Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed 9 Law Enforcement Officers & 108 Citizens Since May '07

[marmar]

from AlterNet:



Shocking: Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Have Killed 9 Law Enforcement Officers and 108 Citizens Since May 2007

Posted by Byard Duncan, AlterNet at 11:00 AM on January 12, 2010.

This poses a big problem for concealed carry advocates.




Here’s a pretty horrific set of statistics from the Violence Policy Center, an online resource that tracks news reports of incidents involving concealed carry firearms:

Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least nine law enforcement officers in addition to 108 private citizens (including 13 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) since May 2007…

According to the site, law enforcement officers were killed in Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Private citizens were killed in 21 states across the country, including New York and California.

Obviously, this poses a big problem for concealed carry advocates, who have in the past argued that individuals who acquire permits "are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense."

The VPC’s detailed reports of incidents involving law enforcement fatalities paint a very different picture.

In one such incident, Humberto Delgado Jr. allegedly shot and killed Cpl. Mike Roberts, a Tampa police officer, after Roberts discovered Delgado was pushing a shopping cart containing a AR-15 assault rifle, a Taurus .45 pistol and a .22 revolver. According to VPC’s document, Delgado also had a Glock 17 pistol in a backpack.

On another occasion, Jason Kenneth Hamilton, a member of a group called Aryan Nation, shot and killed his wife, a Church sexton and a police officer before killing himself. He had a permit for a concealed firearm, despite a history of domestic abuse. The list goes on.

Or it would, if it were a complete list. These numbers may actually be a lowball estimate because many states that allow concealed firearms aren’t exactly forthcoming with data about incidents involving them. “It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher,” according to Mandy Wimmer at the VPC.

Why are these findings especially significant? Well, given recent stunts in which gun advocates have promised to “water the tree of liberty” (a reference to Thomas Jefferson, who said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"), or have carried signs that say “we came unarmed (this time),” maybe it’s not unreasonable to question the process one must undergo to carry a hidden gun.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/145109/shocking%3A_concealed_handgun_permit_holders_have_killed_9_law_enforcement_officers_and_108_citizens_since_may_2007/

[ddeclue]

1. OK but isn't Delgado a bad example?

I mean he wasn't exactly "concealing" anything - he had an AR15 and a bunch of other guns in a shopping cart. Not exactly a Walther PPK concealed in his sock.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

5. The argument has always been that the magic CCW fairy dust removes all risk of violence.

Whenever some lunatic goes crazy with a legally-purchased weapon, you'll see the hard-cord gundamentalists arguing that this would have never happened with a bona-fide CCW holder. Turns out they're wrong (big surprise).

[ddeclue]

10. I don't think that's the point here..

I think the thesis of the OP is that concealing guns is dangerous because cops and innocent people don't know the other person is armed. This may be true but the example cited seems besides the point and seems rather a better argument to control semi-auto assault rifles like the AR15.

I don't agree that possession of a CWP is any sign that the gun owner is any more stable than the rest of us nor do I agree that they are less stable.

[jgraz]

15. Nope, that's exactly the point.

Obviously, this poses a big problem for concealed carry advocates, who have in the past argued that individuals who acquire permits "are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense."

Doesn't anyone actually *read* the linked articles any more?

[ddeclue]

20. that remark is meaningless as it has NO attribution..

WHICH CCW advocates? WHO are they? WHY won't they go on the record?

don't fall victim to sloppy lazy journalism. This reporter clearly doesn't see the contradiction in their CCW example of a guy who killed a cop while having lots of guns in plain sight.

[jgraz]

24. This quote is well-known to those familiar with gun politics. But...they should have attributed it.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltkintr.htm

At an April 18, 1996 press conference in Dallas, NRA head lobbyist Tanya Metaksa asserted, "As we get more information about right-to-carry, our point is made again and again....People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense."

[ddeclue]

36. the cited example (Delgado) is still meaningless..

they need examples of people who used their concealed weapon, not one in plain view that anyone who could pass the basic background check could get.

[PavePusher]

49. Well, since 99.999% of them ARE...

"law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense", what are you wailing about?

[eqfan592]

54. Anybody who expects a 100% success rate with any human endevor...

...should have an MRI of the brain done immediately, followed by a psychological evaluation.

So the quote jgraz brought up would appear to still stand true if one is looking at the issue rationally.

[Verbalent]

70. Actually, concealed carry permit holders tend toward mass murder

Given that last year at least four of the nation's 5 million concealed carry permit holders committed mass murder -- those involving more than two fatalities -- that suggests they have a striking predilection for mass homicide. (The four are Richard Poplawski, Frank Garcia, George Sodini and Michael McClendon.)

If the rest of the nation's 300 million people did likewise, we'd have at least 200 similar shooting sprees each year. In fact, only about 0.75 percent of homicides involve more than three victims, which means that only about 100 people die in such incidents annually. It's impossible, then, that there could be 200 mass-murder shooting sprees each year.

Conclusion: Concealed carry permit holders appear to have an outsized tendency to engage in mass homicide.

Caveat: Mass murder by anybody occurs very rarely, so it's probably not valid to read too much into such an analysis.

[burrfoot]

174. Are you any

deader if you're killed in a mass murder than you are if you're killed in a one-off?

Otherwise, what's your point?

Meh.

:shrug:

[Verbalent]

187. The point is permit holders like mass murder

But here's a question for you:

Are you deader if you are one of the 714 people accidentally killed by firearms in the U.S. or if you are one of the 182 people killed in justifiable firearms homicides by private citizens?

Even if you are, the chances of a citizen's gun accidentally killing someone appear to be nearly four times higher than that it will be used in a justifiable homicide. So does carrying one make you safer or put you in more danger?

[GreenStormCloud]

193. Get a sample size that covers several consecutive years, then get back to us.

Random distribution of events does NOT mean that they will be evenly spaced. They will tend to clump. That is just the way the math of randomness works. You have found a clump and are jumping on it as if it meant something.

[Verbalent]

197. Politics hides truth in this case

I'd like to have more and better data to work with. Unfortunately, the gun lobby has contrived to keep secret the records of concealed carry permit holders. As a result, the permit status of most mass murderers has not been revealed. Until last year, news reporters almost never asked whether mass killers had concealed carry permits. Now, they sometimes do, although they still almost never ask whether ordinary murderers or people accused of other gun crimes have licenses to hide loaded guns under their coats as they go around in public.

One interesting nugget of information is from the Texas Department of Public Safety 2007 report on convictions of concealed carry permit holders. One of the nine people convicted of multiple homicide was a concealed carry permit holder. That's 11 percent of all the multiple killers in the state that year, about five times the percentage of Texas adults who have concealed carry permits.

Another interesting thing to do is look at Tennessee's public online database of concealed carry permit holders and compare the information there against media reports of names, ages and cities of residence of people charged or otherwise implicated in murders there. You have to look at people charged as opposed to convicted because permits are revoked on conviction. In murder-suicides, neither charges nor convictions result. That's what "otherwise implicated" is about.

We find nine deaths attributable to Tennessee concealed carry permit holders during the year ended last August. If there are 225,000 Tennessee carry permit holders and 5 million concealed carry permit holders nationwide, that suggests 200 killings by concealed carry permit holders nationwide. Adjusting for Tennessee's violent crime rate, which is 15 percent higher than the nation, suggests 170 killings by concealed carry permit holders nationwide.

Interestingly, this is approximately equal to the 182 people killed in justifiable firearms homicides each year on average. If the estimate of 170 is accurate, it would conform with the weight of the studies of the effect of expanded concealed carry laws on crime. That is, no effect.

Allowing people to carry hidden, loaded pistols around in public doesn't make them or anybody else safer. All it accomplishes is that it makes the people with the concealed firearms feel better.

[X_Digger]

198. And AGAIN you ignore non-fatal defensive gun uses..

.. why exactly is that?

Oh right, "because the light's better over here."

[GreenStormCloud]

207. Let's take a close look at those numbers.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that CCWers illegally kill an average of 170 citizens per year. (In reality I remain to be convinced of that, but for this post I will not challenge that number.) There are about 5 million CCWers in the U.S. We notice that your number includes CCWers who kill by means other than shooting, such as stabbing, choking, poison, etc.

170/5,000,000 = .000034 That converts to 3.4/100K.

According to the FBI there were 14,180 murders in the U.S. in 2008. The population of the US is about 308,000,000. However 1/4 of our population is not able to murder, due to being too young, being an invalid, confined to nursing homes, etc. So we will use a base number of 230,000,000.

14,180/230,000,000 = 6.16/100K. So the general public has a murder rate that is about twice the CCW rate.

Even if we use the entire population of the U.S. as a base, (Does anybody here think that babies in their cribs can murder?)that still works out to about 4.6/100K for the entire population. By your numbers, CCWers are safer.

Thank you for helping to support our great safety record.

My wife having a gun on her that day when a mugger targeted her certainly saved her life.

[burrfoot]

211. Now, I think you've actually hit on something.

You worded it a little differently- although I am not perfect (though it makes me cry a little to write that ;) ), I make a personal choice to carry in a condition that makes the odds of an accidental discharge phenomenally, astronomically small (no round in the chamber). It will cost me a couple of seconds, perhaps, but for now anyway it's what I'm comfortable with.

(please, fellow CCW's, don't flame me for this :evilgrin: )

Because of that, and because I believe that I've received enough training on the law of self defense and on tactics of self defense, my answer to you is that carrying a gun makes me safer. The number of accidental firearm deaths (particularly when you're not specifying to CCW) has absolutely no bearing on how safe a gun is when under my control.

Now: "permit holders like mass murder." So, do drivers license holders like drunk driving?

*edited to keep it civil.*

[GreenStormCloud]

178. Your stastical sample size is too small to make any valid projections from. N/T

[Verbalent]

186. Perhaps so

Certainly, mass homicide is rare, but it is interesting that so many are committed by concealed carry permit holders.

[X_Digger]

14. How about magic straw men? n/t

[jgraz]

21. How about learning to identify sarcasm?

Hint: the "magic fairy dust" should have been your first clue.

[X_Digger]

34. Oh it's sarcasm and hyperbole only when YOU use them.. gotcha. n/t

[jgraz]

39. Nope, I don't play the gungeon "I only understand literal text" game.

I prefer dealing with the actual argument, rather than what I'd like the argument to be.

[TheWraith]

30. If you're going to just provide strawman arguments, you lose.

Nobody has EVER argued that. But you're unwilling to look at the FBI stats which show someone with a CCW is far safer than a regular person.

[PavePusher]

48. No-one has claimed that...

and you know it.

The stats indicate that CCW holders are 1/10th as likely to commit crimes as the general population.

Numbers. They have actual meanings despite everyone's hyperbole.

[Callisto32]

83. No,

The argument has always been that CCW holders are a far lower risk group than the general public.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. They've paid the price...

...of freeeeeeeeedom!.

We can have a day commemorating them -- or put them on a stamp. A stamp would be nice.

[KG]

8. sacrifices on the alter of 2A!

[PavePusher]

51. How do you label car deaths...

which outnumber guns by 3 to 1, and support no Constitutional Right?

[onehandle]

3. Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do. nt

[proteus_lives]

22. That's wrong.

I'm a legal gun-owner, I've never killed anyone. Neither have any of the dozens of legal gun-owners I know.

You should re-think that statement. I know logic is hard but you can do it.

[lpbk2713]

6. Who's got the salt?

:popcorn:

[Lance_Boyle]

7. They do not make clear whether any of the shootings were 'good shoots.'

If I am assaulted and I shoot and kill my attacker, does that make my attacker #109 on this list?

[jgraz]

11. Yes they do. Just follow the links in the story.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

[rrneck]

9. 117 people in two years. In a country with over three hundred million people.

Pardon me while I go back to watching for killer asteroids.

[jgraz]

13. And how many die from the armed home invasions used to justify any pro-gun policy?

You guys seem to really like *those* asteroids.

[rrneck]

19. Do you have a solution

for defending oneself from assault by someone using a knife, a club, fists or feet?

