Help critique a CCW essay

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Hi, all. For some time now, I've had some of the following thoughts floating around in my head. Decided to see if I could put them together for an essay on concealed carry, that I will see if I can get published. I know it's a bit long, 'cause I've thrown in everything but the kitchen sink. Would appreciate your thoughts on anything else I should include, or anything I should throw out.

Thanks!

I walk among you. I'm no one you would notice. You see people who look like me every day of your life. In point of fact, I'm an older guy, a little overweight, and a lot out of shape. I don't look any different from anyone you might see on the street, or in the mall. But I am different. Very different. I carry a gun. And I do it legally. I jump through hoops every year to keep my qualification up. Just like most concealed carriers jump through hoops to get their concealed weapons permits. It doesn't guarantee that I'm a good guy. But if I were planning to commit a crime with a gun, I wouldn't be concerned about the additional minor crime of carrying without a permit. I would darn sure be concerned about the authorities knowing that I have a gun, in the first place.

I take pains to keep my weapon concealed. It's not that I am ashamed of carrying it; it's largely out of regard for you. I don't wish to alarm or frighten you. Because I'm no threat to you or your family. Perhaps I'm that guy you chatted with the other day, when you asked my opinion about which tie I thought your husband might like best. You never knew that you were within reach of a loaded .45 Automatic the entire time we were talking. It never once leaped out of its holster to frighten you. Nor do I recall it whispering in my ear, "Take me out and shoot her!" The gun isn't good or evil. It's just something I carry on my belt, like my cell phone.

I don't carry because I'm looking for trouble, any more than you have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen because you're planning to set a fire. I carry it so that if there is trouble, I can control or stop it before I, my family, or an innocent third person, such as you, get hurt. You say that concept frightens you. What if I get into a gunfight in the mall, where you and your family are shopping? What if one of your children gets into the line of fire and gets shot? I can tell you that's extremely unlikely to happen, because I'm careful, a skilled shooter, and would shoot only as a last resort, with a clear background. Still, I can't assure you that one of the bad guy's shots wouldn't hit one of your family, or, with 100% certainty, that one of mine wouldn't. You say that's your worst nightmare. Trust me, it isn't. Your worst nightmare just got out of prison after being convicted of child molestation, and he's walking through the mall right now. But he's learned his lesson. This time he won't leave his victim alive to testify against him. But he'll have his fun first. A lot of fun. You don't like to think about people like that being out there. But they are. I know. I used to hunt them. And I know exactly what they're capable of doing to your child. But it won't happen on my watch. No predatory pedophile is going to drag one of your children, screaming and kicking, out of the mall if I'm there to stop it. The chances of your child dying when I confront this animal are remote, but they are greater than zero. But would you rather I stand idly by to let your child die later, after hours of fear and agony? I didn't think so.

I'm not everywhere, but I'm around more often than you think. Maybe I'm the guy at the Trolley Square Mall who used my off-duty weapon to engage an armed psychopath with a shotgun and several hundred shells, keeping his attention focused on me until the police could arrive and bring him down. If your family was there, one of them might have been hurt by his shots, or even by mine. But can you honestly say you'd rather he had been left to just casually walk around shooting people until the police arrived? What chance would your children have had without me? Or maybe I'm the guy down in Texas who engaged a soon-to-be-divorced husband who shot and killed his wife, then tried to kill his son. My bullets kept him from succeeding. True, I lost my life in the effort, but risking my life to save a life was a calculated decision I made long ago. I would do it again, if the situation were to repeat itself. But I would try to shoot more accurately.

I help protect you and your family every day, whether you realize it or not. Whether you want me to, or not. Violent predators don't know whether the guy they're targeting is me, or someone like me. The more of us there are, the greater their chances of meeting up with a bullet instead of a payoff. Where only cops and retired cops like me are able to carry weapons, their chances of meeting armed resistance are greatly diminished. Is it any wonder then, that places with the tightest gun restrictions suffer the highest rate of violent crime? Kinda proves the fallacy of the "More Guns equals More Crime" theory, doesn't it?

But even though I'm around you a lot more than you think, I'm still fairly rare. So what's likely to happen if your psycho ex-husband grabs you in the mall and drags you out by your hair, while bystanders gape but don't interfere? Even if one of them has the presence of mind to call 911 on their cell phone, as the old saying goes: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." And if by some miracle dispatch gets it right the first time and there's a squad car a block away, the last thing you ever hear may be approaching sirens. That very thing happened not long ago, if I remember correctly, near our nation's capital. In reporting the resulting murder-suicide, the papers lamented that the woman had done everything she could do. She'd changed her address, telephone number, and had gotten a restraining order. But no, they got it wrong. She didn't do everything she could have done. She didn't buy a gun, learn how to use it, and obtain a concealed carry permit. If she had, she might have saved her own life that day. Perhaps even two lives.

