Concealed Carry: If You're Interested in Preventing Hate Crimes, Let's Stop them Before They Happen

Twenty-five years ago, Tom Palmer and a male companion were threatened by a group of 20 or so young males on an empty street in San Jose, California. The group shouted anti-gay epithets and made death threats.

Palmer and his companion ran, and the attackers gave chase. Moments later, Palmer pulled out a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, one he owned legally, and pointed it at the group. Palmer was positive they intended to seriously harm or even kill him and his companion.

The gun stopped the group in their tracks. Palmer told them that if they got any closer to him, he would use the gun and shoot. The young men didn't take that chance, and Palmer credits that pistol for saving his life.

Tom, who currently works as a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, knows first hand that a gun can save your life.

This summer, the Senate will consider the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, more commonly know as Hate Crimes legislation. Unfortunately, the bill, as currently written, will do little to actually prevent violent hate crimes from occurring. There is, however, a way to stop hate crimes before they happen: help law-abiding Americans at risk of hate crimes defend themselves from predators.

While GOProud, the only national gay conservative group, doesn't take a position on the current hate crimes legislation, we do strongly support empowering individuals to protect themselves - which is why GOProud urges the Senate to amend the current hate crimes legislation to include a provision dealing with concealed carry reciprocity.

A bill in the Senate, S. 845, co-sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA), allows for reciprocity among all the states that currently allow citizens to lawfully carry a concealed firearm.

This common sense legislation would allow an individual who is lawfully licensed to carry a concealed weapon in his home state, to also carry a concealed weapon in another state - as long as that state permits conceal carry and as long as the individual complies with the concealed carry law of that state. An individual's constitutional right to defend himself or herself should not arbitrarily stop at a state line. This is particularly the case when traveling to a state that also permits concealed carry.

GOProud is not alone in their fight to empower law-abiding individuals by protecting their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun Owners of America, an organization representing hundreds of thousands of Americans, strongly supports S. 845, and supports adding concealed carry reciprocity to the hate crimes bill.

Gun Owners of America is the organization that helped lead the successful efforts to amend recent credit card legislation to include a provision allowing for the lawful exercise of 2nd amendment rights in national parks and refuges. Gun Owners of America shares our commitment to empowering individuals to defend themselves lawfully from becoming victims of violent crime.

No matter what the left wants you to believe, the truth is that law-abiding gun use saves lives. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self defense - that's 6,850 times a day in this country. Furthermore, concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in states that have enacted them.

According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states that passed concealed carry law reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%.

Some on the left will argue that this amendment would be a poison pill -- an amendment intended simply to kill hate crimes legislation. This amendment isn't a poison pill -- like it or not hate crimes legislation will pass, and by a wide margin, with or without a concealed carry reciprocity amendment.

No one argues that violent crime is not a problem, and no one should doubt that there are groups of individuals who are targeted just because of who they are -- be it because they of their race, religion or sexual orientation. While good and honest people can differ on the best and most constitutional way to deal with this problem, all of us can and should agree that it is a problem.

If Congress is actually interested in preventing violent hate crimes, they should pass legislation that will empower individuals to defend themselves before they become another hate crime victim.

Comments

[DanCasey]

Concealed carry laws vary so much from state to state that I'm not sure national reciprocity is a good idea. In some states, law-abiding citizens must demonstrate competence with firearms to get a concealed carry permit.

In other states, such as Virginia, you can meet the "competence" requirement WITHOUT ever touching a handgun.

I did that. And the story is here: http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/dancasey/2009/07/07/tuesdays-column-a-gun-safety-course-so-easy-a-monkey-could-pass/

[JimInHouston]

You do realize, of course, that it was already illegal for that SOB to own a gun...any gun. So your wishes are already met.

You do realize, of course, that it was already illegal to sell a felon like that a gun...any gun. So your wishes are already met.

You do realize, of course, that it was already illegal to shoot people. So your wishes are already met.

Well, it's already illegal six ways from Sunday. What do you propose? Restrict the rights of uninvolved innocent people?

[onepotatotwopotato]

My guns and my rights are not "registered"by the government or by anybody else, thank you very much.

[XME]

I have nothing against people who have no record owning guns, even carrying concealed guns in appropriate locations.

However, we also need better laws to keep guns away from people who should not be able to get their hands on them...like an anti-Semetic white supremicist with a serious record. Because while one answer is being able to defend oneself with their own gun, there are some people who don't want to carry a gun and are not comfortable doing so. And I shouldn't be forced to carry one to feel safe in America.

[onepotatotwopotato]

So why should you be "forced" to wear a seat belt when you drive a vehicle?

[XME]

I don't think I should be forced! I wear one, by choice, but that shouldn't be forced in my opinion (though I do believe it should be law that you must have minors in carseats or seatbelts).

[GoldenBoy22]

What do you feel is an appropriate location?

"And I shouldn't be forced to carry one to feel safe in America."