[jgraz]

26. Changing the subject?

I thought the subject was how rare certain events were. Now you want to talk about how to defend against these events?

OK, how do you defend against a CCW holder pulling out a gun and shooting you? Are you some sort of quick-draw expert?

[rrneck]

27. I didn't think so. nt

[jgraz]

29. But you did. You went from "how often" to "how to defend".

Can you see that those are two different questions?

[rrneck]

32. Do you have a solution or not? nt

[jgraz]

38. A solution to you changing the subject? I don't think there is one.

[rrneck]

40. It's a fairly simple question. Can you not answer it? nt

[jgraz]

42. So... I can only assume you're conceding my point in the initial argument.

And you're following on with the claim that home invasions are a valid argument against any limitations on gun ownership.

OK, now I'm going to apply something called "logic" here -- hang on: if exceedingly rare events are valid arguments against a certain public policy and, if the burden is on the defenders of that policy to find a solution to these exceedingly rare events, then the gun control advocates really have a point about CCW holders, don't they?

[rrneck]

44. LOL! Assume all you want. Do you have a solution? nt

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

52. Crime is "exceedingly rare"?

Well, what's all the fuss about, then?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

60. LOL! jgraz, expert at talking his/herself into a corner faster than ANYBODY else around here. (nt)

[hack89]

62. But those "certain events" are rare

considering the number of CCW holders in America it appears that the odds of being killed by one seems incredibly small to me.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

73. Pro gun policies do not advocate or endorse armed home invasions.

Infact, neither does society... there are laws specifically prohibiting home invasions, armed or otherwise.

What's you're point?

[Abq_Sarah]

161. 0.000039%

Statistically, insignificant.

[X_Digger]

12. Still lower rate than the police..

posted by spin: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=281654&mesg_id=281654

More than 900 black males between the ages of 14 and 17 killed somebody in 2007. Should we be scared of young black guys?

Of course not. There are roughly 3 million black males in that age group in the United States. It would be horribly unfair to toss around the first statistic without mentioning the second; doing so would be misleading, if not malicious.

Now consider this statistic: Concealed handgun permit holders have killed 107 people since 2007. That news, from the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., sounds pretty bad - until you put it in context. How many Americans have been issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

The Violence Policy Center doesn't say. And it's probably impossible to pin down a precise number, because records are kept on a state-by-state basis, and reporting criteria differ from state to state. But NRA estimates put the number in the neighborhood of 5 million, as of a couple of years ago. (The NRA adds that permit applications have jumped 50 percent since the 2008 elections - which seems borne out at least here in Virginia. At present there are 211,435 active permits in the commonwealth. Just this year, Virginia courts have granted more than 62,000.)

If that's true, then the percentage of concealed-carry permit holders who have killed someone with a firearm comes to two one-thousandths of 1 percent. Yet to listen to the VPC's Kristen Brand - who says "concealed handgun permit holders are killing people over parking spaces, football games, and family arguments" - you'd think the cohort of permit holders was as dangerous as the gang at Rikers Island.
http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2010/jan/08/ha-gun-control-advocates-play-fast-and-loose

[winyanstaz]

17. I searched all over the internet and still have not been able to find out...

How many civilans the police have killed in just one year in America.
Anyone know where I can find that number or do they even bother to keep track of it?

[X_Digger]

It's a PITA.. no one source

And correlating like to like is hard.

[russ1943]

75. FBI's UCR

Law enforcement officers killed 371 felons in the line of duty in 2008.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html

[shawcomm]

16. Out of how many concealed carry licensed owners?

I'd say that is an amazingly low rate, with the vast majority being law abiding owners.

[ThomWV]

37. In this county there are probably more CCW permits than Driver's Licenses

and surely more permit holders than there are people with full mouths of teeth.

[PavePusher]

53. Bigotry on display. Very well done. n/t

[X_Digger]

41. Ballpark 5M

315k in TX

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2008.pdf

675k valid in FL

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

257k valid in TN

http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/stats/DL_Handgun/Handgun/HandgunCarryPermitswithPercentChange.pdf

142k in Ohio (2008 only)

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publications/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Reports/Concealed-Carry-Weapons-Annual-Report

22k in Kansas

http://www.ksag.org/page/concealed-carry

13k in ND

http://www.ag.state.nd.us/BCI/CW/TotalCWPIssued.pdf

56k in MN

http://www.bca.state.mn.us/CJIS/Documents/CarryPermit/2008PTSReport.pdf

27k in LA

http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chAnnualReport07-08.pdf

That's 1.5M right there, and that was only the states that made getting the number fairly easy, and not the most populous states.

[proteus_lives]

18. More anti-Rights garbage.

It's an incredibly low rate.

How many people die each year because of drunk drivers? Oh Noes! Take everyone's licenses away.

Still amazes me that most DUers will defend all rights except the right to bear arms.

[jobendorfer]

23. well, that's interesting

The homicide rate in the U.S. has been holding pretty steady over the last decade at 5.4 murders/100,000 population.
Rounding the total U.S. population to 300 million, that yields ~ 32,500 murders over the last two years.
108 murders by CCW holders represents a whopping 0.33% of homicides.

And this is in a context where virtually anyone with a) no criminal record and b) a 38C body temperature can get a CCW permit.

You can take away all the CCW permits, the murder rate won't materially change.
To me, the real question isn't about whether CCW permits should/shouldn't be granted, but rather, why is the U.S. murder rate so bloody high?

J.

[PavePusher]

55. Your total murders is off by a factor of 2. n/t

[kenny blankenship]

Well I'm sure they thought they had a very good reason in each case

We know how possession of a handgun makes people automatically wiser and more responsible.

[DainBramaged]

28. .

<<<<<<<snort>>>>>>>>>

[PavePusher]

56. Please cite your assertion... n/t

[TheWraith]

25. Which is still two thirds fewer than the average civilian.

Statistically speaking, according to FBI numbers, a person with a concealed carry license is roughly two thirds less likely to commit a violent crime than the national average, and one third less likely to commit a violent crime than a police officer.

These "horrifying" statistics are hyperbole, like saying that thousands of people a year die from choking on food. True enough--and statistically meaningless in a country of 309 million people. More people have been killed by lightning strikes every year than are killed by people legally carrying a concealed weapon.

[moondust]

31. Collateral damage.

:sarcasm:


(Incidentally, virtually no "collateral damage" in countries with sensible gun control.)

[TheWraith]

35. "Sensible gun control" ?

You mean like Australia, where gun crimes still happen daily, except the public can't defend themselves? Or England, where they're now trying to ban kitchen knives because their crime rate is so astronomical, and you're legally prohibited from defending yourself from an intruder in your own home?

Or how about Switzerland, where they have literally 660,000 fully automatic machine guns and ammo stored in people's closets as part of their military readiness?

Despite you trying to reduce it to an absolutist yes/no equation, there's a few more complicated things that affect violence in the US. And this bullshit study does not even reflect the real face of violence, it's simply a hit piece to try and make legal gun owners look like psychos ready to snap.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. How many have been killed by people without Concealed Handgun Permits?

:shrug:

[Remmah2]

72. How many unarmed US citizens have been killed by the police or military?

But then again only the police and military should be allowed to have firearms. (Sarcasm.)

[no limit]

43. I think I'm missing the point here. So not having a carry permit would have prevent these?

Wow, how do you come to that wild conclusion?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

47. At least 1.5M in 8 states that I could find easily (see post 41)..

.. The NRA estimates 5M CHLs, which isn't beyond belief considering I found 1.5M (actually 2M if you count VA) in 8 states in 20 minutes.

[old mark]

59. The only information I can find locally was over 25,000 license holders

in my county. This was at least 5 years ago, and I'm sure it has increased considerably.

I have had a license to carry for over 15 years, and have yet to kill my first person.

But then I am old and don't go out much.

mark

[PavePusher]

61. According to the news...

you don't have to go out.

Criminals are happy to come to your home... Is that what they call "door-to-door service"?

[GreenStormCloud]

46. That statistic demonstrates that CCW holders are extremely safe.

It has taken almost three years to reach that number, 117. That is about 45 per year, from a base of about 5,000,000 people. That is an extremely low rate. In fact, you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a CCW holder.

[eqfan592]

50. K&R to show just how SAFE CCW holders really are!

Thanks to the VPC we have some of the best evidence available to show exactly how WRONG the VPC was with their "blood running in the streets" predictions.

Approx. 5,000,000 permit holders in the US, and only 108 unjustifiably killed by permit holders? And we're not even sure if all those are unjustifiable shootings, either.

And I have to say that I'm glad to see a fair number of people that aren't usually involved in this discussion seeing through the OP's attempt to color these numbers as some sort of "slam dunk" against CCW.

Those of you who failed to do this should be ashamed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Wow that's a remarkably low number.

[Merchant Marine]

64. On average, lightning kills 58 persons a year in the US.

From 2007 to 2009 is 2 years

2x58= 116.

Lightning is equivalent to concealed carry.

[paulsby]

65. how many citizens have they killed UNLAWFULLY?

that would be a metric that means something NEGATIVE.

saying they have killed X people doesn't.

it doesn't distinguish between justified and unjustified homicides.

hth

[Tejas]

66. marmar, thank you for

the drive-by copy/paste of Byard Duncan's copy/paste of VPC's usual falseties.



You're long gone but if you ever get a chance, care to point out where it is mentioned that Delgado ever had a permit?

And clarify that Hamilton was previously involuntarily committed and had been busted for trying to strangle 2 women........so shouldn't have possessed firearms to begin with?

Oh wait, I just did.


Geez, why do we always have to hold the grabbers hands?

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. I'd also like to thank marmar for bringing this here again

It demonstrates how easily you can upset the weak-minded and those with no grasp of statistics, and how to debunk nonsense
like it...

[GreenStormCloud]

68. I previously posted the same thing to show how safe CCWers are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=269339&mesg_id=269339

First, how many people in the US have CCWs. Some states don't publish the data. Texas, Florida, and North Carolina combined have over one million people with CCWs. There are 39 shall-issue states, 1 universal CCW state,(Alaska is universal carry, but does also have a state issued CCW for reciprocity. I count it here as a shall-issue state.) and eight states that have may-issue CCW. I searched but couldn't find a good solid estimate for the number of CCWs in the US. It seems reasonable that since three states can total over a million, then for the entire US an estimate of five million CCW holders seems reasonable.

From this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm I get the crime statistics for the entire US. Since the year 2009 is not complete, I will use 2007, 2008 and half of 2006 to get 2.5 years. Total murders is 40,666. Population is about 300 million. (40,000+ murders and Sugarman is in a flap over 85?) That yields a murder rate of 13.88/100,000 for a 2.5 year period. Annual rate is 5.4 according to the FBI, for the general population.

Now lets look at those 85 murders. 85/5,000,000 = .000,017. .000,017 X 100,000 = 1.7 per 100,000 for a 2.5 year period.

13.88/1.7 = 8.16

CCW holders are 8.16 times safer than the general populace.

The VPC deceives again - no surprise.

We gunnies are not afraid of VPC deception. We love exposing it. This is just part of the latest VPC battle plant against guns, to demonize CCWers.

[Verbalent]

69. A better count

The VPC figures probably understate reality. One hundred seventy is a better estimate for annual fatal shootings by concealed carry permit holders. Here's how I came up with that number:

First, I scanned news reports for fatal shootings in Tennessee.

Second, I checked names, ages and cities of residence of those arrested, charged or otherwise implicated in the killings against the online Tennessee concealed carry permit holder database. I found nine deaths that matched. (It's important to not just look at convictions, because the state revokes permits upon conviction so they won't show up in the database. And it's important to consider otherwise implicated people because in the case of murder-suicides, there are no arrests, charges or convictions.)

Third, I extrapolated the nine Tennessee cases nationally, using the 225,000 Tennessee concealed carry permit holders and the roughly 5 million total U.S. concealed permit holders.

Finally, I adjusted the result for Tennessee's higher than average violent crime index.

Result: 170 firearms homicides by concealed carry permit holders nationwide during a 12-month period ending August 2009.

