Constitution/Conservatism Editorial
Source: lewrockwell
Published: 4/9 Author: edmonds
Posted on 04/09/2001 04:20:56 PDT by from occupied ga
Gun Toters Are Safer Than Cops
by Brad Edmonds
In a recent article, I said: "Choose any state you want that issues concealed-carry permits and youll find that civilians with concealed-carry permits are less often accused of violent crimes than are the POLICE in that state." Gun-owning readers asked me for documentary support for that claim, since it was dramatic and little-known. I didnt have my sources at hand that day, but I promised I would provide them. The number of reader responses and the nature of the information persuaded me, however, that everyone should see this.
First, the bottom line: Are permit holders less often accused of violent crimes than the police (suggesting strongly that they less oftencommit violent crimes)? Answer: Direct comparisons arent possible without personally examining records in city halls around the country, but given the data available, the answer is not only yes, but golly yes.
I found many sources on the web, some listed at the end of this article, but one suffices regarding permit holders: A synopsis of testimony before a House committee by John Lott in 1999 (I couldnt find the transcript), where Dr. Lott provided startling information. For those few of you who dont already know, Lott wrote More Guns, Less Crime, for which he analyzed all (!) the data in the United States, using primarily FBI resources.
What Lott had to say: In all of the 29 states that issue concealed-carry permits except Vermont and Idaho (they have no restrictions), the rate of loss of permits because of crimes committed ranges from 0.001 to 0.01 percent. I should add that from Lotts figures, the range is a little broader, from almost 0.1 percent to a perfect 0.0. The apparent worst case, Arizona, suffered 0.0943 percent (50 in 53,000) of its gun owners doing something to lose their permits. These somethings range from murder to forgetting to remove a gun before going into a nightclub, so the numbers include revocations unrelated to violence. In many of the cases around the country, the charges leading to revocation are later dropped.
In North Carolina, no carry permits have been revoked. I remember seeing that the number of permits was 40,000 over the years 1995-1999, but whatever the true number is, 40,000 is conservative: My county (one of 67) in Alabama issues over 2000 per year according to the nice lady who processes them, and extrapolating makes 10,000 new permits per year a ludicrously conservative estimate for my state. But forty-thousand, schmorty-thousand: Zero for however many tens of thousands is spectacular. In South Carolina, only one permit had been revoked from 1989 to 1999, and the charge in that case was later dropped.
My claim gets stronger. It would be helpful to have numbers of preexisting permits combined with new permits issued, though much of Lotts data are for new permits only; data limited to convictions or adjusted for charges later dropped; and reference to only violent crimes. The requisite (years of) research would show even lower numbers than Lott has found, except where the numbers are already zero.
What of the police? The same web searches that found abundant sources relating to civilian behavior turned up no statistics for police behavior. I proceeded to the University of Michigan "Statistical Resources on the Web" site, Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, and the FBI. None of these sources seemed to provide information about criminal charges against policemen. Youd have to examine local records around the country.
But it is sound to conclude that permit holders are accused of violent crimes less than the police. It is utterly implausible that police approach, much less surpass, the levels shown by civilian gun toters (remember North Carolina, mentioned above, at zero; Virginia showed no violent crimes by any permit holders; Nevada and Kentucky seem about the same). Further, there are many websites (heres one) posting documented incidents of police brutality, which means violence. With the low numbers we have, it doesnt take many bad cops to tip the scale: The LAPD by its own admission perpetrates more violent crimes than do permit holders in North Carolina, South Caolina, adVrginia cobined (see h repor by a distinguished Southern Cal professor).
It would be great if policemen were equal to the example of civilian toters. But my point was not that policemen are badguys. The vast majority of cops are decent folk. (Whether they have too much legal authority and too little legal responsibility is another topic.) My intention was to support the notion that owning guns can make people less violent, as can earning a black belt. The data Ive shown arent scientific proof of this, as correlation doesnt prove causation, but Dr. Lott has longitudinal analyses in his book that help provide evidence even for causation.
Gun-toting gun owners are safe. It is readily apparent they are safer than policemen, who themselves are generally quite reliable. I say again, "Ill keep mine, thanks," and add, "You keep yours, too."
1 Posted on 04/09/2001 04:20:56 PDT by from occupied ga [ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fairuse of copyrighted works.
[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ]