Flying Oskar: Looking Down The Barrel of Shane Martin’s Gun Bill
Shane Martin's new bill would put concealed guns on school grounds and in bars.
Plainly put, the state has more problems facing it right now than at any point in recent memory. So with all that on our collective plate, why does newly elected State Senator Shane Martin (R-Spartanburg) feel the most important thing he can do in a perilous time like this, is to introduce a bill that would allow concealed weapon permit holders to bring guns on school property and carry them into bars?
As the law reads right now, concealed-carry permit holders can’t carry their guns onto school property or into any establishment that serves alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. The bill that Martin introduced to the State Senate last week would reverse that by allowing concealed weapon permit holders to bring their guns onto school property as long as they are left in the car, and would allow them to be carried into a bar as long as the person is seated at a table instead of the bar.
Leaving aside the timing of the bill, the most obvious question for me is: Why would anyone need to bring a gun on school grounds or into a bar?
It may be surprising to many people, but I’m rather moderate on the issue of gun rights. I agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the ban on handguns in Washington D.C., and generally I believe a person without a criminal record should be able to purchase a handgun for home defense. Many of my family members are also hunters.
I have never really fully bought the argument that guns cause violent crime rates to go up, because many other countries that have open gun laws also have much lower violent crime rates than the U.S. Violent crime problems are often socio-economic problems, and restrictive handgun bans, like the one in D.C., are ineffective because they treat the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause.
With all that said though, I’m still not convinced that there is some pressing need to bring a gun into a bar or on school grounds. In a story in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal last week Martin said; “You don’t need to carry it inside the school. But I’ve had teachers tell me they can’t exercise their (Second Amendment) rights traveling to and from school. They ought to be able to travel to school without having to leave their weapon.”
How awful it must be for those poor teachers to not be able to carry their guns in their cars when going to school. I know how antsy I get if I’m not packing 24/7.
Seriously though, where’s the pressing need? Where’s the miscarriage of justice? There’s certainly a right in this country to own a gun, but I don’t see how that right extends to bringing a gun onto school property and apparently, the Superintendent of Shane Martin’s old school district agrees with me on this point.
In the SH-J story, Spartanburg School District 6 Superintendent Daryl Owings said “You could have a carpool situation where you have four or five kids in the car. … Even though the driver would have a concealed-carry permit, any time kids are around a loaded gun, it’s a cause for concern.”
For me, and Superintendent Owings, the issue of child safety outweighs the inconvenience of having to leave your precious pistol at home.
Owings also mentioned athletic events and meetings, and I think anyone who’s been to a local high-school football game can tell you how situations can often get pretty out of hand there. Imagine that same fandom-gone-mad situation, but now the fans have guns in their cars.
As bad as the school portion of Senator Martin’s bill is, the bar portion may be even worse. I’ve always worked under the assumption that alcohol and guns do not go well together, and that the law should do whatever possible to discourage any mixing of the two. Evidently, I have been mistaken. The greater issue it seems is that people can’t go have dinner with their family at a place that serves alcohol without leaving the ever-important firearm at home.
Again I have to ask, where is the miscarriage of justice that demands this law? The bill attempts to make the distinction between being in an establishment to eat versus being in that establishment to drink alcohol by only allowing concealed weapon permit holders to sit at a table and not at the bar while carrying a gun. Has Senator Martin never heard of getting drunk at a bar while sitting at a table?
Perhaps he’d like to accompany me to the Nu-Way on a Friday night, and we can ask patrons sitting at the tables there whether they’re there for food or drink. Maybe later, we could pass out a questionnaire to everyone entering a bar to find out whether they’re there to drink or not, and then we can take the guns from the people there to drink. I’m sure the local police departments would be more than willing to station officers at every bar in the state to help administer the test, right?
What’s also glaringly obvious about the bar provision in this bill, is that it’s absolutely unenforceable. How are you going to stop someone from sitting at the bar once they’ve entered the establishment? More importantly, what difference does it make whether a person is seated at the bar or a table in a bar? Add to that, the fact there’s no legitimate (i.e. non-paranoid) reason for a person to carry a gun into a bar, and I’m left totally at a loss as for what possible justifiable reason this law is needed.
I suspect what’s really going on is that Senator Martin, being new on the job, is looking to make a name for himself. And what better way to do that in a conservative state than to make some grand gesture to the “gun rights†crowd. Is there some real need for this law? No, of course not, but it certainly will look good on future campaign literature.
For a freshman senator who campaigned as an outsider, Shane Martin certainly has proven himself quite adept at the time-honored political art of pandering.
“Steve doesn’t like my analogy of a seat belt and a concealed handgun, claiming I should wear a bulletproof vest. He says that carrying a handgun is like a ‘portable car crash,’ whatever that means.”
It’s not that I didn’t like the analogy, but that it was demonstrably false. If your goal is to protect yourself, a gun won’t help because it doesn’t do that. It has a completely different function: To kill the person threatening you. That’s not protection, that’s intimidation or retaliation.
If that’s your goal, concealed carry is irrelevant to the argument. You are just as capable of retaliating or intimidating with a open carry weapon as a concealed one. If anything, an openly displayed weapon is much more of a deterrent, since it’s clear to everyone around that you are capable of retaliating with deadly force. Lots of states have open-carry laws, and I’d say it’s very much protected by the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment.