Interestingly, the average number of annual justifiable firearms homicides committed by civilians is about 180, according to the FBI. Sounds like the concealed carry privilege is about a wash.

[benEzra]

78. It is not uncommon to be arrested in a self-defense shooting until things are sorted out.

and depending on the jurisdiction, many will go before a grand jury unless the circumstances are patently obvious. By looking at arrests only, you are counting a lot of shootings ultimately ruled justifiable in your "murders" category, which skews the numbers upward quite a bit.

Quite a few states collect hard numbers on licenses that are revoked and the reason for the revocation, and they do not support the VPC's "CHL holders are of the debbil" meme.

BTW, welcome to DU! :toast:

[Verbalent]

85. Sure

It's also not unheard-of for a shooting that appears to be in self-defense to be ultimately determined to be an unjustifiable homicide. At this point, it's worth noting that the FBI's latest five-year average for justifiable homicides, defined as homicides a private citizen committed on someone during the commission of a felony, is 182. Given the approximately 5 million concealed carry permit holders in the US, this appears a rather small number.

[Hare K Beauregard]

97. Bingo...If you have a CCW and use firearm...

...to defend yourself, you had better also have with you the name and number of a law firm experienced in dealing with self-defense cases involving firearms. After the investigation and possible/probable court appearance, you also may face a case in a civil action.

Any time deadly force is employed, the shooter must show just cause for his or her actions. (And rightly so.)

Anyone who has ever experienced it knows this.

[oneshooter]

115. It depends on the state you live in.

Many states have the "Castle Doctrine". In Texas if the Grand Jury no bills you, or you are found not guilty or innocent, or if no charges at all are offered, then you can not be sued in civil court.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

116. Well, you can be sued..

.. but you have civil immunity, and fat chance of getting a lawyer to take the case on contingency.

[Euromutt]

79. Sounds rather speculative to me

I mean, your methodology seems perfectly sound up to and including the point that you determine the numbers for Tennessee, but what I'm dubious about is extrapolating the Tennessee results to the rest of the US. Ultimately, the results of an econometric model don't trump numbers of actual cases, and the only reason to use an econometric model is when those numbers are impossible to acquire. I refer you to this article on the perils of econometric modeling: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

[Verbalent]

84. No doubt

I have little more familiarity with econometric modeling than with, say, wedding dress modeling. And I'm sure my exercise in extrapolation contains serious flaws. On the other hand, better information is not available. Since gun advocacy organizations have contrived to keep concealed carry permit records secret, we are unable to produce better estimates. If you have a better estimate, present it for critique. It is all to easy to criticize others' offerings.

[Euromutt]

86. I didn't say I could do better

I just wanted to caution against taking your estimate as gospel, not least because it comes out remarkably higher than what the VPC has managed to dig up, and given the VPC's stance on private firearms ownership, the comparative lowness of their findings isn't going to be for want of trying.

Since gun advocacy organizations have contrived to keep concealed carry permit records secret, we are unable to produce better estimates.

Nobody's preventing anyone from publishing statistics. Florida does (here: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html) as does Texas (here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm). Most states simply can't be bothered to go to the trouble and expense.

And please, let's not pretend there's something sinister about keeping CCW permit records inaccessible. Unless, that is, you would have no objection to the DMV giving out your name, height, weight, hair and eye color, date of birth, home address and driver's license number to every Tom, Dick & Harry who strolls in and gives them your license number.

[Verbalent]

89. Some agreement

Agreed, it's not gospel.

But are state concealed carry permit holder crime and revocation reports gospel? In a murder-suicide, is there a conviction? Is a permit revoked when the permit holder is dead? In other words, would Michael McClendon show up in one of these reports?

My state will identify the registered owner of any automobile license plate, which doesn't seem to be a problem. And I would like to know whether a neighbor is likely to be carrying, say, a loaded Sig Sauer .357 hidden under his jacket when he goes to collect his mail and walks by my front yard where my son is playing football. Bear in mind, some states require no training whatsoever to get a concealed carry permit.

[burrfoot]

175. Why?

To re-state some stats from above, I think a little research will show you that CCW holders are not the ones you need to be worried about. At least, as long as you're not overly worried about death by lightning strike or, say, a shark attack. 'Cause your more likely to suffer one of those than to be shot by a CCW holder.

[rd_kent]

71. Hey MARMAR, why the hit and run? Facts got your tongue?

Facts got your tongue?

[Glassunion]

74. I think so...

Stoopid fax keep gettin in the way.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. What tripe.

First off the AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle. It LOOKS like the M-16 which IS an Assault Rifle, and that's about it.

The Jason Kenneth Hamilton example would be laughable if not so sad. A clear example of why plea deals are bullshit. This guy would not have had a FFL, CPL, and probably wouldn't have even been on the streets if a single felony conviction he was charged with hadn't been plead down to a misdemeanor.

In most states he wouldn't have been able to acquire a CPL, dunno what the fuck is wrong with Idaho.


No one ever said all CPL holders are magically law abiding citizens. They are statistically less likely to commit crimes than the general population.

Oh whoopsie: "In 1996, he was arrested by the Boise Police Department for marijuana possession and failure to have current insurance. He pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay $251.50 in court costs and fines and complete 16 hours of drug treatment."

Legally ineligible for either a CPL or a FFL. The state of Idaho fucked up.

If a cannibal sneaks into a Vegetarian Convention, and gets caught eating someone, do we then assume all Vegetarians are cannibals? This guy wasn't a legal 'member of the club'. He snuck in, and the State of Idaho has some 'splainin to do.

[PavePusher]

77. Didn't you know?

All gun owners are responsible for all gun crime.

We're "enablers", don'tchyaknow. Sheesh.

(Do I have to? Oh, O.K..... :sarcasm: )

[Euromutt]

80. The VPC's case suffers from the conflation of two points

If, on the one hand, the VPC's objective was to demonstrate that not 100% of persons issued a CCW permit do not commit a violent crime, their study certainly proves that. However, this really isn't a huge revelation. There isn't a single group of people in whom society places a large measure of trust that doesn't contain some individuals who abuse that trust: elected officials, law enforcement officers, doctors, and yes, CCW permit holders. What comes as a surprise, if anything, is how low the offense rate among CCW permit holders apparently is.

If, on the other hand, the VPC's objective was to demonstrate that the issuing of CCW permits made it possible for offenses to occur that would otherwise not have, then they're padding the numbers. For example, one case describes how the permit holder, one Tony Villegas, allegedly strangled the victim to death; you can hardly claim this murder would have been prevented by denying the alleged perpetrator a CCW permit! There are also a number of cases of killings taking place in the home of the (alleged) offender, where the (alleged) offender would not have needed a CCW permit in any case.

And in cases of murder-suicides, are the actually counting the shooters as victims?

[Taitertots]

81. That 108 contains self defense cases too doesn't it

How many were "murders" and not "kills"?

[Euromutt]

82. No, though it does include cases still pending

The lists mention some cases that were ruled to be self-defense and notes explicitly that these were omitted from the statistics. However, that does leave cases that are currently still pending and which may yet be ruled to have been self-defense, or in which th defendant might even be acquitted.

The figures also include homicides committed by permit holders, but committed by means other than a firearm, and in circumstances where a CCW permit would not have been required to legally have the firearm on one's person.

[Xenotime]

87. Good article. Thank you.

[rd_kent]

88. What was good about it?

[Verbalent]

90. Justifiable firearms killings are rare

VPC aside, the FBI reports an average of 182 justifiable firearms homicides by civilians annually. These are defined as occurring during commission of a felony. That's not very many, considering there are about 5 million concealed carry permit holders.

The CDC reports an average of 714 unintentional firearms fatalities each year. That's about four times as many accidental gun deaths as justifiable firearms homicides.

Does this suggest that it's a good idea to go around in public with a loaded pistol hidden under your clothing?

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Most of the time, no shots are needed to scare the bad guy away.

In almost all DGUs, no shots are fired. The BG realizes that he is about to get shot and stops the assault, then runs like hell. Usually the assault is stopped just before it starts, so there is no police report.

My wife was about to be mugged. Given her frail body, the mugging would have been fatal. But the mugger learned that he was about to get shot instead, so he stopped his approach and ran.

[Verbalent]

92. Okay

So why not carry a replica of a firearm?

[GreenStormCloud]

94. NEVER bluff with a gun. It can get you killed.

Most of the time is NOT all of the time.

[Verbalent]

95. Says who?

Gun advocates almost universally insist that they would almost never have to do more than just show the gun. And we know for a fact that four times as many people get killed accidentally by firearms as are killed in justifiable firearms homicides. Sounds to me like carrying a real gun is a lot more dangerous than carrying a convincing replica. Sure, you can concoct scenarios where displaying a fake gun won't help and may make things worse. But this is an overwhelming 4-to-1 imbalance. Like Ring Lardner said, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." In this case, the odds favor a replica and that's the way to bet.

[Katya Mullethov]

99. Experience and observation over time

A fake gun will work in this fashion ,until it doesnt, and then it wont, and they holster it in your ass .

[Verbalent]

101. Plaxico

Having a gun holstered in your ass sounds very frightening and painful, certainly. You've heard of such instances? No? Have you heard of Plaxico Burress? If not, perhaps you should look him up.

As I've demonstrated, based on a comparison of justifiable homicides and accidental gun deaths, the chances of a firearm being used to accidentally kill a friend, relative, stranger or yourself are nearly four times higher than the chance that it will be necessary to shoot and kill someone committing a felony. This is not just a scary story or a frightening eventuality. It is comparing 714 dead to 182 dead.

If you knew that a guard dog you were considering for your home were four times more likely to attack and kill you or a family member than to attack and kill a burglar or home invader, would you get the dog?

[slackmaster]

102. Plaxico is an idiot - He was carrying illegally and not using a holster

He's a poster child for the importance of getting proper training before carrying a weapon for self-defense.

[Verbalent]

107. Yes, of course

Plaxico was trained to the full extent of the law in order to get a Florida permit. (Pennsylvania, among other states, requires no training at all.)

[slackmaster]

120. Plaxico was arrested in New York City

What the fuck are you blathering about?

[Katya Mullethov]

103. Oh I didnt understand at first

Those were rhetorical questions !

[Verbalent]

110. Not really

If you would like to answer them, I'm happy to see your response.

[Katya Mullethov]

119. Not really

[Euromutt]

121. A firearm is not a magic talisman

This is an admonition you'll find in a lot of books and articles on self-defense with a firearm, perhaps most notably those written by Massad Ayoob. A firearm is not a magic talisman that you can wave and keep the bad things away. Violent criminals aren't afraid of guns; they're afraid that a determined wielder will put one or more bullets in them. Consequently, it's not enough to "just show the gun"; to effectively deter your assailant, you have to convince that you're capable of inflicting possibly lethal injury on him. In the (relatively few) cases that a prospective victim had the weapon out and ready, but got overpowered, it was because the assailant correctly sensed that the defender was incapable of actually pulling the trigger.

Now, how convincing do you think a defender is going to be when he knows that the gun in his hand is in fact a non-firing or blank-firing replica, that is incapable of inflicting incapacitating trauma on the assailant? I think the defender would have to be a consummate poker player, and even then...

[Verbalent]

123. Calling for backup

Can you provide support for your assertions about the inner thought processes of violent criminals? Lacking any such support, one could as easily argue that a person carrying a non-firing replica would be safer than one armed with a hidden, loaded pistol. After all, such a person would be able to carry a replica into places where an actual firearm would be prohibited.

[GreenStormCloud]

141. He gave you a general reference, the works of Massad Ayoob.

There are people who are genuine authorities on armed self-defense. They base their teaching on analysis of thousands of incidents to learn what works and what doesn't. Ayoob is one of the best. If you are really interested, we can give you numerous names of serious teachers of armed self-defense.

They all say the same thing. Don't bluff with a gun. As soon as you pull out your replica and point it at the criminal, the criminal is going to believe that his life is in grave danger. He will no longer be interested in robbing you, he is going to be interested in staying alive. Usually that will mean running away, but he may choose to attack into the threat. If he has a gun, he is likely to shoot. You are making the criminal think he is in an extreme situation so he may do something extreme and you can't do anything extreme to counter it. You will be screwed.

