Wednesday, November 14, 2012

The Problem with Concealed Carry

The Daily Illini
There are a number of issues with this argument. First of all, most individuals when confronted with danger are not likely to take measured and calm action. With the presence of bystanders, the possibility of innocent, civilian death goes up tremendously. But even more strongly, the numbers just don’t back up the claim that a right to carry a concealed weapon reduces violent crime.

Fact-checking website Politifact also took issue LaPierre’s claim of a connection between right-to-carry and lower violent crime and rated his statement as “false” for its contention that data supports an “across-the-board” reduction.

The hard truth is that these arguments are not verifiable. In a 2005 study, The National Academies of Sciences concluded that “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” Even more troubling, after analyzing the data the authors found that even the term “self-defense” is unclear in this context, writing, “We do not know accurately how often armed self-defense occurs or even how to precisely define self-defense.”
In my opinion, it's even worse than that. Not only is there no connection between concealed carry and crime reduction, concealed carry makes it worse. How often do we see a lawful gun owner, or even a concealed carry permit holder, do something wrong? Too often, and that's with the poor reporting we have.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

53 comments:

  1. Can you site some of these CCDW permit holders doing something illegal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We frequently post about them, but the problem is there are far more who go undetected.

      Delete
    2. In other words, no, he cannot.

      Delete
    3. mikeb said:
      "We frequently post about them, but the problem is there are far more who go undetected."

      And yet, what he won't admit despite being shown numerous times is that there are orders of magnitude more defensive guns uses that ever get reported.

      Delete
    4. Correct, Anonymous. Mikeb speculates a lot, but finds only a handful in a year that are confirmed as having carry licenses.

      Delete
    5. Your "orders of magnitude" is bullshit, you know why? 95% of them are supposedly the kind that require no shots to be fired. For those there is no record, no proof of any kind. Yet, because it's convenient for you and your heroes like John Lott, you claim such a thing as solid evidence. At the same time, you reject anything I have to say which is based on common sense or reasonable guesswork. That makes you not only wrong but hypocritical at the same time.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, I don't rely on Lott. There are more conservative studies that still show defensive gun uses outnumbering criminal acts with firearms. Your guesswork is far too low, and others are too high, but even going with careful estimates, we're still looking at hundreds of thousands of good citizens who defend themselves or another innocent person with a firearm.

      Delete
    7. CCW holders do NOT commit a lot of crime, if anything holding one makes you LESS likely to commit a crime. In El Paso county Colorado in 2010 there were over 17,000 CCW permit holders, it doesn't take much to get a CCW revoked, and by the end of 2010 only 6 people in El Paso county had their's revoked, 5 of them for having alcohol in their system with the gun in their possession (most of them had it in their car, not actually carrying it on them), and 1 because he checked himself into a mental health clinic for an evaluation. If you do the math, that's 0.035% almost 1 in 3,000 CCW holders that commit crimes, I'm pretty sure the general population numbers are MUCH higher than that. DUIs alone are a lot higher than that.

      Delete
    8. mikeb said:
      "Your "orders of magnitude" is bullshit ... For those there is no record, no proof of any kind"

      For many of them, that is true. But there are at least as many published reports of these as the ND stories you are always posting. I gave you three good websites for these months ago. Have you spent any time reading them? No, of course not. You prefer to get all of your info about gun owners from TTAG and make broad generalizations based upon what you read there.

      mikeb said:
      "At the same time, you reject anything I have to say which is based on common sense or reasonable guesswork."

      Please show me where I have done this? I think you are looking in the mirror. I love using "reasonable guesswork", when it has at least a seed - the tiniest of seeds - from some data captured somewhere.

      In fact, Mike, your whole hypothesis on at least 10% of gun-owners being irresponsible had some estimations that I would consider reasonable. I didn't agree with your overall total, but some of your situations had some merit.

      Delete
  2. MikeB: “Not only is there no connection between concealed carry and crime reduction, concealed carry makes it worse.”

    Except it is not worse. Crime is reducing. Unless you are claiming crime reduction is “worse” because it hurts the gun control movement…

    Even this article is on the defensive. Concealed carry is up, and crime is down. They are trying to say there is no causation, which is a defensible position. You are trying
    to say there isn’t even is correlation, which is patently false and provable.

    “with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.”

    [my emphasis] Just look at what they said. This is saying there is a correlation of data, but they are not convinced that it is caused by concealed carry. The correlation part is not subject to your opinion. It is like saying “in my opinion, 2 is greater than 3”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, what I'm saying is it's a false correlation. Crime is going down IN SPITE OF increased gun ownership. It would go down much more if it weren't for all the gun availability.

      Delete
    2. There is a correlation. Crime is going down, while gun ownership and carry are going up. You're speculating as to what would happen if we did something else, but the actual evidence is in front of us.

      Delete
    3. Mike, you can’t say the correlation is false. Correlation is just raw math. Again, this is like you claiming 2 is greater than 3. You can claim, “yes they are correlated, but I believe something else is the reason for the crime drop”, which is essentially what you are saying with your “could have been even better” claims. Yet for some reason you are refusing to concede the correlation. The anti-gun author you quoted here had no problem doing that.

