Do Concealed Carry Laws Contribute to Crime?

[sarisataka]

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

CBS takes a look at CC using Colorado as an example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7409926n

Do you think this is typical of most states?

(Text version of article here: )
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57442339/concealed-weapons-permits-catch-on-in-colo-county/?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.1

[Kalidurga]

1. That wasn't a very good report.

It didn't really get into the kinds of crimes that conceal and carry might increase. We know that people who have guns are more likely to believe that another person also has a gun. And we know that many people have been shot, by people with conceal and carry guns and it has turned out that they were no threat to the person with the gun. I would also guess that breaking and entering could be increased if a criminal believes that a gun is on the premises that the could steal for the black market. But all that aside, having easy access to guns means a lot more sucides by gun. 55% of all gun deaths are suicide. That statistic alone should give people pause about how comfortable they are with the current gun culture.

[Logical]

2. Please post links to your studies/stats! n-t

[gejohnston]

3. We know

no such thing.

55% of all gun deaths are suicide. That statistic alone should give people pause about how comfortable they are with the current gun culture.

When Canada passed their stricter gun laws in 1970s and 1990s, suicide by gun did go down. Suicide by other means (mostly hanging) went up. The suicide rate did not go down.

[Clames]

8. A similar "substitution" behavior...

...was observed in Australia after cracking down on civilian gun ownership.

[sarisataka]

5. I think the point was

that there was no great increase in crime. Despite the repeated gun carriers will start shooting at arguments, traffic accidents... by and large it happens at a rate near zero.

B&E may go up but according to the sheriff, criminals are avoiding crimes which may bring them into contact with an armed victim. I fail to see how an increase in people with carry permits can aid criminals in figuring out which particular houses have guns.

Someone who is suicidal is not going to change their mind because they do not have access to a gun.

Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide, other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall rate of suicide continued along an increasing trend, not decreasing until measures specifically aimed to provide support for those intent on suicide were implemented.

In Hong Kong, jumping is the most common method of committing suicide, accounting for 52.1% of all reported suicide cases in 2006 and similar rates for the years prior to that.[6] The Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of the University of Hong Kong believes that it may be due to the abundance of easily accessible high rise buildings in Hong Kong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

[Starboard Tack]

16. A point about suicide

They may not change their mind about committing suicide. Correct. But using a gun is the most efficacious way. 98% success rate. Other methods are about 30% and only less than 10% of attempted suicides eventually succeed.

[gejohnston]

17. rather misleading

all other methods combined includes taking pills and calling suicide hotline. Most suicide attempts are of the latter category. That is most likely why Canadian and Australian suicides rates remained the same. Remove the gun, and they turn to an equally lethal means.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Well we've danced around this mulberry bush many times

What is not misleading is the efficiency of a firearm for the task. Not much room for second thoughts and it is messy and somewhat thoughtless toward those who have to clean up the mess. I've had to deal with a few successful suicides in my life. Thankfully, none of them necessitated scraping brain bits off the walls or mopping up blood.

[gejohnston]

26. it is absolutly misleading.

Because it combines all other means. You can't combine cries for help with determined suicides by other means and compare them with firearms.
Hanging success and SIGW success would be apples to apples.

What is not misleading is the efficiency of a firearm for the task

the same is true of a rope, which is the most common method in most countries. That is the point.

Not much room for second thoughts and

same is true for a rope.

somewhat thoughtless toward those who have to clean up the mess.

True, but we are talking about what is ultimately a selfish act.

Well we've danced around this mulberry bush many times

Yes, and I stand behind my point because the empirical evidence says I'm right.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Then we must agree to disagree

What the empirical evidence says to me is that a certain percentage of those who use a gun would not have tried again, had there attempt been unsuccessful. It is also a fact that many if not most suicides are not planned, but rather spur of the moment acts of desperation which are easily facilitated by having a gun handy. Much easier for a teenager to find dad's gun than rig up a noose or figure out the right cocktail of meds. Ask the families of those who found the unlocked, loaded firearm and find me one who didn't feel remorse.