Other excellent authors are: Jeff Cooper, Jerry VanCook, Sanford Strong, C. R. Jahn, Sgt. Roy Miller, David S. Kenik, Chuck Taylor and many others.

Our opinions are based on events in the real world, not on ivory-tower theorizing. Some of us have been-there/done-that and lived to talk about it.

[Verbalent]

146. Talk about empty theorizing

Thanks for the feedback. I have descended from the ivory tower long enough to have a gun pointed in my face, be jumped by multiple attackers in a parking lot, lived several years in New York City when it was setting the annual murder record, rode the subway numerous times late at night and generally led an active life. So what? That doesn't make me an authority on the secret inner thought processes of criminals.

Your opinions are based on something, no doubt, but not, as far as I can an see, accurate assessments of the risks and rewards of walking around in public with loaded handguns secreted beneath your clothing.

Have you read the report by Cramer and Kopel on concealed carry holders in Dade County, Florida? Here's the link: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm#c7

Police there collected stats on the first five years after shall-issue concealed carry permit laws were passed. At the end of the period there were about 21,000 concealed carry permits in the county.

Out of 100,000 violent crimes during the period, there were 11 cases where a concealed carry permit holder used a firearm to thwart crimes. The count was four attempted robberies, five burglaries, a dog attack and an attempted rape. If we ivory-tower theorize that the dog didn't know about the law change, that comes to a 1 in 10,000 chance of a criminal encountering an armed Dade Countian. Based on your knowledge of criminal psychology, how serious is that deterrent?

There were seven less favorable outcomes, including five cases where concealed carry permit holders had permits revoked for committing gun-related crimes, one case of a concealed carry permit holder shooting himself accidentally in the leg and a case of a concealed carry permit holder whose gun was taken away after he pulled it on a robber.

From this, it sounds to me like the wisdom of hiding a loaded pistol under your jacket while going about your daily business is questionable at best. But then, that's in the real world, as opposed to the one gun salesmen like Massad Ayoob would like us to believe in.

[Euromutt]

162. "Empty theorizing"? "Gun salesmen"?

You are aware, I hope, that firearms instructors like Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith and Marty Hayes (to name but three) have fairly extensive experience working in law enforcement? I can't think of a line of work more suited to bringing one into contact with a wide variety of offenders, thereby allowing one to gain some insight into the criminal mindset.

[Verbalent]

171. Empty indeed

Empty theorizing consists of coming up with explanations that don't have any data behind them, don't consider and rule out alternate explanations, can't predict results and basically don't work. Furthermore, when the theorist is in the business of selling products and services whose consumption is supported by the theory, as these fellows are, I wouldn't give them much credence. All this insight into what criminals are thinking is bupkis.

[GreenStormCloud]

172. Common sense and experience work wonders.

Guns aren't new. Modern design guns that can be kept loaded and ready for instant action have been around since the begining of cased ammunition, sometime in the 1850s. So there is about a century and a half of experience and shared knowledge.

NEVER bluff with a gun is part of that lore.

Other items of lore are:

NEVER draw your gun unless you are about the shoot somebody. (Refering to gunfights, not to hunting and target practice.)

Accuracy is more important than speed, but don't be slow either. (That one is stated, in different words, by Wyatt Earp.)

A man worth shooting is a man worth killing. (That means that you can't depend upon a man to survive a shot intended to wound. If you shoot someone, be prepared for them to die, or don't shoot at all.)

Common sense goes a long way in understanding a criminal mind, in general. They don't want to get killed either.

Empathy, the human ability to see a situation for another's prospective, is something most of us have. If you point a realistic replica at a person, even at a criminal, what do you expect them to think? Most folks, including criminals, will think that you are about to kill them. Since most people don't want to die right away, they can be expected to do something to keep on living. That something can be any of several things, and as a gun user one must be prepared to deal with the different responses.

Since you choose not to carry a gun, you are completely free to ignore gun lore. I do carry, and I don't ignore it. Bluffing with a gun is a really stupid idea.

[Verbalent]

182. Carrying a gun is a stupid idea

It may be your right and privilege, but by a factor of four to one a gun is more likely to accidentally kill someone than to be used in a justifiable homicide.

An easy way for you to disprove that statement is to provide an objective, reliable source for how many people have been killed because they bluffed with a gun or, better yet, a non-firing replica of a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

192. A gun doesn't have to kill the bad guy for it to save my life.

If it scares him away, that's a save.

You are welcome to play around with bluffing with replicas if you want to. I choose not to. If I ever have to pull my gun out, I will be firing as soon as it is on target. Warning a criminal is a very good way to get yourself killed.

BTW - I am a retired private investigator.

[Verbalent]

200. Interesting

How many times did you have to kill someone while working as a private investigator?

[GreenStormCloud]

210. Never.

In fact, the states that I worked in did not allow concealed carry at all. I was unarmed. But I didn't do much of the sneak 'n' peek kind of work. I did do some, but didn't like it. Mostly I operated in situations where I interviewed people, took statements, looked at evidence, looked at event sites, etc. I did a LOT of accident reconstructions following a fatality. Sometimes traffic accidents, sometimes industrial accidents. So I was able to avoid situations that were personally hazardous to me.

Most of my expertise in armed self-defense has been aquired in the past few years. As long as it was illegal for me to be armed, even as a private citizen, I never had much motive to learn the skills. I had a couple of pistols for home-defense, and I learned what I needed to know for home situations. Only since it became legal have I learned the skills to be effective carrying a gun on me.

[GreenStormCloud]

163. I carry to protect myself, not to protect the general public.

I am not really interested in whether or not criminals reduce their crimes. I do know that my guns give ME the ability to fight back if I have to. My wife has already used her gun once to save her life. That's all the proof I need.

You are aware that after FL became shall-issue, there was a huge jump in robberies of people in rental cars, aren't you? Do you remember that? Now you may wish to ask yourself why criminal suddenly went on a rental car robbery spree?

[Verbalent]

185. There are better ways to protect yourself

Carrying a gun adds to your risk, not reduces it. See the repeated references in this thread to the 714 accidental firearms deaths every year compared to the 182 justifiable firearms homicides each year.

As far as having the ability to fight back, there are much safer ways to give you the ability to fight back, such as chemical spray. You can also improve your safety by carrying a loud alarm siren or whistle. A roll of nickels is legal, weighs less and is less bulky than a gun and won't accidentally go off and kill or wound you like concealed carry permit holder Plaxico Burress's gun did, and yet when held in the fist will turn an otherwise ineffectual punch into a powerful dissuader. Canes, walking sticks, Tasers and knives can all be defensive weapons that won't kill you.

By far the most popular ways to get out of trouble are to run, hide, yell or scream for help, beg for mercy and as a last resort, play dead. And they have worked, too, for survivors of all sorts of crimes, from robbery to mass shootings.

On the other hand, as far as I have been able to determine, never has a private citizen without law enforcement background used a legally concealed handgun to successfully intervene in a spree shooting involving three or more fatalities. Yet concealed carry permit holders themselves engage in multiple mass homicides annually, the latest just yesterday.

[GreenStormCloud]

191. As usual, you conflate Legal with Illegal carry.

We all admit that people who have guns illegally are a huge problem.

Despite you attempts to demonize CCWer, our record is superior to that of any other demographic.

You continue to assume that everybody is physically fit. You suggestions for other self-defense methods are laughable, especially the so-called loud alarms. Have you ever heard one of those? They aren't loud at all.

Beg for mercy? We often post news of people who have done exactly that, and got killed.

Run? A young mugger can easily outrun a senior citizen.

There have been several occasions in which private citizens have stopped a spree shooting. You didn't look very hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting
"...assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham..."

As I have previously stated, I and my wife carry to protect ourselves, not the general public. She has used her gun to safe her life a few years ago. She has asthma so any chemical sprays could be fatal to her if she breathed it while trying to resist. At the time, she was alone with no one else around for several blocks, at night. Tasers are bulky and only good for one shot. A person high on drugs or adrenalin can yank the Taser wires out of their body. She is an older woman and even with a roll of nickels a young street tough would not be impressed with any of her punches, nor would he be impressed with mine either. Her gun did impress him.

Further, you consider the justifiable homicides as the only gun saves. You are unwilling to count the times, as in my wife's incident, in which the would-be assailant runs away as a defensive gun use. Her use of her gun definately saved her life, even if she didn't kill anybody.

[Verbalent]

199. Familiar arguments

I have heard these countless times.

Myrick's gun was not legally concealed. Jeanne Assam is a former cop. The Appalachian School of Law interveners were both off-duty cops.

No legally concealed gun has been used by an American citizen without law enforcement background to successfully intervene in a mass shooting involving three or more fatalities. It's always a cop, ex-cop or the gun was retrieved from a home or other location besides a concealed carry permit holder's quick-draw kydex shoulder holster.

I've made this statement in many threads on this topic, and never been shown otherwise. It's surprising, given the 5 million concealed carry permit holders in this country, and the fact that many mass shootings -- contrary to claims otherwise -- have taken place where guns are not prohibited. Examples include Michael McClendon, Frank Garcia, Richard Poplawski and, just two days ago, Christopher Speight. But there it is. The scenario so often put forth as justification for expanding concealed carry laws has never, in fact, occurred. It remains entirely theoretical, as far as I can tell.

[GreenStormCloud]

208. I carry to protect me, and my wife.

She carries to protect herself and me.

Neither of us uses shoulder holsters. Texas is too damn hot to wear a coat in July. S&W 642 in trouser pocket, or Bersa .380 in waist under a guayabera shirt.

There have been several cases in which a CCWer shot a criminal who had already started shooting. The criminal didn't get to be a mass murderer because they got stopped early, but you won't count them. There was a recent case of a CCWer who shot a robber, who had already started shooting, in the back of the head with no warning. The robber's shots didn't hit anybody, so he didn't even get to be a murderer.

There are many cases of CCWers getting involved, and stopping the crime. How many of those would have become mass murders? But since the shooter was stopped, they definately didn't become mass murders.

Do we have to wait until the shooter has killed four people before we can get involved. If we get involved at the first shot, or even when the BG brings out his gun, doesn't that count? Of course, according to you, it doesn't. Because you are operating on Faith that guns are bad, and CCWers are demons.

[burrfoot]

177. You're doing it again.

As far as I've seen, your statistic about accidental firearms deaths has nothing to do with whether or not they're carrying, or a CCW holder.

But you keep referencing it as if it means something about CCW's.

You realize, I assume, that a CCW is not needed to own a weapon? I'd suggest you try and suss out the numbers of CCW holders involved in accidental firearms deaths. Then, the numbers you keep referencing may actually be relevant to this whole conversation.

No rush. We can wait.

:beer:

[burrfoot]

179. Actually,

I think your argument is a great example of why one should (if they choose, of course) carry a firearm.

In a "victimization" example (i.e., bad guy assaults/attacks/mugs/etc.), the "swift" and "strong" party tends to be the aggressor. As you so aptly quoted, then, they are the one to bet on.

By responsibly carrying a concealed weapon, you have the chance to at least even out the playing field and possibly gain the advantage.

Note I'm talking about possibilities here, not guarantees. I think most here who carry would agree that doing so does not make one invincible, but rather gives one an option in response to a situation that they wouldn't have otherwise. And a response that, at least an average of 182 times a year, prevented a felony and perhaps (because I haven't looked up each incident) saved lives.

[Hare K Beauregard]

98. That is accurate

..I was out walking with my wife and dissuaded an armed mugger in like manner as you describe.

I did not report the incident because I did not want to face the possibility of a police officer giving me a hard time about my actions instead of actively looking for an "average by average 20 year old male" who took off running.