All that said, I think the state does have bigger fish to fry than passing a law allowing people to sneak guns into bars or have them on school grounds. I’m not saying Martin is grandstanding, but I think he needs to reexamine his priorities. People need jobs right now, not more places to carry firearms.
Um, Steve, The analogy of probable cause is accurate. If I can expect privacy as to what I’m carrying from the government, I can expect it with my fellow citizens. The caveat is carrying into business establishments with clear signs prohibiting it. At that point, I can do the legal thing and respect their wishes or I can risk legal complications if someone becomes wise to my concealed carry.
And just so you understand, your perspective is totally with YOUR state’s existing law. In Colorado, it is perfectly legal to carry into establishments that serve and sell alcohol. We haven’t had any problems with that for the last four years it’s been explicitly allowed.
If you live in Alaska or Vermont, you do NOT need a permit to carry concealed. If you’re safe enough to own the weapon, you’re good to carry. They haven’t had any issues either.
Your state now has to decide whether it wants to match many other states to do not forbid carrying into places like bars. In Colorado, if I do not consume, they do not care. And the focus should be on consumption of alcohol over an establishment that just happens to serve it. Additionally, a business need only communicate that it does not allow weapons into the establishment and I am obligated to not carry there. My car, however, is the extension of MY personal property, so they cannot forbid me to have my weapon stored there.
When it comes to schools, in Colorado, the compromise they worked out was to limit me to having the weapon in my car. If I go into the school, I have to secure the weapon in the car. Universities and colleges are exempted from this. They are not forbidden under the State law.
I brought up the right to search me to point out the flaw in your “no right to privacy” and how broadly you painted that argument. If i have the right to not be searched, then I do have some right to privacy of my person. That infers that so long as I’m not violating some legal limit of WHERE to carry, such as a business with a sign or a school, I am not breaking any law and it is nobody’s business that I carry.
“I brought up the right to search me to point out the flaw in your “no right to privacy†and how broadly you painted that argument. If i have the right to not be searched, then I do have some right to privacy of my person. That infers that so long as I’m not violating some legal limit of WHERE to carry, such as a business with a sign or a school, I am not breaking any law and it is nobody’s business that I carry.”
So, what you are saying is this: If you aren’t breaking the law, and not doing anything illegal, it’s not anyone else’s business. I agree. I’d prefer concealed firearms be illegal, but that’s simply not the law here in South Carolina.
But what Martin is trying to do is change the law so that a broad group of people can do things I consider a significant and needless danger to public safety — carry a concealed weapon into a bar or onto school property — and I’d greatly prefer that not happen. I think it will cause far more problems than it will fix. It’s not like there are people staging protests because they can’t carry their .357s with them when they go out for mimosas, or the PTA is calling for teachers to have their gats in their cars just in case.
It’s not a right to carry a weapon wherever, whenever, as has been argued here. As you so aptly point out, it’s up to the states (and sometimes the Feds, like in air travel) to set the definition of where a citizen may bear their arms, and in what manner they may do so. In this case, I see neither a need nor a clear rationale for changing the law.
Steve wrote:
“It’s not that I didn’t like the analogy, but that it was demonstrably false. If your goal is to protect yourself, a gun won’t help because it doesn’t do that. It has a completely different function: To kill the person threatening you. That’s not protection, that’s intimidation or retaliation.”
So you are saying that the Secret Service agents who cover VIPs are not really protecting their principal(s), but are instead intimidating or threatening potential assailants?
Is there a difference?
(By the way, those of us who actually carry concealed realize that the purpose of having a handgun is not to kill an attacker, but to stop an attack. In many cases, simply drawing a weapon will suffice.)
“So you are saying that the Secret Service agents who cover VIPs are not really protecting their principal(s), but are instead intimidating or threatening potential assailants?”
It’s a different situation, because the Secret Service is a law enforcement agency. The assumption with the Secret Service is that someone IS DEFINITELY going to try to make an attack on their charges, and their job is to stop that attack before it happens. It’s their job — one for which they have undergone a variety of tests and special training — to do that. They are officers of the Treasury Department, and their use of arms isn’t a function of their right to bear arms, but rather the government’s ability to enforce laws.
That said, a good deal of what they do is prevention through organization and planning — securing routes and setting up ways to prevent potential assassins from ever getting the chance to make an attack. And with their black suits and sunglasses and hidden communication devices, I’d say they are definitely trying to intimidate a potential assassin. If you’ve ever been at a function where the Secret Service is present, you know what I’m talking about. They make it very clear who is in charge.
Well, I can tell you from direct experience, your fears have not surfaced as a problem. Some states even allow carry on school property (elementary, junior, high).
My question to you is, why create a place where scumbags do not fear retaliation? Obviously, law breakers, by definition, don’t care whether something is legal or not.
Andrew, you responded:
“no, I have to pay myself for all the hundreds of rounds I fire while practicing combat handgunnery, while you and I both pay for their ammo through our taxes.â€
So… what’s your point? Do you consider it a bad thing that we pay taxes for a government official’s training and gear? Or are you implying that Secret Service agents should be purchasing their own ammo?
Let me specify what I meant before: Secret Service agents are hired to protect officials that are well-known targets of assassinations. You are not.
