Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters So...how bout Charles Askins, Jr.?

In spite of 3rd and 4th hand stories, I doubt that Askins killed anyone that didn't deserve it.

Especially poachers and babies.

That Pollyanna doubt doesn't jibe with what I know about ol' Charlie.

I've read this entire thread with real interest. Re-reading Mas Ayoob's article (referenced in Ken Howell's post on page 6 of this thread) was good. Ayoob knew Askins, and the article was, I think, a pretty fair representation of the kind of man Askins was.

I appreciate the contributions to this thread by Ken and the others who knew Askins. He may have been a SOB, but there's no doubt he was an interesting SOB and his history is fascinating, if macabre.

Your doubt is wrong!

Askins,Junior did have a darkside, ......well documented.

Continue to doubt if you must, he won't be doing anymore backshooting in this world. There are some rules of engagement and surrender that should be followed.

'Nuff said.

If you knew Charlie and spent any time with him, he'd leave you no room or reason for doubt or wonder.

He was truly a complex individual with more than one facet, but some traits and attitudes were as blunt, as clear, and as uncomplicated as a swift kiss of brass knuckles in the snot locker.

Ne'er a suggestion of subtlety or innuendo in years of chats.

No kumbaya, either.

And no hint or trace of jocularity that I can recall.

You keep bring up babies, even after Mr. Howel said that it was rumored, but not proved.





I suspect if it were true Mr. Howel would have know

Not proven to me.

True and I suspect you would have known

Don't recall that ever coming-up in any of my chats with Charlie.

May have happened after the last time when I had a chat with Charlie.

I have no way of knowing whether that ever actually happened � with Charlie or anybody else.

That is my whole point to Gene we just do not know

There is no doubt Col. Askins was of a type too strong for the stomachs of most modern males. A century or more ago, his characteristics, or at least his attitudes, would have been much more mainstream. We now live in a "kinder, gentler" era.

I've five or six of Askins Jr's books on the shelf. One leaves the reading of Asian Jungle - African Bush with an entirely different idea of his personality than from Unrepentant Sinner. The former book benefited from the editorial services of E. B. Mann and John Amber. It's price has dropped recently on Amazon, ABE, and other used book sources, and it's worth the price to read Askin's descriptions of hunting with Harry Pope's grandson Allen and his wife Yvonne.

A strange coincidence: Col. Kurtz in Conrad's Heart of Darkness is one of the more enigmatic characters of literature. In Coppola's movie version, "Apocalypse Now", one of the special oddities of Kurtz's military career was his paratroop training at the age of 40+. Our Col. Askins was similarly trained at about the same age. On his own in SE Asia, unlike Coppola's Kurtz, Askins did not go native but went hunting with the natives.

--Bob

I can't argue with that

I do.

It's an unwarranted, unfounded affront to the men of yore.

How so? How'bout Wyatt Earp, killed a few men and it is rumored that he killed a lot of cowboysfor years and left them alyong in the desert

You seem to assume, you and a few others, that unwarranted killing was somehow acceptable back in the day. I think Ken Howell's point is that assumption is a bit insulting to our forefathers.

As for "provable," nothing in his writing is provable, is it? We're taking his word that his books are "true."

In his bokk did he claim to have killed any babies? Yes or No

No affront at all. Just the way it was. I said his attitudes would have been much more mainstream; not necessarily the exact standard of the day. A century or more agone, many people thought very little of killing blacks. Indians were considered savages and often targeted for extermination. People were killed over minor disagreements, by modern standards. It was simply a different time.

I agree with Ken Howell. In most times and in most cultures, killing another person was a relatively rare event, and those who did so generally had what Massad Ayoob calls "The Mark of Cain" on them. That is, they were regarded by others in the society with some fear and suspicion and set apart from most of their fellow men. This leaves aside war, of course, where soldiers were "given permission" to take another man's life, or self-defense.

It is certainly fair to say that punishments were harsher in the past than they are today, particularly for lesser crimes. However, as a rule, when those punishments were applied, it was on the basis of society judging and passing sentence, via some sort of legal system, rather than an individual being "judge, jury and executioner." I think in the past, as today, that is considered an exceptional event, and a person who performs such a thing, particularly repeatedly, as apparently Col. Askins did, would also stand outside the norm, in any time or place. I believe that is what Mr. Howell meant. I'm sure that he'll be along to correct me if I'm mis-stating his position.