[Verbalent]

100. No doubt

Similar events occur countless times, almost certainly. The key word is countless. No one knows how often waving a gun deters a legitimate threat, because the episodes are not always or even often reported. That's why it's important to compare deaths. We count deaths very carefully indeed. And the FBI reports only 182 justifiable firearms homicides by civilians each year. Compare that to 714 annual accidental gun deaths. It looks like nearly four times as many people die in gun accidents as are justifiably killed while committing a felony. This makes it hard to say that it is smart to hide a loaded pistol in your pocket while going about your daily routine.

[Hare K Beauregard]

104. Statistics don't really help if you're the exception to some rule.

Guns don't just "go off" accidentally. Somebody screws up. I've carried a gun for 30 + years. I've used it twice and have had zero accidents and didn't kill anybody.

Statistics are irrelevant to me in this matter. I carry a gun because I perceive that I need one based on abilities I possess amd also based on my assessment of the environment in which I live. I've made a decision to be able to fight back when I am threatened. I have not only armed myself, but have also trained extensively with my weapon. I have also studied empty hand martial arts and the use of a cane and a knife defensively.

I also assiduously avoid confrontations or even altercations with anyone and I work hard to be aware of my environment and the potential bad actors within it.

[Verbalent]

109. Statistics irrelevant

Perhaps you are, in fact, a special case. But there have been cases of experienced firearms instructors killing themselves or others in firearms accidents. And there is always the risk of suicide -- perhaps you are immune to that as well. I think, perhaps, that you are mistaken in considering statistics irrelevant. I know that many people, for reasons of great civic responsibility or paranoia or perhaps gun obsession or whatever, are absolutely determined that they must be permitted to hide loaded pistols under their clothing wherever they go. And nothing anybody can say will convince them that's an unsafe, unnecessary bad idea. You may be one of those.

[Hare K Beauregard]

111. Accidents do happen...

...but they are just that, accidents, and they are not that common considering how many people legally and safely carry a handgun on a regular, even daily, basis.

Because you think that it is "unnecessary and a bad idea" to carry a firearm for protection does not actually mean that your opinion is actually reasonable. There are those who feel incompetent to use a firearm to defend themselves, or anyone else. Perhaps it is weakness or cowardice or some misguided moral principle that causes them to believe that in addition to not choosing to carry a means of self-defense themselves, they would also use their peculiar obsession to deny the right to others to defend themselves.

You may be one of those.

[Verbalent]

125. That's a strange argument

Perhaps I am peculiar. On the other hand, approximately 98 percent of American adults do not insist that they must be able to walk around in public with loaded handguns secreted beneath their jackets. Perhaps the 2 percent are the peculiar ones.

I find it equally peculiar to suggest that a man who does not feel the need to hide a loaded pistol in his clothing in order to protect himself from attack as he goes about his daily business is somehow weaker and more fearful than someone who does.

[Hare K Beauregard]

130. Do as you please..

...and I will do the same.

But I can and will respond when people of your ilk make reference to me and mine as "paranoid."

You say that 98% of American adults don't carry a concealed weapon. That means that criminal assailants have to be concerned that 1 person out of every fifty that he perceives as a potential target is capable of meeting him with deadly force. That would be a significant concern to the bad guys. Their first assessment is usually to determine how easy or difficult their target would be to take down. They do consider such things.

I plan to be capable of fighting back if I am attacked. Such attacks do occur. Your stance reminds me of the old French Proverb:

"Cet animal est tres merchant; quand on l'attaque, il se defend."

"What a wicked animal; when attacked, he defends himself."

Perhaps I am "peculiar" to use your phrase. I don't really mind as I am content to be a Two-Percenter.

I have also noticed, over the years, that when 98 percent of the people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing.

Cordially

HK Beauregard
Two-Percenter

[Verbalent]

131. Little problem with precedence

Actually, Hare, you were the one who employed "peculiar" to refer to me. I may well be peculiar in many regards. But one of them is not in my lack of interest in concealing a loaded handgun in my armpit on a daily basis. In that, I am traveling with the herd.

I don't recall previously using in this thread the word "paranoid" to refer to people who insist on secretly carrying loaded pistols in their pockets in public. It's one possible explanation, perhaps, but I'm not aware of any reliable research into the motivations of these individuals.

I'm also aware of little research into the inner thought processes of violent criminals. Quite a few years ago there was a report that described burglars as being concerned about encountering armed residents. Those findings are widely quoted today, but I am not sure how relevant they are to this discussion.

[Hare K Beauregard]

151. I called you peculiar...

...that is correct, and you are the one who made reference to "paranoia" in your post, and I objected to being referred to as paranoid or having paranoid tendencies.

So yes, I did refer to you as peculiar. That is correct.

I would like to say unequivocally, however, that I never called you a picayune, nor did I infer that you were or are picayunish.

[Verbalent]

157. You are a lucky dude

I will put up with a lot. But if there is one thing that excites my irresistible wrath, it is being called picayunish, much less an actual picayune. So consider yourself fortunate that you have avoided that misstep. I am not a man to be trifled with.

For my part, I certainly should never have used the term "paranoid" to refer to people who insist on concealing loaded pistols in their pockets before going out to pick up their dry cleaning. It fact, that is just one of many possible explanations for this behavior, and to employ the term in an unqualified descriptive manner may well be unforgivable. Nevertheless, I ask your pardon. Can you grant it?

[Hare K Beauregard]

206. See, I know people gots limits....

....and when a man goes calling somebody anything even resembling picayunish or....(shudders)...a picayune...bad things would happen....Bad Things.

Thank God the better angels of my nature, plus my own good judgment, prevented me from making such an egregious error.

And, I forgive you for saying paranoid.

Now I'm going to confirm again that the doors and windows are locked, and check my toothpaste for hidden explosives.

Good night, Sweet Prince.

[GreenStormCloud]

144. Let's take a closer look at your statistic.

You say that only about 2% of us have CCWs. Well, only about half of the American population lives in a shall-issue state, so half of the population doesn't get a chance to be armed. Rounded off, our population is about 310 million. So only 155 million are in states that give the choice. But how many of those 150 million are not yet 21? Roughly about 1/3 of the country is underage. So about 100 million are eligible.

Then there are the ones who can't get a permit. Reasons for not being able to would be prior convictions, not intelligent enough to pass the course, or TOO POOR. It takes money, even in a shall-issue state to get a permit. There is the cost of the classes and the application, cost of the gun, cost of the ammo needed to practice so you can be proficient enough to pass the shooting part of the test, and cost of the gun club membership so you can practice at an indoor range. That all adds up. What percentage is too poor? Hard to say. Lets knock obout 1/2.

So we have about 50 million who may want to, and can. The number of CCWs in the U.S. is estimated at 5 million.

So about 10% of the adult population that is in a shall-issue state, and has the money, has chosen to carry.

[Verbalent]

147. Your analysis lacks crediblity

That is not a close look at a statistic. It is primarily speculation restrained by little, if any, real information. The business about being too poor to pay for classes, when many states don't require classes, and buy ammunition and gun club membership for practicing, when many states require little or no proficiency tests, is nonsense.

As for the rest, a number of better-informed people have estimated that when states pass shall-issue laws 1 to 4 percent of the population elects to get a permit.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. Your estimate of 2% is full of beans too.

The best estimates of CCW permit holders in the U.S. is about 5 million. Population of the U.S. is about 308 million, rounded to 310 million.

(5/310) X 100 = 1.6%

But as I pointed out, and you ignore, half the population lives in states that are NOT shall-issue. May-issue states are extremely restrictive in who may carry, so for the average citizen they are effectively no-issue.

As I pointed out, and you ignore, about 1/3 of the population of the U.S. is under 21.

So you are claiming as "choosing not to carrry" people who legally can't carry.

[Verbalent]

155. Hair splitting serves no purpose

Whether it's 2 percent or 10 percent, the fact remains that I am not peculiar. Those who chose to conceal a loaded gun under their sweaters when they go out to walk the dog are peculiar. Not that it matters. Who cares whether someone is peculiar? This issue came up because someone said I was peculiar and I pointed out the obvious fact that I am in the great majority in feeling quite comfortable going to the shopping mall without a bulldog .44 snugged in a quick-draw shoulder holster.

[GreenStormCloud]

164. You are welcome not to carry, and I respect your right.

Please respect my right to carry.

[GreenStormCloud]

142. Risk of suicide?

Are you saying that a gun is somehow magically empowered to give off a mind-control field. Is it like the Ring of Sauron, that has a life of its own? Funny, but I have been around guns since birth, and haven't felt like offing myself.

Lots of ways for a person to kill themselves. Hamlet didn't have any guns, and he was obsessed with the idea. "Oh, to be, or not to be..." Didn't you have to memorize that in high school? Well, for me it isn't a question.

If you will care to check the statistics, CCWers are far safer than the general public. You are 27 times more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to be killed by a CCWer.

[Verbalent]

145. I did check the statistics

I found that 373 is the average number of lightning strikes in the U.S. per year from 1959 to 1994. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd18jun99_1.htm

While it's likely that the VPC's counts of killings by concealed carry permit holders is not 100 percent accurate, it would have to be off by several hundred percent to support the statement that you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning (not killed, just struck) than to be killed by a concealed carry permit holder. That is, there could only be about 14 killings by concealed carry permit holders each year.

This is clearly not the case. Just two concealed carry permit holders -- Michael McClendon and George Sodini -- killed 13 people in 2009.

The problem with guns and suicide is that not related to mind control fields. Guns don't cause people to attempt suicide. The problem is that firearms suicide attempts are far more effective than any other method.

I congratulate on your mental health. Suicidal depression is a common illness in the U.S., one of the leading causes of death, especially for men. It strikes sometimes out of the blue, willy-nilly. If a man gets divorced, for instance, his risk of suicide nearly triples. Job loss, death of a spouse and other unpredictable and uncontrollable events also raise risk of suicide.

[GreenStormCloud]

153. The odds are still strongly with lightning.

I will try to find my old post and reconstruct where I got the number 27 from.

For right now, let's use your numbers and VPC's numbers.

107 fatalities over 32 months. That averages 40 per year. 373 lightning strikes per year. Lightning wins by a factor of 9.

[Verbalent]

156. Probably "Gun Facts"

I imagine that or someplace similar is where you got that snippet of misinformation. My approach is to go to the primary source, in this case NOAA. I naturally mistrust and rarely mention figures from advocacy organizations, one exception being the VPC report that initiated this discussion and which, as I've previously stated, almost certainly greatly understates even the detectable killings by concealed carry permit holders.

My direct survey of nationwide media reports turned up 60 unjustifiable homicides, accidental deaths and suicides attributable to concealed carry permit holders over a 12-months period ending in August 2009. I'm happy to provide a list of names.

My extrapolation of Tennessee killers matching names, ages and cities of residence of people in the online Tennessee concealed carry permit holder database, suggests an estimate of 170 killings by concealed carry permit holders nationwide during the year ended in August.

No doubt, I possess serious limitations as a criminologist. But cutting and pasting from "Gun Facts," the NRA website or one of the innumerable gun-fancier blogs contributes very little to the discussion.

[X_Digger]

159. See what happens when you 'assume'?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=278818

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/probability.html

USA population = 280,000,000

1000 lightning victims/year/average

Odds = 1 : 280,000 of being struck by lightning

Even if you use NOAA's data (http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm)

"Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries) 1/500,000"

Which would mean that CCW's are "only" 14 times less likely to kill you than be killed or injured by lighting.

Do you notice the difference between the two stats? (struck vs killed / injured) My great grandfather was struck by lighting without being injured.

Pretty simple math, really.

[Verbalent]

160. It may be simple math...

...but I'd appreciate it if you show your work, since I can't figure out what you're talking about from your post.

I could swear I've already objected once to your unwarranted condescension. Perhaps you're actually being disingenuous with this "pretty simple math" business.

And, in any event, my post clearly noted that the NOAA numbers were for all lightning strikes, including non-fatal. What do you mean by "did you notice the difference?" I don't get it.

[X_Digger]

165. Two different sources, similar data..

.. my condescension is from your 'gunnie data' assumption- when GreenStormCloud actually went to a lightning strike safety source. No 'NRA data' involved. Your NASA link and my NOAA source both derive from the NWS's Storm Data publication. NOAA estimates a certain amount of under-reporting for lightning strikes to people, hence their estimated probability is higher than yours. (1 in 500,000 vs your 1 in 800,000 based on 373 reported injuries + deaths.)

