Sunday, March 8, 2015

The Truth About Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Art on Issues

If facts really mattered, consider the following:
  • Although public access to CCW permit holder identification has been blocked in many states through the legislative efforts of the gun lobby (including North Carolina), in recent years 544 incidents of non-self defense shootings by CCW permit holders (permit identified by news media) have been reported in 36 states and the District of Columbia that claimed 722 lives; included are 17 law enforcement officers and 28 mass shooting incidents resulting in the deaths of 136 victims.  As this is only what can be culled from media reports, the figures are held to be a considerable underestimate.  Does Congress really hold that hundreds of news media reports across the nation have this all wrong?  This should bear attention.
  • Although there is much rhetoric about the right of ‘law-abiding citizens’ to defend themselves, examination of FBI data shows that guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes in the United States.   Over the past several years criminal gun homicides outnumbered justifiable gun homicides some forty-fold in our country without any reproducible evidence of an offsetting public benefit.  Another recent FBI report, using a tight set of definitions, tracked a steadily increasing number of mass shootings between 2000 – 2013, 160 in total that caused 1,043 casualties (486 killed, 557 wounded) – in only one instance did a private citizen with a firearms permit participate in the resolution, whereas many have been reported to be perpetrators of such crimes.
  • Despite the word ‘Constitutional’ in the title of this legislation, it has not been held that the Second Amendment confers a right to carry a concealed weapon (reference Justice Scalia’s writing for the majority in Heller as well as Peterson v. Garcia where the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit unanimously held that the Second Amendment does not provide a right to carry concealed weapons in public).

25 comments:

  1. Interesting for a guy who puts that little PhD thing after his name uses data from a "study" that we've seen to put out greatly inflated numbers. Yep, you guessed it, in the second bullet point, he's referring to the VPCs "Concealed Carry Killer" database which we've discussed at length here.
    And then for some reason, he seems to think that only defensive gun uses only count if they result in a death. He does actually use more verifiable numbers at least. In 2013, the FBI recorded 281 justifiable homicides by citizens, just under two thirds of the number of justifiable homicides by law enforcement which was 461.
    For someone who has been involved in the medical field, this narrowness of vision doesn't do him credit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it brings up an interesting point. All defensive gun uses should be compared to all misuses of the gun.

      Delete
    2. "And then for some reason, he seems to think that only defensive gun uses only count if they result in a death."

      Point taken, but then add gun injuries and gun shot deaths and we are talking a number that cannot be ignored. Even if you deduct suicides from gun shot deaths we are talking over 10,000, and with gun injuries we are talking 10's of thousands. So compare the numbers fairly we are still talking about a BIG gun problem.

      Delete
    3. That was my point Peter, the article, by only using deaths minimized the use of firearms for self defense. The problem being, the FBI doesn't track nonfatal defensive gun uses. So the challenge is lack of data.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, lack of data. But that hasn't stopped you guys from pushing such nonsense as hundreds of thousands or even millions of DGUs.

      The obvious truth is the number of true DGUs is a tiny fraction of the number of misuses of the gun.

      Delete
    5. The obvious truth is the number of true DGUs is a tiny fraction of the number of misuses of the gun.

      Actually, the obvious truth is that the ratio of legitimate DGUs to incidents of misuse of guns is utterly irrelevant to any discussion about any given individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

      Delete
    6. I fail to get the idea that just because we don't have correct numbers on how many guns are used in defense, that some how counters the certain numbers we have on gun shot deaths and injuries? I don't think we have to know that number to act on curtailing the certain number of gun shot deaths and injuries. The challenge is stopping unnecessary gun shot death, injuries, stolen guns, safe storage issues, etc., etc.....

      Delete
    7. Peter,
      If the phd here who wrote this piece gives data that is either inaccurate or incomplete, then how can an informed plan be made that will actually address the problem?
      And throwing in stolen guns, safe storage, and all of your etc's has nothing to to with it. There are court cases which have found that citizens DO have a right to carry for self defense such as Moore vs. Madigan which resulted Illinois going from a no carry state to a shall issue one.