So remember, even if you don't like guns; even if you're deathly afraid of guns, I walk among you. You've met me, or others like me on hundreds, if not thousands of occasions. And you've never been hurt by one of us. And maybe, just maybe, the reason you haven't been touched by violence, is because of us.


Copyright (C) Gary L. Griffiths, 2009
Permission is hereby granted to use this essay for the purpose of promoting safe concealed carry of firearms, provided quotes are not taken out of context and credit is given to the author.

 

[OldMarksman]

Your worst nightmare just got out of prison ...and he's walking through the mall right now. ...t it won't happen on my watch. ... when I confront this animal ...

Your watch? When you "confront this animal"?

Good bit too much of the citizen as wannabe cop in it, for my taste.

People with that mindset are apt to get into an awful lot of trouble. Someone drags a screaming kid--someone points a gun at or tackles someone else--someone screams "rape"--on and on--how is one to know what's really going on? Child being abducted, or needing meds? Which one of the fellows scuffling is the perp? Rape victim, or prostitute being arrested?

The citizen's gun is for the last-resort defense of himself, his family, and people he knows well. Step beyond that and one is very apt to get into trouble, as the two fellows in Boise found out recently.

 

[javabum]

I agree with oldmarksman,in that a citizens gun is for family,and at times some friends.one never knows the whole situation.and the only thing that should be done as a citizen is be the best dam witness you can be.beyond that your taking to big a step as a citizen with a gun.
no one but your family is worth dying for going to jail for.....no one

 

[TimT]

Apparently I threw a lot of temper tantrums, and had to be dragged out kicking and screaming when I was a toddler. Thanks for not killing my parents.

This things reeks of vigilanteism - you sound like you are hoping for these situations to occur. I'm sure you are not, but it's not the unwritten message I see when I read it. Respectfully, it is not something I would ever read to someone to try to change their minds on CC.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Good bit too much of the citizen as wannabe cop in it, for my taste.

I will have to agree with that, if you are a retired LEO that may be where this came from;

But it won't happen on my watch. No predatory pedophile is going to drag one of your children, screaming and kicking, out of the mall if I'm there to stop it. The chances of your child dying when I confront this animal

If so, then you might want to rethink adding that angle, if not, then it does have a "mall ninja-esque" quality that most will find un-appealing, IMHO.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree that the interventionist tone may not be representative. Many classes teach you to be very circumspect about intervening - thus it is not a mantra for the Conceal carry population. I also know from research that even the armed population is very reluctant to physically intervene in a domestic. They are more likely than average to call the law than the general public (that's for men - not women - armed and unarmed called the law) but aren't likely to use the gun.

That is not to say it wouldn't happen. It probably depends on the extreme nature of the action. There is a case of an armed citizen stopping a guy from setting his ex on fire in front of the mall. Research shows that more extreme emergencies directly in front of you is more likely to elicit a response.

About the kid - interesting problem.

1. I once had to throw my kid at age 5 over my shoulder and take her out of the market as she flipped over not getting a My Little Pony. I would prefer someone not pointing a gun at me. But how would you know it was my kid?

2. A friend of mine inherited an emotional damage kid from relatives - another 5 year old girl. She flipped in the mall and was taken to car and this kid yelled that she was being kidnapped.

3. However, I missed by a day at a local hotel - a pedophile beating an 8 year old coming from the swimming pool with a tire iron and trying to stuff her in a duffle bag. Now that's clear and I would have taken stern action.

Perhaps with a kid just being carted off (not being beaten)- strong verbalisms might be a first step.

I have chastized a father for abusing his kid on the ski slope - he folded under my righteousness.

But a tone of intervention isn't what's really out there. But I applaud your effort and your point of view.

 

[Doublestack]

It's hard to tell if you are speaking as a diverse group of CCW holders, or are speaking just for yourself. I would break it up. Example: I am the overweight older guy helping you with the purchase of your husbands tie. I am the young mother that is putting groceries into her trunk next to your car in the market parking lot. I am the old lady in line ahead of you at the bank. I am your everyday average, law abiding citizen.