[GreenStormCloud]

166. Click on the top link. The work is shown in the original OP.

BTW - The source is NOT a gun site. I got the source numbers from VPC (Same place the OP of this thread got his numbers.) and from the National Lightning Safety Institute.

Do you enjoy the taste of crow? I didn't use a gun site as you accused me of.

[GreenStormCloud]

167. Thanks for looking up my old thread.

I worked midnight shift and was just about to start looking for that thread when I saw your post. I have noticed that there are enough reference to it that I have not saved the URC of that post.

[GreenStormCloud]

154. There are other suicide methods that are far more effective than guns, and not as messy.

If the time comes when I decide that I need to exit life's stage, it won't be with a gun. That is way too messy. After taking care of all affairs, selling off or giving everything away and so on, I will breath pure nitrogen. That is fast, taking only a few minutes, painless, and 100% effective, and doesn't leave a mess.

There could be events in which a choice of death with dignity would, for me, be rational. As a young person I witness an elderly man die slowly, with pain, over a period of four years. If that comes to me, or something similar, I will fight to retain my dignity.

[Verbalent]

158. Sounds reasonable

I can definitely think of a few diagnoses that could impel me toward self-elimination. Amyotropic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease, for one, and, even worse, primary lateral sclerosis. That's a death sentence that can take 10 years to get to the promised land and it's anything but a pretty ride, based on my personal observation of a relative's experience with it. It's good to have the painless breathing of nitrogen as a fallback. But where do you get the stuff?

[GreenStormCloud]

168. I don't know where to get it. I will wait until I will need it to solve that problem.

Now you have gotten me curious. Googled "Bottled Nitrogen Gas Suppliers". Lots of hits, including three paid hits.

[one-eyed fat man]

169. the airport, Airgas, Modern Welding,

Dry nitrogen is routinely used to service struts and tires on turbine aircraft. The military uses it to purge optical sights and pressurize hydraulic accumulators. Military aircraft use nitrogen to inert fuel systems to reduce fire risks. Any welding supply or industrial gas company in your area would likely have it.

It is all around you and 80% of what you're breathing now. Take away the oxygen and what's left does not support combustion,

[Verbalent]

170. Nitrogen

Now that I think about it, Costco fills your tires with when you buy them there. So if I start feeling too bleak, I can just hook up to the valve on my spare and be done with it.

[Euromutt]

202. And other methods that are as effective, but more messy

I believe jumping in front of an oncoming train has a comparable chance of resulting in death as a self-inflicted GSW, except you're going to traumatize the driver for life and disrupt rail traffic for hours.

BASE-jumping sans parachute tends to be pretty effective too, if the jumping-off point is high enough. Also tends to traumatize onlookers and disrupt traffic.

And the big thing in Japan in recent years is hydrogen sulfide gas, readily created by mixing certain household chemicals. Because it doesn't dissipate very quickly, a single H2S suicide can require the evacuation of an entire apartment building, and hospitalize anyone inadvertently affected by the gas.

Self-strangulation (e.g. hanging) is not much less effective than shooting, especially if you plan it right.

[GreenStormCloud]

105. Now please separate out the Legal guns from the Illegal ones.

The problem with those stats is that they count both the gang-banger with no trainging and a disregard for safety with the CCWer who has been trained and tested. All of us will readily accept that a person who has a gun illegally is a high risk situation. We maintain that those who own guns legally are rarely a problem.

[Hare K Beauregard]

106. I agree. nt

[Verbalent]

108. Misconceptions

Concealed carry permit holders are typically poorly trained, inadequately screened, minimally tested and utterly unsupervised. Pennsylvania, among others, requires no training whatsoever. Nidal Hasan got a Virginia concealed carry permit. People in New Hampshire and Alaska don't have to have any training or testing to carry concealed weapons legally.

[X_Digger]

112. Care to back that up?

That's a mighty wide brush you're swinging there.

In Texas, you have to have 10 hours of training on Texas use of force statutes, conflict resolution, safe storage, and score 80% on a test on the same. You also have to demonstrate proficiency with a firearm in a live fire test. DPS screens for any conviction in the state for anything other than a moving violation, plus runs a criminal background check with every county you've lived in for the past five years. They fingerprint you, and run your name and prints through the FBI. As far as 'supervision', Texas maintains stats on conviction of permit holders for all crimes, and publishes demographic data on all permit holders. They track and publish by county the number of new licenses, renewals, denials, revocations, and suspensions.

[Hare K Beauregard]

113. In Florida..

...I had to take a class that involved handgun safety, shooting proficiency (actually demonstrating that you could fire the weapon and hit the target), and the applicable state laws concerning the use of firearms for self-defense.

That was several years ago. In Georgia, no such course was required. I guess it varies from state to state.

I think the classes are a good idea.

[Verbalent]

127. If the brush fits

Texas has its requirements and other states have different requirements that vary from more rigorous to nonexistent. There is no question that Pennsylvania requires no training to get a concealed handgun license, that Alaska and New Hampshire do not even require a permit to carry a concealed pistol and that Nidal Hasan once had a Virginia concealed carry permit.

It's worth noting that in Texas a 16-year-old must have 32 hours of classroom instruction and 14 hours of behind-the-wheel instruction to get a driver's license. And yes, I know that more people die in car wrecks than from firearms, but that is a simplistic analysis. A better way to look at the subject is to compare numbers of deaths to hours of use. In that sense, cars are fractionally as dangerous as guns. The difference, of course, is that there is no teenage driver lobby comparable to the NRA making political donations and twisting legislators' arms to see that their special interests are attended to.

[X_Digger]

133. Please visit http://www.handgunlaw.us

You can research the training requirements of all states in one place.

No training is the exception, not the rule. I randomly looked up 7-8 states' requirements, and other than PA, they all required training.

The range of requirements is not indicative of the average. If I said "Salaries at my company range from $8/hr to $100,000,000/yr", that would have no bearing on the average joe's salary.

[Verbalent]

135. That's not what I found

Thanks. X_Digger. I had a different experience at the site. The first state I checked, New Mexico, did not seem to require any training. Nor did the second, Indiana. In any event, I don't mean to claim that the average concealed carry permit holder has no training -- although this may be the case -- only that some, probably many and perhaps most states require no training whatsoever before permitting someone to walk around in public with a loaded pistol hidden under clothing. My efforts to find a reference that totals all states requiring no training have been unsuccessful so far, and I'm too lazy to check every state at wwww.handgunlaw.us. The only such statement that site makes is that some states require training and others don't.

[X_Digger]

138. If you don't have time to do the research..

.. then please be careful swinging 'many, and most' around.

I found 10 states that require no training, and 27 that do.


States that I found on light perusal that require training:
TX
MA
OH
WV
VA
NC
SC
FL
KY
TN
MN
MO
LA
ND
NE
KS
OK
WY
CO
NM- not sure where you got that this state doesn't require training - "(4) a certified copy of a certificate of completion for a firearms training course approved by the department;"
ID
UT
AZ
OR
CA
DE
MD- training required for _some_ people. MD is a 'may issue' state and the requirements are vague.

Some states that don't list training required at handgunlaw.us
GA
VT
AL
MS
IN
AR
SD
MT
WA
PA


eta: added PA

eta2: Something interesting.. in states that are 'may issue' aka 'shall infringe' (where you have to "know someone", be famous, or contribute to a certain sheriff's political campaign fund to get a permit,) there are generally less training requirements- if any- than in 'shall issue' states. NJ and NY state are examples.

[Verbalent]

140. Thanks for the info

And thanks for the tip, too. It appears that "many," as opposed to "some" or "most," is the best term to use when discussing states that require no training to obtain permits to secretly carry loaded pistols around in public.

[PavePusher]

114. Can you show a preponderance of evidence...

that states with harsher training standards have higher or lower crime/accident/suicide rates with firearms than states that have less onerous requirements?

I will note that I am a legal resident of Vermont (currently stationed in Arizona). Vermont requires no training or licence and has a rather low crime rate. Arizona has a moderate training requirement and has a medium-to-high crime rate, much of which is directly attributable to drug- and people-smuggling.

[Verbalent]

128. Not that I know of

I'm not aware of any such studies. Perhaps if there were, they'd show training is useless.

It's not possible to determine crime rate by looking only at gun policy. For instance, Alaska, which has similar requirements to Vermont, has a violent crime rate of 661.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. Vermont's rate is 124.3.

Illinois, which has no legal concealed carry provisions, has a violent crime rate of 533.2. Florida, which I believe has more concealed carry permit holders than any state, has a violent crime rate of 722.6. These are from the FBI's 2007 "Crime In The United States" report: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html.

[Euromutt]

118. It's the joke about the drunk guy looking for his keys under the street light again

You know the one: upon being asked, the drunk guy explains that he dropped his house keys in an alley forty feet away, but he's looking for them under the street light, even though that's not where the keys are, "because the light is better here."

No one knows how often waving a gun deters a legitimate threat, because the episodes are not always or even often reported. That's why it's important to compare deaths. We count deaths very carefully indeed.

In other words, we should look under the street light because the light is better there.

[Verbalent]

129. Ah yes, I've heard that before

It's a very old joke indeed and it occurred to me as I was writing that post, as it has previously when I was looking into this for my own amusement. By mentioning it now you are proposing an analogy and like most analogies, by itself, it proves nothing.

And in this case the limits of its relevance are clear: We are not, in fact, looking for a single set of car keys that can only be in one place.

Instead we are looking for an understanding of whether it is a good idea to go around with a loaded handgun secreted in your pocket. That understanding can be found in many places other than by examining unrecorded, unreported, unverified gun-waving and warning shots (I'm looking nonfatal injury information.) One place it can be understood is by looking at fatalities, which are carefully counted and studied so we understand the background. Given that the devices at hand are distinguished by their ability to deliver lethal force, lethal uses seem to be particularly relevant.

[Euromutt]

173. Evidently, you haven't drawn the lesson from it

And in this case the limits of its relevance are clear: We are not, in fact, looking for a single set of car keys that can only be in one place.

Nevertheless, you are advocating looking only under the streetlight, and dismissing the more obscure locations; not because the data one might gather from those locations is not germane to the question, but because that data is--in your opinion, at least--too difficult to uncover.

If we were to ask whether it is a good idea for law enforcement to be armed, would you go about answering that question by taking the number of suspects shot annually, and weighing it against the number of officers killed or wounded in training accidents, by negligent discharges, in crossfires, innocent civilians shot by mistake, etc.? Would it be reasonable dismiss instances where a crime was interrupted by the intervention of an armed officer and the suspect fled, or instances where the suspect surrendered without shots being fired because the statistics weren't readily available?

So at this juncture, I have to ask: exactly what is it that you are trying to determine? Because if you're trying to make a sound cost/benefit analysis of keeping and/or carrying a firearm for self-defense against violent crime, you seem hell-bent on ignoring what, according to the best available research, constitutes over 90% of DGUs. I think I might be forgiven for thinking you were trying to cherry-pick data to "prove" that firearms aren't very effective means of self-defense.

[Verbalent]

183. Why not look at Dade County?

Check the reference I made in this thread to the Kopel and Cramer report on concealed carry. It describes records collected by the Dade Country police over five years indicating only one in 10,000 violent crimes were interrupted by an armed concealed carry permit holder. Certainly, this data can be criticized by those who point out that not all concealed carry permit holder interventions are likely to be reported to police. But it is hard data, and it suggests that criminals aren't worried about concealed carry permit holders, because they very rarely encounter them. Also note that, in at least one instance, the criminal overpowered the citizen and took his gun and in only one instance -- a dog attack -- did the concealed carry permit holder actually fire his or her weapon. In all the others, especially including the case where the robber took the citizen's weapon, the concealed carry permit holder would have been just as well served by carrying a fake gun instead of a real one.

