Centerfield

It is my bias that prevents me from being impressed by Wilson's heroism? He got himself killed, and served solely as a valuable distraction. To me, this incident shows the need for trained police officers rather than armed citizens...I don't see a need for citizens to be carrying guns around everywhere, and trying to be heroes.

But also from the story:

As CNN reported, “Everyone here agrees, Wilson saved lives."...in about 30 percent of the multiple victim public school shootings that have captivated Americans’ attention starting in 1997, people used guns to stop the attacks before uniformed police were able to arrive on the scene. Few people know about these cases because only about one percent of the news stories on these cases mention how the attacks were stopped....Bill Landes of the University of Chicago Law School and I examine multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and find that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

So, it's better to have a lot more people dead from criminal attacks than to let citizens carry firearms? Whether or Mr. Wilson's sacrifice impresses you, he and other like him are apparently saving lives, and lots of them. The police simply can't be everywhere all the time. And they'll be the first ones to acknowledge that.

I think all this shows is how big a problem guns are in this country. I mean, the issue is why do bad guys like this have guns; why do you need people performing heroic acts (and Iagree it was a heroic act) to stop mass murders. Is the solution just to have everyone armed like the Old West?

echo Tully
echo off

I see no evidence that Wilson saved "lives." He traded his own life for the life of Arroyo's son. This is a sad case of domestic violence, but I don't see the evidence that the perpetrator was attempting to execute people at random. I'd call it a tie on the pros and cons on concealed carry.

More broadly, the regions that have more guns have more violence. One can argue about the direction of the causality, but on balance, I believe that having more guns leads to more deaths. For every case of defensive gun use, I suspect there are several cases of suicide and domestic violence. Yes, the Second Amendment protects guns, but let's not turn a right into a virtue.

I see no evidence that Wilson saved "lives." He traded his own life for the life of Arroyo's son. This is a sad case of domestic violence, but I don't see the evidence that the perpetrator was attempting to execute people at random.

Do you only believe the parts of the article that agree with your own bias? From the article:

Arroyo had already wounded several police officers...

He certainly wasn't being terribly discriminating in whom he was willing to shoot. And contrary to popular fictions, "shoot to wound" is a crock. Shooting someone is an attempt to kill them. Period. Arroyo had already shot several police officers before Wilson showed up on the scene. That he was too busy to place them first on his "finish-off" list is a side issue that only Arroyo could address--and he's dead.

More broadly, the regions that have more guns have more violence. One can argue about the direction of the causality, but on balance, I believe that having more guns leads to more deaths. For every case of defensive gun use, I suspect there are several cases of suicide and domestic violence.

I'd challenge that as pure anti-gun mythology. Brazil has extremely restrictive gun laws--and three times our homicide rate. Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws in existence--and a murder rate 2.5 times ours. Private gun ownership is effectively banned in Russia--and their murder rate is almost five times that of the US. US per capita gun ownership is highest in rural areas, but per capita homicide rates are highest in inner-city urban areas. Suicide and domestic violence by firearms rates are both well below the rate of firearms self-defense, and most firearms self-defense doesn't even involve actually firing the gun, just showing it. The annual rate of firearms self-defense incidents has been estimated to well exceed one million per year.

Suicide incidence appears to be almost purely cultural, and many countries that have almost no private firearms ownership have much higher suicide rates than the US. Japan, for example. The only reliable evidence I've ever seen doesn't indicate that gun availability increases the number of suicides, but that gun availability increases the choice of guns as the method. What a surprise.

This will sound simplistic but... Gun violence is a BIG problem in the US. I don't understand how more guns or more people with guns will improve that?

It's a declining problem, Chris. Our perceptions are somewhat in excess of the realities. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a good place to go to see what I mean. And NationMaster has some good charts of international crime comparisons you might find startling. Such as Australia being the crime leader of the English-speaking nations in most categories.

I don't have the time to find it right now, but I have seen data showing elevated death rates from violence in the South and the West, areas with more of a gun culture. It's not fair to compare US laws with those of Mexico or Russia, where the legal culture is rather loose, shall we say. I don't know about Brazil, but I suspect there are other countries you haven't named with restrictive laws and low death rates.

I simply don't believe your assertion of high levels of firearms self-defense. I don't know how this data would be collected, or would be reliable, compared to homicide and suicide data, which are by their nature quite reliable.

I am in favor of trained auxliary police, who would be allowed to carry concealed weapons. I also favor it for people who have a specific reason to be armed. I do not think that concealed carry should be available carte blanche to anyone without a criminal or mental record. Nor do I think that the Second Amendment allows people to carry guns everywhere at all times.

Does that estimate of a million cases of firearms self-defense means a million American lives saved each year? That sounds aburdly high. I assume it means a million cases of property saved from theft.

While I respect the right of a liquor store owner to pull out a gun and deter a robbery or capture a robber, I do not count that as a "life saved." Most armed robberies don't result in the execution of the victims. In pulling out a gun, merchants defend property, not lives. That is a worthwhile goal, but it is not symmetric to domestic violence homicide or suicide.

