iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Josh Sugarmann

Josh Sugarmann

Posted: May 27, 2010 01:31 PM

Another Month, Another Batch of CCW Killings

What's Your Reaction:

The only thing as constant as the gun lobby's claim that concealed handgun permit holders are model citizens who never commit crimes is the ever-growing list of killings by CCW holders that prove such claims false.

Let's look at three of the new killings detailed in the May update to the Violence Policy Center's "Concealed Carry Killers" website, which tracks killings by concealed handgun permit holders as reported by news outlets (since detailed information on killings by permit holders isn't made available by issuing states).

  • On April 15, 2010, concealed handgun permit holder Norman Bren Whitton, 69, allegedly shot and killed fellow retiree Larry Butcher, 74, after a road-rage incident at an upscale East Tennessee retirement village involving Whitton's Cadillac sedan and Butcher's golf cart. Whitton was charged with second-degree murder.
  • On April 28, 2010, concealed handgun permit holder Amanda Knight, 21, was allegedly part of a group of four criminals who took part in a home-invasion robbery in Washington state that resulted in the shooting death of James Sanders, 43. Knight was charged with first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and second-degree assault.
  • On May 2, 2010, former Navy Captain and concealed handgun permit holder Robert Klosterman, 64, shot and killed his wife Rebecca, 57, in their Virginia home before shooting himself to death.

These four new deaths are just fraction of the at least 166 individuals that have been killed by concealed handgun permit holders since May 2007. Included in this number are nine law enforcement officers. Not included are incidents where concealed handgun permit holders have tried to kill law enforcement personnel and failed, such as the case of Pennsylvania resident David Aaron Price.

  • On the night of Friday, March 21, 2008, David Aaron Price threw either rocks or debris at an unmarked police car as it was stopped at an intersection in Pittsburgh. When Detective George Satler got out of the car, Price opened fire with the 22 caliber Beretta handgun he was licensed to carry. Satler and his partner, Detective Tim Rush, returned fire, hitting Price seven times. According to Pittsburgh Police Assistant Chief Maurita Bryant, "Even when the suspect was down, he continued to fire his weapon." Detective Satler was hit once in the lower back, treated, and released with the bullet still lodged in his body. Detective Rush was uninjured. Price died from his wounds. Price's father told reporters, "It's a complete shock. He would holler a lot, but he was a gentle person."
But the tally of murdered law enforcement, mass shootings, murder-suicides, domestic violence shootings, and all too many instances of guys who "holler a lot" going off on roadways, in parking lots, or at bars and restaurants means little to concealed carry proponents who above all want to carry their guns and care little about the innocent victims killed or injured in the process.
 

Follow Josh Sugarmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VPCinfo

 
 
  • Comments
  • 159
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
rikilii
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
08:21 AM on 06/13/2010
Another month, another batch of unjustified killings by cops....

...but only cops should carry guns.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
04:39 PM on 06/01/2010
Obviously we should ignore this entirely anecdotal, poison-the-well argument.

But I would like to know whether there is any bona fide research out there about crime rates among licenses vis-a-vis the rest of the population? "Bona fide" means regressive analysis of numeric data by someone who has had actual training in statistics, NOT "so-and-so who had a license killed so-and-so, so see, all licensees are bad."
04:42 PM on 06/07/2010
"On January 1, 1996, the Texas Concealed Handgun Law went into effect. This law states that the Texas Department of Public Safety (TXDPS) "shall issue" a concealed handgun license (CHL) to any Texas resident who meets the application requirements for character (background check) and training. This is an analysis of arrest data for Texas concealed handgun licensees that was performed on data from the subsequent years of 1996 - 2000. A comparison was made with the arrest data for the entire Texas population for the same time period, showing that, on average: male Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than male Texans with a CHL; and female Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than female Texans with a CHL. Of the violent crime cases that have been adjudicated, approximately 26% of CHL holders who were arrested were convicted, and 44% are cleared of the violent crimes for which they were arrested."

http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm
.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
OSCPJ
Want it? Work 4 it. No 1 has ever drown in sweat.
04:23 PM on 07/02/2010
Thanks. I don't carry on a daily basis. But this article made me want to carry today so I did.

Also, CCW in Florida is not just guns. It involves Knives and something else, I believe a taser/baton.
12:38 PM on 05/28/2010
Mr. Sugarmann's conclusion is this: because some will cross over the line from responsibly exercising their right to carry a firearm to engaging in criminal behavior, the ability of all to exercise the right to carry a firearm should be prohibited in order to prevent the few from engaging in criminal behavior.

In the above sentence, substitute any other right in place of the text reading "carry a firearm" and ask yourself whether this logic is a sound basis for curbing civil liberties.

