Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

I can’t speak for Philip, but I know that my wife’s cousin, upon presentation of the appropriate bonafides was simply issued his pistol permit. I would have thought that there might have been some training in the laws of self-defense, in how to use the pistol (Cousin George couldn’t even shoot straight), etc., but there wasn’t. I’d think that the situation of simply issuing a permit to people unfamiliar with handguns would have been such a problem calling for some training.

That’s a common circular misconception – "We need training, and the problem is we don’t have training."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Answer this – has Cousin George ever committed a crime with his gun, or shot someone without adequate legal justification? If not, there would appear to be no need for “training in the laws of self-defense.”

And statistically, George would be the typical permit holder. There is no evidence of unjustified shootings by permit holders.

You say “Cousin George couldn’t even shoot straight.” Is that the problem? Cousin George is missing too many attackers? How many has he shot at and missed?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[shockerfan]

Philip P:

As a general rule, guns in the hands of non-professionals do not save lives.

What facts do you have to support this claim? Here is a study that directly refutes your claim:

“Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals about 760,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 15 nationwide polls done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times.” - Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

You say “Cousin George couldn’t even shoot straight.” Is that the problem? Cousin George is missing too many attackers? How many has he shot at and missed?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

If George couldn’t hit a standard target at the standard distance, there’ was little likelihood that he could have hit an attacker if it had ever came up.

I told him, “If that’s the way you shoot, George, I would have been willing to stand in for the target and save you the piece of paper.”

 

[Philip_P]

There are serious questions as to the credibility of that data. You can read a through critique at timlambert.org/guns/lindgren.html All the quotes in this post are from that page.

Lott’s made the statement you cited several times. Here’s one example:

“There are surveys that have been done by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, Roper, Peter Hart, about 15 national survey organizations in total that range from anything from 760,000 times a year to 3.6 million times a year people use guns defensively. About 98 percent of those simply involve people brandishing a gun and not using them.”

Page 41, State of Nebraska, Committee on Judiciary LB465, February 6, 1997, statement of John Lott, Transcript prepared by the Clerk of the Legislature, Transcriber’s Office (Otis Dudley Duncan & Tim Lambert, cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottbrandish.html ) cited in Lindgren’s paper

Lott claims to that his 98% is based on national surveys. However, when challenged on his figures, Lott then claims that they are actually based on a survey he himself conducted:
Letter from John Lott to Otis Dudley Duncan:

The information of over 2 million defensive uses and 98 percent is based upon survey evidence that I have put together involving a large nationwide telephone survey conducted over a three month period during 1997.

This is reflected in the 2000 edition of his book, More Guns, Less Crime:

“If a national survey that I conducted is correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” More Guns, Less Crime, second edition (University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 3.

The problem is, the survey no longer exists. Lott claims his computer crashed. He can’t track down the people who helped him run the survey, or provide any records related to where he got the data, expenses incurred in running the survey, or other documentation proving the survey ever took place. Grounds for suspicion, even if not conclusive.

Assuming the survey did exist, though, his data still doesn’t make sense.

His survey estimates about 2.1 million defensive gun uses occurred in the study period. The US adult population in 1997 was around 200 million adults. His survey size, according to him, was 2424 people. To get his 2.1 million instances of defensive gun usage, around 25-26 of the people he contacted would have had to say they used a gun defensively.

Of those 25-26 people, his claim is that 98% of those only had to brandish a gun. This leaves 2% that actually fired. 2%, though, is somewhere between ½ and 3/5 of a person.

It is possible to get fractions of a people in crunching numbers. However, how reliable or statistically significant can a response that adds up to less than even a whole person be?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

If George couldn’t hit a standard target at the standard distance, there’ was little likelihood that he could have hit an attacker if it had ever came up.

And how is that a problem that we need to address by law or regulation?
Arba Sicula:

I told him, “If that’s the way you shoot, George, I would have been willing to stand in for the target and save you the piece of paper.”

Let it be recorded to my credit that I refrained from making the reply that sprang into my mind.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Isidore_AK:

Every state that I am familiar with has laws against imbibing alcohol while carrying a concealed firearm.

The biggest ‘unarmed victim zones’ that people should worry about are our schools. The college campus up here bans ALL weapons (knives, mace/papper spray, guns, etc.) and has a horrible crime rate compared to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is almost ZERO risk of being caught. Many un-solved rapes and muggings on this campus. The media just doesn’t play it up.

I have no problem with restricting alcohol while packing, but not limiting where I can go. Especially the schools…maybe things might have been different at one of the school shooting incidents if one of the teachers had a gun…

We aren’t really suggesting that teachers and principals should be packing heat? Even on college campuses, one has to wonder whether the idea is at all wise.