      Delete
  3. um.... no. You have to pass certification/training to carry concealed.. you cant just be some cowboy walking around. if a criminal doesn't know what he's getting himself into, he'll usually move on to an easier target. Do you really think people with ccw permits don't practice with their firearm?
    because they do. alot actually. let me ask you this... Your walking from your car in the dark, someone walks up to you with a knife. what would you consider reasonable self defense in that situation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "certification/training" training is next to nothing in most places. In some places it is literally nothing, AZ for example.

      Your question about the knife in the dark is as stupid as if I asked you what would you do if a meteorite came crashing down on your head.

      Delete
    2. Honestly mike, you'd make a wonderful politician. I'm gonna go elsewhere now to try to find intelligent discourse. You've been asked two questions that I wanted your answer on and you danced around both without addressing the issue. Keep that head in the sand. I'm sure it keeps your ears warm.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous: Thank you for stating it! That is exactly what he does. He dodges and dances around the questions and accuses us of making complex points.

      Delete
    4. I answered both questions, actually. You guys just don't like the answers.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, rejecting the question isn't the same as answering it. If the question had been silly, you'd be right to ignore it, but the scenario proposed is possible and does happen.

      Delete
    6. mikeb: "I answered both questions, actually. You guys just don't like the answers."

      No, you answered one - the first one. The second question was a dodge - and you know it.

      Delete
  4. MikeB: “How often do we see a lawful gun owner, or even a concealed carry permit holder, do something wrong?”

    Let’s apply this to the article you quoted. How often do we hear about an innocent bystander being shot by CCW person in the process of defending themselves. They called this a “tremendous possibility” and a reason why we shouldn’t allow carry, but I can’t even recall you posting a story of that happening.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also of the fact that "trained professional" nypd officers shot and wounded 9 people while trying to apprehend a lone gun man... that should change your opinion on ccw as well. most ccw permit holders are better trained and well versed in firearms compared to the police in some cases...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's total bullshit based on an juicy anecdotal story.

      Delete
    2. I showed you the training requirements for NYPD officers. You rejected it, despite it coming from a credible source. I've told you about the training requirements in Tennessee and Arkansas. You've seen plenty of evidence that those of us with licenses train much more than New York cops.

      Enjoy your fantasy life.

      Delete
  6. Wow you're ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ya, we have all kinds of undetected proof.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "First of all, most individuals when confronted with danger are not likely to take measured and calm action. "---------- Did someone pass a law that says all victims are required to be CALM when being killed?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Figures lie and liars figure.... You can take just about any statistic and find someone somewhere to support your stand. As far as concealed carry goes the documentation exists that legitimately supports BOTH sides of this debate. The only thing that matters is where you receive your information. The FBI, CDC, AMA, NRA, state and local law enforcement agencies all collect and categorize data differently. At the end of the day the fact is that the data supports whichever side you want it to. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  10. South Dakota is a "Shall Issue" state. You don't need to explain or justify why you want a permit. You walk in to the sheriffs office, tell them you want a concealed handgun permit, fill out some papers, (at this point they do a criminal background check) when you are approved you simply hand them $10.00 and away you go... No training, no waiting, no fingerprints... This is just the way it should be everywhere. My permit application process took about 8 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm a strong second amendment person and think Mike B is full of shit most of the time, but I do agree that a training program should be taken to get a CCW. In SC, you have to take a ten hour course with a SLED certified instructor which also includes range time qualifying at least 70%. It then takes ninety days to receive your permit in the mail after waiting for the criminal background check.

      Delete
    2. I'm a strong second amendment person and think Mike B is full of shit most of the time, but I do agree that a training program should be taken to get a CCW. In SC, you have to take a ten hour course with a SLED certified instructor which also includes range time qualifying at least 70%. It then takes ninety days to receive your permit in the mail after waiting for the criminal background check.

      Delete
  11. Mike I'd bet if you bothered to do your own research rather than repeating someone else's research you'd find concealed weapons carriers are usually at below 1% of the total crime committed. That's from the Texas state report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course you believe that because it supports you already decided opinion. I have pointed out numerous examples in which people with guns commit crimes and no one is checking to see if he had had a concealed carry permit. It seems to depend on the investigative reporters, if they don't come up with it to juice up the story, nobody cares.

      So, no, I don't believe the 1% claim.

      Delete
    2. God, you're a dumbass.

      Delete
    3. From last year:

      http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

      But hey, why should we believe the Texas Department of Public Safety?

      Delete
    4. Greg, I don't believe that report is based on quality information. I told you that. Is it so surprising to you that a state government department in Texas would produce shabby statistics that support gun rights?

      Delete
    5. But haven't you repeatedly insisted that police officers oppose concealed carry? But if you reject an official document from the state agency whose job it is to provide such information, give your better sources.

      Delete
    6. Mike, you are kind of being the Orly Taitz of gun control with your evidence denials.

      Delete
    7. Oh, no. She's definitely one of yours.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, he said you're the equivalent of Orly Taitz.