It’s your very own personal choice to pick a hobby of “practice combat handgunnery†without actively serving in an agency.
If somewhere in that brain of yours you feel some need or duty to protect “VIPs†as you put it, then of course you’re going to be pouty about laws that part you from your shiny metal penis. Anyone with a superhero-complex would be distressed over government-imposed limitations—which probably explains that little bit of whining about taxes earlier.
Just to chime in here: Everyone is a VIP in my book, and everyone has the same level of right to protect themselves. Just because someone is a government employee, whatever their rank or status, doesn’t make them any more of a very important person then anyone else. Although they may face a greater risk of being attacked, hence the need for greater security, that doesn’t mean that those of us with a less probable risk of being attacked aren’t subject to attack, and the argument that there is no need for protection because of a lesser risk is not accurate, and the law recognizes this fact.
Because of the elevated risk to elected officials it is reasonable for their security to carry weapons where civilians may not be able to legally, and I’m sure they are within their legal rights when they do so.
The reasoning that carrying a firearm is for protection of oneself and others is reasonable, legal within restricted circumstances, and requires the responsibility to act within the legal parameters laid out by statutes and codes applicable to every US citizen, or else there are consequences of course.
Broadening gun laws changes nothing for criminals who don’t follow laws, hence them being criminals, it only allows more law abiding citizens a better means of protecting themselves and those around them.
As far as a responsible citizen which is acting within the legal parameters of carrying a weapon, concealed or not, it seems like a non-issue. What is the issue is safety from violence, which an armed and responsible citizen is a great line of defense in the unfortunate event one finds themselves in such dire situation.
“My question to you is, why create a place where scumbags do not fear retaliation? Obviously, law breakers, by definition, don’t care whether something is legal or not.”
Because no one is afraid of you with a concealed gun. And even if they were, it’s not your job to do the retaliation. If you are defending your life or the life of someone around you, that’s one thing. But it’s not your job — or your right — to retaliate against crime. That’s what vigilantes and terrorists do.
That’s why we have police and a court system. Having a gun doesn’t make you judge, jury and executioner in that kind of situation. At best, it’ll give you a claim for justifiable homicide because your life was in danger. More realistically, it’ll just increase the odds that someone will die, since very few people — even “scumbag” criminals — actually want to kill anyone. Usually, they’re just looking for money.
And what country do you live in? I’ve traveled through some fairly harsh places — El Salavdor, all over Nicaragua, rural Guatemala, and in sketchy parts of cities like Casablanca — and while I’ve had problems here and there (mostly with police wanting bribes), I’ve never once been in a situation where me having a gun would have done anything but increased the odds that someone would be killed, most likely me.
What “scumbags” are you worried about, exactly? There were 702 violent crimes in the city of Spartanburg last year — only six of them murders — and the VAST majority of those crimes were between people who knew each other. It’s quite rare to be the victim of a random violent crime, particularly a shooting.
And how many of those took place in a bar or in a school parking lot? Martin’s law would allow people to prepare for crimes that, on the whole, are hypothetical. And by allowing people to introduce firearms into the scenario, he’d actually be raising the chances of provoking an incident or an accidental misfiring, since people would be bringing even more guns into the equation.
I don’t see the logic here.
“Usually, they’re just looking for money.” So I guess you’re willing to bet your life that that’s all they’re after. I’m not willing to take that risk.
You have repeatedly stated that you consider legal concealed carriers to be risky to have around. Fortunately, we have decades of experience in many states that show that CHL holders are extremely lawful, even more than the police. If you don’t fear the cops being armed, then it makes no sense to fear us. Also, research from many sources show that Americans use guns to stop crime between 1-3 million times per year. This is far more often than are reported in the MSM and is far higher than gun deaths. Given that the average adult has better than even odds of being the victim of violent crime sometime in his life, it is not unreasonable to paranoid to wish to carry the only plausible means of defending himself.
Your opinions are not backed up by fact, sir.
Kirc –
You asked:
“So… what’s your point? Do you consider it a bad thing that we pay taxes for a government official’s training and gear? Or are you implying that Secret Service agents should be purchasing their own ammo? ”
No, I am perfectly happy paying for the Secret Service’s ammo. Afeter all, in the 20 years I was in the service, the US government furnished me handsomely with sidearms and an F-16.
However, I do not believe that I am somehow less qualified to carry a handgun to protect myself today because I am no longer an active duty officer.
By the way, “Kirc”, how did you do your military service?
“Your opinions are not backed up by fact, sir.”
With respect, I suspect your opinions and “facts” come from gun lobby groups with questionable statistical methods. My opinion that having a concealed firearm in a bar or on school grounds might just be a bad idea is backed up by the fact that there is a law on the books right now saying that it is. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
“Fortunately, we have decades of experience in many states that show that CHL holders are extremely lawful, even more than the police. If you don’t fear the cops being armed, then it makes no sense to fear us.”
Alright, in fairness, I’d ask that you post a link to the study that says this so we can examine it and its methods. Something tells me that this is a quote from a study funded by a pro-gun group with an agenda and a stacked deck.
Moving on; Who supposed to be afraid of you? I don’t agree with you or your views, but you having a hidden gun doesn’t scare me any more than a teenager at a flea market having a hidden butterfly knife lest he get jumped whilst buying a funnel cake.