[gejohnston]

29. The nearest thing to that I have in my life

was a teenager that chose to drink battery acid instead of using one of several guns. My guess is that he didn't want to leave his mom a mess. He was a friend of my brother's.

So why do all of the countries that have higher suicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Why didn't Canadian and Australian suicide rates drop after stricter gun laws?

Your theory does not come close to explaining either. So I guess we must.

In NCO Academy, they taught us how to spot symptoms of suicide possibility. Either they wasted my time or I have to question the spur of the moment theory. It may be the "spur of the moment" for some, but I wonder how researchers came to that conclusion.

[Starboard Tack]

30. The spur of the moment is not a theory.

Depression is a psychological disorder. Those suffering from depression display symptoms. If their is someone around who recognizes these symptoms for what they are, action can be taken. If not, the symptoms progress to the point where that "moment" occurs. The progression may take months or years or minutes. Depends on the individual and their circumstances. Despair can arrive very quickly sometimes, whether as a result of ongoing depression or a reaction to losing one's world (job, spouse, child, you name it).

[gejohnston]

32. let me define theory

the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/
Noun:

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

I think you were assuming I was using the Creationists definition.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I may be confused. Not sure if we're on the same page here.

When I said it is not a theory, I meant it is a reality, which does not exclude the fact that it is, or may also be, a theory. Theory and reality are not mutually exclusive.

[gejohnston]

34. It may be, but

I would like to see how researchers came to that conclusion. It is not like they are telepathic.

[Starboard Tack]

36. By talking to those who were not as successful

I would imagine there are many studies, but haven't researched it specifically. I've personally talked to many survivors. Crimes of passion also fall into the spur of the moment category and they often involve suicide and/or murder.

[gejohnston]

39. I don't know about UK

but spur of the moment murder of otherwise law abiding people in the US is very rare.

[Starboard Tack]

48. I think it is somewhat rare in the UK. Not a very hot blooded people in general

But crimes of passion happen in all societies. Guns only facilitate by eliminating the time to consider the consequences. One hears almost daily on the news about women being shot by spurned boyfriends and husbands.

[gejohnston]

49. True, the Brits are not known for their passion

besides, nothing puts you to sleep faster than a pint or two of Bass.

One hears almost daily on the news about women being shot by spurned boyfriends and husbands.

I don't here. Here it is mostly women getting railroaded after warding off abusive husbands in Orlando, a high schooler getting in trouble for defending a mentally impaired classmate from bullies in some other shit hole in Lake County.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. In almost every such case the sperned S.O. has a history ov violence.

Often it is already illegal for the S.O. to have a gun. They aren't peaceful people who suddenly snap. In fact, in a New York study, the average murderer had 9 prior convictions, and very few had none.

[Starboard Tack]

53. Sorry. I don't understand. What is a S.O.?

[MicaelS]

54. Significant Other, I assume n/t

[Starboard Tack]

56. Thanks. Silly me. I should've figured that out.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Interesting statistic

though I doubt your average despondent husband who finds his wife in bed with the plumber has 9 priors. Most murders are gang related, so the 9 priors makes sense. But not for crimes of passion, which tend to more reactionary than planned.

[Starboard Tack]

50. I guess today's tragedy in Seattle is an unfortunate exception.

[gejohnston]

51. I have not found the why

so, I'll let you know either way. It does not look like a gang hit, so it does look like an exception.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. The shooter appears to have had some kind of history of violence.

From the article: "It's no surprise to me this happened," his brother, Andrew Stawicki of Ellensberg, Wash., told the newspaper. "We could see this coming. Nothing good is going to come with that much anger inside of you.”

How did they know he had so much anger inside? He had to have expressed it somehow. He was giving off warning signs so it wasn't a case of a normal happy person suddenly going berserk.

Further, the article doesn't give us any information about his record.

Googling turns up this:

Cafe Racer patrons say Stawicki had been showing up at the bar for days, often picking fights.

"He was at the bar being really belligerent and rude," says one patron. at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57444306/seattle-gunmans-brother-he-was-mentally-ill/

[Atypical Liberal]

21. I figure people who are serious about suicide choose a gun.

Maybe the others didn't really have their heart in it.