An example - "because some will cross over the line from responsibly exercising their right to peacably assemble to engaging in criminal behavior (e.g., conspiring to treason while so assembled), the ability of all to exercise the right to peaceably assemble should be prohibited in order to prevent the few from engaging in criminal behavior.

Another - "because some will cross over the line from responsibly exercising their right to testify in their own defense to engaging in criminal behavior (e.g., committing perjury), the ability of all to exercise the right to testify in their own defense should be prohibited in order to prevent the few from engaging in criminal behavior.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveNYC
04:48 PM on 06/01/2010
With all due respect, your attempt at reason is likely a waste of time. Anecdotal and stereotype laden arguments like this are intended to ruffle feathers, rather than to provoke meaningful discussion. Yes, you are right that the argument is nothing more than a re-canned version of "let's trade freedom for promises of security."

One of the many defects in legislating on the basis of "my story about so-and-so" is that it doesn't address causation. Would all 3 of the named people have been carrying illegally in the absence of a CCW law? If so, then it's difficult to say that the CCW law caused the crimes to take place. (Indeed, Mr. Sugarmann doesn't try. The sole point is to identify "people with concealed handgun licenses" as "borderline criminals" rather than have a reasoned debate about public policy.)
08:50 AM on 06/02/2010
No offense taken. I agree that those who abide by arguments like Mr. Sugarmann's sometimes demonstrate an abdication of reasoned argument in favor of visceral reaction to a negative outcome. However, while Mr. Sugarmann does not want to promote an engaged and reasoned discussion, I hoped to offer the opportunity for such within the comments. You are entirely correct that the most glaring error is the complete lack of any causal argument.
09:46 AM on 05/28/2010
The fact is people carrying guns are more likely to use them than those who don't have them on their person.

When everyone carries a gun, an argument that would normally end in some sort of scuffle or just yelling, ends in someone getting shot instead.

I think people should have the right to have guns, but our current attitude in this country where everyone wants to walk around armed to the gills to protect themselves results in far greater numbers of innocent people being shot than people protecting themselves from a would-be robber or assailant.

Police have said for many years that the people who usually get killed by private gunowners are their loved ones.

I guess everyone should be able to have assault rifles and carry a gun on each hip just to make sure they're safe?

What a horrible mistake.
photo
Old Jarhead
F-4. The triumph of thrust over aerodynamics
09:59 AM on 05/28/2010
Assault rifles are not available to civilians. Only "assault weapons" which is a political term to describe a scary looking semi-automatic weapon.

VPC/BC have for years been saying that there will be blooding running in the streets when they allow concealed carry. Has not happened yet. And when you take into account that Mr. Clinton had the Justice Dept. do a study on the number of crimes (crimes, not murders exclusively), they found at least 800,000 crimes averted annually by persons who were armed. And the vast majority did not discharge their weapons. So I would submit that the presence of firearms is highly beneficial to maintaining peace.

If a police officer could be present at the time each and every crime started, we might be able to agree to some points you made, but they usually just take information and try to catch the perpetrator at a later date.
10:49 AM on 05/28/2010
Well, the cops in San Antonio have been very busy shooting and killing criminals lately, so I'm not sure about the cops where you are, but ours here in Texas have been pretty proactive.

You didn't respond to my point that minor arguments end in shooting when everyone is armed AND most people (still) are shot by loved ones.

Sorry, no matter how yiou color it, people carrying guns everywhere results in more shootings and senseless deaths. It's axiomatic.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
10:10 AM on 05/28/2010
Your viewpoint may appear "logical", but it is contrary to facts.

Read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".
photo
Old Jarhead
F-4. The triumph of thrust over aerodynamics
10:20 AM on 05/28/2010
I have noticed that many gun control adherents actually believe that when they use an emotional argument, they seem to "feel" that their emotions make much more sense than actual facts, and as a result, discount any and all factual arguments.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
11:58 AM on 05/28/2010
Have you a reference to Ms. Mary Rosh's assessment of that work?
08:53 AM on 05/28/2010
Now this is interesting as it offers evidence that the absence of a criminal record or history of mental illness is no assurance that a person can be trusted to handle a firearm responsibly, which calls into question the whole concept of background checks and permits. Considering the stupid, amoral and highly illegal things that police, soldiers and military contractors have been known to do when armed, is there really such a thing as a person who is so wise and in control of themselves that they really deserve to have that much power in their hands?

