Lawmakers in Texas are pushing legislation again this session that would force higher education institutions to allow the concealed carry of firearms. A key argument in the campus concealed carry debate is one of statistics: will concealed handgun licensees raise the extremely low violent crime rate on college campuses?
Advocates of concealed handgun licensing have long cited statistics that suggest those with permits to carry are more responsible and law-abiding, on average, than the public. The statistics are at best misleading, and at worst represent an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The Texas CHL requires classroom training, range time, fingerprinting, and the same sort of criminal background check used for firearms purchase. Boosters argue that these requirements lock in licensees as upstanding, responsible individuals for life. Seemingly supporting this argument are statistics from the Texas Department of Public Safety, which misleadingly compare conviction counts instead of conviction rates; the reports fail to mention that CHL holders are a relatively small portion of the population.
In fact, licensees do commit crimes, as the DPS reports demonstrate, including on college campuses. Certain convictions - not arrests, note, but convictions - result in revocation of individuals' carry permits. The Texas Department of Public Safety used to make available conviction rates of CHL holders for weapons-related offenses, but several years ago, the gun lobby successfully lobbied the Legislature to hide such statistics. They argued that the complicated new law had been misunderstood by many licensees.
But the real statistical problem lies in the comparison in felony conviction rates between the general public (21-and-older) and concealed handgun licensees. This type of comparison is often referred to as a "two-island model," referring to similar populations from two islands, where no one ever moves from one island to the other. Herein lies the flaw: individuals are frequently moving between the general population and the CHL subset - in both directions - so the two-island model is inappropriate.
Proponents of concealed carry rest their arguments on the filter that prevents high-risk genpop individuals from moving to the CHL "island." If the filter is successful, they say, only law-abiding citizens will be licensed.
They neglect to address the lack of an effective filter in the other direction. A CHL holder may commit a crime - and faced with either poor lawyers, a good prosecutor, or strong evidence - that individual reverts to the general population. The relevant felony conviction is added to the CHL tally, but - importantly - the statistics do not follow the ex-licensee through repeat offenses.
Recidivism is an old problem in criminal justice. A 2002 Department of Justice study reported a re-arrest rate of 67.5% - as high as 78.8% for auto thieves - within three years of release from prison.
So, a more accurate comparison would examine the group of individuals who have at some point possessed concealed handgun licenses, in tandem with a random selection of people who never sought licenses. The study would have to be done retrospectively, taking into account recidivism over a period of at least a decade.
The concealed handgun licensing program is not without merit. It is possible that an appropriately chosen filter could identify individuals who are unlikely to commit crimes not just on the basis of a past blank slate. Such filters are less important at, say, age 40, where many have become settled in their habits, than at age 21, when most people are still making youthful mistakes. This hypothesis finds support in the DOJ recidivism study, which notes a negative correlation between age and re-arrest.
But the CHL training should not be compared to the Basic Police Officer Class (BPOC) in Texas, or subsequent in-service coursework required of all peace officers. More importantly, the NICS database background check for carry licensing and firearms purchase must not be confused with the type of background checks carried out by law enforcement for potential employees - which involve reference checks, a psychological evaluation, a polygraph, and several months of supervised training.
In conclusion, lawmakers should think carefully about the minimum age for concealed handgun licensing. In particular, they should be sensitive to major lifestyle changes - such as going off to college - that could disrupt established behavioral patterns.
Follow John Woods on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mohawkjohn
John Woods: Guns on Campus: Ask the Virginia Tech Survivors, Not the Armchair Quarterbacks
Start with Eddie Eagle in kindergarten and then work up through junior and young adult NRA gun safety and handling classes.
Are you able to demonstrate that an "exchange of ideas" is diminished on college campuses where the carrying of concealed firearms by lawfully licensed individuals is not prohibited?
In Utah, 0.4% of issued concealed weapons permits were revoked in 2004. 0.02% of issued permits were revoked for "weapons-related" offenses. North Carolina reports revocation of only 0.2% of permits since adoption of a "shall issue" concealed weapons permit system. As of 2006 0.8% of permits issued in the state of Kentucky have been revoked for any reason. In a three-year period, beginning with the implementation of a "shall-issue" concealed weapons permit system, 0.2% of permits were revoked in Oklahoma. In 2001, 0.2% of issued concealed weapons permits in Indiana were revoked.
Because a felony conviction is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for revocation of a concealed weapons permit, revocation rates allow for an upper limit of the number of concealed weapons permit holders who are subsequently convicted of a felony offense. Mr. Woods's concern of imbalance in felony convictions is valid, an accurate study may be conducted through analysis of the percentage of the population that has ever been convicted of any felony offense. I am certain that, if Mr. Woods's criticism of concealed weapons permit holders is valid, he will be able to demonstrate that the percentage of the United States adult population who are felons is equal to the average percentage of concealed weapons permits that have been revoked across all states where such "shall issue" permit systems are implemented, allowing for the assumption that all such revocations were for felony offenses.
The Texas Department of Public Safety used to make available conviction rates of CHL holders for weapons-related offenses, but several years ago, the gun lobby successfully lobbied the Legislature to hide such statistics.
If concealed carry advocates used these statistics to claim that person “A,” who has never committed a crime and who possesses a concealed handgun license, is less likely to commit a crime than person “B,” who has never committed a crime and who has never applied for a concealed handgun license, Mr. Woods’ argument might be valid. But that’s really not the point being made by concealed carry advocates. The point being made is that the CHL vetting process weeds out those individuals most likely to commit a violent crime—the criminal element responsible for most crimes of any type. And it’s that very vetting/revocation process that ensures that a license holder who commits a crime doesn’t remain in the “license holder” category for long.
