Left Rudder

Still not a single fact from GunFacts.

Today, pp. 4-5:

Myth: Police are against concealed carrying by citizens
Fact: 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of violent crime.21

Author cites “21 National Association of Chiefs of Police, 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005.”

There’s a problem here, the survey cited may be found here. As can been seen, the 66% affirmative figure is not accurate. We also don’t know what the response rate was to this survey; we know it was sent to some 22000 folks–but we have no idea what response rate was achieved. I’d also question whether the phrasing of the question (Will a national concealed handgun permit reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected?) was legitimate.

It must also be noted that the largest organization of police chiefs is the IACP. They are not necessarily opposed to CCW but do strongly favor rigid regulations opposed by gunloons.

Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen …I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.”22
Fact: “I … [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless”.23

Author cites 22 Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997 and 23 John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997.

Assuming the quotes are accurate, they are anecdotes not facts. They represent opinion.

Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom support shall-issue concealed carry laws.

This highlights the rampant dishonesty of the author. The LEAA is a front organization of the NRA and is funded by an annual grant of $500K from the NRA.

The Second Amendment Police Department is a website and doesn’t represent law enforcement in any other form. Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment was the previous incarnation of the LEAA.

Low-hanging fruit on pg. 15:

Myth: .50-caliber rifles can knock a helicopter from the sky

Fact: The terminal energy of a .50-caliber (6,000 ft-lbs) is not enough to knock a modern military aircraft from the sky unless it hits a critical component like a fuel line. Records exist showing this has been done with common, smaller caliber assault rifles such as AK-47s.

Author provides no cite. Additionally, author debunks own “myth” by telling us helos can be shot down with smaller caliber weapons.

Author displays a great deal of ignorance WRT helicopters and .50 cal weapons. A helicopter–or virtually any aircraft–is not a heavily armored air vehicle. Often, fuel tanks–not lines–are exposed. There are also plenty of avionics that could be damaged by a .50 cal round.

Page 4, for those following at home:

Myth: People do not need concealable weapons

Fact: In 80% of gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender’s home.18

Author cites “18 “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995″

This Kleck’s famous “2.5M DGU annually” claim. As I’ve noted here and here.

By Kleck’s own numbers, 2.5M DGUs should produce some 30,000 justifiable homicides each year. Given that FBI UCARs rarely have more than 300 justifiable homicides annually–we should approach Kleck’s numbers with a small boulder of salt.

Fact: 77% of all violent crime occurs in public places.19 This makes concealed carry necessary for almost all self-defense needs. But due to onerous laws forbidding concealed carry, only 26.8% of defensive gun uses occurred away from home.20

Author cites 1993 BJS stats for the 77% figure and Kleck and Gertz for the DGU info.

The 77% figure is within several percentage points of more recent (2005) BJS stats. It should be noted, however, the BJS doesn’t say “public places”–instead its says:

In 2005 -
The location of about a quarter of incidents of violent crime was at or near the victim’s home. Among common locales for violent crimes were on streets other than those near the victim’s home (19%), at school (12%), or at a commercial establishment (8%).

For violent crime, about half occurred within a mile from home and 76% within five miles. Only 4% of victims of violent crime reported that the crime took place more than fifty miles from their home.

Of victims of violent crime, 22% were involved in some form of leisure activity away from home at the time of their victimization, 22% said they were at home, and another 20% mentioned they were at work or traveling to or from work when the crime occurred.

BJS also notes violent crime, in the form of murder or rape, were most often committed by an acquaintance.

Fact: Often, small weapons that are capable of being concealed are the only ones usable by people of small stature or with physical disabilities.

Author provides no cite; this appears to be strictly opinion. It also hinges on author’s definition of usable. Does usable mean safely or does it mean the person can fire the weapon?

Fact: The average citizen doesn’t need a Sport Utility Vehicle, but driving one is arguably safer than driving other vehicles. Similarly, carrying a concealable gun makes the owner – and his or her community – safer by providing protection not otherwise available.

Author provides no cite–another opinion. It also isn’t true, according to the Transportation Research Board. The CCW info isn’t supported by any data.

Just a quick debunking, in the lull of the holiday frenzy.

Myth: CCWs will lead to mass public shootings
Fact: Multiple victim public shootings drop in states that pass shall-issue CCW
legislation.17 .