You are definately going overboard with the "I am here to be the watchdog of the public" thing. The essay turned very vigilante very quickly. Also, "the mall" probably only neeed to be mentioned once, and various other locations could be mentioned as well.

It is just my opinion, but I don't think you need to go so deeply into the kidnap/raping of children, and the perp "having his fun first" thing. You can get the point across with fewer words. For instance, "One of us may be the difference between your child being kidnapped and abused, or your child coming home to you unscathed."

Hope this helped,

DS

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I am not sure where you intend this piece to get published, but you might consider having a good English major editing out your incorrect punctuation, incomplete, and awkward sentences.

I will be honest with you. This reads like propaganda. The intent is to present a positive gun and gun carrier image, but the some of the information is misleading and some is downright wrong. No doubt as with a lot of pro and anti-gun propaganda, you were likely counting on the readership not scrutinizing your claims and just taking your words at face value.

I jump through hoops every year to keep my qualification up. Just like most concealed carriers jump through hoops to get their concealed weapons permits.

Just what is it that you do every day to keep up your qualifications that is akin to what concealed carriers do to get their permits? Very few cops or retired cops (by percentage) actually do anything every day to keep up their qualifications. What you are claiming would be the exception, not the rule.

I take pains to keep my weapon concealed. It's not that I am ashamed of carrying it; it's largely out of regard for you.

Do you actually do this out of concern for the public or because it is actually the law?

I am confused about the point that you are making. Are you arguing for concealed carry or are you arguing for the contributions of off duty and/or retired police officers?

Certainly for ccw people in many states, remaining concealed isn't necessarily by choice, but by law. Many don't remain concealed for the benefit of not alarming the public, but because they feel carrying concealed is tactically advantageous.

But it won't happen on my watch. No predatory pedophile is going to drag one of your children, screaming and kicking, out of the mall if I'm there to stop it. The chances of your child dying when I confront this animal are remote, but they are greater than zero. But would you rather I stand idly by to let your child die later, after hours of fear and agony? I didn't think so.

While this may be true for you, it certainly isn't the case for all cops, retired cops, or CCW people.

The gun isn't good or evil. It's just something I carry on my belt, like my cell phone.

While the gun and cell phone are neither good or evil and may be carried on the belt, they are not as comparable as you are implying. Few people consider cell phones to be lethal weapons. I don't think you are fooling anyone with the anaology.

I can tell you that's extremely unlikely to happen, because I'm careful, a skilled shooter, and would shoot only as a last resort, with a clear background.

This sounds good and all, but just because you may be such a skilled shooter doesn't mean any of your fellow cops, retired cops, or CCW people are all that skilled. I have way too much experience with and having seen videos of cops to know that a LOT of them are not all that skilled when it comes to real life shootings and CCW folks have much less training (if any) for defensive shooting situations.

Is it any wonder then, that places with the tightest gun restrictions suffer the highest rate of violent crime? Kinda proves the fallacy of the "More Guns equals More Crime" theory, doesn't it?

While this sounds like a good argument, the premise is an absolute lie. Are the placest with the tightest gun restrictions the ones with the highest rates of violent crime? Nope. There are some that are highly ranked, but they aren't the highest ones and not necessarily even in the majority.

This 2006 study has St. Louis, MO as the city with the highest violent crime rate of cities with 75K or more. They were in 2002 as well. http://www.morganquitno.com/safecity.htm

In 2007, at least 17 of the worst 25 cities were not known as places having restrictive gun laws such as St. Louis, Birmingham, Memphis, North Charleston, Cleveland, Orlando, and so on. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921299.html

This 2006 study shoes that some of the most violent states (per capita) are not amonst the most restrictive and some are downright gun friendly. Heck, the top 6 worst when it came to violent crime were gun friendly states...

South Carolina was the worst, followed by
Tennessee
Nevada
Florida
Louisiana
Alaska

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

Contrary to your claim, the More guns equals more crime notion appears to be more supported by the data than refuted. Of course in both cases, nobody can actually show causeation between guns and crime, only correlations that may or may not be representative of anything.

I understand that this is meant to be a well intended piece, but if you have to make your point based on misleading and incorrect information, then your point based on that information is invalid.

 

[OuTcAsT]

C'mon DNS, stop sugar coating it and tell us how you really feel!


Although he does make an excellent point...

Consider how we, as a matter of routine, dissect the "anti's"
statements on this, and other fora. You may rest assured that they will do the same for a pro-gun essay.

