Skip to comments.Right to carry would disprove horror stories
Posted on 07/12/2003 5:36:19 AM PDT by jmq
Posted on Sat, Jul. 12, 2003
Right to carry would disprove horror stories By JOHN R. LOTT JR. Special to The Star
Gov. Bob Holden finally vetoed the right-to-carry legislation last week, expressing fears about the risks the law poses for police and children.
With more than 70 percent of the Missouri House and Senate already voting for the bill, the expected veto override battle appears to be coming down to a single vote in the Senate.
Gun control advocates such as Holden are right to fear the right-to-carry bill's passage, but not for the reason that most people think. Despite panicked claims that innocent people will be killed and there will be shootouts in the streets, here is a prediction: A year after enactment Missouri's newspapers will report that all the horror stories about letting citizens carry concealed handguns were wrong. The real loser will be gun control advocates' credibility.
My prediction does not really involve going out on a limb. The bill allows trained, law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns for their protection, and Missouri's law will be the most restrictive right-to-carry law in the nation.
One needs only to look at the other 32 states with right-to-carry laws where we have had enough time to see what happens. A year after the law goes into effect, newspaper articles in state after state announce that the supposed fears never materialized. It is particularly hard to see why these worries are taken seriously in Missouri, four of whose neighbors have right-to-carry laws.
Michigan, the most recent state to have a right-to-carry law in effect for at least a year, adopted it in 2001. Last year newspapers such as the Detroit News regularly reported that: "Such self-defense has not yet resulted in any kind of wave of new gun violence among those with fresh...permits, several law enforcement officials throughout Metro Detroit agreed."
And consider the two largest states with right-to-carry laws, Florida and Texas. In the 15 years after Florida's concealed-carry law took effect in October 1987, about 800,000 licenses were issued. Only 143 of these (two-hundredths of 1 percent) were revoked because of firearms-related violations.
But even this statistic overstates the risks, as almost all of these cases apparently resulted from people accidentally carrying a gun into a restricted area, such as an airport. No one claims that these unintentional violations posed any harm. In general, permit-holders were model law-abiders. Even off-duty police officers in Florida were convicted of violent crimes at a higher rate than permit-holders.
The experience in Texas was similar. From 1996 through 1999, the first four years that Texas' concealed-handgun law was in effect, 215,000 people were licensed. Permit holders turned out to be law-abiding, with licensees convicted of a crime only 6 percent as often as other adult Texans.
Data for other states are also available and paint a similar picture. Thus, it is not surprising that no state with a right-to-carry law has repealed it.
One particular fear raised by Holden is that right-to-carry laws would actually make police officers' jobs more dangerous by making it more likely that they would be shot. Yet research has shown that the laws make police safer. Professor David Mustard at the University of Georgia found that right-to-carry laws reduced the rate that officers were killed by about 2 percent per year for each year that the laws were in effect. Several studies find that as law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves, criminals are much less likely to carry guns. Fewer criminals carrying guns makes the jobs of police less dangerous.
While Missouri's police organizations are generally neutral, national surveys show the police support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 majority. Many former strong opponents to right-to-carry laws across the country have changed their positions after the laws have been in effect for a couple of years.
Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, provides a typical response: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened....I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."
When he vetoed the right-to-carry bill, Holden also claimed that right-to-carry laws would increase accidental shootings, but there is not one academic study that finds that to be true. For violent crime, refereed academic studies range from showing that right-to-carry laws at worst have little or no benefit to most research finding large reductions that increase as more permits are issued.
A year after the right-to-carry law is enacted, Missourians will wonder what all the fuss was about. Those declaring that Missourians' safety is endangered will lose credibility once people see that it is criminals and not law-abiding citizens who have the most to fear from Missourians' being able to defend themselves.
John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the just-released book The Bias Against Guns.
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
One Term Bob may have his veto thrown back in his face on this issue. Holden never travels anywhere except in state owned planes, with numerous bodyguards, but he won't let the working men and women who travel in dangerous neighborhoods at all hours of the day and night defend themselves. This is eliteism at its worst.
Thanks for posting this, jmq.
BTW, did you see that Kansas City Rep. Karen McCarthy's chief of staff resigned? The sixth resignation since her falling down drunk episode where she threw her cell phone at the chief of staff.
Too much to hope for....although I would like them to surprise me. I am thinking of a S&W SW99 .40 no matter what happens with the override.
He should have asked Ann 'Ma' Richards (D) of Texas what happens to governors who veto conceal carry bills...
That's an interesting factoid.
You nailed it!!
You nailed it too!!!
Why would you want a knockoff of a Glock M27 when you could get the real thing at possibly less money? I bought my Glock M27 at a gun show for about $450, new. It comes with a mag that offers 9 + 1 capacity and you gan get a "+1" grip extender and have a 10 rd magazine with excellent ergonomics! I do like the new S & W 99...but as a .45. If you want a subcompact .40, you can'd do any better than the M27.
I sure do hope you guys do two things out there...override this bozo and make him a one term wonder. That's #1. Next, you should concentrate on offering interstae reciprocity for all valid CCW permits as Oklahoma has just done. My own state of Florida is doing this on a state by state basis, but so far has succeeded in nearly tying together the states of the "solid south" for this.
The place to keep track of your permit status is: http://www.packing.org This site should be visited regularly by anybody with an active CCW for reasons that will become self evident once you browse the site.
Why in the heck can't liberal gun-grabbers understand this? Oh, yeah, it's not about logic, but about an emotional appeal to the dumbed-down electorate. Sheesh.
That's an interesting factoid.
Yes it is. Why does it NOT surprise me and why isn't this fact more widely known to the public.
As I've said before, it is foolish to depend on LEO's to support the 2nd. Amendment.
It's up to us to see that this information is more widely known. Thanks to John Lott one more time for the ammo.
Yup, and I plan on lobbing that one out at every occassion.
We don't like it when liberal, Demorat judges make law from the bench. We shouldn't do the same, even if we approve the outcome. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
But I like your thinking.
Now that 30 (+/-) states have such on the books it is just a clear socialist political sh*t and shineola show to further a seditious agenda by denying folks the right to self defense at all times. The facts and data are in and disprove the gun grabbers lies.
Too bad all states don't follow Alaska and Vermont's lead..........Stay Safe !
The antis have nothing left to fight with BUT emotion. Every one of the so-called "facts" they have spouted for the last 50 years has been proven false by scientific research such as that by Lott and Mustard. But even more damning to their cause are the undeniable FACTS of how successful shall-issue concealed carry has been in every state where it has been enacted. AFAIK not a single state has seen an increase in violent crime after shall-issue CC was enacted, and instead, almost every state has seen a significant reduction in crime after CC was allowed. The longer the law has been in effect, the greater the reduction in crime. FL was the first state to enact shall issue CC in 1987, and the murder rate dropped by 27% within 8 years.
It's no wonder the antis are fighting the passage of CC laws so bitterly. The laws themselves are proving for everyone to see that everything the antis have been preaching for 50 years was nothing but a pack of big fat lies. Now if we can get congress and GW to see that the entire AW ban nonsense was based on the exact same kind of big lies by the same big fat liars who have lied for decades about CC, maybe we can start on the long road to regaining ALL our 2nd amendment rights that have been whittled away over the last century. Defeating the AW re-authorization bill would be great place to start on that road, and if enough of us let our representatives, and Bush, know how we feel we can do it.