BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Just found this interesting tid-bit from a convicted murderer, still serving, and without any facts or data. His "professional" criminal opinion. Hell, if he was THAT professional a criminal, he wouldn't be in prison!
At first glance, a laymanwould assume he'slearned his lesson and is trying to pass along "lifesaving tips" to citizens. But as we all know, OC grabs and targeting by criminals just doesn't happen, so his dual purpose for this insight is likely bothtrying to make himself look reformed for the parole board and in the meantime discouraginv OCmaking the streets safer for his brother crimnals!
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/OPINION/806290398/1029/OPINION03
Displaying a gun only makes you vulnerable
Why openly invite a thug to take you on?
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.)
Just found this interesting tid-bit from a convicted murderer, still serving, and without any facts or data. His "professional" criminal opinion. Hell, if he was THAT professional a criminal, he wouldn't be in prison!
At first glance, a laymanwould assume he'slearned his lesson and is trying to pass along "lifesaving tips" to citizens. But as we all know, OC grabs and targeting by criminals just doesn't happen, so his dual purpose for this insight is likely bothtrying to make himself look reformed for the parole board and in the meantime discouraginv OCmaking the streets safer for his brother crimnals!
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/OPINION/806290398/1029/OPINION03
Displaying a gun only makes you vulnerable
Why openly invite a thug to take you on?
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.)