Perhaps try and use that bit of knowledge to make your statement more "bullet proof" Particularly when using "statistical" analogies.

 

[Llantha]

unrealistic but well written

I armed citizens stopped crime we would hear about it. And we do. Several times a year. If armed citizens caused injury to bystanders we would hear about it and I don't recall doing so.

The fact of the matter is that having an armed citizenry has little impact on criminals who usually cannot delay gratification- they don't think. It makes the carrier feel better, safer. It does me no harm, so I can't get real worked up about how some cowboy wants his gun.

More people are killed by accident than are murdered; more are saved from death by seatbelts than by an armed protector. We really should be worrying about things that matter.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There's fair evidence that citizen arms have influenced some crimes. In the US, the burglary patterns indicate most occur during the day when the homeowner is not there. Interviews with criminals suggest that they want to avoid armed citizens. In the UK, they happen at night as the homeowner can be intimidated with a club or knife.

Does carry change crime rates - giant debate that is still not resolved. We do have instances of armed citizens saving the day when a crime occurs. That's different from lowering the rate of attempts.

 

[raimius]

Llantha, even the lowest accepted estimates range in the tens of thousands of defensive gun uses per year (around 100K by the NCVS). That's hardly "several times a year."

 

[markj]

The ccw doesnt make you the hunter of all bad guys.

This "paper" is too much mall ninja stuff, who goes to the mall to "protect" others kids? Unrealistic.

Best not to shine this lite upon all carriers as you put it, I for one dont want anyone to know what I have in my possesion.

Best leave all that to the actual cops.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

We do have instances of armed citizens saving the day when a crime occurs. That's different from lowering the rate of attempts.

ABSOLUTELY! Not only do we have instances of armed citizens saving the day, they do so countless times in just saving themselves and often in saving others. At the personal or individual crime event level, having a gun can have huge benefits.

The problem with the overall impact on crime is that having a gun does not seem to significantly influence the number of criminals that are caught or killed or convince them to drop a life of crime. Using a gun to protect yourself from a robber may protect you from the robbery, but unless you killed or severely wounded the robber, the robber gets away. Your event still gets counted as a crime statistic (so that didn't cause the crime rate to drop) and the robber is free to continue his/her craft.

Note that most people who defend themselves with firearms don't actually shoot the bad guys.

So, being unsuccessful with you may mean the robber has to then try to rob somebody else in order to get the money/valuables needed...especially if the robber is robbing people in support of a drug habit. So by saving yourself, the inadvertent result may actually be an increase in violent crime. Now isn't that ironic?

 

[Uncle Billy]

When someone with a CC permit puts forth a description of himself that reads like the OP does, he damages the public perspective of all CC permit holders. Calling him a "Mall Ninja" fits perfectly, except loaded handguns and an attitude of being "on the watch" aren't a joke.

I fervently hope that such a sense of one's self isn't all that common among those that CC, but maybe it is. It shows up on this forum quite frequently.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

My thanks to all who answered. Apparently my chopped, urgent style did not find universal approval. To the extent that it might appear uneducated rather than chosen for impact, perhaps I need to rethink the style.

Special thanks, double nought. You are dead on about the statistics. I need to generalize that to something like, "many of the areas with the most restrictive gun laws also have the highest crime rates."

There were several comments about children throwing tantrums. I didn't mean to imply that I would whip out a weapon every time I heard a child crying (need to rework that to make that clear), but I think most of us, especially parents can reliably detect the difference between a child throwing a tantrum, and one genuinely frightened.

I must say that I am rather dismayed by the number of negative comments about my being a "vigilante" or "mall ninja" for expressing a resolve to intervene in an ongoing violent crime. That's exactly the language we decry when we hear it from the anti's when one of us successfully defends him- or herself or an innocent third person from a violent crime.

My intent with this essay was to point out that legal concealed carriers are not to be feared, and, indeed, contribute to the safety of all. In the light of the majority of comments, however, perhaps I need to reconsider. Frankly, I just don't understand the "I'll protect me and mine and no one else" attitude that I see expressed here and in other similar threads. For an armed citizen not to intervene when a life-threatening violent crime occurs in his or her presence to me represents an act of moral cowardice differing only in degree, not kind, from the contemptible apathy that contributed to the death of Kitty Genovese almost half a century ago. I view failing to act to attempt to save a life from criminal violence out of fear of legal repercussions to be just as reprehensible as failing to save a drowning child for fear of ruining one's Armani suit.

Again, I appreciate all the comments.