I doubt I'll live to see the day when Americans evolve out of their miserable obsession with violence and weapons, but if it ever happens, let me congratulate them in advance.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
09:05 AM on 05/28/2010
"Now this is interesting as it offers evidence that the absence of a criminal record or history of mental illness is no assurance that a person can be trusted to handle a firearm responsibly"

An estimated eighty-million individuals in the United States lawfully own firearms. Given that the percentage of these individuals who criminally misuse their firearms is statistically insignificant, your conclusion is not rational. However, your statement is consistent with my observation that civilian disarmament advocates are irrational.
09:26 AM on 05/28/2010
I would guess that the loved ones of those who died due to an argument that could have been settled without a death, would consider their loss to be anything but "satistically insignificant."

Based on your comments, I guess it's far more important to have no gun control than it is to save innocent lives. Right?
09:06 AM on 05/28/2010
When people "evolve" out of glorifying being "gangstas" and dealing drugs and committing murder to achiveve your "street cred", then maybe we law abiding gun owners can discuss some other options. Until then, if you don't mind being a helpless victim in waiting then feel free.
08:48 AM on 05/28/2010
What about all of the people who are killed with unregistered guns?

If you outlaw guns. then only outlaws will have guns.
12:23 PM on 05/28/2010
as well evidenced in DC and Chicago
02:05 AM on 05/28/2010
Since this comment thread appears to be almost exclusively populated by concealed-carry fans, let me offer a small, but polite, remark.

Well, two remarks. First, I am fully supportive of the Second Amendment. I own several firearms. My children own firearms. I have no problem with the CONCEPT of concealed-carry permits, although I would prefer the permitting process to be a bit more scrupulous. For example, I am personally familiar with instances where CCW permits were granted specifically because the applicants were known to the the relevant Sheriffs. I'm not suggesting that there was anything wrong with the applicants -- how could I? -- but shortcutting the procedure is asking for trouble.

Second remark: Mr. Sugarmann is not attacking the CCW concept on a percentage basis. He is making the point -- which I'm afraid is true -- that SOME holders of concealed-carry permits commit illegal acts with their weapons. You cannot legitimately discredit this assertion by simply saying things like "it's only x% of murders" -- to be meaningful, you'd have to compare the murder rate among CCW holders to the overall murder rate. I also find it sketchy to try to exclude events because "the CCW didn't matter in that case". The strongest pro-CCW argument is that folks with a CCW have had extra training and background checks to ensure that their weapon use will be under control. It seems to me that such control shouldn't depend on whether or not their weapon is actually concealed.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
08:54 AM on 05/28/2010
" For example, I am personally familiar with instances where CCW permits were granted specifically because the applicants were known to the the relevant Sheriffs."

Such corruption is eliminated through the structuring of a "shall issue" permit system.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
09:09 AM on 05/28/2010
WRT your first comment. Here in TX, we have a very good training program for CHLs (feel free to look it up at the TX Dept Safety). Many folks consider it a model that should be emulated elsewhere. It teaches the essentials without being onerous. As you point out, some other states have far fewer requirements. Yet there is NO evidence whatsoever that CHL holders from permissive states are more or less lawful than those from tougher states. In the absence of evidence of a problem, there is NO justification in presenting a "solution".
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Grin and Barret...
01:11 AM on 05/28/2010
Mr. Sugarmann is barely able to tread water with his assertions.. I have seen many posters on this site who are anti-gun bring better material..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Y3rMawm
veni, vidi, bibi.
11:45 PM on 05/27/2010
Over this same period of time, how many people died from prescription medication? Which is legal/lethal, no trigger need be pulled.
02:07 AM on 05/28/2010
Pardon me, but this is a completely irrelevant question.

How many people have died from automobile accidents?

Irrelevant.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
10:15 AM on 05/28/2010
"Irrelevant"

Not entirely. It is important to have perspective about the magnitude of the risk. Comparison with other familiar sources of risk help provide that perspective.
11:37 PM on 05/27/2010
It is really nice to see the posting public can see Josh's article for what it is...anti-gun at all costs. There was one post that says it well, 'thanks Josh for helping the cause of the concealed carry by posting easily refutible "facts".'
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
11:24 PM on 05/27/2010
Take a large group of people and you will always find a few "bad apples".
As a test I decided to Google "judge convicted" just to see what came up.
Here are five examples chosen at random.

Judge Convicted for Private-Prison Kickback Scheme
Ex-Judge Convicted of Indecent Exposure
El Paso judge convicted in sex, bribe case
Ex-N.Y. Judge Convicted of Shaking Down Attorney
Philadelphia Ex-Judge Convicted of Extortion
Retired judge, convicted of embezzlement, disbarred by resignation

So what does this all prove? That we shouldn't have CCW or that we should do away with judges?
It proves nothing at all, as Josh well knows.
02:10 AM on 05/28/2010
It proves neither, as you well know. What it proves is that judges are not perfect, and neither are concealed-carry permit holders.

