While the state doesn't provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.
Throughout the past 29 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 729,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.
So, not only is the number of cases incredibly small, "the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone." Now, that's what I call some fancy spinning.
Another problem I have with his description, aside from the fact that he's guessing at what the "vast majority" might be, is the fact that he fails to allow for all the lesser incidents. He's talking about people who have actually lost their permits, the worst of the worst.
When John Lott counts 2,5 million DGUs per year, he includes all the undocumented cases of simple brandishing of the weapon which supposedly prevented crimes. But, when he counts the concealed carry license holders who have misused their guns, he counts only the ones who have actually been convicted of a crime and have forfeited the license.
When he makes one argument he uses the loosest standard possible to include every case. When he makes the other argument, he counts only the worst of the worst in order to keep the numbers as low as possible.
That's what I call spinning. What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The annual permit revocation rate is still dwarfed by even the most conservative estimate of annual DGUs: 108,000 from 1993, when only 16 states shall-issued permits.
ReplyDeleteWith more than twice as many states now liberally issuing permits, I'm sure that DGU number is far larger now.
"Gun free zone"? What's that? We don't have such a thing in Tennessee.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait. We do. I forgot. It's the Tennessee State Legislature. Only place in town where you can't bring a gun.
Every time I do a post like this one I get an army of gun nuts sputtering and spinning their heads hurling every kind of insult and not really getting at the fact that some people with guns are irresponsible. Even the obligatory "this guy made it up" objection. There's this group mind-think that just astonishes.There is no reason with this group, no logic. It's all about freedom and the constitution and by God if they all end up killing themselves that's just fine because what's MOST important is that they're upholding that Holy of Holies: what the Constitution said 200+ years ago.
No other country has these nutcases.
Lott is at least acknowledging there is bad and good. As pointed out in this article, Sugarmann won’t even acknowledge that DGUs happen; he just keeps a running counter of deaths. You at least acknowledge DGUs, but by your strictest standard. I recall you not wanting to count the time a woman chased away a repeat naked stalker.
ReplyDeleteAgain, most states simply don't track revocations of CCW permits. So claiming DGUs outnumber revocations is rather misleading.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's be real--the number of DGUs is unknown--just as the number of times a gun is brandished to harrass, intimidate or threaten.
Jade Gold said:
ReplyDelete"Again, most states simply don't track revocations of CCW permits. So claiming DGUs outnumber revocations is rather misleading."
Wrong of course. Revocations take a court order and record so all states track revocations.
"And let's be real--the number of DGUs is unknown--just as the number of times a gun is brandished to harrass, intimidate or threaten."
True.
FWM, Isn't it possible that in some states they're so disorganized that no one checks to see if a newly convicted felon has a concealed carry permit? That seems likely to me and even more so for domestic offenders who don't rise to the level of felon. And how about the mental cases, are you sure every one of those is checked for a CC permit?
ReplyDeleteI think those tiny numbers Lott references are very misleading.