Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the US (According to Brady's)

[qkrthnu]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/r.../conctruth.asp

Concealed Truth
Concealed Weapons Laws and Trends in Violent Crime in the United States

Executive Summary

For years, the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups have devoted enormous resources to convincing state legislatures that loosening the restrictions on the concealed carrying of weapons (CCW) would make their states and their citizens safer. Next legislative session, it is anticipated that several states will consider National Rifle Association backed legislation that would allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state.

The gun lobby has contended for years that more guns make for less crime. That slogan is actually the paraphrased title of a book by Dr. John Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago, which claims that greatly easing restrictions on concealed-carry handguns led to large decreases in crime. Although flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature — and his findings dismissed by a growing list of prominent researchers — the gun lobby successfully used it to persuade several state legislatures to loosen CCW restrictions in the mid-90's.

This study conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The study's key findings are as follows:

For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen – but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities.

Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much — by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.

Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An analysis conducted by The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: allowing more people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports, from 1997 to 1998 the nation's overall crime rate dropped 6.4%, from 4930.0 to 4615.5 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling is this continuing trend where crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that do not allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.

From 1992 to 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for the 11 states that had liberal CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants) during this entire period dropped only 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was twice that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. New York and California — the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws — experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the six-year period. New York experienced a 43% decline and California experienced a 37% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets.

Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the 11 states with liberal CCW laws during this entire period dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%. Again, New York and California — the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW licensing laws — experienced dramatic decreases over the six-year period. New York experienced a 55% drop in the robbery rate and California experienced a 50% drop in the robbery rate.

In the 29 states that had lax CCW laws during 1997 and 1998, the crime rate fell 6%, from 5296.6 to 4971.2 crimes per 100,000 population. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 7%, from 4613.7 to 4297.2 crimes per 100,000 population. While the rate of violent crime for states with strict carry laws fell at relatively the same rate as less restrictive states from 1997 to 1998 (8% and 7.5% respectively), the robbery rate for these 22 strict states fell 13%, compared to the lax state's 10% (this includes an 11% drop for those states which relaxed their CCW laws after 1992, and a drop of only 7% who have had lax CCW laws since before 1992).

"These numbers demonstrate what we've been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Inc. "We don't need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place."

The decision to liberalize concealed carry laws by a number of state legislatures was based largely on findings drawn from one study authored by Dr. John Lott and David Mustard. Lott and Mustard claim that greatly easing restrictions on carrying concealed handguns will lead to a large decrease in crime. When first presented, Lott and Mustard's work was met with skepticism in the research community. Now, a growing body of empirical evidence has completely undermined the credibility of their claims.

Perhaps most compelling is the fact that robbery has declined twice as quickly in states with strict licensing or that do not allow concealed carrying at all than in states with lax CCW systems. If carrying concealed weapons reduces crime, it would be expected that the greatest effects would be seen on crimes that most often occur between strangers in public places, such as robbery. However, Lott and Mustard found virtually no beneficial effects from liberalizing the carrying of concealed weapons on robbery. As indicated above, robbery in restrictive CCW states fell twice as fast as in lax CCW states. Furthermore, reanalysis of Lott and Mustard's data by two different teams of researchers revealed that crime overall was just as likely to increase as decrease after states eased their carry laws — a finding which appears to be borne out by the FBI's crime data.

Between 1992 and 1998, over a quarter (27%, 3/11) of the states that were "shall issue" during this entire time period experienced an increase in the violent crime rate, as well as in the robbery rate. This compares to increases in violent crime over the same 6 year time period in just 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws. Only 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws experienced an increase in robberies. If allowing more people to carry concealed handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many "shall issue" states — particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime?

The Percentage and Number of States with Increases in Crime between 1992 & 1997

Violent Crime Rate
Robbery Rate

Strict States/No CCW
18% (4/22)
18% (4/22)

States with lax CCW laws
27% (3/11)
27% (3/11)


Lax or "shall issue" CCW laws require law enforcement to issue CCW licenses to virtually anyone who is not a convicted felon. In these states, local law enforcement has almost no discretion in issuing these licenses and, in many cases, getting a license requires little or no safety training or even a demonstration that the applicant knows how to use a gun. States that give law enforcement discretion in issuing licenses (so-called "may issue" states) or which prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons entirely have chosen other strategies to fight crime, resulting in the greatest decreases in crime over the past six years.

For several years now, the National Rifle Association and others have made it a priority to get state legislatures to pass lax CCW laws. They claim that putting more guns on our streets reduces crime, despite the fact that almost every major law enforcement organization in the country opposes lax CCW laws.

[qkrthnu]

Next session, several legislatures are expected to consider legislation that would relax their current CCW laws. New Jersey, Maryland, Kansas, and Colorado are among those who plan to bring this type of legislation before their governing bodies. It is also anticipated that the Michigan Legislature will again try to proceed with legislation backed by the National Rifle Association that would allow virtually anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. Currently, Michigan allows gun boards to issue concealed weapons permits to citizens based on need and at the discretion of local law enforcement. The NRA bill strips local control and law enforcement discretion. From 1992 to 1998, Michigan enjoyed a 19% drop in its violent crime rate – CCW lax states saw a 15% drop — and a 30% drop in its robbery rate — compared to 24% in lax CCW states.

"These numbers should make everyone question the NRA's campaign for lax CCW laws under the guise of fighting crime," said Mrs. Brady. "If the gun lobby is truly interested in reducing crime, they should work for common sense measures like stopping criminals from getting guns at gun shows and limiting handgun sales to one per person per month to cut gun trafficking. Working with lawmakers, law enforcement, the public health community and civic leaders on proven crime-fighting strategies, we can make America safer for everyone."