Do you really want to argue about that?
11:22 AM on 05/28/2010
I believe that is the point. People are--well--human, and some humans do bad things. Mr. Sugarmann is trying to argue that because a tiny proportion of people who have CCWs have done bad things, that nobody should be allowed to carry--or even own--a firearm. Coburn is trying to demonstrate the absurdity of that position. I can see by your comments that you are a thoughtful person, so I think you understand that Sugarmann is not simply saying that concealed-carry permit holders are not perfect, but that every CCW is a crime waiting to happen and should be banned.
12:27 PM on 05/28/2010
and that argument applies as well to Josh's thesis--since he lists 5 murders out of what the averages say would be 1000 murders (12000 per year on average--so in a month, figure 1000)
10:52 PM on 05/27/2010
Wow, you found four alleged (your compassion for the legal theory of innocent until proven guilty is touching) murders in one month in a country that averages about 16,000 murders per year, or over 1,000 murders per month. That means that about .0001% of all murders that month were by CCW holders.

Josh, you may be trying to demonize CCW holders, but so far all you have done is prove how lawful they are compared to the general population. Keep it up Josh, your data is really helping further the cause of gun rights.

Meanwhile, of course he ignores the far more common cases of firearm self defense taking place by CCW holders. For those who actually care about facts, check here:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
01:37 AM on 05/28/2010
Mmm, your math sucks. 4/1000 == 0.4%, not .0001%.
10:16 PM on 05/28/2010
I wasn't going by exact math. After all, if you want to be exact, then you have to increase the total monthly murder number, since it's clearly more then 1,000 per month.

That point is that no matter how you look at it, CCW holders committ a microscopic fraction of the murders in this nation, Clearly we have much more to fear from those without CCW permits then those who have them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
10:51 PM on 05/27/2010
After Virginia Tech, what struck me was not the response from those that advocate reduction in guns but those who's immediate fear was the remote possibility that this would lead to gun ownership restrictions.

It is the same terror that President Obama would take away their guns despite literally no evidence to support it.

There really does seem to be a lack of sense when it comes to guns.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and retired military combat vet
11:11 PM on 05/27/2010
After the VTech shootings, the gun controllers imediately began calling for laws which would not have stopped Cho.

The fact is that the laws we had on the books would have stopped Cho's purchases had the judge simply checked the correct box on a form, confirming what he had written -- that Cho was a danger to himself and others.

While President Obama has not said he would take away any of the firearms already in civilian hands, he did support several gun control positions which were cause for some concern.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Appleblossom
12:44 AM on 05/28/2010
That does not explain the hysteria over having run out and buy as many guns as one could despite absolutely no evidence the man was going to take one's guns away.

As for the Virginia Tech incident-even the reasonable request for some better legislation caused mass hysteria on the part of the NRA and other gun rights groups.
11:25 PM on 05/27/2010
Let us not forget that the Brady Bunch sent out a mailer to their distribution list, which many of us are on, and asked for us to send them one dollar for every murder victim at VT before the bodies reached ambient temperature.

They truly are a class act.
09:18 AM on 05/28/2010
i figure that you're not being factual here.
12:04 PM on 05/28/2010
Here's the e-mail sent out the day after:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/MessageViewer/&printer_friendly=1?em_id=24141.0&dlv_id=21161&JServSessionIdr007=3c0w0fru72.app25a

Here's the one sent out a month later:

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/MessageViewer/&printer_friendly=1?em_id=24681.1&dlv_id=21782
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:30 PM on 05/27/2010
slaves should not own weapons of any kind.
10:03 PM on 05/27/2010
Well, he did get a CCW...10 YEARS BEFORE THE INCIDENT NOW...PENDING.

"Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: William Littleton
PENDING
Date: December 15, 2008
People Killed: 1
Circumstances: On December 15, 2008, William Littleton allegedly killed his neighbor,
72-year-old Luther Kaemming, shooting him three times in the chest with a rifle.
Kaemming was a prosecuting witness in a court case against Littleton on charges that
Littleton had obstructed drainage ditches in front of his property causing water to back up
into neighbors’ yards. Littleton, who was issued a concealed handgun permit in 1998,
was charged with murder.
Source: “Sheriff’s Dept.: Man accused of murder had previously threatened neighbor,” The Daily News
(Jacksonville, NC), December 16, 2008; “Mistrial preceded neighbors fatal dispute,” The Daily News
(Jacksonville, NC), January 14, 2009."
08:43 AM on 05/28/2010
So... he used a rifle and not a handgun to kill his neighbor? How the hell does that relate to CCW? It's just another liberal attempt to demonize what they fear so much due to their own ignorance.
09:20 AM on 05/28/2010
excellent point,,,,,fanned........G36