READ THE REST HERE: http://www.campuscarry.com/2011/02/15/concealed-carry-statistics-more-solid-than-opponents-interpretations/#content
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=77R&Bill=HB2784
"will concealed handgun licensees raise the extremely low violent crime rate on college campuses?"
So you admit that violent crime on college campuses is extremely low; yet, when advocating gun control, people like you, and Helmke and others from Brady Campaign like to point out VT, and NIU and other colleges where guns were used as a reason for more control. You can't have it both ways, either crime is so low at colleges, that the rare incident really has little to do with current gun laws. Or current gun laws are such a problem and we have violent crime at colleges.
Which is it? If crime is that low, shootings at college campus so rare, we shold not infringe on everyone others rights to own a gun. Would we stop air travel after every plane crash? No, because they are so rare it would be wrong to ban air travel. Don't use things like VT as an example for gun control, if you are going to dismiss it when making this argument, buy saying violent crime on colleges is very rare.
A campus gun ban is not going to have the same effect as better background checks. They are to deal with somewhat different segments of the population. Better background checks keep the guns out of the hands of mass shooters. Campus gun bans keep people from doing stupid things, like bringing guns into classrooms, where they could be used in moments of passion and anger by typically-responsible people.
Then, you could also look at background checks on concealed handgun licenses. If you improved these types of checks, or required a psychological evaluation, you might screen out people who believe they are responsible enough to carry on campus but in actuality are not responsible.
I can see where you are coming from (I dont like bullies, thugs, tailgaters and thieves either), but jeez., it must be weird being; superficial, humorless and polite with strangers (even the blatantly rude ones). Law abiding citizens have a bad days too (its a very stressed country).
Maybe the big question is "why does our society produce so many of them that we need to use the citizenry as vigilantes because the police are so overwhelmed".
We are talking about concealed weapons, which are for the sole purpose of offing fellow citizens at a safe distance over a real or imagined slight - even at college or at a bar half full of drunks. How can you breathe?
Its like israel where mom packs an uzi to take the kids to school. You seem a nation at war with each other. I have lived there (israel/jordan), its oppressive. Cops carrying machine guns - yew.
Good luck to a black man who exercises his second amendment rights against a white man in good old Dixie. It is only an amendment after all!
Face it, we are now hearing a lot about the rapacious inequality and injustice in america, now that the (literate, web connected) middle class has discovered they were only guest members at the country club.
Sorry. Am sure I have offended many. Just an alternative viewpoint from the safety of my (hopefully anonymous ) keyboard.
In fact, licensed concealed carry IS allowed in the legislators' workplace. They're not even allowed to restrict concealed carry in their own offices.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/12/us-texas-guns-idUSTRE71B2LC20110212
http://www.campuscarry.com/pdf/the_case_for_campus_carry_in_texas.pdf#page=6
I was reading the 2001-2002 statutes and as your references show, they have clearly been made less restrictive since. I stand corrected, and I thank you for pointing that out.
Moreover, to paraphrase Shaw: guns are necessary to the health of a community they keep order. Or rather Cops use them to control crime which is the same way of putting it. Millions of people go to gun ranges and shoot targets so they can reduce stress which they cannot otherwise handle. Guns enable the private militias, armies, to protect our nation's borders in the dead of night, a thing no sane person would do at ten in the morning. IS IT the weapon makers' fault that this inestimable gift, the personal weapon, is deplorably abused by less than 1% of the population? I think not.
Just remember as the Beatles once said, "Happiness is a warm gun."
You have to pick one? Really? Did you read this before posting it? Hmmmm...do I want to be possibly shot/wounded/killed by a good guy or a bad guy? Man that is a tough choice. Can you give me some time to decide?
Wrong! Didn't happen at all as you present it! The CCW individual you cite, in point of fact, was unable to immediately discern who was the gunman in the incident and NEVER drew his firearm. Learn the facts before posting bogus cr@p!
Old SF MJT
Are we to assume that any regular aged college kid with a CHL license, no matter their maturity, will actually be able to respond to some crazy situation in a way that is not potentially more crazy?
Indeed, if this hypothetical person decides to act out against a 'gunman' and mistakenly shoots and kills an innocent classmate, in a vain attempt to be a hero, do they face criminal charges?
I have heard it said, 'You cannot protect against crazy'. But you can train for it and learn from experiences of the past. I would rather put my faith in the highly trained police officers that work at and near college campuses everyday, rather than a hypothetical CHL license holder that just might be in the right place and in the right frame of mind to do any good.
I'm certainly not saying that a random college student with a concealed carry permit is going to perform well in a situation involving a shooter, but don't expect your average law enforcement officer to do much better.
Carrying a gun carried a sense of responsibility with it - but I can't speak for all situations.
I agree. Make it 18.
Maybe the law is different in Texas, though.
That would be pointless. Once they get a conviction and lose their CCW permit, they are no longer CCW holders and thus no longer part of the issue. Any subsequent convictions would be meaningless to the CCW issue since they would not effect their ability to carry a concealed handgun. It would still be banned either way.
"But the CHL training should not be compared to the Basic Police Officer Class (BPOC) in Texas, or subsequent in-service coursework required of all peace officers."
Who said it should?
"More importantly, the NICS database background check for carry licensing and firearms purchase must not be confused with the type of background checks carried out by law enforcement for potential employees - which involve reference checks, a psychological evaluation, a polygraph, and several months of supervised training."
Again who said it should? Why are you bringing up such pointless strawman issues? The only one making the comparison is you.
See my comment. There's a point for the question John was looking at--i.e. "How well is the initial filter/screening working?". But yeah, the more relevant question is, "How likely is that someone legally carrying a concealed weapon will commit a crime?" Which is what will help answer the main issue John started with, "will concealed handgun licensees raise the extremely low violent crime rate on college campuses?"