is hardly necessary to say that the wrongful use of a revolver as an offensive weapon is very heavily punished, it being provided that any one who shoots at a person or attempts, by drawing a trigger or in any other manner, to discharge any kind of loaded arms at a person with intent to commit murder, is guilty of felony and liable to penal servitude for life, or any less term, or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour and solitary confinement.

Again, any one who unlawfully and maliciously wounds, or causes any grievous bodily harm to any person, or who shoots at any person, or who by drawing a trigger or in any other manner attempts to discharge any kind of loaded arms at a person, with intent in any of these cases to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, is liable to penal servitude for life or for not less than three years or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour and solitary confinement. “Loaded arms” are defined as “any gun, pistol, or other arms which shall be loaded in the barrel with gunpowder or any other explosive substance, and ball, shot, slug, or other destructive material, although the attempt to discharge the same may fail for want of proper priming, or from any other cause.” Finally, any one who unlawfully and maliciously wounds or inflicts any grievous bodily harm upon any person with or without any weapon or instrument, is liable to penal servitude for three years, or to imprisonment for not more than two years with or without hard labour. The words “unlawfully and maliciously” are difficult to construe, and therefore it may be well to state that a man who fired in the direction of a punt, in order to deter the occupant from fowling in a particular locality, and wounded him in so doing, was convicted of malicious wounding; and generally that if a wound were to be caused mischievously and without excuse the person who inflicted it would probably be found guilty under this enactment.

So much for the strict offences caused by the improperly carrying or making use of revolvers. Before, however, leaving this subject it will be advisable to enter at a little length into the rights which any one has of using a revolver in self-defence, or in some other analogous manner. Supposing a man has passed through the ordeal of the Gun License Act and is properly and legally carrying a loaded revolver, in what cases of emergency would he be justified in using it? Well, this is a very difficult question to answer, and one which in each event would depend entirely on the circumstances of the particular case. It is therefore impossible for me to lay down any exact principles governing every event of the kind which might happen, and I will content myself with stating a few hypothetical instances and what course of conduct might be adopted in each instance.

There is no doubt on this point, anyhow,—that one is justified in using a loaded revolver in self-defence, where an attack of such a murderous character is made as to threaten one’s own existence, or the infliction of serious bodily harm; and, if the assailant should be killed, yet the using of the revolver and so disposing of him would be deemed as having been justifiable. The same rule would apply to shooting an assassin who was attempting to kill someone else. For instance, if while standing on a railway platform I were to see a man shooting at someone in a railway carriage, and at such distance that I could not actively interfere except by shooting, I should be right in firing at the assailant, and though my shot should prove fatal, still no blame could be attached to me.

How far one is justified in using a revolver in beating off or capturing burglars in one’s house is, as already mentioned, a matter which can only be decided by the facts of the particular case. Assuredly where a man is awakened in the night by the noise of burglars breaking into or already in his house, and seizes his revolver and confronts the robbers, he would be justified in firing if the robbers threatened to attack him, and it is assumed that he would also be right in firing at a robber making off with booty who refused to stop when challenged to do so, if there were no reasonable chance of arresting him in any other way; though in the latter event he should endeavour so to shoot as to cripple rather than kill. Indeed it may be said, extraordinary though the statement may seem, that even in the hurry and skurry of a conflict with burglars the mind should remain calm and collected, so as to judge whether a mortal shot is required, rather than one which will only “wing” the opponent.

In connection with this branch of the subject, the justification of a fatal shot may to some extent depend upon whether the robber was himself armed. If he were, then the killing him would be more easily justifiable than if he were unarmed. This is somewhat instanced by the law regarding an assault and battery in self-defence, which is that where there is an assault the person resisting must show that his assault committed in self-defence was not more violent than he in good faith believed to be necessary and committed on reasonable grounds, so that it would not be right to inflict a heavy beating on a person who had only committed a slight assault upon one. So when all danger is past and a man strikes a blow not necessary for his defence, he commits an unjustifiable assault and battery,—and this principle would apply to the preventing of crimes, so that though one might be acting correctly in firing at and killing a man who was murderously assaulting a third person, yet, after the assault had been committed, it might be wrong to kill the murderer if he were only discovered when running away, unless that was the only means of arresting him.

Another point which has sometimes exercised the minds of those in the habit of carrying revolvers is whether they are justified in using such a weapon to put an end to pain on the part of dumb animals where recovery is almost impossible. It may be said generally that no one can with safety interfere in such cases, even with the most benevolent intentions, so that if a horse, dog, or other animal has been so injured as to be suffering extreme agony, yet it would not be legal to put the poor creature out of its misery, unless with the consent of the owner.