SO when we look at the available data -- to continue the metaphor -- away from the streetlight, we get a much less clear picture that still supports what we find when we look at the very sharp, clear information about fatalities. That shows that carrying a loaded pistol under your coat in public is not reflective of a rational assessment of risks.

[X_Digger]

184. Yet that's where the data is.. away from the streetlight..

Lament the fact that the data isn't better, and call for better data to be recorded, but draw no conclusions from incomplete data- that would be intellectually dishonest, now wouldn't it?

[Verbalent]

188. That's the second time

you've describe me as intellectually dishonest, I believe. But I don't really understand what you mean. Can you explain?

[X_Digger]

190. If it isn't apparent..

.. that giving equivalence to two numbers that don't represent the true range of lawful use of guns just because the additional data is hard to find / hasn't been measured reliably is intellectually dishonest, I can't help you there.

Here, let me map it out:

Justifiable Homicides
X = 1

Accidental deaths and / or injuries from firearms
Y = 2

Defensive gun uses that don't fall into Justifiable Homicides, or cases rules Justifiable Homicide after reporting to FBI
Z = ?


In essence what you've said is that because Y > X, 'Gunz = Bad!'

When in reality, X + Z > Y , aka 'Gunz != Bad'

[Verbalent]

201. Indeed, you're not helping me

But, still, a little mental exercise is good, right?

There's a category of events we're ignoring. Those are times when guns are used in a negative way that doesn't produce a death or injury. Examples: A gun is used to rob someone, a gun is used to threaten someone. I'm not sure whether or how we should include those. Any ideas?

[X_Digger]

204. UCR expanded data, BJS, NCVS, FBI..

The BJS published a study of the NCVS that only 30% of violent crime involves firearms of any kind (approx 1.3m in 1993), probably lower in number now as crime is overall lower than the early 90's.

Of those offenders, 18% of state and 15% of federal inmates were armed at the time of the crime for which they were convicted. 75% had previously served time for a conviction that made them ineligible to possess a firearm, which goes a long way to explain why ~40% of their guns were from 'friends/family', and ~40% were from 'street/illegal source'.

Now, given the above, how do you tie people possessing a gun illegally in the commission of a crime to those with clean records who choose to carry concealed weapons?

Sure, it's another 'category of events' but you were making the assertion that 'carrying a gun is a stupid idea' (post #182) based on comparing accidental gun deaths to justified homicides. Smearing concealed carry licensees, who by definition have to have a clean record by comparing them to felons using guns in crimes is relevant how, exactly?

Here's some more reading for you..

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

[Euromutt]

213. "After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm." (sic)

Source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm

Admittedly, that does include simple (i.e. non-aggravated) assaults, which are the most common type of violent crime (in 2008, 3.3 million simple assaults formed ~67% of a total of 4.9 million nonfatal violent crimes), and of course, any assault with a firearm is by definition an aggravated assault.

The number of reported crimes committed with firearms has been below 400,000/year since 1998; the gun crime rate has been below 130/100,000 since 1999 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/guncrimetab.cfm). It might be noted that the lowest the gun crime rate came in 1973-1997 was 139.4 (in 1977 and 1984); i.e. the gun crime rate has now been lower for eleven years running than it was for the preceding 25 (and probably more).

[GreenStormCloud]

194. We don't carry to protect the general public.

We are NOT wannabe cops. We carry to protect ourselves. Most DGUs are not reported to the police because there isn't anything to report. The crime was prevented and you can't report a crime that didn't happen.

Despite my assertation, and the tactical schools all teach the same, that warning the criminal is a dangerous, most CCWers will give the criminal a chance to break off the threat. Exception is if the assault has already commenced, then you have to shoot. So if the criminal is in the stalk phase of the attack, and breaks off when he realized that his target is armed, no crime has been committed. Nothing to report.

Despite your claim of having been the victim of violent crime, you don't seem to have learned much about violent criminals. I think you are angry at those of us who choose not to be compliant victims because we reject victim status. You hate us because we point to a way that you could have taken to prevent being beaten, but didn't. I may be a senior citizen, but I refuse to be an easy victim.

[Verbalent]

203. I believe you're mistaken

Surely it is a moral and practical if not legal requirement to report crimes, including those interrupted by waving a gun -- or even a replica of a gun. Certainly, you have the ability report it any time you personally are threatened with violence or are the victim of an attempted robbery, attempted rape, etc. Why wouldn't you? Don't you want the person who threatened you or tried to rob or rape you to be apprehended? Is the extent of your interest in the matter that you escaped?

I'm interested in the "stalk phase" you refer to. What is it, exactly?

Perhaps you can read my mind and discern my inner thoughts, feelings and motivations. If so you possess a special if not unique talent. More likely, however, you are attempting to attribute to me attitudes and emotions that you find comforting or supportive of your position. I've rarely if ever had anyone look into my secret heart of hearts and see anything there that they didn't want to see.

[X_Digger]

205. Try reporting it.. I did.. didn't go anywhere.

In 2007, after Hurricane Ike tore into Galveston, I was working on a telecom 'switch' (a relay substation) on the outskirts of town. A panhandler approached me and eventually drew a knife on me. I retrieved a handgun stored in my truck and pointed it at him. He fled. I radioed it in to the authorities, and about an hour later a DPS trooper stopped in to check on me. He took a statement, but later when I tried to get a report number to document for my job, no report had been filed.

[GreenStormCloud]

209. Criminals are predators, and behave as such.

To be a successful predator, whether one is an animal like a lion, or a human predator, there are certain methods that must be employed. Just as a lion can't suddenly kill a zebra, a human predator can't suddenly attack his prey, except perhaps from ambush. Like the lion, he has to hunt his prey and the hunt has to go through certain phases.

Phase 1. Go to hunting grounds. Some areas have more victims that others do. A mugger who goes to an empty parking lot is not going to have much success. He has to go where, and when, there is a greater likelyhood of victims. Such spots are parking lots and garages at night during busy hours, ATMs at night, and so on.

Phase 2. Victim selection. A single lion will not attempt to kill a grown elephant, or an adult cape buffalo. Lions perfer easier prey that isn't so dangerous to them. Criminals do the same. A 5'6" mugger won't try to try to take on a 6'6" muscle man unless the mugger has a weapon. He, like the lion, will want prey that is easy and not so dangerous to him.

Phase 3. The stalk. Once the selection has been made, the predator must approach close enough to the victim that he can rush and attack. Usually, when he spots the victim the predator is too far away to be able to attack. Some criminals will attempt to use ambush tactics, in which they will find a likely spot and wait for whatever victim comes close enough.

The stalk phase is a rich time for the victim to employ counter-tactics to non-violently stop the crime before it starts. There are numerous books that are written on this, including some that don't advocate guns. They ALL insist that the person absolutely must practice situational awareness. Prey animals do that, being constantly alert for the lion sneaking up through the grass. By avoiding ambush sites and being very aware of what is happening around you, one can usually avoid the trouble early. Often, simply making eye contact with the suspicious person will be enough. They will know that they have been spotted and will break off the stalk.

Other criminals will then shift to deception if they think they have been spotted. They will usually try to engage victim in converstation, giving them a reason why they must approach close. People are afraid to be rude, and will usually allow the approach, and then they are suddenly assaulted.

Phase 4. The attack. The predator is close enough and makes the attack. If this is the first time you become aware of trouble, your gun is unlikely to be of help, unless you are lucky.

Phase 5. The getaway. A lion gets to settle down and eat, but a human criminal takes his spoils and runs. Too late for the victim, if they are still alive, to do anything. This is when the police get involved, and sometimes draw chalk outlines.

In my wife's case, she was always the first one to work while still dark, had the combination to the door, and would circle the parking area allowing her headlights to sweep the parking lot for suspicious persons. The parking lot was isolated so there was no reason for anybody to just happen to be there. She parked and began walking to the door, her hand already in her gun-pack holding her .38. Then a man emerged from behind the trees about 100 feet away, fast walking towards her. She put her back to the brick wall and commanded him to, "Stay away". He kept coming, saying that he needed directions. She again commanded, "Stay away". He kept coming, she pulled the gun out. He froze, turned, and ran away.

If he had been successful, he would have forced her to open the door, and would have then had to silence her while he burglarized the place. I doubt that she would have survived being silenced.

Although she reported it, nothing came of it. You see, there was no actual crime committed. The crime was stopped before it happened. It never made it to any statistics.

We can all discern other's thoughts, feelings, and motivations. It isn't a mystic talent. All of us do it every day, every time we meet someone we quickly size them us. People are almost always fairly consistent in their life's worldview. From your writings it is pretty easy to know where you are coming from, with respect to crime, self-defense, and guns.

Same with being able to read me. I am rather transparent, with respect to crime, self-defense, and guns.

[Euromutt]

214. Is Dade Co. representative of the entire US?

Kudos to the Dade Co. Sheriff's Dept. for maintaining meticulous records, and it certainly provides us with an interesting case study. But while a case study is a useful tool for formulating a hypothesis, it's not much good for testing the general applicability, because we don't know whether Dade County is representative of the United States as a whole, and indeed whether the first five years of CWPs becoming "shall issue" is representative of the current situation.

Let me acknowledge, for the sake of consistency, that we don't know whether the findings of the various studies on DGU frequency conducted in the early to mid-1990s are still applicable, not least because violent crime has dropped by half since 1993. A reduced violent crime rate would presumably also result in fewer attempted violent crimes to defend against, so it's not unreasonable to assume the number of DGUs will no longer be as high.

[X_Digger]

93. So where's this link you dotted line made?

How many of those 714 unintentional firearms fatalities are from those 'loaded pistols hidden under your clothing'?

Got anything to connect the two besides conjecture and wishful thinking?

eta: And the average from the FBI's UCR is 231 for the last 5 years- http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html (We don't know 2009's number yet.)

Additionally, the average was higher in years past, _before_ CCW's rise in many states-

"Over the five year period, 1993-1996, the police committed justifiable homicide an average of 398 times per year.<10> During the same period, the civilian public committed justifiable homicide an average of 299 times per year.<11> This latter figure may be lower than the true number if the FBI is unable to obtain the final outcomes of cases initially incorrectly categorized as unjustified. There were an average of 262.8 million people in the country<12> and 581,496 sworn police<13> during these same years."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm (Unfortunately, the UCR link from footnote 11 has been moved.)

[Verbalent]

96. Second try to reply

My earlier response vanished into the ether. Anyway, the reason our numbers are different is that mine include only justifiable firearms homicides by civilians, while yours include other weapons. Since we are discussing firearms, it seems sensible to restrict our conversation to justifiable firearms homicides.

I don't know how many of the 714 average accidental gun deaths can be blamed on hidden, loaded pistols or concealed carry permit holders.

[X_Digger]

117. So you tried to make a link where no evidence exists to support it?

That about the size of it?

[Verbalent]

122. Not at all

I'm not sure which link you're talking about. Are you saying that I must have data indicating how many of the accidental deaths were somehow connected to concealed carry permit holders?

[X_Digger]

124. You said..

"VPC aside, the FBI reports an average of 182 justifiable firearms homicides by civilians annually. These are defined as occurring during commission of a felony. That's not very many, considering there are about 5 million concealed carry permit holders.

The CDC reports an average of 714 unintentional firearms fatalities each year. That's about four times as many accidental gun deaths as justifiable firearms homicides.

Does this suggest that it's a good idea to go around in public with a loaded pistol hidden under your clothing?"

Your 'conclusion' appears to be that 'hey, since there were so few justified homicides by non-LEO compared to accidental shootings, does CCW make sense?'

And as rightly pointed out by Euromutt, that's disingenuous, as the number of justifiable homicides by non-LEO is not the only measure of defensive gun uses- it doesn't address non-fatal woundings, nor instances where a warning shot sufficed to deter a crime in progress, nor where the mere act of showing that one was armed deterred a crime.

If you really wish to look at defensive gun uses, do read up some. Estimates range from 100k to 2.5M uses annually.