Rick, why do you seemingly value the property of a liquor store owner, who you have said several times should be allowed to have a gun, over the money in my wallet? Why should I have to hand over my money during a robbery while a liquor store owner should not? To me, this is a huge hole in your argument for who can carry guns and who cannot unless you believe the store owner's money is more important than my money.

I'm not sure what your "specific reason to be armed" amounts to but for myself, I should have the right to defend my life AND my property. That's specific reason enough.

FYI, Clayton Cramer maintains a blog dedicated to tracking defensive uses of firearms.

The reason I mention liquour and convenience stores is that they are very frequently the target of robbery. I don't think that the owner of bridal shops need to be armed. They are infrequently robbed. Similiarly, I don't think the average person who is at average or below average risk of attack needs a gun to protect their wallet. On the other hand, couriers, jewelry salepeople, and especially, people who have received death threats, have a reason to be armed.

The father of a former girlfriend of mine was shot to death while bringing cash receipts to a bank. He is the sort of person who should have carried a concealed weapon. It might have saved him.

It's interesting that most of the comments here seem to be for unrestricted carrying of guns. Many centrists tend toward the libertarian side, so that may account for it. But as far as being in the middle of public opinion, I think my position is definitely centrist. It is distinguished from the liberal view in not wanting to ban handguns, recognizing that some people should be armed, and that the Second Amendment grants pretty much everyone the right to have a gun, subject to reasonable regulations.

For the pro-concealed carry commenters, how does your overall position on guns differ from that of the most extreme pro-gun advocates?

This discussion confirms a conviction I have: there's a hard line between those who sympathize with gun ownership and those who don't. My hunch is it has a lot to do with whether you were raised with guns. My first experience of that was when I was a medical resident. My friend and neighbor, also a resident had a hand gun for protection. To him it was just a matter of fact, you owned a gun; he grew up with guns. I don't know if he ever carried it outside the home (I doubt it). We had the same burglary risks, the same crime risks. I felt safe without a gun, he felt safe with a gun. WE both had small kids the same age too. I know we disagreed on gun laws but we never discussed it that much. WE agreed to disagree and that was that. (Thankfully, he was a reasonable guy without a violent temper.)

Does that estimate of a million cases of firearms self-defense means a million American lives saved each year? That sounds aburdly high. I assume it means a million cases of property saved from theft.

Actually, Rick, I've seen a meta-estimate of 2.5 million defensive uses a year (from Gary Kleck, a Florida Sate criminologist), but the best evidence was more towards 1.5M. That came from a Clinton-era survey by the US Dept. of Justice (Cook/Ludwig). Do you believe them? That would seem a valid source. Over a dozen other surveys with varying sampling methods have produced estimates ranging from 700K to 3.6M. I saw one (and only one) study that placed the level much lower, at a mere 100-150K, but the methodology looked very questionable to me. In light of the range and the consistency of the better structured studies, 1M seems a pretty reasonable estimate.

Not all defensive uses will be to stop someone from killing you, obviously. Rape, robbery, burglary, home invasion, assault, etc., are all crimes that are violent or may turn violent. But you can't know the intent or outcome when you're facing a criminal. When they use violence or the threat of violence, you don't know for sure they're going to commit violent crimes if your showing of a gun prevents them from doing so. The defense prevents the act. All you know is that you're facing someone who is willing to commit crimes and/or is acting in a fashion that makes you fear for your safety, or that of others. Like waving a baseball bat at you. Or breaking into your house in the dead of night, or following a woman down a lonely street.

I'm not arguing for (and never have) the unrestricted carrying of firearms. But the best evidence shows that concealed carry by screened and trained adults is not only safe, but significantly reduces crime. Pretty much by definition, someone who is willing to undergo training, submit to criminal background checks, pay a substantial license fee, and so on is not the person you need to worry about misusing guns.

As with any charged issue, both extremes are very noisy and vocal and do their best to poke all the emotional buttons and cherry-pick the evidence (or even just make it up). But with concealed carry, the evidence is pretty unambiguous. Violent gun crime by permit holders is damn near non-existent, much lower than in the general population. We're talking orders of magnitude lower. On the other hand, permit holders have stopped many violent crimes, and saved many lives. And the best evidence indicates that the mere presence of concealed carry laws has a small but positive effect in lowering overall violent crime rates.

Then perhaps there's more common ground between us that it appeared at first. I don't favor an "armed citizenry" but rather training citizens to be auxliary police. Military veterans would obviously be the best candidates for such a role.

Don't get me wrong, Rick, I do support the Second Amendment as an individual right, because I understand the history of it. But I certainly don't think that means the right to your own battle tanks and rocket launchers, or to tote around a Browning machine gun on your evening walks in the city park. The right to "keep and bear arms" is not the unmitigated right to keep whatever ordanance you happen to fancy, or bear same wherever and whenever and however you so choose.