No one is trying to force anybody to carry a gun. We just want to keep, (or in the case of places like Chicago and D.C., reinstate) our right, as acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution .

[dan-o]

I have a Concealed Pistol License here in Michigan and I mainly use it for traveling to your crime ridden states. There are only a few states that do not accept Michigans CPL and they are New York, Wisconsin, Illinois and California, Wash DC and maybe New Jersey. Its funny how (execpt for Wisconsin) the areas that ban guns are the most crime ridden. Why?????The reason the states accept Michigans CPL is that the requirements are stringent. Fingerprint background check, Full day class with shooting I think it was 100+ rounds during different situation simulations.

The legislature had the State Police keep stats on CPL holders involved in criminal acts. The only case where a CPL holder used his gun illegally was a police officer shooting into the ceiling of a bar. CPL holders as a group have a lower crime rate than any other group of adult citizens. Less than judges, lawyers and even police officers. The same thing has happened in most states as CPL holders are not criminals nor are they a danger.

[remesquaddie]

You are indeed very lucky to have a permit. We here in MEXICALIF state are only allowed to stand there and get held up at gun point by those WHOP DO CARRY GUNS, illegally. And after that when the police arrive and the criminal is long gone, they will say " You are lucky to be alive".

[onepotatotwopotato]

Found on another site a kinda interesting:

Quote:
My son just returned from Russia where he met a fellow who carried a full-auto AK in his suv at all times. He told my son that ANY weapon was could be purchased if you knew "the right people" up to and including a bazooka if you had the money

Comment by: MZL LDR | June 11, 2009

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Moscow-News-Federal-Service-Russia-Handgun-O wnership_1­333-1.html­?ET=gunrep­orts:e446:­172430a:&s­t=email

[dan-o]

I think Russia is a little bit different than the U.S.. I remember back when the Soviet Union T-80 tank for $12,000 u.s.. I wonder how many tanks, AK's, Antiaircraft missiles disappeared during those chaotic years.

[bayside]

Dont give them any ideas about hate crimes. Its already a crime and on the books..They just need to enforce them.

[dchandguninfo]

Thanks, Mr. Barron, for your thoughtful piece on CCW.
Concealed carry evens the odds between victim and attacker, and is needed especially in New York City, Chicago, and Washington, DC. California, too, must adopt a uniform "shall issue" law; right now, it's hit-or-miss on whether you can have a CCW permit there based on what county you live in. All Americans will benefit from "shall issue" legislation.
I frankly cannot believe that this article is appearing in HuffPo. This is the very first article on HuffPo that has EVER made sense to me.
I'll be linking to this article from my pro-rights, pro-gun blog.

[BlackJAC]

Doesn't go far enough. I say we should declare war on the hate criminals and use preemptive doctrine against them, taking them out before they even think of becoming hate criminals. And with nuclear weapons, too. Pop a 10KT tactical in some neo-Nazi compound on April 20, and I guarantee they'll all be singing Hava Nagila the next day.

The frightening thing is that if the above had been suggested by some Fox News pundit, they'd get praised rather than branded a lunatic.

[rjmiller]

"states that passed concealed carry law reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%."

Please cite your source for this. Since the 80's, crime rates in general have fallen. People have attributed this to numerous causes, everything from your assertion that concealed weapons allow self-defense to the mainstreaming of pornography allowing people to release sexual frustration.

In other words, correlation is not equivalent to causation.

[LindaCat]

Since 1985 approx 40 states have enacted very liberal shall-issue concealed carry statutes. We have decades of social experimentation involving scores of states, millions of licensees and associated tens of millions of concealed-­carry-pers­on-years of data.
Doesn't seem to be a problem - the anti-gun set can't find any. None of the states has considered repeal.
The same experiment has been repeatedly tried-it is time to accept the results.

[jhamm1]

"Results"? "experiments"?

Again, none of which are actually specified.

Go figure.

[JimInHouston]

No, but it is absolutely clear that there was an increasing number of guns in society during this period. So there is neither correlation nor causation with the hypothesis that "more guns = more crime". The only question is whether or not "more guns=less crime".

[GreggO1951]

For every assailant stopped by a gun in someone's home, 20 to 40 friends or family members are killed or injured. Some 20% of police officers shot in the line of duty are shot with their own or their partner's weapon. In military conflicts, where the battle lines are usually clear, a sizable percentage of injuries and deaths are the result of friendly fire.

Guns are dangerous. The more guns present, the greater the danger will be.

[PlaceboStudman]

So, you're saying that, yes, those of us who do not have the physical strength to fend off an attacker or mugger with physical strength should just remain home and stay out of society because some people are going to abuse the priveledge of gun ownership??

Hmmm....how well did prohibitiion work with alcohol and how well is it currently working with elicit drugs??

[dan-o]

So, Police should not be able to carry guns?