The exception has been made by the Injured Animals Act, 1894, but that only empowers a constable to kill a horse, mule, or ass which is so severely injured that it cannot be led away, when the owner is absent or refuses to consent to its destruction, after a certificate has been obtained from a certified veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive.

The exception that has been introduced by the Act of Parliament passed in 1894 and called “The Injured Animals Act, 1894,” provides for the slaughter, without the owner’s consent, of horses, mules, or asses, in cases of injury so serious as to make it cruel to keep them alive. It does not apply to animals other than those enumerated above, and is hedged round with such restrictions as to render it of little avail. These in brief are as follows: A constable must find the animal so severely injured that it cannot without cruelty be led away, the owner must be absent or refuse to consent to the destruction of the animal, and the constable must obtain the certificate of a veterinary surgeon that the animal is mortally injured, or so severely that it is cruel to keep it alive. After doing all this the constable may kill the animal.

The foregoing statements as to the law are not exhaustive, but they are made with the intention of helping the revolver-carrying section of the public to know what they may be responsible for and on what occasions or emergency they may safely use their weapons. To make sure that no legal error has crept in, these statements have been submitted to Mr. C. Willoughby Williams, of No. 1 Brick Court, Temple, Barrister at Law, who is of opinion that the law as set out is correct.

It will be seen, from what is said above, that if a gun or a game license is obtained, it is not illegal to carry a loaded revolver, so that if any one had to go along a lonely road, or had received a threatening letter which had alarmed him, he would be quite in his right in taking about with him a loaded revolver. It would even be quite right for any one to carry about a loaded revolver in his pocket merely as a protection in case he should be unexpectedly attacked, but any one carrying about with him such an article should be prepared to use it only in cases of great emergency, and should keep a clear head on his shoulders.

Another example of the advantages of carrying a revolver would be if one were attacked by a mad dog. In such a case, if the dog attacked in a ferocious manner, it would be permissible to shoot the dog, but it would not be allowable to shoot a dog on the supposition that he was mad, unless he was attacking one; though, of course, if there were no doubt about the dog’s being mad, then, for the sake of others, it would be wise to shoot him.

Again, if while carrying a revolver any one were passed by a runaway horse, and such horse were about to run over a child, it might be permissible to shoot the horse in order to save the child, if one were too far off to catch hold of the animal. These, however, are all matters of degree, and what would be right and proper to do in one case might in a case almost similar be quite wrong.

Note.—Since the first edition of this book was issued, the Pistols Act of 1903 has come into force. This Act stops the sale, by retail or by auction, or the letting on hire, of any pistol (which would include a revolver), unless the purchaser has a gun or game license, or is entitled to use or carry a gun without such license, or unless the purchaser shows that he purposes to use the pistol only in his own house or the curtilage thereof, or that he is about to proceed abroad for a period of not less than six months. The Act also prevents the sale or hiring out of a pistol to a person under the age of 18 years, and places a very heavy penalty on any one knowingly selling a pistol to a person who is intoxicated or not of sound mind.

APPENDIX C

THE LAW OF CARRYING WEAPONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The statutes of the various States upon the subject of carrying weapons are substantially similar, the main differences relating to the persons exempted from their operation, and to the manner of carrying the weapon, some making it an offence to carry the weapon at all, whether concealed or not; others prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons only.

These statutes have been held to be police regulations, and not to conflict with the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Weapons are considered to be concealed, within the intent of the statutes, when they cannot be readily seen by ordinary observation.

In some of the States, as in Kentucky, Louisiana, and Missouri, the carrying of “deadly” or “dangerous” weapons is prohibited. Most of the States, however, specify the weapons prohibited. Such weapons as pistols, dirks, butchers’ or bowie knives, stilettos, daggers, swords, brass knuckles, razors, slugs, etc., are usually specified in nearly all of the statutes.

Officers of the law are usually exempted from the operation of the statutes. The officers must, however, be duly appointed, and in the discharge of their duties at the time of carrying the weapons.

Persons who are threatened with bodily harm or who have reasonable grounds to apprehend danger or attack, are usually justified in carrying concealed weapons. It is not every idle threat, however, which would justify one in carrying concealed weapons. The threat must be such as to cause a reasonable apprehension of danger. Examples of this exemption are found in the statutes of Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, Maryland, and West Virginia.

Persons on their own premises are frequently exempted from the operation of the statutes. This is so in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas.

Some of the statutes exempt persons who are travelling. This is so in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas.

The burden of proving exemption rests usually upon the accused. This has been expressly decided in Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. In Michigan, however, it has been held that the prosecution must prove that the defendant does not fall within one of the exemptions.