I think it’s borne of irrational fear, and I think it’s completely reasonable that if I’m going to be in a place where you and your fear will be drinking, you don’t have a hidden-but-ready firearm on you. I shouldn’t have to take that into consideration at all, in fact. Likewise, a trunk full of shotguns is probably an overreaction to the actual dangers of an elementary school parking lot.
My point is essentially this: I don’t think it’s helping anyone by trying to pass laws that would allow people to bring concealed guns into bars on onto school property. You have no Constitutional right to do so, and from a practical perspective, it’s also a really bad idea. And even allowing — and I’m not — that this is some great affront to gun-lovers across the state, it’s not really the kind of thing that South Carolina needs to be worrying about at this exact moment in history. Let’s fix the economy, then worry about where you can carry your peacemaker in case you cross paths with Osama in the parking lot on your way to the Circuit City closing sale.
Steve Shanafelt wrote:
“My opinion that having a concealed firearm in a bar or on school grounds might just be a bad idea is backed up by the fact that there is a law on the books right now saying that it is. The burden of proof is on you, not me.”
That’s interesting, considering that for about 75 years – between about 1890 and 1965 – states like South Carolina had law on the books stating that seperate but equal facilities for different races were a good thing.
What about it? Should Jim Crow laws have gotten a pass because they were “on the books”?
Oh, this is too easy!
“With respect, I suspect your opinions and “facts†come from gun lobby groups with questionable statistical methods. My opinion that having a concealed firearm in a bar or on school grounds might just be a bad idea is backed up by the fact that there is a law on the books right now saying that it is. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
…Alright, in fairness, I’d ask that you post a link to the study that says this so we can examine it and its methods. Something tells me that this is a quote from a study funded by a pro-gun group with an agenda and a stacked deck.”
OK, here’s the State of Texas official site for the convictions of CHL holders:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
You cad do your own arithmetic. Please notice the dirth of inappropriate uses of firearms, in schools, bars, or anywhere. Texas is not unusual in having these exemplary records for CHL holders.
“I think it’s borne of irrational fear, and I think it’s completely reasonable that if I’m going to be in a place where you and your fear will be drinking, you don’t have a hidden-but-ready firearm on you.”
Don’t be insulting. It is illegal to drink and carry. I do not mix the two and neither do any other CHL holders that I know.
As for the likelihood of being a victim, go here:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf
Here’s what the CDC has to say about the effectiveness of gun control laws:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
Here’s what the Harvard has to say about the effectiveness of gun control laws:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
From the guncite website:
How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?
Introduction
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.
Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU’s annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
Dr. Kleck’s Answer
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU’s? Dr. Kleck states, “Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted.”
“It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.”
“…88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim’s home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.”
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it “was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates–to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey’s designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.”
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)
On the Other Hand: Studying the Studies
Excerpted from ABCNEWS.com:
The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University’s public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. “Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go to,” says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. “That’s been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what’s going on.”
For Further Reading
* The DGU War:
Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun – “By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders.”
o David Hemenway, Survey Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates – “Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States.”
+ Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, The Illegitimacy of One-Sided Speculation: Getting the Defensive Gun Use Estimate Down – “Hemenway has failed to cast even mild doubt on the accuracy of our estimates. The claim that there are huge numbers of defensive uses of guns each year in the United States has been repeatedly confirmed, and remains one of the most consistently supported assertions in the guns-violence research area.”
o Tom W. Smith, A Call for a Truce in the DGU War – “Neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponents’ point of view. This is unfortunate since there is good reason to believe that both sides are off-the-mark. . . the main shortcomings of the two approaches and some of the keys issues of contention are discussed.”
o An interview with Gary Kleck.
o This paper, the National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, contains criticisms of Kleck’s survey. [Text]~[PDF]
o Kleck responds to some criticism of his study.
o Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense – concludes there are at least 400,000 “fewer violent crimes due to civilian self-defense use of guns” and at least “800,000 violent crimes are deterred each year because of gun ownership and use by civilians.”
I think the point in all of this is priorities. Personally I am with Steve in this debate. I do not see the point in this piece of legislation. We got much more important issues to deal with.
“That’s interesting, considering that for about 75 years – between about 1890 and 1965 – states like South Carolina had law on the books stating that seperate but equal facilities for different races were a good thing.
What about it? Should Jim Crow laws have gotten a pass because they were “on the booksâ€?”
Mr. Frechltling, in all due respect I think that is a poor comparison to what is being proposed here. To try to compare this legislation those laws is really playing low ball. Gun owners aren’t being discriminated against, no matter how much some want to argue that fact. The lack of freedom to take a concealed weapon into certain locations doesn’t enhance or distract from the ability to legally own a gun. The law now seeks to wisely protect citizens from potential harm. Yes, I’ll repeat it. The law now seeks to wisely protect citizens from potential harm by saying no hidden weapon at schools or eating establishments where alcohol is served. In that the law is acting in a defensive, preventative manner.
This law isn’t taking away concealed gun owners ability to take their hidden guns to the park, to the mall, to church or a whole list of other places. It has restrictions on locations where potential for safety issues could be higher then in others. I fail to see what is wrong with that.