[Starboard Tack]

25. That is a popular point of view, though extremely cynical.

Fact is that 90+% of suicides are due to severe depression which is treatable. Admittedly, there are many who are just looking for attention, but I have had the misfortune to cut down teenagers who have hanged themselves and pulled a 16 year old out of a gas oven. They were all serious, determined, successful and curable. Their depression was caused by bullying in all cases.

[Atypical Liberal]

45. Just highlights the poor state of American health care.

Fact is that 90+% of suicides are due to severe depression which is treatable. Admittedly, there are many who are just looking for attention, but I have had the misfortune to cut down teenagers who have hanged themselves and pulled a 16 year old out of a gas oven. They were all serious, determined, successful and curable. Their depression was caused by bullying in all cases.

This does not surprise me in the least, and I think it highlights the deplorable state of health care, including mental health care, in the United States.

But I still think it's entirely possible, if not probable, that people who commit suicide and choose a gun to do it are probably more serious about the undertaking than others.

US National Library of Medicine:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001554.htm
"Most suicide attempts do not result in death. Many of these attempts are done in a way that makes rescue possible. These attempts are often a cry for help."

So I'm not swayed by the argument that more guns = more suicides. I will certainly buy that people who use a gun to commit suicide were serious about the attempt.

As available as firearms are, you would expect most people to use a gun to commit suicide, and thus most attempts would result in death. The fact that this is not the case, in spite of the availability of firearms, probably means that a lot of people are not seriously seeking death but crying out desperately for help.

[sarisataka]

31. True suicide is about far more than the method

The trends seem to be people choose what is at hand. In Japan, jumping, hanging, overdose. Netherlands, stepping in front of a train. HK jumping. US guns. When guns became less available in AU, hanging became more common.

A suicidal person can be very creative. Timely intervention in the downward spiral of depression is what is most important.

[Starboard Tack]

35. I agree and would add

that education on the safe storage of personal firearms is important. Too many cases of despondent teenagers having easy access to firearms. Owners need to be more responsible. That message drummed into the public psyche can change the death toll by thousands and consequently get the banners out of your face. Responsibility has to be demonstrated if the goal is to earn more respect and support for gun ownership in general.

[sarisataka]

37. I concur completely

[SGMRTDARMY]

38. I agree also

and this is why I enjoy reading your comments.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Thanks and thanks for your service.

[SGMRTDARMY]

46. Thank You

Off topic, I watched on TV Pres. Obama give his speech at the Wall yesterday, just awe inspiring.

[gejohnston]

41. I also agree with everything but one thing.

consequently get the banners out of your face

Other than that, you are correct.

[Starboard Tack]

42. By out of your face I mean weaken their resolve so that they retreat somewhat.

[gejohnston]

43. I get that, but that is not the major reason.

Some, but evidence (peer reviewed study in 2005) changes in crime rate or death rate would not effect some on either side. It might take a talking point, but their Swiss counterparts are talking the same gun violence game. UK has more gun violence than Switzerland.

[Starboard Tack]

44. All I'm saying is, don't give them more ammunition.

[Clames]

9. Studies pretty much show that CCW...

...at the least has no discernible impact on crime one way or the other.

There isn't much evidence to suggest that most gun laws in general are effective, lots of contradiction. But don't tell VPC/Brady/MAIG and their parrots.

[Callisto32]

10. "A person that carries a gun is more likely to believe that another also has a gun..."

So what? If that meant that the ccw holder was more violent as a result of that belief, you'd have a point, but the stats remain that CCW permit carriers are one of the safest, most law-abiding groups. They simply do not freak out and shoot people out of blind, stupid fear enough to have to worry about it.

"And we know that many people have been shot, by people with conceal and carry guns and it has turned out that they were no threat to the person with the gun."

By that rationale, the police should be turning them all in (you know, like DiFi said they should, if she had the votes) WAY before the CCW holders.

"I would also guess that breaking and entering could be increased if a criminal believes that a gun is on the premises that the could steal for the black market."

