Blogging Blue » Gun Control

Why I Support Concealed-Carry

Phil Scarr — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:26:34 +0000

Even though this will make you mad, I’m going to go there anyway.

No, I have not gone over to the dark side. Relax. I’m not going to start spouting insane GOP talking points. I have not become an Austrian economist or a frothing libertarian.

But what I am, in my heart, is a scientist. I believe in data and going where the data lead. In the case of concealed-carry, I am merely reacting to the available data on the question and I find reasonably good evidence that there may be value in the law, or, at least no additional harm from the law. I hope you will come with me on this brief review of the epidemiological and criminological research with an open mind.

The data on concealed carry are mixed, but perhaps the most comprehensive review of the studies comes from a 2003 book published by The Brookings Institution entitled Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Chapter 8, The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws (pdf) addresses the question head-on.

Those interested in a detailed look at the impact of concealed-carry should take the time to read the entire chapter, especially if they’re interested in an up-close-and-personal look at an abstract statistical debate between experts. I’m not going to dive into much detail here, just summarize their summaries and show you a chart which, to me, is fairly convincing and demonstrate that concealed-carry may be a good thing (or at least not a horrible thing).

The chapter is divided into three parts. Part 1 presents a statistical review of past literature which finds that concealed-carry is harmful. The second part is a response from the authors of the original study. The third part is a methodological and statistical review which is, quite frankly, over my head. Having read the chapter, and looked at the research, it’s my conclusion that the data tip the scales in favor of concealed-carry or, in a worst-case interpretation of the results, say that concealed-carry does no harm.

The evidence is reasonably convincing (to me) that concealed-carry laws likely reduce crime rates. I know that seems counter-intuitive, and it pains me to admit that the NRA might be right on this (or about anything, for that matter), but the data reveal a pattern of decreasing criminality following the passage of concealed-carry laws in 33 states. If we look at the impact of the entire period under study, from 1979 – 1997, we see the following result:

What you see here is a trend that, over time, after the concealed-carry law is passed, the incidents of murder and rape fall off dramatically as do assault an robbery decrease sometime later. There are several explanations posited for this, most of which rely on the fear of criminals from being shot by armed citizens. They likely shift their criminality to areas that are non-confrontational or are effectively deterred.

If you add to this the question of how much violent crime is added to a community by the holders of concealed-carry permits, you’ll find that these numbers are quite low. There is little evidence to support the theory that permit holders commit crimes violent crimes. In fact, their criminality is lower than the general population.

Finally, it is important to recognize that this effect is only seen in densely populated urban areas where crime is already high. There is little impact on rural crime rates (which are traditionally low).

Now the reason I find this idea somewhat convincing comes from the study of immunology. In immunology, there is what is known as the herd effect or herd immunity. The theory of herd immunity

describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease. The greater the proportion of individuals who are resistant, the smaller the probability that a susceptible individual will come into contact with an infectious individual.

If we think of crime as the the disease and concealed-carry as the immunity, herd immunity states that not everyone in the population needs to participate in concealed-carry for the entire population (the herd) to see a benefit. So if only 2% of the population is armed with concealed-carry, that might be sufficient to protect the whole population. It might even be that gun ownership rates drop as a result of the impact of concealed-carry on crime rates.

So in a densely populated, high crime area, the mere belief that more people are carrying concealed-weapons than actually are carrying may be enough to deter crime. Just the fear of an armed citizen might be enough for a criminal to think twice about committing a crime.

Can I prove that this herd immunity theory is correct in it’s application to concealed-carry? No. But it is a model which fits the data and as such, deserves consideration and further research.

Wait….what?!? Lena Taylor voted in favor of Republican concealed carry legislation?

Zach W — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:17:16 +0000

Earlier today Democratic State Senator Lena Taylor voted with every single Republican in the State Senate in favor of the Republican-promoted concealed weapons legislation that was passed today in the State Senate. Sen. Taylor’s vote was not completely unexpected, as she telegraphed her support for concealed carry in a statement issued by her office last week.

While Sen. Taylor supports concealed carry, her fellow Democratic State Senator Spencer Coggs, who also represents portions of the City of Milwaukee, said the way to deal with violence in cities wasn’t to encourage people to carry hidden weapons.

“The solution is less guns, not more guns,” Coggs said.

Apparently Sen. Lena Taylor disagrees.