[Verbalent]

126. I know what you mean

Certainly I'm familiar with the estimates for defensive gun uses, but thanks for pointing them out. I don't normally criticize others' spelling, punctuation or diction but, before you venture further into condescension, you may want to look up "disingenuous." I doubt that's the word you meant to use to describe the weaknesses in my argument.

One problem with looking at non-fatal defensive gun uses is just that: "estimates range from 100K to 2.5 million uses annually." When estimates differ by more than an order of magnitude, I think it's reasonable to conclude that we don't know all that much about something, and it might be wise to consider other measures that are far more accurate.

We do track deaths very carefully. And we know that the FBI says the latest five-year average for justifiable homicides by civilians is 182. The CDC says that the latest five-year average for unintentional firearms fatalities is 714. This is a ratio of nearly four accidental deaths to each justifiable firearm homicide. I'm happy to direct you to the links for this information if you're interested.

The useful thing about this approach is that it's close to comparing apples to apples. One thing lacking is data on the particular involvement of concealed carry permit holders in these deaths. How many of the 182 justifiable homicides were committed by concealed carry permit holders? How many of the accidental deaths? Even more specifically, how many of the accidental deaths occurred when concealed carry holders were walking around in public with loaded pistols hidden beneath their clothing?

It may be that there are numbers on non-fatal firearms accidents and justifiable shootings. Perhaps I'll see if I can find some.

[X_Digger]

132. Even if you take the lowest estimate- 100k

That's still two orders of magnitude higher than the number of accidental deaths.

That's more than 150 defensive uses of a gun for every single accidental death.

So my answer to your question- "Does this suggest that it's a good idea to go around in public with a loaded pistol hidden under your clothing?" is an enthusiastic YES!

[Verbalent]

134. Apples to oranges

This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The defensive gun use estimates include all kinds of events, from arguments where participants ran to get their guns to cases where someone heard noises in the night and fetched a weapon and but didn't hear anything else. To compare this broad and poorly counted category with the precise and accurate counts of accidental gun deaths produces no useful information.

One additional type of event that must be included, just to get started, is the number of non-fatal unintentional firearms injuries. This number, according to the CDC, was 17,215 in 2008. Unlike fatal firearms accidents, it's likely that this number is understated by some unknown amount. Probably many people are not motivated to report shooting themselves accidentally unless they have to. However, I'm not familiar with any way to estimate what this amount would be, so let's just say 17,215 is the number.

So orders of magnitude have come down to perhaps 5 to 1, and we still don't really know what we're dealing with on defensive gun use reports, nor whether we have comparable figures for all the bad things that can happen when you walk around in public with a loaded pistol hidden in your armpit.

[X_Digger]

136. You're stretching awfully hard..

.. to justify one category while trying to dismiss the other.

The FBI doesn't revise it's numbers of justifiable homicides by civilians based on final disposition. Therefore there will always be more shootings in a single year that will ultimately be ruled justifiable homicide that don't get reported as such due to legal proceedings being still in progress. It's not uncommon for a defensive shooter to be initially arrested, even though the prima fascie evidence points to legitimate exercise of lethal force. Thankfully, these arrests are going down, so this stat should improve in reliability over time.

Your 'apples to apples' comment still harkens back to the 'because the light is better here' comment by Euromutt.

The range of outcomes for one using a firearm in a defensive manner runs from "displayed firearm, didn't even draw, much less fire" to "death of perpetrator". To intentionally ignore these less than lethal consequences simply because estimates of their frequency vary is intellectually dishonest (given the question you posed, that is.) Risk assessment of whether one thinks it a good idea to carry _must_ include all the outcomes, otherwise it's not valid.

You assert undercounting in one place, overcounting in another, without evidence of either. Wishing won't make it so.

On another note..

The DGU rate studies all occurred in the 90's when there weren't as many states with 'shall issue' licensing and nowhere near as many concealed carry permit holders (current estimates are 5M). It wouldn't surprise me if the number of DGUs today were at least double the lowest estimate. (The NCVS study only works with crimes reported to the police. If you scare away a mugger by casually letting him know you're armed, and don't report it to police, that would not be included in the NCVS data.)

[Verbalent]

137. We may be going in circles here

I believe I explained that looking for understanding is not like looking for car keys. It does not reside in one single location. The analogy lacks relevance.

To make an accurate comparison it is necessary to compare similar events which are clearly defined and accurately counted. The area of fatalities represents such an opportunity. Defensive gun uses does not represent such an opportunity because it is poorly defined and poorly counted.

[X_Digger]

139. Wishful thinking circles, maybe..

You posed the question, then proceeded to use a sub-section of the criteria for making the decision as definitive. Actually, I mis-typed. You presented a selected slice of statistics and then proceeded to ask what I'm sure you thought was a rhetorical question, as though your stats somehow proved that concealed carry was a bad idea because of your stats.

I took your question on face value and explained why the answer you wished to solicit was not actually true. Even if there were half as many DGUs as the lowest estimate suggested, it would _still_ outnumber the accidental shootings and deaths in the US. If we take the highest estimate, it _wildly_ outnumbers the accidental shootings and deaths.

[Verbalent]

143. Define terms?

Just what is a defensive gun use, in your understanding or according to these estimates you refer to? I think I know what justifiable firearms homicides and unintentional firearms are. But defensive gun use seems a trifle nebulous.

[X_Digger]

148. Defensive Gun Use in the criminological literature..

usually refers to a range of use to stop or prevent a perceived crime. They include:
-display of a holstered firearm as deterrent
-unholstering a weapon, but not pointing it at a perpetrator
-pointing a firearm at a perpetrator
-firing a weapon without intent to hit the perpetrator (a 'warning shot')
-firing a weapon with intent to hit the perpetrator but missing
-firing a weapon and striking a perpetrator

[Verbalent]

149. Sounds good, but sez who?

Thanks, X_Digger. May I ask where that came from? Specifically, is that the definition used by the people who counted 100,000 instances of defensive gun use? On that topic, who were those people?

[X_Digger]

150. Criminology and Public Policy, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Visit your local library to see if they have them or can request it via inter-library loan.

Those criteria are indeed ones used in many of the studies, with a typical initial question asked like- "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Subsequent questions serve to validate the use, with lots of questions that one has to keep internally consistent in order to avoid a false positive 'use'.

Here's the link to the NCVS survey results- http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[Euromutt]

196. I can give you the criteria from the 1993 Kleck-Gertz study

For a reported incident to be counted as a DGU, the respondent had to:
- not be acting in a capacity as a law enforcement officer, members of the armed forces, or privat security guard;
- have actually seen the assailant;
- be able to articulate the type of offense he believed the assailant was trying to commit;
- have in some way displayed the firearm or made and explicit verbal reference to it.
Furthermore, the respondent had to give mutually consistent answers to 19 different questions about details of the incident (note that the respondents were "cold-called" and thus had no time to prepare a story), and then repeat it to another interviewer in a follow-up call.

The Kleck-Gertz study produced an estimate of 2.5 million DGUs annually. Using the same criteria, Cook & Ludwig produced an estimate of 1.5 million DGUs annually; the difference is explicable by the fact that Cook & Ludwig used a smaller sample size. There is plenty of overlap in the margins of error of both studies' findings.

Your description in post #134 of "cases where someone heard noises in the night and fetched a weapon and but didn't hear anything else" rings familiar. I've read that one cited as an example of a response recorded in the Kleck & Gertz study; what was implied was that this was the kind of response that Kleck & Gertz counted as a DGU. But since the respondent stated he didn't see any assailant, this is precisely an example of a response that failed to meet the criteria.

The bottom lines is this: while there has been much speculation why Kleck & Gertz' findings might not be valid, nobody has produced a jot of evidence (in the form of better research) to show that Kleck & Gertz were wrong. Even David Hemenway (a public health researcher with a noted anti-gun bias) produced findings that there are 900,000 DGUs annually (well over the number of recorded violent crimes involving firearms), and again, smaller sample size readily explains the discrepancy.

[burrfoot]

180. How many times

are you going to keep doing this, Verbalent? You keep throwing out this statistic of 714 unintentional firearms fatalities. That is not the same as unintentional firearms deaths caused by a CCW holder.

And CCW holders are, in fact, what we're talking about here.


:shrug:

[burrfoot]

176. Actually,

You played a little trick there. Intentionally or not, I have no idea. :shrug:

Unless you have a number of non-justified homicides committed by CCW holders annually to compare it to, all that number tells us is that 182 people are able to prevent a felony using their concealed weapon.

Even more significantly, your average of unintentional firearms fatalities has absolutely nothing to do with their possession of a CCW. Accordingly, that 714 number suggests absolutely nothing about whether it's a good idea or not to go around in public with a loaded pistol hidden under your clothing.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that those 182 people would say that going around in public with a loaded pistol under their clothing saved their lives, and/or the lives of others.

So actually, maybe those stats suggest that it is a good idea. Thanks for the confirmation!!


:toast:

[Verbalent]

181. Your assertion lacks support

Texas Department of Public Safety conviction reports for concealed carry permit holders for 2007 show two of 47 convictions for "criminal negligent homicide" were given to concealed carry permit holders. That is a rate of 4.25 percent which is about twice the percentage of Texas adults with concealed carry permits.

So is your assertion that concealed carry permit holders are safer gun handlers than the rest of us correct? Not in Texas in 2007, it appears.

The Texas DPS report also showed concealed carry permit holders accounted for one of 9 or 11 percent of people convicted of capital murder of multiple persons, That's about five times the rate of the general population.

As I've stated elsewhere, concealed carry permit holders seem to have a much greater taste for mass murder than the rest of us. Christopher Speight is the latest example of that.

[X_Digger]

189. Now who's reaching?

There were ~300,000 CHL holders in 2008. Four total convictions for homicide of any kind in 2007 by CHL holders. Rate of 1.3 / 100k.

There were 848 convictions stemming from 1419 murders in TX in 2007, with a population of 23M for a rate of 3.7 / 100k.

Pull the other one, it sings 'Yankee Doodle Dandy'.

[GreenStormCloud]

195. Actually, it is stronger than that.

The total population of the state includes babies and small children as well as older children, but still pre-puberty. It includes the population that is in nursing homes. As a general rule, they don't have access to guns. I would suggest that about one third of the population does not have firearms access.

So we would be looking at 848 convictions from an estimated crime-capable population of about 16 million for a rate of 5.3/100K.

[burrfoot]

212. Well, X and GSC have covered the

statistical issue better than I could have (my Goodle-fu is notoriously lazy).

You still have not addressed the fact that your 700 some-odd accidental firearms deaths statistic has no bearing on a discussion of the validity of concealed carry, unless it can be pared down to those caused by CCW holders.

I think perhaps we'll have to disagree on the "taste for mass murder" line of reasoning. I still maintain that I couldn't possibly care less, if I'm going to be killed, if it's by a guy who is also going to take out two or more other people or by a guy who will stop with me. (generalized because it's usually guys doing this)

Since many, many more people are killed in total than are killed by CCW holding multiple-at-once murderers; while your take on this may be factually correct, I fail to see why it matters in relation to...well...anything.

Although, on little further reflection, I have to admit that it is an excellent appeal to emotion over logic. Sadly (in my mind anyway), it will probably be an effective argument for you.

[spin]

215. If your assertion was correct, the data from Florida would support it...

Florida publishes a Monthly Summery Report for concealed weapons and firearms located at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a period of time between 10/1/87 - 12/31/09 or just over twenty two years. During this time frame 1,686,684 concealed weapons permits were issued, 684,569 of which are currently valid.

A grand total of 167 licenses were revoked for "Crime After Licensure" where a firearm was utilized. This statistic includes but is not limited to those incidents in which a firearm killed or injured an innocent person.

I'm not saying that those with a concealed carry permit are angels by any means, but they rarely misuse their weapons.

I will also contend that the legitimate and legal use of concealed firearms to stop crime is far higher than the misuse of legally concealed firearms. Unfortunately, statistics for the positive use of concealed firearms is unavailable or questionable. Many instances in which a concealed weapon is used to stop a crime fail to make their way into a database.

In my opinion, you have a unjustified paranoia of those who legally carry concealed.