I have no doubt in my mind that concealed carry laws save lives. There is a great deal of research that has been conducted for both sides of the argument ‘do gun laws save lives.’ There is evidence to support claims that “shall-issue” states, states that issue concealed carry permits, deter violent crime. In the book Evaluating Gun Policy, authors Jens Ludwig and Phillip Cook suggest that criminals in states where concealed carry laws are implemented will move to states where concealed carry laws are not implemented to commit their crimes. This finding makes complete sense if we look at this from a criminal’s perspective. Criminals only attack victims whom they perceive as weak or easy targets. If there is a chance the criminal’s victim is armed than the chance an attack will happen will drastically decrease. Later in the book, the authors use a study performed by David Olsen and Michael Maltz using 1977-1992 data. The study supported claims that concealed carry laws reduce homicides. The study showed that firearm related homicides fell by twenty percent. However, at the same time non-firearm related homicides rose by ten percent. Opponents of concealed carry laws will fixate on the increase in non-firearm related homicides in their arguments against concealed carry laws. However, most of the people who look at the overall decrease of ten percent in all homicides will support concealed carry laws. I will close this post with some food for thought. If you were going to commit a crime, would you commit that crime if you knew the victim was going to be armed?
In
this post I will address some of the issues I see with ABC's experiment that is
shown above. Looking at this study from a researcher's point of view, it's
evident ABC made some mistakes. ABC took any student willing to participate in
the study. To my knowledge, none of the students in the experiment actually
possessed a concealed carry permit. This is important information because not
everyone is comfortable handling a handgun. The students in the experiment
didn't have practice withdrawing their pistol from their holsters. Opponents of CCW, concealed carry weapons, will debate that these students had no more experience than is necessary
to obtain a CCW. That's true, but it is not the only factor to consider. Most
of the people who obtain a CCW are avid gun enthusiasts. These are the kinds of people who collect,
shoot, and know guns. They are extremely comfortable around firearms and know
how to use them; they are not your average college student. Secondly, the whole
point of having a concealed firearm is no one knows you have it. In this
experiment the active shooter, who is also a trained police officer, knows
exactly where the student with the concealed pistol is. Doesn't that defeat the
purpose of a concealed carry and, therefore, nullify the whole experiment? In
conclusion, this experiment placed a student (18-22 years old) with little
firearms experiment, against a trained police officer, who knew exactly where
the CCW student was in the classroom. An extremely skewed
experiment that was designed for one result: concealed carry permits cause more
harm than good. I guarantee a real life scenario would result in much different
results. If ABC would like to reevaluate their experiment and do it again I
have a few suggestions. First, get a student how already has a CCW to see how
someone with an actual CCW does. This experiment was performed on a college campus. What ABC didn't address was the requirements for a CCW. One has to be at least 21 years old with no prior felonies or convictions. That automatically disqualifies about 50% of students currently attending a higher education school. This experiment should be performed by students who actually qualify to have a CCW, i.e. upperclassmen, faculty and staff. Second, how many times is the shooter a police
officer with years of firearm experience? The shooter should fit the
personality profile of a school shooter who, more likely than not, has minimal
experience with a firearm. Third, the shooter should not be aware there is a
threat in the classroom. That is to say, the shooter should not know there is
someone else in the classroom with a firearm. Those few changes will transform
the whole dynamic of the experiment. The experiment will be more practical and
have real life results.
The 2nd
Amendment of the Bill of Rights has become the basis for all arguments in favor
or against gun control. It states, in part, that “the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun control advocates believe that
the 2nd Amendment was crafted for a different time in history, is
currently outdated and therefore should be amended.
This however is untrue.
Is the threat of tyranny less prevalent today than it was 235 years ago? Is
crime less common or less violent today than it was back then? Following this
same line of thought, should we also amend the rest of the Bill of Rights? Are
our rights of freedom of speech and due process outdated? The answer to all of
the questions is unequivocally, unapologetically no.
Currently, there are
four states where there are no regulations on concealed carry, in what has
become known as Constitutional Carry. The name says it all; Constitutional
Carry is what is allowed by the Constitution and should be implemented by every
other state across America.
