Beware of “influencers” passing false propaganda. 

On social media, an influencer-type put up an out-of-context video of John Farnam. John was depicted on a range giving information and shooting a demonstration. The response was to use John’s demo to discount someone who was a “typical anti-competition fudd” (sic), who’d allegedly trained at DTI. It was alleged that John “told him to stop competing because it ingrained bad habits …” something that is unlikely to have happened. 

He was holding John Farnam up to ridicule via an out-of-context video clip.

I was gratified to see that a good number of the faithful had replied to this “look at me!” gent and made pithy comments about his lack of understanding.

Moving forward, I went to the “influencer’s” profile and saw a number of videos of him practicing his “fast draw” and his reloads in his living room, wearing his skivvies. Later, I blocked that account and moved on – life is just too short -- but it reminded me of a recent phony debate that people resurrected where Ken Hackathorn quite appropriately noted that pistol mounted optics are not that big a deal when the threat you’re facing is within 30 feet. 

Ken didn’t say anything wrong and had anyone watched the entire discussion, I believe that they would conclude that he was right more than wrong.

It wasn’t an anti-optics screed, by any stretch – Ken has optics mounted on pistols and he works with them. He knows their advantages.  I think he probably nailed that subject for a good many people, people who may not strive to get in the appropriate practice.

I understand that the pistol mounted optic is here to stay and on the whole, they can help people who otherwise would be struggling at precision. 

 One thing we need, more than speed, is precision.

Just before all this flummery started, I saw a badge cam video of a police officer involved in a firepower display where he was trying to shoot somebody who is trying to evade him. And his speed of fire was remarkable. His reloads were good. The problem is that he put perhaps a dozen rounds in the air (maybe more) that never did hit the intended target. 

All those rounds went somewhere. If someone saw that performance on cardboard targets, they’ve be impressed with him running and shooting, doing his reloads. 

There were others wondering what he would think if he was watching uninvolved citizens being patched up by EMS or taken to the morgue, not based on anything the offender did, but based on his misses.

He had an optic on the pistol. He could have had a slick slide, no optic but irons, and it wouldn’t matter. It seemed more like an internet mag dump, where the idea was to make as much noise as quickly as possible. 

The drive to speed puts you on a road to perdition. To paraphrase the wrongly derided Ken Hackathorn, when this event comes to you, “you won’t need anyone to tell you to shoot faster.” You may wish you had someone telling you to shoot better.

That may seem “Fudd-like” to the children who may have only seen the old Warner Brothers cartoons on streaming internet - not in theaters or on broadcast TV. 

 in a recent video, Ayoob pointed out that the people referring to the elderly among us as “Fudds” are a little bit late to the game: People our age began that trend. Some of it stems from probably about 30 years ago, but without the “Fudd” term, the sentiment existed before that as far back as a 1960s. It was a time when many people thought that the only use for firearms was in “sporting purposes.” We started the Fudd-name calling.

A survey question about a potential federal law banning possession, sale, carry and manufacture of handguns had a positive response from a majority of those surveyed as late as the 1950s. Gun magazines of the 1960s seldom ran stories about handguns and nearly never about semiauto rifles. Consider the adult population of the time: they were children of the Great Depression, veterans of the "good" war who were repelled by the specter of nuclear annihilation. 

They were unimpressed with battle as only those who experienced it can be unimpressed.

When people started moving in the direction of handguns, we saw a response in firearms media driven by manufacturers who responded to the public. As we approached the first federal gun ban (the 1994 “Bill Crime”), there were those who saw “no need for civilians (sic) to have high-capacity (sic) magazines, ‘assault weapons’ (sic),” and the like.” 

People like me referred to people like that as “Fudds.” From Elmer Fudd … 

Never mind; you were likely sitting on the floor in your diaper contemplating your toes while we were fighting that battle. 

Richard Pryor, as “Mudbone,” observed “ … you don’t get to be old bein’ no fool.”

There may be a time to dispense with the knowledge of those who were here before you. Like Chesterton’s fence, you should analyze the “why” of the statement relative to the time it was made instead of that 20/20 rearview mirror.

We’re where we are because of those fellas. Consider gratitude instead of dismissal.

– Rich Grassi