Sylvie Galloway wrote:
“Gun owners aren’t being discriminated against, no matter how much some want to argue that fact. The lack of freedom to take a concealed weapon into certain locations doesn’t enhance or distract from the ability to legally own a gun.”
Actually, gun owners are being discriminated against. Certain people in our society are provided armed protection wherever they go…schools, bars, wherever.
Certain other people are not.
Beofre we continue this conversation, please tell us where and when you obtained your concealed carry permit, and what places do you personally feel you would pose a danger to others if you were to have your handgun with you?
Steve, have you ever heard of Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas? Have you ever read about robberies at fast food joints, where employees were marched into walk-in freezer and killed (or at best, beaten)?
You see far fewer of these situations in States where concealed carry (and even open carry) allow folks to carry into restaurants (which do serve alcohol) and bars (which do serve food). Criminals are not always stupid, at least when it comes to self preservation.
Do you realize that in 1987, the FBI initiated a study where they asked incarcerated criminals what they feared the most when attempting to rob someone? The majority feared armed citizens more than cops, as they were under fewer restrictions in how they responded.
I did not advocate vigilantism. Quite honestly, it’s a straw argument, because many of the anti-gunners will argue that me killing in self defense constitutes acting as a vigilante. They forget that only the government has the right to initiate force, but all men and women have the right to respond with force. That concept is the basis for self defense, whether it involves guns or not.
Would it also surprise you to know that in many places where firearms are prohibited, so are non-lethal alternatives, such as tasers and pepper spray?
Retaliation, as I stated above to you, is simply your right to put a stop to a dangerous situation that endangers you and others around you. Too many folks are so afraid to even get involved anymore that too many situations escalate far higher in violence than they might if everyone around the initiator of violence took some action to stop things. You can’t wait for the cops to protect you, it’s not their job. Nor is it possible for them to be everywhere. The cops’ job is to investigate crimes and bring the perps to justice.
Andrew,
You have a point about the “on the books†thing. Just because something “is†doesn’t mean it “should†be.
And I totally agree with what Sylvie is saying here—
Andrew, you are comparing a set of laws that oppressed African Americans with laws that limit civilians who carry concealed weapons. Laws on gun regulation have become much more restrictive since the 19th century, whereas laws oppressing African Americans are no longer “on the books†(technically). This comparison is completely irrational, and really doesn’t have any logical connection or balance when compared in this issue. The only comparison is the fact that they were/are laws that subject specific people to limitations. Thankfully, the country has moved in a better direction in both cases.
In response to the other comment—I wasn’t questioning your qualification/right to have a gun by your status. I was stating that your earlier examples about Presidential candidates etc. being protected by firearms in bars do not justify your need for self-protection or your self-appointed duty to protect others in bars.
Your need to protect yourself with a firearm EVERYWHERE, however, is questionable at best. It’s a mindset, and it’s fear.
Andrew said:
“Actually, gun owners are being discriminated against. Certain people in our society are provided armed protection wherever they go…schools, bars, wherever. Certain other people are not.â€
Again. The level of “discrimination†that you are finding in this issue barely exists in comparison to Jim Crow laws. It’s a petty argument, really.
Define these “certain people� Oh wait; you already did—back to the Secret Agent type thing, a never-ending story. I’ll let that one go because you’re dead-set on being a vigilante secret agent superhero ready to discharge on the nearest villain—in bars and on school-grounds, no less!
Before you even start—Your smug question about my military status, or about Sylvie’s carry permit is irrelevant in making a point. In other words, anyone’s connection to this issue— be it their military status, possession of specific permits or weaponry, or even none of the above— is irrelevant when it comes to their qualification in taking a side on this issue (assuming you find there are “qualificationsâ€).
As I stated before, I do not need or want a gun, therefore I have no need for a concealed weapon permit. Also as I stated before the odds of my coming into contact with a situation where use of a gun by myself would be needed are so remote that I simply do not see any reason why myself carrying said weapon would have any benefit.
Now as for the comparing carrying a concealed weapon with wearing seat belts as similar safety precautions, again that is far fetched. I have been in three accidents in my lifetime. The one I was not wearing a seat belt, back before where were laws requiring them, I ended up in the hospital. The others I did not. A seat belt saved the life of one of my daughters two years ago. She spent a couple of hours in the ER but literally walked way from what could have been a fatal crash. Again seat belt use is a proven safety measure, and the need for one far outweighs the unlikely probability of a hidden weapon on one’s person being a good defensive measure against attack. There is little evidence that showcases the overall benefits of packing over not packing. Whereas wearing a seat belt and strapping in your kids has a long proven history of providing safety from much higher risk activity.
I would really like to see studies that would prove me wrong. I just don’t think they are there.
Jim in Houston: I hardly know where to start, Jim. This is just a grab-bag of unrelated data that mostly has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The Texas CHL report is utterly useless for this discussion, because all it shows is that relatively few people are CHL holders, and therefore any pool of people — criminals or ballerinas — are less likely to have CHLs. It doesn’t demonstrate that CHL holders are less likely to do anything, and if you compared it by the numbers, I think you’d find that people without weapons of any kind are FAR LESS LIKELY to be involved in gun-related violence.
Let’s take one stat, just for example. Did you notice that over two percent of those convicted of “Criminally Negligent Homicide” in that report were CHL holders? That’s more than one in 50.