UPDATE: Sen. Taylor has taken to Twitter to explain her vote, writing, “WI eye has my speech on conceal carry. I have constituents on both sides of this constitutional issue. We won’t always agree and that’s ok.”

Do more guns really equal less crime?

Zach W — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:43:55 +0000

On Thursday, Republican State Rep. Joel Kleefisch, better known as the Lt. Governor’s husband, shared the story of how his wife was threatened 12 years ago as a reason why he’ll be glad when concealed carry becomes the law in Wisconsin:

“This is a great day for my wife. My wife will have the ability to protect herself,” he said.

Kleefisch said he didn’t know whether his wife will choose to carry a gun. But he said if she did, “That gun would be the great equalizer.”

Given the push by Republicans in the legislature to allow virtually anyone here in Wisconsin to carry a concealed firearm with a minimal amount of training, I thought it would be topical to take a look at an entry I wrote three years in which I asked if putting guns into the hands of more citizens would reduce crime rates.

I’ve heard a lot of conservatives talk about how Wisconsin’s citizens need more guns, as if our state’s lack of concealed carry laws have made our citizens somehow unsafe. “More guns” seems to be a common mantra among conservatives, but their rationale that more guns equals less crime simply doesn’t hold water if one takes a look at crime statistics.

For example, let’s compare crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants (2006) for Wisconsin as well as Florida and Texas, both of which allow residents to carry firearms:

Wisconsin:

Robbery – 100.2
Forcible Rape – 20.4
Murder – 3.0
Burglary – 485.8
Vehicle Theft – 226.6

Texas:

Robbery – 158.5
Forcible Rape – 35.6
Murder – 5.9
Burglary – 917.3
Vehicle Theft – 405.9

Florida:

Robbery – 188.8
Forcible Rape – 35.8
Murder – 6.2
Burglary – 944.6
Vehicle Theft – 422.5

One look at the statistics and it’s obvious Wisconsin has much lower crime rates than states like Texas and Florida.

Now maybe you’re thinking, “But what about states that are more similar to Wisconsin, both in population size and demographics?” Well, here’s the crime rates per 100,000 residents (2006) for both Minnesota and Michigan:

Minnesota:

Robbery – 105.1
Forcible Rape – 31.8
Murder – 2.4
Burglary – 583.9
Vehicle Theft – 258.9

Michigan:

Robbery – 140.7
Forcible Rape – 52.2
Murder – 7.1
Burglary – 753.9
Vehicle Theft – 495.4

One look at the statistics for Minnesota and Michigan show they both have higher rates per 100,000 residents for Robbery, Forcible Rape, Burglary, and Vehicle Theft, and Michigan has a higher Murder rate while Minnesota’s Murder rate is slightly lower than Wisconsin’s. It doesn’t appear concealed carry laws have made for lower crime rates and increased safety in either state, so I don’t necessarily believe the argument that putting more guns into the hands of Wisconsinites will result in lower crime rates.

Topic of the Week: gun control

Zach W — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:49:15 +0000

In the aftermath of the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona we’ve had a lively debate here on Blogging Blue about guns and gun control, and I wanted to keep the debate going.

Ron Johnson flip-flops on gun control following Feingold ad

Zach W — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:51:18 +0000

Yesterday I highlighted the new radio ad, “Stuff,” being run by Sen. Russ Feingold’s campaign, and on the heels of that ad getting some radio time across the state comes news that one of Sen. Feingold’s Republican challengers, businessman (and empty suit) Ron Johnson is retracting statements he made earlier this summer supporting the licensing of firearms. Johnson made his comments in support of licensing firearms at a vetting session held by the Rock River Patriots, a Tea Party group in South-Central Wisconsin.

Here’s Johnson’s retraction/flip-flop on the issue of firearm licensing:

“In my first days as a candidate, I used the wrong terms when discussing my strong support for gun rights and concealed carry here in Wisconsin. I’m a first-time candidate and I made a mistake. I used the term ‘licensing’ when I meant permits for the right to carry a concealed weapon. Wisconsin is one of only two states whose citizens do not have that basic constitutional right. I do not, nor will I ever, support licensing or registration of firearms.”

Responding to Johnson’s flip-flop on gun licensing, Feingold’s campaign issued a statement of their own:

“Once again, Ron Johnson won’t shoot straight with voters and take responsibility for what he says. Never before has a candidate so quickly mastered political double talk, reinventing his own words to suit his political ambitions. Russ Feingold has never needed a do-over when it comes to opposing gun registration.”