Author cites John Lott (Lott J, Landes W; “Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement”; University of Chicago – covers years 1977 to 1995).

First, this doesn’t pass the common sense test. Consider the mass shootings in this country–they are most often perpetrated by deeply disturbed and suicidal individuals. These killers don’t expect to get away with their crimes; in short, they are committing highly irrational acts. Yet, Lott would have us believe some mentally ill and irrational gunman is going to reason that he shouldn’t really shoot up a mall or a school because the state has a CCW law?

Second, Lott’s research and tactics have often been suspect. I’ll not go into those details now–for now, I’ll leave it to Prof. Mark Kleiman of UCLA to summarize. (Scroll to “LOTT, DONOHUE, AND LEVITT”).

Third, there exist a number of studies that contradict Lott’s thesis. This one finds “virtually no support for the hypothesis that the laws increase or reduce the number of mass public shootings. ”

This also is key in debunking much, if not all, of Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” thesis.

Today, we dispense with some really low-hanging fruit from GunFacts. Pgs. 2-3:

Myth: People with concealed weapons permits will commit crimes

This is pretty unfortunate since most of the author’s ‘facts’ do, indeed, point out that CCW permit holders commit crimes. Logically, all I would have to do to debunk this is cite one instance where a CCW permit holder has committed a crime.

I think the notion the author was trying for was to assert CCW permit holders commit fewer crimes than the public as a whole.

Anyway, into the breech:

Fact: The results for the first 30 states that passed “shallissue”
laws for concealed carry permits are similar. Here are some specific cases:

Author compares permits granted with permits revoked in FL, VA, and AZ. The data is cherry-picked: FL’s data is from Oct 87-Jan 99, VA’s is from 1995 only, and AZ’s is from 1994 thru 1998. To say the results are “similar” using different time periods is inaccurate to say the least. Additionally, it is not true FL, VA, and AZ have similar laws; that, too, invalidates any claim to similar results. Finally, there appears to be a problem with the author’s FL ‘facts’ WRT revoked permits. Current FL stats (Oct 87 thru Nov 07) for the number of revoked permits is 4113. Author claims there were only 109 for the period Oct 87-Jan 99. This means there were 4004 revocations in the period Jan 99 thru Nov 07. What happened? The answer isn’t there were more permits; in the period cited by the author, there were 551,000 permits issued. Recent FL DOACS data says 1,297,000 have been issued Oct 87 thru Nov 07). Either the author has misread his stats or FL changed its laws in 1999 or CCW permit holders have become more criminal.

Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:9
• 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
• 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public

This ‘fact’ comes from: ‘William Sturdevant, unpublished study reported in August 2000 edition of America’s 1st Freedom’

America’s 1st Freedom is an NRA magazine. How does an “unpublished” study get to be “reported” in a magazine? Chances are this cite is apocryphal.

Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.10

Author cites ‘10 Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September, 2000′. It is very likely an apocryphal cite. The cite does not reference a time period. The TX DPS has very good stats on CCW demographics but doesn’t list crimes. US Census Bureau data would be impossible to cross-reference.

Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there haven’t been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.11

Out of context. Author cites ‘11 Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000.’ The Dallas Morning News article quotes Butts within the context of public debate over CCW laws–not whether CCW permit holders are committing crime.

Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.

Author does not provide cite or time reference. There is an article in the Portland Tribune (Oct 21, 2005) that quotes a Portland sheriff saying Portland “police officers confiscate about 850 handguns a year, almost all of them from people who do not have permits. Maybe three times a year does a weapon come in confiscated from somebody who actually had a permit.”

Obviously, a fabricated ‘fact.’

Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit.12

Author cite: ‘12 Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998′

Neither report says any such thing. In researching this ‘fact,’ a Google search will often attribute this ‘fact’ to former FL SoS, Sandra Mortha, in a ‘memo.’ Siad memo does not exist.

Journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

Please note that if I were a GunLoon, my first salvo would be to attack the author as biased and/or unqualified. I won’t do that. Also, I’m going to debunk GunFacts in no specific order; so, if I appear to have skipped a section, I’ll be addressing it at some other time.

Today, it’s pgs 1-2, ‘Concealed carry laws and weapons.’