Conjecture, and I'm not really sure that it is good conjecture.

"But all that aside, having easy access to guns means a lot more sucides by gun. 55% of all gun deaths are suicide. That statistic alone should give people pause about how comfortable they are with the current gun culture."

This is a problem with suicide culture, not gun culture.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. You are wrong.

You said: "And we know that many people have been shot, by people with conceal and carry guns and it has turned out that they were no threat to the person with the gun."

Such a shooting would be manslaughter at a minimum. Texas keeps and annually publishes convictions statistics for people who have Concealed Hangun Licenses. In 2009 (latest year stats are available) TX had 402,000+ people with CHLs and had only one (1) conviction of a CHL holder for murder and no convictions of a CHL holder for manslaughter. There were 50 cases of justified homicide in that same year by citizens and 48 by law enforcement. In TX each homicide must go before a grand jury before it can be cleared at justified.

There is no reason to believe that any other state would have a drastically different experience than what TX has had.

If you got your information from the VPC you need to take a very close look. Their numbers are highly inflated.

Link for TX state stats: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

[TPaine7]

19. Hmmmmm...

Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

We know that people who have guns are more likely to believe that another person also has a gun.

The study I saw reported that people who were set up in an experiment with a gun in their hand were more likely to believe that other people also had guns. That's a very different scenario than a person who habitually carries a concealed carry weapon. Such people, and I know several, often forget they are carrying. The gun is not in their hand when they carry concealed. They are not in a study, having been supplied a gun by a stranger.

The study was an extreme case, but it got its probably intended and calculated result.

If you have another source, please cite it.

And we know that many people have been shot, by people with conceal and carry guns and it has turned out that they were no threat to the person with the gun.

Many? IIRC, ONE CCW permittee in Texas was convicted of murder in 2009. And that may not have been with a CCW gun, or even a gun at all. Is one (in a liberal carry state like Texas) what you mean by many?

I would also guess that breaking and entering could be increased if a criminal believes that a gun is on the premises that the could steal for the black market.

I don't see the relevance to concealed carry. If you have a pistol that you carry in accordance with the law, it won't be in your house when a thief breaks in.

55% of all gun deaths are suicide. That statistic alone should give people pause about how comfortable they are with the current gun culture.

That statistic does not influence me the way you want it to. I trust myself with my own life, with or without a gun. And if I decide to die, lack of a gun will not stop me.

What that does say, however, is that the average gun owner is more likely to kill himself or herself than to murder someone. Think about that! Even when you include drug dealers, gangsters, serial killers, armed robbers, hit men and other assorted criminals, the average gun possessor is more likely to kill himself than someone else.

How can you not trust CCW permittees--people with clean criminal records?! They are much less likely to kill you than the average person.

[X_Digger]

4. Nope to the first question, yes to the second.

Using Texas as another example, the conviction rate for CHL holders is 18x less than the general public > 21 years of age.



(Data from: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm)

[bongbong]

6. Good old digger!

Ah, misleading stats! Nothing new with that!

Your comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. A more valid comparison would be crime rates of gun owners vs. crime rates of gun owners with concealed carry.

"You're welcome" for today's statistics lesson.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. In what way are they misleading? The OP is *about* gun owners with concealed carry.

[Callisto32]

11. Comparing members of the general population to the general population is NOT apples to oranges.

It is galas to apples, or macintoshes to apples, or pink ladies to appples, or red delicious to apples, or yellow delicious to apples or fujis to apples, or granny smiths to apples, or.....

"You're welcome" for today's analogical thinking lesson.

[safeinOhio]

12. It would be more accurate and appropriate

to compare all people that would qualify for a CCW license with those that have one. Those that have one, might or might not be more likely to commit a felony. Or, we could compare Catholic Nuns to those that have a CCW.

I think the part that irks many here, is this idea that having a CCW makes one more law abiding or almost, as pushed here, holy. If one is an asshole and has a CCW, that person is still an asshole.

I'd like to see if those that have a CCW are more likely to be supporters of the far right than those in the general population.


by the way, I hold a CCW.