Think about that. Now what percentage of non-CHL citizens committed that same crime in the State of Texas? There were 23,507,783 citizens in Texas in 2006. That same year, there were 45 Criminally Negligent Homicides in the State. One of those crimes was committed by a CHL holdes, meaning 44 such crimes were committed by non-CHL holders. Here’s how that works out …
Odds that a Criminally Negligent Homicide was committed by a CHL holder: 1 in 45.
Odds that the same crime was committed by a non-CHL holder: 1 in 534,267.
Conclusion: CHL holders in Texas are almost 12,000 times more likely to commit Criminally Negligent Homicide than those who do not have CHLs.
Really, you need to think about that. And most, of not all, of these stats would work out the same way. The study doesn’t state it because it’s not trying to do anything other than show a percentage, but effectively it’s saying that CHL holders are FAR MORE LIKELY to commit certain crimes than people without CHLs.
The study of the likelihood of being a victim is totally irrelevant. No one is saying that crimes don’t happen, but whether or not you being armed with a concealed weapon in any way does anything to reduce that. You having a hidden gun in no way effects the odds of your house being robbed, and even if it did, this study doesn’t reflect that kind of information.
From the CDC report section on “”Shall issue concealed weapon carry laws” …
The study most of those stats come from is biased and crappily done, in other words. Until someone does it right, there’s no real information out there on the subject.
The Harvard Study addresses the issue, but goes out of its way to explain that this is just an assertion made by other academics that DOESN’T MATCH information from other studies. It also says in its footnotes about Concealed Handguns that the studies have been criticized by other researchers and are controversial — that is, not agreed upon at all — within the field. Interestingly, it’s possible this is also referring to one of the questionable studies the CDC rejected. You could track it down if you were so inclined.
I should thank you, as you’ve proven my point about the questionable data here. I mean, did you even bother to read any of this stuff? Did you look at what these studies were actually saying?
The quotes you posted are irrelevant outside of their original context, since I don’t know what information or statistics are being referred to. Until I have that, there’s really no more validity than someone just making stuff up and posting it.
Ok, I just discussed this conversation with my soon to be Son In Law. He personally doesn’t see a problem with concealed weapons, but agrees that on schools and in places where alcohol is served, a weapon on the premises is probably best left to law enforcement. His only division in that is with college campuses. He thinks if one is legal and permitted anyone should be able to have a gun.
We also discussed that people vary on comfort levels and skills regarding weapons. I know that a gun is the last thing I would need,I lack training or desire to feel comfortable carrying one of those things around. He is trained being ROTC, and in a couple of years will be full duty. He grew up around weapons and his dad, also military trained taught his sons early on about gun safety and use.
He is of the mind that a large part of the problem when it comes to gun and the law is a lack of education. When I bought that rifle years ago, no one asked me if I knew how to use it. I just went through a criminal background check, waited my three days and bam, owner of a 22 rifle. I don’t think it is any tougher. I am certain that concealing requirements are stricter, a lot stricter, at least I hope so. And I hope that all who carry that way, are ever cautious that they are walking around with a potential lethal situation.
Also when we ended our discussion we both agreed that some of the arguments such as comparisons with carrying weapons and wearing seat belts was like comparing an apple to an elephant.
But back to the whole start of this…,is this an enforce-able proposition? No it isn’t. Does it benefit anyone other then a tiny segment of people who have such licensing? Yeah it allows them to go two more places..big woo. Does it really help at all, considering the limitations placed on carrying on school grounds? Again I say no. Does it have the potential to raise other unforeseen and negative issues? Yes it does. I hope the bill dies a natural death, and things are let be just as they are.
“Steve, have you ever heard of Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas? Have you ever read about robberies at fast food joints, where employees were marched into walk-in freezer and killed (or at best, beaten)?”
Horrible crimes happen. They happened before guns, they’ll happen after guns are replaced by laser pistols or whatever. Guns are useless in a lot of situations where people are killed, like terrorist bombings. You having a hidden gun in your pocket won’t stop that any more than a buck knife will, nor will it stop all manner of crimes from happening to you.
But you having a gun will greatly increase the chance that a crime happening to or near you will end in a death.
I’m not against guns — they are a reality in the world, and there are plenty of situations where there are a needed tool — but that doesn’t generally apply to the gardening section of Lowe’s.
Guns exist to kill. You having a gun exponentially increases the chance that you will kill, since you have access to the means and the evident willingness to carry it and to use it. You having a gun also exponentially increases the odds that you’ll accidentally kill someone, even yourself, with it.
These are facts. They are also common sense. You can’t shoot someone without a firearm. Q.E.D.
And since it’s not your right to carry a gun wherever you please, I’d prefer you not have a hidden gun in a place like a school or a bar, because you doing so increases the chance that you’ll accidentally shoot someone, or escalate a situation where you feel threatened to the point that someone dies needlessly.
If you are so desperately determined to ward off an attacker at TGIFriday’s, get some mace or some other non-lethal weapon. Hide it in your shoe, for all I care. But don’t endanger me needlessly by introducing firearms into the equation, particularly hidden ones. Allow me to make the call as to whether or not I want to be anywhere near you and your freelance law enforcement.
Clear enough?