Myth: Concealed carry laws increase crime

Fact: Forty states1, comprising the majority of the American population, are “right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-tocarry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states deny or restrict the right to carry.

Cherry-picking. What the author neglects to mention is that crime rates fell in those states that restrict or forbid CCW–at a higher rate than those with more liberal CCW laws.

Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.2

Actually, the rate is just under 1% (.879 %) for the period of 1987-2007. Regardless, why are we happy to see people with guns commiting crimes?

Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains it below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).3

A lot of cherry-picking and sleight of hand here. As noted earlier, crime fell in those states that had restrictive or no CCW laws as well. In some states, the crime rates fell more than Florida’s.

General note: The author plays fast and loose with his crime stats. Many crimes simply have no bearing on whether someone is carrying a gun or not. For example, most burglaries occur when nobody is home. Most vehicle thefts occur when no one is near the vehicle.

Fact: The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after Texas passed a concealed carry law in 1995.

The author doesn’t a cite a source for this “fact” nor do we have a definition for what “serious crime” means.

Fact: When citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons:
• Murder rates drop 8%
• Rape rates fall 5%
• Aggravated assaults drop 7%

Again, the author doesn’t cite or source or identify what states, cities or time periods he is talking about. Though he doesn’t cite a source, these numbers are in line with John Lott’s findings (Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. ) in More Guns, Less Crime (1998).

A number of researchers have debunked Lott’s work. More than a few have found not just errors in Lott’s methodology but some misconduct. I shall quote just one, the pro-gun Gary Kleck in his book Targeting Guns:

“Lott and Mustard argued that their results indicated that the laws caused substantial reductions in violence rates by deterring prospective criminals afraid of encountering an armed victim. This conclusion could be challenged, in light of how modest the intervention was. The 1.3% of the population in places like Florida who obtained permits would represent at best only a slight increase in the share of potential crime victims who carry guns in public places. And if those who got permits were merely legitimating what they were already doing before the new laws, it would mean there was no increase at all in carrying or in actual risks to criminals. One can always speculate that criminals’ perceptions of risk outran reality, but that is all this is–a speculation. More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.”

Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws4:

This is attributed to John Lott and is disputed by most experts. Even Gary Kleck who is strongly in favor of CCW laws.

Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.5

Author’s cite excludes RI and HI–why? Because when you factor those states in, there isn’t much of a difference.

Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws
are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.

Author provides no cite. It is generally attributed to John Lott. Recent events in VA, NE, and CO–all of which have liberal CCW laws–repudiate this ‘fact.’ Anumber of studies by Jens Ludwig, Phillip Cook, Daniel Webster, John Donohue and others state their is no statistical evidence to support Lott’s claim.

Jay F in comments:

the oft-heard deceits of anti-gunowner advocates — such as the ourrageous deception of the “fingerprint-resistant” gun.

It’s a deception, it’s outrageous, it’s deceitful. It’s an ad from IntraTec:

Not the best image reproduction but you can make out the text: “excellent resistance to fingerprints”

Now, let’s see–who might be glad to have “excellent resistance to fingerprints” for their handguns?

The youthful and dishonest Michael Hawkins pointed me to a website called “Gun Facts.” It claims, among other things to:

debunks common myths about gun control. It is intended as a reference guide for journalists, activists, politicians, and other people interested in restoring honesty to the debate about guns, crime, and the 2nd Amendment.

Sadly, it contains many lies, distortions, misrepresentations and cherry-picking. There’s also a marked tendency of the author to heavily rely on John Lott’s dubious research. In the future, I shall expose each and every one.

Just as a quick, drive-by debunking, many of his quotes towards the end of his e-book are bogus and/or have been taken out of context. I’ve debunked several of them previously.

It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Ladies and gents, I give you Sebastian Sassi: Muay Thai expert, Baltimore Police Department deputy and Executive Member (??) of Maryland Shall Issue:

“…all Chinese people are short and don’t see well at night, that black people all eat fried chicken and watermelon and play basketball, that Jewish people hoard money and have big noses, that Hispanic folks are all illegal immigrants from Mexico and Honduras, and that Italian people eat nothing but spaghetti and are universally in the Mafia.”

Wow. It’s not a wonder the GunLoon culture and he have each other.