College campuses, remember, are also places with lots and lots of women walking alone at night. Sit in the bushes in the surrounding neighborhood, and how many people are you going to see? Not many. It stands to reason that the campus would have a much higher rate of personal crime.

But college campuses are very often also places where there are–how can I say this nicely?–a bunch of immature and often drunken fools, some in the grip of near-adolescent passions, making very stupid choices every Saturday night, and to a lesser extent, every other night of the week. Heaven forbid that they start carrying weapons! Do you think that only allowing them to conceal their weapons when they’re sober will head off the trouble? The law doesn’t do much to keep them from driving, or buying alcohol underage. If I’m on the Board of Regents, I don’t want anybody other than my security and local police to carry firearms… and maybe not my security. College campuses are a prime place to ban firearms.

Still, as much trouble as it can cause, I am in favor of carrying a firearm being a right, not a privelege, and a right upon which restrictions can be placed only with a very real and compelling danger as a reason. Why? Because it is more difficult for a tyrant to take over an armed populace that has not reported to command central whether or not they own a gun. That is why the Founders put that very dangerous amendment on the Constitution. They knew what they were doing. Some things are precious enough that you pony up what you have to pay for them. Freedom from tyranny is one of those things. But mind the nickels and dimes. Little things have a way of really adding up, and in life or death, that isn’t pocket change.

 

[vern_humphrey]

BLB_Oregon:

We aren’t really suggesting that teachers and principals should be packing heat? Even on college campuses, one has to wonder whether the idea is at all wise.

Back in the bad old days of the “long hot summers” of the '70s, when newly-integrated schools were boiling with racial fights, and some were attacked by extremists, I knew several teachers who carried guns. None of them ever shot anyone.

BLB_Oregon:

College campuses, remember, are also places with lots and lots of women walking alone at night. Sit in the bushes in the surrounding neighborhood, and how many people are you going to see? Not many. It stands to reason that the campus would have a much higher rate of personal crime.

Which is why a prudent person would be armed if walking alone at night.

BLB_Oregon:

But college campuses are very often also places where there are–how can I say this nicely?–a bunch of immature and often drunken fools, some in the grip of near-adolescent passions, making very stupid choices every Saturday night, and to a lesser extent, every other night of the week. Heaven forbid that they start carrying weapons!

You must be over 21 to carry a pistol. And I think carrying while under the influence should be treated at least as seriously as driving under the influence.

BLB_Oregon:

Do you think that only allowing them to conceal their weapons when they’re sober will head off the trouble? The law doesn’t do much to keep them from driving, or buying alcohol underage.

Nor does it do much to keep them from being raped and murdered.

BLB_Oregon:

If I’m on the Board of Regents, I don’t want anybody other than my security and local police to carry firearms… and maybe not my security. College campuses are a prime place to ban firearms.]/quote]

As a member of the Board of Regents, are you prepared to accept an absolute liability for your student’s safety?

If a student is raped or killed on campus, are you ready to pay the parents $10,000,000 for your failure to protect their son or daughter?

BLB_Oregon:

Still, as much trouble as it can cause, I am in favor of carrying a firearm being a right, not a privelege, and a right upon which restrictions can be placed only with a very real and compelling danger as a reason. Why? Because it is more difficult for a tyrant to take over an armed populace that has not reported to command central whether or not they own a gun. That is why the Founders put that very dangerous amendment on the Constitution. They knew what they were doing. Some things are precious enough that you pony up what you have to pay for them. Freedom from tyranny is one of those things. But mind the nickels and dimes. Little things have a way of really adding up, and in life or death, that isn’t pocket change.

The Founding Fathers also understood that a government that doesn’t trust the people to be armed is already a tyranny.

In every state with liberalized concealed carry, the people have proven they are trustworthy.

 

[prodigal]

I have a CCW permit and, although I rarely carry concealed, when I do, I know my family and I are safe.

I have no problem with those who legally carry concealed. In fact, I posit that I am much safer when I fraternize with those who legally carry concealed. (You don’t often hear of violent crime occuring at shooting ranges).

I cannot, nor can anyone else, conclusively state what would happen in a particular community if concealed carry laws were introduced/repealed. I can only tell you that I know I am safer when I legally and responsibly carry concealed.

 

[Isidore_AK]

BLB_Oregon:

We aren’t really suggesting that teachers and principals should be packing heat? Even on college campuses, one has to wonder whether the idea is at all wise.

Not necessarily ALL teachers, but in principle, yes. Believe me, I don’t want idiots running around with guns, but people who are of age, with clean records, no history of drug or alcohol abuse, and a clean bill of mental health should be able to carry firearms in any location.

Now, I would never suggest that college professors carry weapons… They’re waaaaaaaay too flaky (at least all of mine were mad as a hatter…).

At the very least those with military or law enforcement experience. Especially the JROTC instructors.