Open Carry?

[Episcopus]

Concord Monitor - Displaying a gun only makes you vulnerable

Displaying a gun only makes you vulnerable
Why openly invite a thug to take you on?

By CHARLES HUCKELBURY
For the Monitor

June 29, 2008 - 12:00 am




I usually don't need a reminder of the disparity in conceptual approaches to crime between citizens and thugs, but a recent letter to the editor from Michael Hampton of Manchester, in which he advocated an "open-carry" policy regarding handguns, caught my attention.

Mr. Hampton supports armed citizens displaying their weapons as they go about their quotidian business, rather than keeping them concealed under clothing or in a purse. He clearly believes that such a demonstration will act as a deterrent to criminal activity by putting bad guys on notice that they will not be allowed to kill police officers or anyone else without paying an extreme price. Although such an approach is well-intentioned, it won't work for several reasons.

Mr. Hampton can be forgiven for assuming that urban predators think like citizens. When it comes to the theory of deterrence, most working men and women and the elected officials who represent them make the same mistake, whether criminalizing specific behaviors or increasing the penalties for others. Whereas one of them would avoid confronting someone carrying a loaded weapon, serious criminals intent on taking what you have would simply employ countermeasures to neutralize the threat of the displayed weapon, including pulling theirs first and possibly taking yours. In fact, most of the bad guys I have met over the years would probably thank you for giving them advance warning that you are armed.

I'll probably provoke some people by divulging "trade secrets," but citizens who carry weapons openly actually invite the more resolute thugs to take them on. Often those same citizens enjoy a specious sense of superiority because of the gun, forgetting that they didn't get the last one and that shooting paper targets at the range does not even come close to armed combat with someone who intends to kill you.

Moreover, criminals in the market for a weapon opportunistically shop for guns and will even follow someone displaying a weapon home and then burglarize the empty house to get it. That's why cars and trucks with Ruger or Colt or Glock decals on the windows actually dare thieves to break in and see what's there. The bolder - or more foolish - will actually assault the individual carrying the gun, perhaps with a club or other weapon.

Granted, the open display of a weapon will convince some of the low-level muggers, purse snatchers, and perverts to ply their trade elsewhere, but the results can be even more dramatic if the weapon is not visible. The wife of a friend of mine once took a load of clothes to the Laundromat, and on her way across the parking lot at dusk, she was confronted by a man standing between two cars. When he had her attention, he unzipped his pants and exposed himself. Faye calmly put down the basket of laundry, flipped back a towel on top, pulled a nine-millimeter Beretta, and aimed it at the man's anatomy where he was most vulnerable at the time. Last seen, he was running across the parking lot like a semi-dressed Olympian, and one can presume that this salutary lesson prevented other women from dealing with the same situation.

The fact remains that, other than uniformed personnel, only amateurs display their weapons and give potential adversaries intelligence on their self-defense capabilities. And as for deterring lethal attacks, the recent deaths of two New Hampshire police officers are graphic testimony refuting the proposition that guns in the open will stop a determined killer. Both officers were carrying their sidearms in the standard position, and both had extensive training in their use. And their killers didn't care; they were willing to engage clearly armed men in mortal combat. What deterrent effect, then, would a citizen's weapon have on that same mindset?

Then, too, if gun owners begin to exert their rights to carry weapons openly, the result could be every cop's nightmare. A stroll in downtown Concord would begin to look more like Tombstone, Ariz., in 1881, when the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday took that walk to the OK Corral, only I doubt most citizens are as proficient as the Earps and Holliday, never mind the target shooting they might have done on the weekend.

The Second Amendment confers, in my judgment, the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms." Last week, in a case concerning the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that right. Given that explicit right, state and municipal jurisdictions are charged with establishing criteria by which residents can buy and carry weapons, including prohibiting men like me with felony records from owning a gun. But an open-carry policy is not a judicious response to the nebulous, undifferentiated threat described by Mr. Hampton.

A wiser option would be to obtain the necessary permit and carry your weapon concealed. You would avoid alerting the bad guys and forfeiting the element of surprise should you find yourself in a threatening situation. If someone demands your money or your life, the intelligent response is not to let him see your weapon. Instead, you want him to hear it when he doesn't expect it. The best way to accomplish that is not to show it to him first.

(Charles Huckelbury is serving a murder sentence at the state prison in Concord.)

