|
Kansas City Star
Ignore NRA hype, focus on facts
By JANICE S. ELLIS Special to The Star
Date: 05/17/01 page B7
This weekend the volatile issue of guns will likely occupy much
of the conversation around Kansas City. More than 40,000 people
are expected to attend the National Rifle Association's annual
convention. And, an undetermined number of people from the
Kansas City area and elsewhere are expected to protest the gun
group's presence.
Proponents of the concealed-carry bill in the Missouri
legislature are probably thinking how fortuitous that the NRA
will be present -- in full force -- when the issue can still
come up for a vote. The legislature ends its session at 6 p.m.
on Friday.
The opponents, no doubt, are saying the timing couldn't be
worse. How cunning and calculating. The NRA is known for its
effective lobbying on the issue of gun ownership and gun
control.
My last column, in which I addressed the potential problems
for Missourians should House Bill 853 pass, drew nearly 100
e-mail messages and letters. The bill would allow most
Missourians to carry concealed guns.
Most of the responses were pro-conceal and carry. After
reading about 20 of them, a very common refrain emerged. Some of
the points and examples used were very similar, if not identical
in language.
I must acknowledge after reading all of them, I thought I had
been responded to by the NRA.
Nonetheless, I feel it is necessary to address the
predominant claim that ran through all of the responses: that my
concerns were not grounded in facts or research.
Needless to say, one of the primary purposes of my column is
to provide the best analysis I can on any issue I write about.
So I went back to the drawing board, did further research. What
follows are the facts I found based on studies examining FBI
crime statistics and states' crime data.
Claim: Concealed-carry proponents claim: In states where
there is a conceal-carry law, crime has gone down significantly.
Fact: According to a 1999 study by the Center to Prevent
Handgun Violence (based on FBI figures), between 1992 and 1997,
in states that did not have conceal-and-carry laws, the violent
crime rate fell an average of 24.8 percent.
In the 29 states studied and that have broad-reaching
conceal-carry laws, the violent crime rate dropped by only 11.4
percent. Nationally, during that same period, the violent crime
rate fell 19.4 percent.
There was a greater reduction in crime in states without
conceal-carry laws.
Claim: Carrying a gun will provide self-defense.
Fact: According to the National Institutes of Justice, on
average, 16 percent of all police officers killed in the line of
duty are killed with their own firearm that was taken from them
by the assailant, despite their rigorous training. The
International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police oppose passage of
liberal conceal and carry laws.
Claim: Only law-abiding citizens will be allowed to get
permits and when they do, they will act responsibly and won't
likely commit crimes.
Fact: A study done in March 1999 by the Violence Policy
Center, based on data from the Texas Department of Public
Safety, shows that after Texas passed a liberal
conceal-and-carry law, nearly 1,000 permit holders have been
arrested for crimes that include murder, kidnapping, rape or
sexual assault, and drug charges. The study further found that
permit holders were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate more
than twice that of the general population.
Many laws require or encourage permit holders to take gun
safety training courses. But how many actually become trained
users?
There are other facts to be researched.
No matter what side of the issue you are on, we all should
look very carefully at the facts amid all of the emotion and
heated debate.
As a society, as a state, we need to ask if permitting
practically anyone over 21 to legally carry a gun any time,
anywhere, any place is the answer.
It is an issue not to be taken lightly. Missourians still
have a chance to choose. Please call your representative,
senator and the governor to voice your opinion. Do it today,
before it is too late.
Janice S. Ellis' column normally appears on alternate
Tuesdays. To reach her, send e-mail to jsellis@kc.rr.com.
|
From:
Frank Brady
Date: 05/17/2001
TO Janice S. Ellis, The Kansas City Star
RE This morning's column
Good Lord, Janice! I know you don't like firearms but I
always thought you were at least honest. This morning's piece
contains more factual distortions per column inch than any seen
since they took away Paul Begala's word processor.
Here's a clue for you. None of the sources cited (the Center
to Prevent Handgun Violence, the National Institutes for
Justice, and the Violence Policy Center) have ever said anything
remotely approximating the truth-on any topic-at least not in
living memory. Credibility suffers when one relies on incredible
sources for information. The people in these organizations lie
for a living professionally. Consider this:
1. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence picked the
1992-1997 period for it's comparison for a reason. Throughout
the decade of the 1980s, when homicide and armed robbery rates
in the rest of the country were exploding, states with concealed
carry laws were experiencing dramatic declines. Consequently, by
the time 1992 rolled around, states with concealed carry laws
had already achieved the declines that their more restrictive
neighbors would not experience for several years. Extend the
graph back to cover the period from 1980 to 1997 and the full
extent of CPHV's dishonesty becomes utterly clear. By the way,
the decline in violent crime nationally during the Clinton
administration had two primary causes Changes in population
demographics and a massive increase in the incarceration of the
most violence-prone. Black males between the ages of 15 and 29
represent only about six percent of the population but account
for more than sixty percent of U.S. violent crime. During
Clinton's watch, the number of people in this group who were
either in prison, on probation, or on parole grew from
approximately 4,000,000 in 1992 to approximately 5,600,000 by
2000. This fact is somehow invisible to the national news media.
Perhaps a feature story is in order.
2. Numerous studies, including those by criminologists who
initially supported gun control laws (John Lott, et al) show
that citizens successfully employ firearms in self-defense and
crime prevention millions of times a year. Please see http//www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf
for the relevant study, published in a refereed journal.
However, the primary societal value of concealed carry laws is
deterrence. That policemen who engage in active confrontations
with criminals are sometimes killed by thugs with their own
weapons is sad. It is also utterly irrelevant with respect to
the pertinent question of whether criminals are deterred from
violence against the general population by the prospect that
intended victims might be armed. Common sense and all credible
research-based evidence, including numerous interviews with
prison inmates, indicates that they are so deterred.
3. The Violence Policy Center's claim that CCW holders in
Texas were arrested at twice the rate of the general population
is so malignantly misleading as to be ludicrous. Please go to http//txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm
(the Texas Department of Public Safety site, the agency
responsible for administering Texas CCW laws) and see for
yourself. In summary, as of May 1, 2001, there were 214,754
active permits in Texas. During 2000, a total of 178 permit
holders were convicted of felonies of all types (.08%, that is
eight one-hundreds of one percent) and only 70 permit holders
were convicted of felonies involving a firearm (.03%) or three
one-hundreds of one percent. To put this in perspective, Kansas
City, Missouri would have to reduce the number of felony
convictions among its general population to 364 per year. You
might want to check with the Prosecutor's office to see how this
compares in the real world. For your information, Vermont has
the lowest crime rate in the nation (1 murder per 100,000
people). Vermont's laws simply state that if you are not a
felon, or are not committing a crime, then you can carry a
concealed firearm. There are no Taxes or fees, no finger
printing, no background checks, NO REGISTRATION OF GUNOWNERS, no
classes to pass, no licenses. You are treated as innocent unless
you prove to be otherwise. Why has Vermont not been flooded in a
sea of blood?
For the record, I am neither a member of the NRA nor a
supporter of CCW legislation. I do support the immediate repeal
of all federal, state and local statutes and ordinances that
violate the Bill of Rights, including Amendments II and X. No
American needs permission from any government to carry a
firearm, concealed or openly. What we do need is a return to
constitutional government.
Frank Brady
Email Frank Brady
|