      Delete
    8. SS, the problem is not defensive uses of guns. Those defensive uses of gun numbers have little to do with stopping bad uses of guns. Those safety gun issues have a lot to do with curtailing the bad uses of guns. I guess you don't believe that. Reread my comment, I never mentioned anything about court cases approving of carrying guns.

      Delete
    9. Kurt: "Actually, the obvious truth is that the ratio of legitimate DGUs to incidents of misuse of guns is utterly irrelevant to any discussion about any given individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

      And becomes even more abundantly clear if we were to compare our ratio to a gun control paradise like the UK, where I bet their ratio hits infinity most years. When was the last report of a DGU in the UK?

      Delete
    10. "SS, the problem is not defensive uses of guns."

      Actually, that was the entire point of the article. It spoke directly and solely towards carrying in public. My apologies for including mention of a court case that while it spoke to another of the author's claims regarding the Constitutionality of carrying in public. So when added to your inclusion of safe storage, ete, etc, etc, ( I visualize Yul Brenner) I guess we're even.

      Delete
    11. Actually, Kurt, for most people, even most gun-rights advocates, the comparison of DGUs to gun misuse is extremely important. Otherwise why would there be so much talk about the number of DGUs? Why would gun-rights advocates spend so much time exaggeratin and lying about the numbers? Why would guys like Kleck and Lott keep pushing these ideas.

      No, Kurt, only extremist fanatics like you think the question is irrelevant.

      Delete
    12. Even SS? Hardly. Only if you want to continue to compare defensive gun uses to bad, or criminal gun uses and then claim defensive gun uses somehow cancel out criminal, or bad gun uses. The number of defensive gun uses has nothing to do with the criminal gun use problem we have. Open carry only invites problems, and so dose conceal carry. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is carrying unless they have a 22 auto stuffed in their crotch.

      Delete
    13. Actually, Kurt, for most people, even most gun-rights advocates, the comparison of DGUs to gun misuse is extremely important.

      If so, most people are wrong. I take a position because of its rightness, not its "popularity."

      Why would gun-rights advocates spend so much time exaggeratin[g] and lying about the numbers?

      I can't answer that, not having examined the veracity of such claims in detail (because, of course, of the irrelevance of the claims.

      No, Kurt, only extremist fanatics like you think the question is irrelevant.

      Perhaps you are confused--you seem to be describing an entirely different person.

      Delete
    14. "Only if you want to continue to compare defensive gun uses to bad, or criminal gun uses and then claim defensive gun uses somehow cancel out criminal, or bad gun uses."

      That is exactly one of the author's arguments in his opposition to public carry. That the number of defensive gun uses, for he uses FBI justifiable homicide numbers as his number of defensive gun uses. He then throws in numbers from the VPC which we have shown before to be inflated, but is total over the last eight years.
      In fact, just for fun, lets say that a miracle happened and the VPC actually put out accurate numbers. That comes out to 90 non-justified homicides AND suicides per year, and opposed to 281 justifiable civilian homicides in 2013. And the numbers would be lower if the suicides were removed.
      As for the ease in telling who is carrying, its not an issue in Minnesota since permit holders aren't required to conceal. I've never encountered anyone having problems from me carrying in the years I have.

      Delete
    15. The same argument you are using SS. If you dislike his, why use it yourself? If you agree the numbers aren't relevant, then why bother to focus on the numbers? Again. the number of defensive gun uses is irrelevant to stopping bad gun uses, so it means nothing. The number of defensive gun uses cannot be used in any plan to stop bad, criminal uses of guns. You can assume from now on I'm never talking about, nor accepting the situation in one State. I'm glad you like to submit the gun laws in Minnesota are so perfect, how many gun shot deaths and injuries are there in Minnesota each year?

      Delete
    16. I'm just most familiar with them since I live with them. It's also amusing when gun control types get the vapors about various changes in some states and it turns out that it's been that way for over ten years in Minnesota.

