SHOULD PRIVATE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS?

SHOULD PRIVATE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED
TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS?

Keith Haley

Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.

As of 2006 in the United States the answer to the question in the title of this article is an unequivocal, "yes." Forty-six states now allow private citizens to carry concealed firearms, of which two states have no other restriction beyond minimum age and being free of prior criminal conviction.

But still some politicians, citizens groups, anti-gun lobbies, and the media resist the idea of an armed citizenry. Some even advocate extreme forms of gun control that would keep handguns and all weapons above a certain caliber out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. This extreme measure would result in the armed criminals going just about wherever they choose to go and the citizens they encounter are rendered defenseless against armed attack at home, at work, or on the street. Criminals could have it no better.

I suppose it is necessary to first ask the question, “Why would a citizen want to carry a concealed firearm as they go about their business day and night?” Let's start with the answer that the firearm just may save your life. We now know that as many as 2 – 2.5 million people each year ward off a felon by using a firearm. More than 90% of the time, the mere brandishing of the firearm changes the predator's plan and they flee. Others are not so fortunate because they are defenseless in the presence of an armed criminal and, of course, they are unarmed because the law forbids them to carry a concealed firearm.

I've had two friends murdered by predators. One was an outstanding criminologist with a doctorate from Berkeley who was gunned down by two criminals with felony records who were committing a robbery at a woman services clinic where a dozen other people were present. The other friend was beaten to death by thugs while he was out jogging one evening. While not a personal acquaintance, there is another case that is memorable for me. This case involved the brother of one of my daughter's best friends in high school. He and his family were visiting Houston, Texas over the Christmas holidays. He was robbed and gunned down in front of his family after getting off the freeway, momentarily stopping at a filling station to put air in his automobiles tires. These kinds of stories are legion in the annals of robbery-homicide and murder.

One of the most frequent arguments made against the citizen's right to carry a concealed firearm is that the trained police will protect you. You don't need a gun. Sure. You know that line that the police are never around when you need them. It is almost entirely true. I know that it is fact in the United States that police departments are often overwhelmed with calls at particular times of the day and week and that many armed robberies in progress are not responded to even after one hour or more following the commission of the crime. So under those conditions who will protect you? Who will save your life? Certainly it's not the police. The police can't be everywhere. Law-abiding citizens licensed to carry and trained to use a handgun at least have a chance to protect themselves and others around them against an armed felon. The average IQ of street thugs and rapists is generally not that high, but they "get it" when one of our nation's good citizens puts a gun in their face or fires off a round at them as they try to victimize innocent citizens.

Whenever I hear the question asked concerning whether or not citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon I think of one of my classmates in the concealed carry class I attended in Texas in the 1990s. I conducted a research study on the new Texas right to carry law and published my findings in a paper and a book chapter entitled “The Politics of Packin’: A Political Analysis of the Texas Right to Carry Law.” This classmate was a handsome young architect who finished dinner and a date in downtown Dallas, dropped off his girlfriend at her home, and headed for his suburban residence about 20 miles north of Dallas. As he drove home in his Toyota Land Cruiser he noticed an older Chrysler vehicle with a man and a woman in it following him. In fact, the car followed him for miles to his suburban community. When the architect got to his home, he backed the Land Cruiser up into his driveway and parked in front of his garage.

As soon as he got out of the vehicle he noticed that the car that was following him had parked at the curb near his driveway. Suddenly the driver bolted from the car and trotted up the driveway carrying a gun in his right hand. When the gunman got to the architect who was standing right next to his Land Cruiser he stuck a gun in his face and said “Give me the keys, man.” The architect replied, “You got'em.” He then hands over the keys to the predator. When the gunman gets the keys in his hand, for no discernible reason, he shoots the architect in the face. The architect survives with a very noticeable facial scar. He told our right to carry class that this will never happen to him again. Consequently he was obtaining a Texas right to carry license. Is there any question that he could have dropped the predator in the driveway before he became a shooting victim? Fortunately the intelligence level of the two predators was not high as they were caught sitting in the stolen Land Cruiser in a closed service station trying to figure out how to get out of town they were in.

In Dr. John Lott Jr.'s book More Guns, Less Crime, he clearly demonstrates in the most comprehensive time-series study ever done on right to carry laws in the United States that the more concealed carry licenses that are issued in a U.S. county, the less serious crime there is. The anti-gun lobby was not pleased to get this news. They've spent the last several years trying to refute this evidence. Dr. Lott has even offered them all of this data in order that they can replicate the study to do the analysis themselves. So far no one has taken him up on the offer. .

But what about the alleged multitude of wrongful and accidental shootings that transpire as a result of so many concealed carry licenses being issued? In fact, there are virtually none. In the states of Alaska and Vermont, for example, save the qualifications that a person must be 21 and 18 years of age respectively and have no criminal record, anyone may carry a concealed firearm. Alaska makes you go through the process of actually getting a permit; Vermont requires no such document. Have you heard of any bloodbaths or rash of accidental shooting in these states? In Indiana you fill out an application at a law enforcement agency, undergo a background check, pay a small fee, and your license arrives in the mail in a few weeks. To date, I have not heard of any slaughters or slew of accidental and wrongful shootings in Indiana.

In short, stories of concealed carry license holders being responsible for wrongful shootings and more gun accidents are, in fact, fiction. It should be noted that citizens do have accidents with firearms, they do make mistakes concerning protection issues once in a while, but so do the police and they have superior training in most cases. In the year 2002, less than 1% of all accidental deaths were due to firearms. Weigh that risk against the 2 million people who used a firearm to ward off a felon or save their life.

We must not forget also that many of the states which allow concealed carry licenses require citizens obtaining such a license to go through training and to take a written and/or firearms performance test before they are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. Of course, even in the states where training is not required we can most often count on the intelligence of the person obtaining a permit or license to learn how to properly operate the firearm.

Perhaps as many as 99% of the people who obtained a right to carry license will, in fact, never use the firearm at all. Even if they do, the vast majority of these cases involved no discharging of the firearm. So what's the threat? The right to carry license holders feel safer carrying a firearm than going without one. What's the harm? Citizens walk by other citizens every day who are carrying concealed weapons and no one knows they are. In Texas, if you show the weapon for any other reason than using it to protect your life or the life of another person or to prevent a serious crime, it is a violation of the right to carry law and your license is suspended. In other words, the gun stays concealed. I suppose you could say what we do not know doesn't hurt us, but to have some citizens armed, however, just might help us someday when confronted with an armed predator who wants to cause mayhem. I would say the same thing to police officers who resist right to carry laws. They just may need the help of one of those right to carry license holders someday too. Most line-level police officers in America support right to carry laws.

Finally, there are approximately 260 million firearms in the United States and the number grows daily. They're not going to go away no matter what type of gun control would ever be implemented. In the last analysis with all these firearms available in the nation, it makes more sense to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in order to offset the threat of armed criminal predators who are more than willing to maim and kill good citizens in order to perpetrate their crimes.