Ron Johnson can flip-flop all he wants on the issue of gun control, but no amount of spin can undo the fact that he said he supports licensing guns like we license drivers, a position that ironically enough puts him in stark opposition to the Democrat he’s looking to unseat in November.

However, the fact that Ron Johnson’s so furiously trying to backtrack from his earlier statements shows just how much of an empty suit he really is by trying to be “everything to everyone” and hoping no one will notice his willingness to change his stated positions to suit his own political ambitions. Despite not being a “career politician,” Ron Johnson certainly has mastered the art of speaking out of both sides of his mouth at a very early stage in his U.S. Senate campaign.

Sen. Feingold issues statement on SCOTUS gun control decision

Zach W — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:00:11 +0000

Shortly after the U.S Supreme Court issued its decision in McDonald v. Chicago a case in which the City of Chicago’s ban on handguns was challenged, Senator Russ Feingold issued a statement in support of the Supreme Court’s decision:

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment applies equally to the states. Although not unexpected, the ruling is welcome confirmation that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right enjoyed by all Americans that cannot be infringed by the federal or state governments.”

Throughout his time in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Feingold has been a defender of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and Sen. Feingold was one of the U.S. Senators who signed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in McDonald v. Chicago.

Walker can’t stick to his guns

Zach W — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:24:06 +0000

The campaign of Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann is out with a new ad, this one attacking Scott Walker’s flip-flop on concealed carry:

Here’s some straight talk on the second amendment

Zach W — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:44:27 +0000

In a recent video he posted lamenting the erosion of our second amendment rights, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dave Westlake noted that gun owners, children who want to learn to shoot guns, and gun dealers have been demonized, and Westlake goes on to say gun dealers and outdoor sportsmen “are some of the most responsible people in this state.”

Dave Westlake may believe gun dealers are “some of the most responsible people in this state,” but clearly, he hasn’t spent much time paying attention to what’s been going on here in the Milwaukee metro area. However, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted shortly after the shooting of two Milwaukee police officers last year, one gun dealer – Badger Guns in West Milwaukee – was the sole supplier of each and every gun used to wound six Milwaukee police officers in two years. What’s more, nine of 10 straw buyers prosecuted since 2007 made their purchases at Badger Guns or its predecessor, Badger Outdoors, and in the past five years, the store accounted for 21 of the 27 straw buying cases prosecuted. The folks who own and operate Badger Guns hardly seem like “some of the most responsible people in this state,” but perhaps Dave Westlake and I have a different definition of what it means to be responsible when it comes to guns.

Putting aside Westlake’s statement about gun dealers being some of the most responsible people in the state, Jim Arndt of Pretty Important Politics notes our second amendment rights aren’t being eroded as much as Westlake would have us believe:

The problem is our second amendment rights are not being eroded. The Supreme Court threw out a decades-old handgun ban in Washington DC. The assault weapon ban expired in 2004 and Senator Feingold does not support a new one. Using “the-government-wants-to-take-your-guns” line is campaigning to the lowest common denominator and a shameful tactic.

And as the illusory tenant points out, Dave Weslake might want to consider supporting Sen. Russ Feingold if he’s concerned about the erosion of our second amendment rights, since Sen. Feingold has been a fairly consistent supporter of the second amendment during his time in the U.S. Senate.

A sobering statistic

Zach W — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:09:28 +0000

Number of gun-related deaths in Britain in 2005: fewer than 100
Number of gun-related deaths in the United States in 2005 (most recent statistics available): over 30,000

Tell Me Again About the need for Conceal and Carry

AL — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:38:15 +0000

LEBANON, Pa — A suburban mother who became a voice of the gun-rights movement when she openly carried a loaded pistol to her daughter’s soccer game was fatally shot Wednesday along with her parole-officer husband in an apparent murder-suicide at their home in Pennsylvania Dutch country, authorities said.

A car parked in the driveway bore a badge-shaped sticker that read “NRA law enforcement.”

Hain made headlines in 2008 when she attended a soccer game of her daughter’s, then 5, at a park with a Glock holstered on her hip in plain view.

Looks like she shoulda Wore The Glock At Home!

Sad Story…..and of Course it’s All The Sheriff’s Fault.
I Just Know What i Read On FOXNEWS!

Pray for Those Kids!