      Delete
    9. So let me get this strait Mike. You're telling me that law enforcement agencies are against people having CCW permits, but at the same time, they're fixing the numbers on their reports to show that CCW holders commit much less crime than the general population? What planet do you live on where that makes any sense? And if you think it's just Texas that does that because "they like guns there" here's a report from Colorado that shows in 2010 there were 16,772 permit holders in El Paso county, in that year, 6 were revoked, none of them in a violent case, that's 0.035%. And trust me, it doesn't take much to be revoked, any violent charge what so ever will get it revoked. And here's the link if you don't believe me. http://www.gazette.com/articles/permits-110591-concealed-carry.html

      Delete
  12. MikeB: "Your question about the knife in the dark is as stupid as if I asked you what would you do if a meteorite came crashing down on your head."

    Um, people are mugged at knife point all the time, your frivolous dismissal of this question is just like saying "it would be best to have a gun to defend yourself with in this situation, but I don't want to admit that gun rights supporters are right so I'm going to ignore it and act like you're the delusional one"

    And before you bring up self defense through hand to hand combat... Some people are just not skilled enough to disarm a person wielding a weapon, that's why guns are called the great equalizer, a 115 pound bikini model can defend herself just as well as a fully grown man can with a gun

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course there are some hypothetical situations in which a gun would come in handy. I've said a number of times if I had certain situations in my life I'd own guns too. But the deal is that for most folks, the chances of fucking up with that gun in some way, some of which can be devastating, is much higher than the chance that you'll one day use it to save the day.

      Delete
    2. Really? Prove it, don't just prattle. I want to see verifiable studies and research data, not just your myopic, preconceived garbage.

      Delete
    3. thank you mikeb for your lone rational voice. i hope you can keep your head above water swimming in a sea of idiots...........
      tom webber
      miami

      Delete
    4. Rational voice? so far just about everything he's said has been proven to be illogical and or down right false. How is that rational?

      Delete
  13. If it was so true that more defensive shooters were f*cking up and shooting bystanders then the liberal controlled media would be all over it, instead there are more stories about the police hurting innocents than there are on any kind of defensive gun use, for those you have to dig long and hard on the net to find them, not because they aren't there, but because the lib media refuses to report them, statistics show that if you end up on the wrong end of a gun its because you're a criminal, there are tens of thousands (if not more) of DGU's per year, and only what, ten to fifteen thousand murders with guns each year? (notice, I said murders, I'm aware that there are around 35 to 40 gun deaths each year, but nearly half are suicides and a good portion are accidental) so it's clear to any logically thinking person that guns aren't the problem, neither is gun availability... The problem is people... And keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only helps criminals, in countries with strict gun control they may have seen a decrease in gun crimes, you grabbers are always quick to point that out, but you ignore the marked increase in violent crime in general

    Chris Duncan: Arlington, TX.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 35 to 40 thousand*

    ReplyDelete
  15. "If it was so true that more defensive shooters were f*cking up and shooting bystanders then the liberal controlled media would be all over it,"

    Whatever else a moron like you might have to say is pretty much nullified by such an obviously, and stupidly, dishonest opening sentence to your screed. Liberals do not, have not and never will "control" the media, jackass.

    That cops shooting people gets written up the way it does is for two reasons. The first is that, "If it leads, it bleeds". The second is that shootings by LEO's are, by necessity, investigated and documented.

    There are of course those cops who are reckless, dangerous or downright evil--about the same %age as the general population of concealed carry gun owners, I'll guess--but with somewhat better training, on average, and A FUCKTON more accountability for their actions.

    There's a third reason that there are so many publicized shootings by cops. Their job is dealing with crime and criminals (in additiion to finding lost children, inserting themselves into "domestic" situations andonandonandon). Chances of a cop pulling a gun and shooting someone because they "perceive" a threat are, unfortunately, far too numerous. OTOH, they don't get a pass on the majority of wrongful deaths/injuries in this regard. The incidents are investigated and, while many shootings that are adjudged to be "justifiable" on less than firm evidence, the cop's word is not automatically accepted as the truth.

    If you CCWloonz were willing to weed out the moronz, assholez and mentally defective it might help. But, no, your precious, the 2nd and Onliest Fuggin' Amendment What Matterz, is sacroasanct--although it does not actually say what you seem to think it does.

    Have a nice day and don't blow your own ballz off. On second thought, go ahead, blow your ballz off. It'll cut down on the number of teh burnin' stoopit kidz that you kin haz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you meant "If it bleeds, it leads".

      Now, if I were your type of personality, I would take this typo and spend five paragraphs stating what an idiot you must be to screw up the English language so horribly.

      Delete
    2. Democommie, given your problems with rage, I recommend that you don't try to get a carry license. In fact, it's best if you stay away from guns altogether.

      Delete
    3. "Have a nice day and don't blow your own ballz off. On second thought, go ahead, blow your ballz off. It'll cut down on the number of teh burnin' stoopit kidz that you kin haz."

      It's like one of those stupid cat pictures written by an anti.

      Delete
  16. "The federal government already allows for citizens to possess and own guns, and that right is enshrined in the Constitution, not to mention on the state level."

    At least we can put this argument to bed. Firearm ownership is a Constitutional right.

    ReplyDelete