[elmo iscariot]

"For every assailant stopped by a gun in someone's home, 20 to 40 friends or family members are killed or injured. "

Note that this statistic is misleading. The actual finding was that "it's 40 times more likely that a member of the household will be killed than a violent stranger". This result counted criminals shooting other criminals who shared residences and people who shot violent family members in self defense as "members of the household" being killed, and, as you can see from the statistic, only counted _kills_ in self defense. Defensive uses of firearms that didn't result in death weren't counted. Since the overwhelming majority of defensive gun uses don't involve shots fired (presenting a gun with a willingness to use it is enough to make most criminals decide to find a different victim), this ends up creating a wildly inaccurate impression of how often guns are used in self defense.

The statistic is phrased to make you _think_ it says "the gun in my house is much more likely to cause an accident than save a life", but that isn't actually what it says.

[mikeb302000]

Great spin, Elmo.

[JimInHouston]

The Kellermann study that you are citing/distorting has been completely repudiated (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html), including by Kellermann himself.

As for "The more guns present, the greater the danger will be.", current evidence is to the contrary (John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime"). You will find no vetted statistic that state otherwise.

You really should get out more.

[mikeb302000]

Yes indeed. Repudiated by whom, though?

[OdinsEye]

"For every assailant stopped by a gun in someone's home, 20 to 40 friends or family members are killed or injured."

A completely false and made up stat.

"Some 20% of police officers shot in the line of duty are shot with their own or their partner's weapon."

An often repeated, but also untrue stat.

[4for44]

Hey to anybody out there self defense is only a small part of gun owership.

Shooting is fun and recreational just like golf or tennis.

[PlaceboStudman]

There are apparently a LOT of people who are afraid of an attack by a vigilante tin can, glass bottle or clay shell. Or, Godforbid a paper target..Oh, no!

[BlackJAC]

I did riflery for a while. It wasn't that fun. It was more like yoga.

[GoldenBoy22]

If I could only shoot at paper targets I may feel the same way.
I prefer to shoot at tin cans,reactive swinging targets golf balls etc.

[PlaceboStudman]

having read through the comments here (after posting one of my own) I really have to ask. For all of you "No guns under any circumstances" people, what exactly do you propose to do to help protect the disabled and elderly from being seen as a meek target from someone who has a knife (if no one has a gun)? Do you really expect us to allow someone with a knife get close enough to us to use that knife if we do not have the physical strength to fend off an attacker with pure muscle? Or are you going to be bold and daring enough to tell us that we have no right to walk (or roll if you're wheelchaair bound) the streets because some 300lb guy with a bowie knife wants our wallet

[dan-o]

Hey, why are picking on us fat guys. Just because we are hungry doesn't mean we have to rob people to get food.

[PlaceboStudman]

Sorry, I was thinking the Maurice Clarett ex-football player type who turns to a life of crime

[DrFitz]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Going back to the days of the OK Corral? Thanks, but no thanks.
I do NOT want to worry about being in the midst of a bunch of armed trigger happy amateurs whenever I go out in public. The professional law enforcement and security personnel are sufficient.

[PlaceboStudman]

So the disabled and elderly have no right to protect themself whe they do not have the strength to fight off an attacker with physical strength? Or should the disabled and elderly just be locked up and stay at home to avoid the very real possibility of someone with malicious intent seeing them as a victim?

[onepotatotwopotato]

Here is a link to a YouTube video of one of the professionals explaining why he is the only one present "professional enough" to handle a Glock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY

[OdinsEye]

"Going back to the days of the OK Corral? "

A common refrain heard from the left, but one which, despite a todal wave of shall issue/right to carry laws across the US, has repeatedly failed to produce the bloodshe predicted by the gloom and doom set.

[PlaceboStudman]

Remember folks, just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to shoot someone. If someone has a gun and is faced with a potential attacker, the potential victim can always shoot NEAR the assailant, and try to scare them off, or even fire warning shots in the air to scare them off. That being said, if the assailant comes within 5 feet of me, as a disabled man with no strength to overpower someone 3 times my size, I have no problem nailing them in the shoulder or knee cap to disable them and give me time to flee

[Robin Hu]

It is not a good idea to fire a round into the air or near the target. The bullet will still go somewhere. If you are going to shoot your attacker, then shoot the attacker. Don't shoot near the attacker and risk hitting someone else.

The shoulder and kneecap are also very small targets and missing them may also cause you to harm someone else. Always aim for center mass as it is the biggest target and easiest to hit.

[OdinsEye]

"even fire warning shots "

I am not aware of any state in the US in which warning shots are authorized. In fact, it is agreat way to end up in jail. If you pull a firearm for defense, you have just made the decision to use lethal force.

"I have no problem nailing them in the shoulder or knee cap to disable them"

You are a fool. Aim center mass or at the vital triangle (shoulders and chest).

[RTIII]

I was at home late one night when I heard someone on the roof. My window was open. Even though there was already a round in the chamber, I cycled the magazine loading a new round - the sound of which was enough and the bastarb went running.

OK, this wasn't on the street, but does illustrate the point: guns can deter crime just by their presence.
.