| The purpose of this study is to determine the relative criminality
of concealed carry licensees versus the general population of Ohio. In
order to do this, we will compare the number of concealed carry license
suspensions and revocations to the arrest rates for the entire state
population in 2004. This paper begins with a section displaying the raw
data for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2004 reporting year, and
follows with a second section discussing the data. Table Data
| Table 1: Ohio 2004 CCW
Revocation/Suspension Rates |
| |
CHL Licensees |
General Public |
|
| |
Sus/Rev * [1] |
Pop. [2] |
Percent of CHLs |
Arrests [3] |
Pop. ** [4] |
Percent of Pop. |
Ratio |
| FBI Crime Only |
160 |
45,497 |
0.3517% |
42,825 |
7,816,430 |
0.5479% |
0.64 |
| All Arrests |
160 |
45,497 |
0.3517% |
271,838 |
7,816,430 |
3.4778% |
0.10 |
* Annualized assuming identical
rate of suspension or revocation.
** The population here is the estimated total living in
jurisdictions covered by reporting agencies included in the FBI
arrest data report. |
| Table 2: Cost Per Crime
Incident |
| |
Murder |
Rape |
Robbery |
Agg. Assault |
Burglary |
Larceny |
MV Theft |
| In 1993 Dollars [5] |
2,940,000 |
87,000 |
8,000 |
24,000 |
1,400 |
370 |
3,700 |
| 2004 Cost [6] |
3,843,137 |
113,725 |
10,458 |
31,373 |
1,830 |
484 |
4,837 |
| Table 3: Cost Savings If
General Population As Law Abiding as CCW Licensees |
| |
Crimes [7] |
Cost of Crimes |
FBI Crime Ratio |
All Arrests |
| Homicide |
517 |
$1,986,901,961 |
$ 711,565,631 |
$1,785,987,157 |
| Rape |
4,646 |
$ 528,368,627 |
$ 189,223,708 |
$ 474,940,184 |
| Robbery |
17,543 |
$ 183,456,209 |
$ 65,700,843 |
$ 164,905,184 |
| Aggravated Assault |
16,457 |
$ 516,298,039 |
$ 184,900,890 |
$ 464,090,169 |
| Burglary |
96,954 |
$ 177,432,157 |
$ 65,543,460 |
$ 159,490,282 |
| Larceny |
283,013 |
$ 136,882,105 |
$ 49,021,342 |
$ 123,040,636 |
| Motor Vehicle Theft |
40,583 |
$ 196,283,791 |
$ 70,294,762 |
$ 176,435,645 |
| Totals: |
|
$3,725,622,889 |
$1,334,250,634 |
$3,348,889,258 |
Analysis of Table Data
There were 120 suspensions and revocations during the last three
quarters of 2004, an average of 40 per quarter. This number was
annualized to 160, in order to compare licensee data to Ohio 2004 arrest
data for the entire year, as tabulated in Table 1 to determine relative
rates of criminality between the two populations.
For the entire year of 2004, there were 42,825 arrests in Ohio for
alleged commissions of the major FBI crime categories listed in Table 3.
Assuming that all 160 concealed carry licensees committed crimes falling
under these categories, we compute that licensees are 36% more
law-abiding than the general population.
Next, we must place a price tag on crime: how much each incident costs
the state of Ohio. In 1996, the Department of Justice came out with a
report entitled Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, where
they calculated how much each type of crime victimization cost society
in terms of medical, emotional, social, and work-related costs. Their
cost estimates were based upon 1993 dollars, so Table 2 recalculates
each crime category to reflect 2004 dollar values.