Interesting article. Consider the source and determine for yourself whether it is credible. I don't necessarily agree with what he is saying, but I find the perspective from the 'other side' to be enlightening. The main thing I disagree with is the element of surprise bit. Surprise in an offensive advantage, not a defensive or reactive one. If a criminal would run or cower at the drawing of a weapon, why would he approach an open carrier to begin with?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Concord Monitor - Displaying a gun only makes you vulnerable

If a criminal would run or cower at the drawing of a weapon, why would he approach an open carrier to begin with?

I think what he is saying that if you open carry you could be approached differently than if you were concealed. I also feel concealed carry is the best option and it is how I carry. I also don't have stickers on my vehicles. I want to look just like every other Joe out there. Surprise can be a defensive tool. I'm sure there are many Generals who have taken the offense and have been surprised at the defense.
I do disagree with his Wild west comment though. And that he thinks Civilians are trained less then the LEOS.

 

[Dogman]

I think what he is saying that if you open carry you could be approached differently than if you were concealed. I also feel concealed carry is the best option and it is how I carry. I also don't have stickers on my vehicles. I want to look just like every other Joe out there. Surprise can be a defensive tool. I'm sure there are many Generals who have taken the offense and have been surprised at the defense.
I do disagree with his Wild west comment though. And that he thinks Civilians are trained less then the LEOS.

I agree with what BloodEclipse says, the only time I've ever carried open is when there was a shield next to the gun, I just want to have any edge that I can if something bad goes down, I can remember(at my age that's a good day) watching films in class that were taken at several prisons from across the country of prisoners practiceing disarming LEO's, so it's not just shooting that you have to train at but also being able to keep your gun if someone tries to take it from you.

 

[Coach]

I have been taking walks down a country road this summer, and I carry open when I do. I carry during these to deal with dogs and Coyotes if the need arises. But I have noticed looks from people who drive or walk by. My daughter accompanies me and they look and say isn't that sweet. Then they see the .45 and become very confused. Open carry is more convienent at times, but stirs people up.

 

[melensdad]

That is not a factually based article it is simply one man's opinion of what other people may or may not feel, attract, etc.

In point of fact, there is little to no evidence to suggest that "open carry" has ever resulted in the shooting of anyone who has ever open carried. It is a commonly held urban myth that people who open carry are the first ones shot, when there is no report of that ever happening.

 

[4sarge]

That is not a factually based article it is simply one man's opinion of what other people may or may not feel, attract, etc.

In point of fact, there is little to no evidence to suggest that "open carry" has ever resulted in the shooting of anyone who has ever open carried. It is a commonly held urban myth that people who open carry are the first ones shot, when there is no report of that ever happening.

and just "why" do you think that common sense or fact
should enter into a discussion on an Internet forum where everyone is an EXPERT

 

[Episcopus]

The way I feel about open carry is that it deters the petty criminal interested only in taking money or property. It limits the pool of possible assailants. If you open carry, you will know that you are dealing with a determined attacker who is intent, or at least willing, to cause you a great deal of harm. For the average Joe on the street, the likelihood of having someone target you like that seems rather small. I am for methods of reducing the overall likelihood of an attack.

That said, I do not have stickers on my car. I do not wear gun related hats or shirts. I haven't even started open carrying yet. I just don't think it is a bad idea, and I am not opposed to doing it.

 

[melensdad]

The way I feel about open carry is that it deters the petty criminal interested only in taking money or property. It limits the pool of possible assailants. If you open carry, you will know that you are dealing with a determined attacker who is intent, or at least willing, to cause you a great deal of harm. For the average Joe on the street, the likelihood of having someone target you like that seems rather small.

I understand, and I don't disagree with your feelings. However I can find no evidence of any person who has open carried who has ever been shot or assailed. I have done an extensive study on this topic and all I can find are 2 different types of reports. First those that "claim" people who OC are targets. Second are those which state there is ZERO evidence to back up the emotional claims of the first type of report.

 

[Episcopus]

I understand, and I don't disagree with your feelings. However I can find no evidence of any person who has open carried who has ever been shot or assailed. I have done an extensive study on this topic and all I can find are 2 different types of reports. First those that "claim" people who OC are targets. Second are those which state there is ZERO evidence to back up the emotional claims of the first type of report.

I think we are agreeing.

 

[rhino]

I have been taking walks down a country road this summer, and I carry open when I do. I carry during these to deal with dogs and Coyotes if the need arises. But I have noticed looks from people who drive or walk by. My daughter accompanies me and they look and say isn't that sweet. Then they see the .45 and become very confused. Open carry is more convienent at times, but stirs people up.

Which is another good reason to keep doing it as often as you can. They will get used to it over time.