(Issued October 22, 1999)

Ewwwww, I feel dirty after searching their site for news regarding my state. I found this old article that caught my attention.

I was especially interested in their statement about John Lott's book that said

flaws in his research have been widely documented in scientific literature

What "scientific literature" are they refering to here?

[Fred Hansen]

What "scientific literature" are they refering to here?

I think it's a typo. They probably think that "scientific" is a contraction of "science fiction" a form of fantasy literature that they are most likely much more familiar with.

[mons-meg]

Lie, damned lies, and statistics.

This is way too complex a question for anyone to be taken seriously just because they quote rates of "violent crime". Maybe if they could specify rates of violent crime against citizens who are also CCW/CHL/permit holders (who were carrying at the time of the incident), that would mean something.

Oh wait...that would make too much sense...

[aikidoka - mks]

The gun grabbers are not known for being honest with studies from what i have seen. Im no expert but I bet Lott or someone with similar expertise can show they have messed with the data to reach their conclusions. I hope someone does that soon to negate this bs.

[Hkmp5sd]

I hope someone does that soon to negate this bs.

Someone has already done something to negate this. However, the results of that "someone" will never see the light of day in mainstream media.

An example is Jim March's work on the CCW issue in California. He has a great deal of evidence (along with evidence on other parts of the issue) that the rich and famous get CCWs for the very reason the state government claims the average citizen doesn't need them. Think any of his arguements will make the front (or even the back) page of the major news papers in CA?

[BogBabe]

It's indisputable that the Brady Bunch plays fast and loose with the truth. The counting of gang-bangers and drug dealers in their 20s among the "X number of children shot every day" demonstrates that.

The article gives no information about how they define "violent crime." It wouldn't surprise me at all if they use a twisted, convoluted definition, counting some non-violent incidents and rejecting some violent ones, in order to arrive at these figures.

There is also that magical cut-off date of 1992, with multiple references to the rate of change in violent crime in states that relaxed CCW prior to 1992. Doesn't Lott document in his book that the largest drop in violent crimes occurs in the first couple of years after a relaxing of CCW laws, followed by a levelling off thereafter?

For example, here in Florida we had our largest drop in violent crime rates in the late 80s and early 90s, after passage of our shall-issue law. Thus, by 1992, Florida had already realized most of the benefits from shall-issue. So yes, looking at our violent crime rate from 1992 to 1998 isn't going to show as large a drop. Because the largest drop in crime has already occurred.

I could state, with complete truthfulness, that from 1992 to 1998 the United States hasn't experienced as large a drop in the rate of polio as some third-world (excuse me, developing) countries. I could then make the specious, but logical-sounding, claim that the polio vaccine isn't all that effective in the U.S.

To refute this article effectively would require that we have access to their data and methodology, which I'm sure they'll be quite willing to share with us -- seeing as how they're so dedicated to the truth. :barf:

[Hal]

(Issued October 22, 1999)

That piece is 3 years old.
The figures have been debunked already.
It's junk science.

For example, look at the double-speak in this:
"Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much — by 15%. "

What they don't say is that the violent crime rate in the years before 1992 in those States which had enacted CCW laws had already dropped. To be meaningful, they'd have to go back to pre 1992 figures for the CCW States, and that would mean including the non CCW States in those figures to maintian a fair base. When you do that, their figures just don't hold up.

[Monkeyleg]

Wow! These people should be working as carnival hucksters.

Notice that, at one point, they compare just 11 "lax" concealed carry states to New York and California. Why not compare all 32 shall-issue states to Illinois?

And, after trying desperately to discredit Lott's work, they use his work in this sentence: "However, Lott and Mustard found virtually no beneficial effects from liberalizing the carrying of concealed weapons on robbery."

Of course, the implication here is that it's the permit holders who are causing the crime. They can't say that outright, because it can be very easily disproved.

[dZ]

at the Brady event i attended on Monday,
they called Assault rifles
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

They added Silencers on to the AWB

They claimed 90% of Americans want AWs banned

They claimed many police officers are shot with assault rifles

Basically if it dribbles out of a Brady-ite,
its most likely an un Truth

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Brady propaganda is based on the Black-Nagin study. In order to get those results, the study decided that rural areas were over represented and ignored any county with a population of less than 100,000 (about 90% of the U.S. geographically).

That still gave them an inconclusive result well withing the margin of error so they threw out the results from Florida (the first state to enact shall-issue CCW and the longest history of results since at the time of the Black-Nagin study most states had only had a shall-issue CCW for one or two years).

If you want good information to debate liberalized concealed carry laws:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

This has both sides pro and con and debates and rebuttals from all the major researchers involved.

[SW9M]

here in Florida we had our largest drop in violent crime rates in the late 80s and early 90s, after passage of our shall-issue law.

When Texas was considering our CCW laws I looked into Florida's crime stats. for the year that their law passed. IIRC the law was passed in June or July and went into effect at the first of the following year. Florida's violent crime numbers had a significant drop the MONTH after the law passed. 5 or 6 months before it actually went into effect. IMHO that speaks volumes for the "fear of defense". I did not compare same month’s numbers from different years, but it was like 10-20% drop the next month.

The law wasn't even in effect and the bad guys had already reacted to it.

CCW works hands down. There is no legitimate argument against.

[madkiwi]

It would make no difference to me whether or not overall crime rates went up or down after liberalizing CCW laws. It is irrelevent and a red herring.

The only statistic that counts is: How much of that crime is committed by citizens with legally concealed weapons? Because unless the increase in crime was actually being committed by these law-abiding people then what crime rates do is besides the point.

Problem is that the NRA wants to hang so much emphasis on armed citizens reducing crime rates. Makes it too easy for the antis to discredit with flawed statistics, or for the benefits to be obscured by other demographic or societal changes (poor economy, large populations of poor etc).

Madkiwi