Actually, you’re not reading what I’ve stated, Steve. You keep equating my desire to be able to defend myself (discreetly) with vigilantism. Sounds a bit dishonest to me, as you were fairly articulate early on.
Guns do exist to kill. And sometimes, when the other guy is a threat, it is your answer. If someone wants to assault me, my wife, my kids, or anyone around me, why should I put myself in greater physical danger by limiting my tools? I could try karate, but physical prowess and size give larger guys an advantage. I could try mace, but indoors, I’m as likely to cause harm to everyone around me, as it’s hardly a surgical tool. I could try tasers, but they’re not as effective as touted for all situations.
A handgun, whether open carry or concealed, is effective at stopping someone. And someone intent upon victimizing me, regardless of whether it’s in an IHOP or on the street, is likely to cause me great bodily harm or death. Lethal defense is quite justified. I noticed how your argument has begun shifting towards anti-lethal defense.
Without the gun, there’s still an even chance death will happen. But the odds are in favor of my death or the death of one I care about. With the gun, the odds are at least equal that I can effectively stop the attacker.
To quote Tolkien, “We learned long ago that those do not live by the sword can still die by it.” What’s wrong with equal force?
And yes, you’ve made the pitch not only against concealed carry, but against lethal defense.
Whether I carry openly or concealed does not affect you as an individual in public. If you’re unaware, I’m concealing correctly. If I’m carrying openly, I don’t care if you panic, as it’s my right.
Arguments regarding property rights were already covered and as I told you, here in Colorado, none of your fears have come to pass.
I’d bet for those people at Luby’s, especially the congresswoman from texas who was there that day…she would beg to differ as to whether she might have been able to stop the shooter.
And bombs? Talk about your straw-man’s argument. Nice diversion.
I only have a few moments to comment on your rebuttal. It turns out that the TX data are far more worthwhile than you think. CHL holders in TX constitute about 2% of the adult population. If they were just as lawful as the average Joe, then the “CHL Holder Percentage of Total Convictions” value would be 2%. As any fool can see, among the dozens of different crime categories, the number is far lower than this. In fact, overall the CHL holders check in at about .2%, making them many times more lawful than the average Joe.
What you have done is to cherry-pick the data – you found one crime category that that you thought was high (but acutally only matched the average rate), ignoring all the others. Next, you fell for the fallacy of small numbers. You could only find a CHL conviction for Criminal Negligent Homicide in two of the five years for which data were provided. Each of these years had ONE conviction each. You cannot make statistical arguments based upon such sparse data. However, in the aggregate, these data have substantial statistical power.
I’ll try to deal with the rest later.
“If they were just as lawful as the average Joe, then the “CHL Holder Percentage of Total Convictions†value would be 2%.”
That’s a statistical fallacy. Most of these crimes have so few convictions that the percentage of any almost low-population group being included would be negligible. There were three “murders of passion” in Texas in 2006. Statistically, there’d be no reason to suspect that one was committed by a CHL holder than, say, a Buddhist, which is exactly the case.
The study puts CHL holders in a pool with everyone who commits a felony of any kind. Statistically, they are less likely to commit felonies, sure.
I’m no statistician, but in looking at the numbers I came up with this:
Odds that one of those convicted of the crimes on the 2006 study were CHL holders: 1 in 439 (140 in a population of roughly 61,500)
Odds that a random citizen of Texas was convicted of one of those same crimes: 1 in 406 (61,500 in a population of roughly 25,000,000)
Conclusion: CHL holders are only around 1% less likely to commit a crime than non-CHL holders.
(Someone should check my math here, of course. I suspect I’m not really comparing apples to apples, but since I don’t have any hard data on the number of CHL holders in Texas in 2006, it’s the best I can do. It’s been a while since I’ve studied putting this kind of thing together, and there may well be a problem with my method.)
Who is the “average Joe” here? The study doesn’t say what kind of person IS committing most of these crimes, just that CHL holders as a group aren’t the ones doing most of them. It’s not comparing CHL holders to any other group other than non-CHL holders, so there’s nothing to compare to if you’re wanting to make an assertion that CHL holders are “safer” than anyone else.
Like, say, people without guns at all. In that comparison, CHL holders would almost certainly be HUNDREDS of times more likely to commit certain crimes — those involving firearms — than those without any weapons. So, really what we’re talking about is CHL holders versus people who have regular gun licenses and people who have illegal firearms. If your argument is that CHL holders are statistically less criminal than those guys, I see no reason to rebut it.
Of course, we aren’t shown the percentage of various populations that commit these crimes in the study, only the percentage of those crimes which are committed by CHL holders.
“You cannot make statistical arguments based upon such sparse data. However, in the aggregate, these data have substantial statistical power.”
Nor can you, which is exactly my point. The data is essentially irrelevant to the argument, as I said in my earlier comment. I was just demonstrating a flaw in your use of it as a means of proving CHL holders are less criminal than anyone else.
What’s wonderful here is that this isn’t even an issue I particularly care about. I mean, in some places I’ve been people carry around automatic weapons because there are real death squads who will kill you as soon as look at you. It’s appropriate to be armed, particularly if you live there.
But we don’t live in rural El Salvador, and I’ve never been in a situation where I felt that me — as a civilian — having a firearm would have done anything other than make everything a lot worse. I’ve been held at gun point and been shaken down for cash by police. I’ve been in places where there were armed bandits who would love to rob an American tourist. Never felt a gun would help. Certainly not within America itself.