I also think Chris is right on target (so to speak). Acceptance of guns is a cultural thing. If you were raised with them as I was, they're just power tools that require safe and proper handling. If you weren't, they're scary. The extreme anti-gunners use that to push for bans. The extreme "anything goes" pro-gunners want full military ordanance available with no regulation. I think they're both nuts.

There's a nature/nurture argument to gun ownership? I was reared by parents who owned only long guns (for hunting). I came to own handguns independent of that rearing. I don't believe I qualify for the stereotype that paints handgun owners and concealed carry licensee as backwoods, back water, under-educated, chew-chawing rednecks.

I do agree with the comments that suggest that keeping handguns away from criminals is wiser than letting everyone pack heat. Re restricting the latter, I believe that to be licensed for concealed carry, one should have to demonstrate not only handgun safety (as Virginia requires) but also proficiency (which Virginia does not). It has never made sense to me that concealed carriers may never have fired their weapon, let alone proven they can hit what they aim at. (It also makes little sense to me that handguns should be carried openly by civilians, who have relatively little training in keeping criminals from disarming them.) Re improving the former, I believe handguns should be registered and titled as cars are. It's not only a property ownership issue (so that if a handgun is stolen, it can be recovered and its owner easily identified so it can be returned) but a safety issue to hold sellers accountable when their inventory is used in a crime or ends up in the possession of a felon.

I appreciate the NRA marching orders say registration is the first step to confiscation; this has never made sense to me either. If one believes, as the NRA purports to do, that the 2d Amendment guarantees a private, civilian right to keep and bear, then no effort to confiscate the handguns registered would be constitutional. But I've always considered myself too rational to join the NRA.

My state doesn't allow concealed carry for any but LEO's on duty. Then again, we're not exactly knocking the top of the curve in the crime stats (despite the recent serial-killer capture news). But open carry is legal most places--and nobody does. The only places I've seen open carry are on private property, usually in the boonies (ranches and farms) where the nearest help is a long haul away.

I definitely believe in mandatory training for CCW permits as a matter of simple good sense! Don't care much for registration schemes for the simple reason that historically they seem to lead to confiscation more often than not. Registration through dealers for tracking purposes is already built into the system, it's after they leave the dealer that the path can get muddy, especially through theft.

We have cities and states where gun registrations are mandatory (DC, NY, California) so we might be able to find stats about whether or not it does any good. I suspect they're of limited use, but I lack any good data.

I won't pretend I'm unbiased--I'm a former competitive pistol shooter, a perpetual hunter of tasty critters, annually maintain my state RPO certs, and have more than one gun. Most of the competitive shooters I know are professionals, doctors, lawyers, etc. It's not a cheap hobby in terms of either time or money.

Rick,

I'm sorry but you are wrong on the statistics. I've gone over this territory many times on other blogs. Whether you are talking nationaly, internationaly or over a time period. Statistcly there is virtualy no correlation between private ownership of fire-arms and homicide rates. There is a statistcly stronger correlation between private ownership of automobiles and homicide rates.

Note, that for all other violent crimes beside homicide (i.e. rape, assualt, kidnapping, etc) there is actualy a moderate NEGATIVE correlation between crime rates and private firearm ownership (suggesting that increased fire-arm ownership may actualy help reduce these sorts of crimes...although any honest reseaercher will tell you that correlation does not equal causation).

While I am pro-gun, I am in favor of strong licensing requirements for concealed carry (open carry is a different story). However, the statistics just don't support the idea that guns are a major causation of violence.

From a purely Public Safety standpoint you'd be far, far better of banning production and sale of alcohol then firearms. Why don't you go after that first eh?

Cengel,

That's an interesting point, given the results of prohibition. I'm trying to picture a speak-easy for firearms.

I don't have to picture it, WHQ, the local police find and raid them on a regular basis. Ask a local cop about "bootleg houses." These are place where people can buy liquor (and other things) outside the legal channels, after hours, and so on. They also often act as fences for stolen property, taking the property as payment for the alcohol and drugs they sell. Stolen guns are prime trade goods.

The existence of these houses isn't well known outside the communities that use them. Most of us think the speakeasy faded out after prohibition. In truth they still exist in a somewhat altered form. I probably never would have even thought about the subject if the local lowlifes hadn't taken to robbing them. Even then, it wouldn't have come to public attention if it hadn't resulted in some shootings--a bootleg operator is unlikely to report a robbery with no injuries. For obvious reasons.

I have heard of quite a few of these places in Philadelphia, but I had never heard that they traded in weapons. I have even heard of one in the less-than-desireable section of the small town I was raised in outside of Philly, but I can't imagine there's much going on there beyond after-hours beer and liquor sales. I could be wrong about that. Come to think of it, they are likely selling drugs, too. So, why not guns as well?

I can only speak to my own region, but anything fencible is "currency" at bootleg houses in this area.