[Oneka]

20. Perhaps we should compare

assholes, to CHL holders.

Oh wait......

It's already been done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729219

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Why? Do you get to choose to be surrounded only by qualified people?

It would be more accurate and appropriate to compare all people that would qualify for a CCW license with those that have one.

Why do you think so? When you go out in public, are you surrounded only by people with CCW licenses or people that can qualify for one but don't have one?

No. You are surrounded by a random sampling of the public at large. Thus it makes sense to compare CCW permit holders against a random sampling of the public at large.

I think the part that irks many here, is this idea that having a CCW makes one more law abiding or almost, as pushed here, holy. If one is an asshole and has a CCW, that person is still an asshole.

I don't know about "holy", but it's certainly true. CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. Yes, very rarely some CCW permit holder commits a crime, even a firearm-related crime. But the odds of a CCW permit holder doing this are far less than any other random person in public you are likely to encounter.

So all of the hand-wringing about CCW permit carriers is fairly pointless.

[safeinOhio]

27. You really make my point

"I don't know about "holy", but it's certainly true. CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime. Yes, very rarely some CCW permit holder commits a crime, even a firearm-related crime. But the odds of a CCW permit holder doing this are far less than any other random person in public you are likely to encounter."

CCW holder are people that can qualify because they have a clean record. Many, many people have a clean record. Those too rarely commit any crime, let alone a fire-arm related crime, just like CCW holder's. The odds of anyone who has never committed a crime of committing one are far less than any other random person in public.

I think all the comments from both sides about CCW permit carriers is fairly pointless.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. What point?

CCW holder are people that can qualify because they have a clean record. Many, many people have a clean record. Those too rarely commit any crime, let alone a fire-arm related crime, just like CCW holder's. The odds of anyone who has never committed a crime of committing one are far less than any other random person in public.[/b

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make that you think I am making for you.

You are asserting that we should not compare CCW permit holders against the rest of society, but only against other people with clean records.

But when you are walking around in society, you are not surrounded by just people with clean records.

Let me put it another way. People who are against concealed carry are against it because they believe they will be less safe when out in public.

But when out in public, they are surrounded by a random* selection of the population. They are not surrounded just by law-abiding people. They are surrounded by all strata of society - good people and bad people.

So if you want to articulate an argument about how CCW permit holders make you less safe when out in public, you need to compare such people against the other people you will be around while in public, which includes both good and bad people.

And so it is only reasonable to compare CCW permit holders against everyone else, not just the "good guys" in public.

* Clearly demographics plays a serious role here. Many, if not most people live ordinary lives of work and home and are not likely to come into contact with the "bad elements" of society. People who live in "bad areas" are clearly at a higher risk of having more bad people around them than people who live in "good areas".

[X_Digger]

14. Still missing the point, I see.

Perhaps you might actually want to re-read the OP.

Even if we assume that 30% of the general public without a CHL is a gun owner, the rate would STILL be multiples higher than CHL holders.

Logic fail.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

The question was if CCW laws contribute to crime. The TX statistics clearly prove that their CHL holders are very law-abiding and not a danger to others, therefore the CHLers are not contributing to crime. The OP was not talking about general gun ownership.

Furthermore your objection is invalid anyway. When you are out in public you are out in the general public, you are not out among gun owners only, unless you are at a gun show or an NRA convention. Those who will be armed will either LEO, CCW, or illegal. Removing the CCWs from the mix will not change your danger level except by one part in 400,000.

In fact, when one considers that CHLers justifiably kill some violent criminals each year they increase your safety level by removing those criminals from the population.

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Nope. Because you don't get to cherry pick the people around you in public.

>A more valid comparison would be crime rates of gun owners vs. crime rates of gun owners with concealed carry.

Why?

When you walk around town, do you get to choose that you are only surrounded by gun owners and gun owners with concealed carry permits?

No. You are surrounded by a random sampling of society. Thus it is reasonable to compare concealed carry permit holders against a random sampling of society.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Somewhat.

Make a law and there will be some who will break it.

I'm figuring that this is probably not what you meant but it's still a burden on the justice system.