I’m not even anti-gun, I’m just anti-needless violence. So I have a hard time seeing why anyone would DEMAND to have a gun with them all the time. Particularly when most of the violent crimes in this country aren’t random — the overwhelming majority are between people who know each other. Your wife is far more likely to shoot you than a gang member is, and she knows where you keep your guns.
How’d I even get wrapped up in this discussion? If you guys really, desperately need your firearms with you just in case, I guess that’s just a function of your world view. I don’t share it, I think it’s an overreaction to the reality of the world, and I’ll vote against anyone who tries to change the law so you can bring your hidden firearm into places they don’t belong.
Hmmmm. Interesting silence.
But you are right about one thing. Our premise differs. You see the use of the weapon or violence as a problem, I see it as a solution when properly applied.
And we could go round and round…
“I’m no statistician, but in looking at the numbers I came up with this:
Odds that one of those convicted of the crimes on the 2006 study were CHL holders: 1 in 439 (140 in a population of roughly 61,500)
Odds that a random citizen of Texas was convicted of one of those same crimes: 1 in 406 (61,500 in a population of roughly 25,000,000)
Conclusion: CHL holders are only around 1% less likely to commit a crime than non-CHL holders.”
You may not be a statistician, but I am a trained scientist who knows his way around population statistics. Two errors right off the bat. First, the number of CHL holders in 2006 was 258,000, . Second, the ADULT population of TX is around 16,000,000. That alone changes your calculations by a factor of 6 or so.
Another way to look at it is CHL crime rate = 140/258000 = 0.000542635658915
Non-CHL Crime Rate = 61593/16000000=0.0038461875
These are staight-forward calculations of per capita rates and are the only way to determine the propensity (or lack thereof) of CHL holders to commit crimes.
Overall, CHL holders have only 1/7 the crime rate of the general population. So, anyone who imagines that CHL holders are swaggering loonies who are shooting up the streets and/or evening up scores has a serious detachment from facts.
“Overall, CHL holders have only 1/7 the crime rate of the general population. So, anyone who imagines that CHL holders are swaggering loonies who are shooting up the streets and/or evening up scores has a serious detachment from facts.”
Thanks for looking at those stats. I was rushed when I wrote that, and even at the time the number seemed wrong, hence the caveat. That said, after thinking about it for a moment, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to talk about CHL holders involved in crimes that don’t involve guns. The real question, if we’re talking about the “swaggering loony” factor, is whether or not CHL holders are more likely to commit armed crimes than those of the non-gun carrying population. That’s not reflected in the Texas report.
Obviously, if I’m going to participate in that part of this specific discussion, I’m going to have to get some real numbers to work with, and not just about CHL holders, as well as brush up on the methodology here. For the time being, I’ll concede the point that CHL holders appear to be significantly less likely to commit certain violent crimes than the statistical average. Demonstrably, they are more likely to commit other violent crimes.
All that said, I don’t think CHL carriers are all loonies, but I definitely think carrying a gun around all the time is a gross overreaction to the real dangers of the world, particularly those dangers which can be best addressed with firearms.
Vidarr: I’m fully aware that violence is a reality in the world, and that some problems are really only solved through force. Again, I’ve seen situations like that first-hand, and I’m certainly not in denial about it. We live in a violent world — it’s always been violent, and always will be — but that doesn’t mean that the appropriate response is to be armed all the time.
We don’t live in a war zone. There aren’t roving gangs of thugs around every corner. If the situation changes and America becomes a violent third-world nation where life means nothing, maybe then we can start talking about bringing guns into bars and school property. Until then, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense to worry about it.
The issue at hand is whether or not Shane Martins bill is going to do anything good for South Carolina. He wants to introduce guns into school parking lots. He wants to bring guns into bars. And why? What possible good is that going to do? How will it reduce crime in any meaningful way?
It won’t. It’ll just bring more guns into more already crappy situations. A bar fight now becomes a shoot out. A school shooting — already very, very rare — becomes a firefight.
All this talk about legal this and legal that.
For Steve and the rest who are “uncomfortable” with the notion of concealed weapons being carried on school property and alcohol serving “eateries”, I hate to be the one to make you more uncomfortable.
But I will.
There are CWP holders who DO carry concealed everywhere they go. Including schools and restaurants.
Some people are not comfortable leaving loaded weapons in their cars and for good reason. Check out the number of auto break ins and thefts while you are busy proving how safe everyone is. Spartanburg and Spartanburg County would be enough.
There are others who are not CWP holders who also carry everywhere. If you will look (removal of head from sand required) you will notice bulges and wrinkles that don’t move with the rest of a persons clothing.
Also, check out the contents the next giant handbag you see as it’s owner digs through it looking for a checkbook or a doctors excuse.
If a restaurant wants to ban guns they can put up a sign. They are protected and you can feel more comfortable if you want to be naive.
Argue all day long about what is and what should never be but don’t be so blind as to think a change in CWP carry laws will put you in more danger.
The change proposed is designed to avoid needless prosecutions for a non-crime.
Note the CWP holders that are EXEMPT from restrictions on carry. I can post that from the SLED website if you like.
Now THAT is scary!!