      Delete
    17. " That comes out to 90 non-justified homicides AND suicides per year, and opposed to 281 justifiable civilian homicides in 2013. "

      That's not fair. You can't compare justified homicides to ONLY non-justified homicides committed by permit holders. You'd have to compare them to ALL non-justified homicides

      Delete
    18. If that's the case, then it would be fair compare the 90 criminal homicides and suicides by permit holders against all non justified homicides AND suicides.
      You want to use the low number of justified homicides to suggest that it isn't worth allowing citizens to carry because of the large number of criminal uses of guns. But even the wildly inflated numbers put out by the VPC still underscore that permit holders are much more law abiding than the general public.
      So we have about 90 criminal homicides and suicides by permit holders compared to, what number does Fred like to throw around when he can't come up with a germain fact? That's right, I think it's 30,000. That's about three tenths of one percent.
      Let's keep things consistent. If the VPC wants to include suicides commited by permit holders, it seems only fair to include the ones by non permit holders.

      Delete
    19. "I'm just most familiar with them since I live with them."
      yet you wouldn't answer my question.
      " It's also amusing when gun control types get the vapors about various changes in some states and it turns out that it's been that way for over ten years in Minnesota."
      It's amusing that you always use Minnesota when other States laws and gun shot and injury numbers aren't even comparable.

      Delete
  2. Constitutional carry reciprocity? That would be cool, but who's calling for that? That would mean an Arizona driver's license means you get to carry anywhere in the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aren't all true gun-rights advocates calling for that?

      Delete
    2. I goofed. I was ribbing the article for using the incorrectly using the words “Constitutional Carry” when I now see that the bill is named the "Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act"- though it is not a bill for permit-less carry reciprocity. I don’t think the authors of the bill should have used the word “Constitutional” in the title as that word has been adopted to be synonymous with “permit-less”.

      My bad. You can bookmark this as a time where TS admits being wrong.

      Delete
  3. All that carry, open or concealed accomplishes is to jack up the sagging self-esteem of a bunch of failures. Plenty of concealed carry permit holders do bad things with their guns.

    There doesn't appear to be an upside. Not in Minnesota, not anywhere else.

    http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/03/little-self-defense-in-minnesota-gun-law-report-suggests/

    "But the lack of self-defense incidents in the latest report (pdf) of the Personal Protection Act isn’t a fluke. The 2013 report also listed no cases of self-defense uses of a gun by a permitted carrier.
    There was only one in 2012, none in 2011, 2010, 3 in 2009, none in 2008,none in 2007, none in 2006, and one in 2005."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But the lack of self-defense incidents in the latest report (pdf) of the Personal Protection Act isn’t a fluke. The 2013 report also listed no cases of self-defense uses of a gun by a permitted carrier.
      There was only one in 2012, none in 2011, 2010, 3 in 2009, none in 2008,none in 2007, none in 2006, and one in 2005."

      It sounds like part of the issue seems to be getting law enforcement to read and understand their obligations. We seem to have the reporting bad things down, but the reporting good things seems to need some work. I wonder how many other departments haven't gotten the memo.

      "As the Star Tribune reports, the "justifiable use" number cited by the BCA is low, as some instances have gone unreported. For instance, there have been three much publicized cases of permit holders legally using guns in Minneapolis since 2010, but city officials apparently didn't realize they're legally mandated to report those cases to the BCA until the requirement was brought to their attention by a reporter."

      http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2013/02/minnesota_gun_permit_holders_five_justifiable_firearm_uses_124_crimes_on_record_since_2003.php

      "As part of the provisions contained in Minnesota’s right-to-carry law (The Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2003), the commissioner of public safety is required to report yearly to the state legislature “to the extent known or determinable, data on the lawful and justifiable use of firearms by permit holders.” However, in checking the 2012 Permit-to-Carry Report (most recent available), there is no data included on justifiable use of firearms by permit holders, and the report notes that “[N]ot all police departments have reported justifiable use data as required.”

      http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2013/12/16/carry-permit-holder-fends-crowbar-wielding-intruder

      Delete