As shown in Table 3, the total bill for the state of Ohio––for only
these seven crime categories––was over $3.7 billion just for the year
2004. Assuming the worst-case scenario, that all concealed carry
licensees are felonious criminals, the state would have realized a
savings of over $1.3 billion. This is equivalent to the funds necessary
to run both Ohio’s Special Education programs and School Food Services
for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.[8]
However, this is the worst-case scenario for concealed carry licensees,
based upon available information. Reality lies somewhere else, as
licensees may lose their license based upon many other criteria. For
example, a license can be suspended “if the licensee is the subject of a
protection order issued by a court.”[9] (This does not necessarily mean
the licensee is guilty of making, or even considering, a threat or
violent action.) There are new crime categories specific to concealed
carry licensees, which can result in suspension or revocation, such as
using a weapon while intoxicated.[10] A license will be revoked if the
licensee knowingly carries a concealed handgun into unauthorized
places.[11] There are misdemeanor offenses which may result in
suspension or revocation that are not necessarily included in the FBI
crime categories.[12] Many of these violations may end up being
“victimless,” in that only the doer suffers consequences from their
actions.
In order to better determine the true overall ratio of criminality, one
can compare licensee suspension and revocation rates to the overall
arrest rate of the general population. Calculating this, we find that
the general population gets arrested nearly ten times as often as
concealed carry licensees experience suspension or revocation––which
might not include arrest––for any reason. Extrapolating this
ratio across the FBI crime categories, we find that if the general
population were as law-abiding as concealed carry licensees, Ohio would
have realized a net savings of over $3.3 billion in 2004 alone. This is
one-third of Ohio’s entire Fiscal Year 2006-2007 education budget.[13]
In fairness, without more detailed information, the actual cost savings
most likely lies somewhere between the two estimates. But it should not
be surprising that concealed carry licensees are more law-abiding than
the general population: they must undergo proper firearms safety
training, and they must be certified via a criminal history background
check that they are sufficiently law-abiding to be entrusted with such
responsibility.
Persons who apply for a license are required to undergo a criminal
history background check to ensure that they are not prohibited by
law from carrying a concealed handgun. For persons who have lived in
Ohio for five years or more, the sheriff submits the applicant’s
fingerprints electronically to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Identification and Investigation for an in-state criminal background
check. Applicants who have lived in Ohio fewer than five years are
required to undergo a national check through the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.[14]
Conclusion
Concealed carry licensees have made a considered choice to conduct
themselves a certain way in public, and have invested the time, money,
and effort to certify that their level of commitment has earned the
public’s trust. They have voluntarily undergone background checks
normally reserved for government jobs or actual criminal arrests, in
order to certify that they rank among Ohio’s most law-abiding citizens
prior to receiving their license. These data prove that Ohio’s trust has
not been in vain.
Endnotes
-----------------------------------------------------------
[1] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General,
State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 29. http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/docs/04_cc_annual_rpt.pdf
[2] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General,
State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 29.
[3] Table 69, Arrests by State, 2004, Crime in the United States 2004,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, page 342. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. Miller, Cohen, Wiersema.
National Institute of Justice Research Report, US Department of Justice,
January, 1996, Table 2, page 9. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/victcost.pdf
[6] Consumer Price Index (CPI) Conversion Factors 1800 to estimated 2015
to Convert to Dollars of 2004, Robert C. Sahr, Oregon State University,
copyright 2005. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2004.pdf
[7] Table 5: Crime in the United States by Volume State, 2004, Crime in
the United States 2004, Federal Bureau of Investigation, page 93.
[8] LSC Redbook for the Department of Education, House Primary and
Secondary Education Subcommittee, Ohio Department of Education, page 27.
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/legislator/misc/LSC_Redbook-ODE.pdf
[9] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General,
State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 3.
[10] Bill Analysis H.B. 274, Michael J. O’Neill, Legislative Service
Commission, State of Conditions for suspension, page 11. http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses124/h0274-i.pdf
[11] Ibid, Conditions for revocation, pages 11-12.
[12] Ibid, “When license must be issued” criteria noted on page 7 and
discussed on pages 11-12.
[13] LSC Redbook for the Department of Education, House Primary and
Secondary Education Subcommittee, Ohio Department of Education, page 27.
[14] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney
General, State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 3. |