Permits to carry concealed weapons, specifically a concealed firearm, are allowed in some form or another in most states, and have been the issue of much debate with myriad analysis of their effectiveness on crime rates and safety. It is unarguable that public safety must in all regards be protected and maintained when issuing Concealed Carry Weapon Permits (CCW) to make sure that those persons who may pose a threat to public safety do not obtain a CCW permit. With that said, every state has controls and laws in place that regulate who can carry a concealed weapon. CCW permits allow a civilian to legally “...carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person...” after fulfilling the requirements set place by the government which include training, fingerprinting, background checks, and a list of character references, and are issued “after a finding that the applicant is of good moral character, that good cause exists for such a license, and the applicant is not prohibited from possessing firearms” (California Penal code 12050, cited in California Office of Attorney General, 2007). Much research has been conducted on the efficacy of CCW permits and the deterrence of crime and it has been found to have a deterring effect on crimes involving victims.
The issuance of more CCW permits would be a simple, effective, and inexpensive means for the government to reduce crime rates. A comprehensive study by J.R. Lott Jr and D. Mustard in 1997 “...examined crime rates over 16 years across 3054 US counties. It accounted for changes in arrests and convictions, detailed county demographics, drug prices, and general variables such as unemployment, income, and poverty. Strong evidence links the number of concealed handguns to lower violent crime rates and fewer deaths” (Lott, J.R., 1998). Lott and Mustard's research showed that “[t]he declines [in crime] begin directly after the concealed handgun laws pass, and the crime rates end up well below what they were prior to passage of the law” (Lott, J.R., 1998). These results are completely logical, in that criminals are going to be less likely to attack a victim who is armed because it will be more likely to be a confrontation in which the criminal will be injured or killed. If more states moved to “shall issue” laws, in which CCW permits are provided to citizens after meeting specific requirements such as training, background checks, and similar conditions to ensure that only law abiding citizens who are of good moral character obtain these permits, there could be a drastic reduction in crime. The issuance of CCW permits would have minimal cost to the State as most cities and counties already impose a fee that helps to offset the costs of training and background checks involved in the process, and the fee could be standardized and increased in order to minimize any tax dollars spent on the issuance of the permits. Lastly, because the issuance of a higher number of CCW permits would deter more crimes, it would essentially have the crime deterring effect of the state having employed vast numbers of police officers without any of the involved costs.
 |
| Photo courtesy of the internet, unknown source, modified from original size |
Many of the arguments against concealed carry are illogical, are not backed by research, and include logical fallacies. One of the major concerns that every day citizens seem to have with the issuance of a higher number of CCW permits is the illogical idea that “the streets are going to turn into a wild west style shootout!” As stated in my previous blog, the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would not use their weapons in an illegal way because of their fear of the legal repercussions they would face. Those seeking to obtain a CCW permit are made to go through a training class in which they are taught when they can and cannot use their weapons and how to safely use and carry their weapon. With the strict laws surrounding CCW permits including the background checks and character references, only those found to be of good moral character would be allowed to carry a concealed firearm. Many proponents of harsher gun control laws and harder to obtain CCW permits cite tragedies such as the 1999 Columbine High School shooting and the Virginia Tech shootings. Referencing these atrocities as arguments against concealed carry laws are completely illogical because the perpetrators in those shootings were not concealed carry permit owners and therefore were carrying their concealed weapons illegally. If anything, these can prove to be examples of why concealed carry permits should be more abundant, not harder to obtain. There are a number of people who would logically argue that if more people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, especially in schools, tragedies such as these could have been avoided or at the least minimized. It is logical that if a number of students or especially faculty had been legally carrying a concealed weapon, the terrorists who committed the mass shootings of their unarmed victims could have been deterred or even subdued with less casualties. The argument of allowing the carry of concealed firearms in school is obviously an extreme, but the logic follows, if more people were carrying concealed weapons, criminals would be less likely to attack a victim out of a concern for their own safety.
References:
California Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. (2007). California firearms laws 2007 Retrieved from <http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf>.
Lott, J. R. (1998). Do Shall-Issue Laws Save Lives?. American Journal of Public Health, 88(6), 980-982. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Let me first being by saying that I am completely for law-abiding citizens being allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right in the form of CCWs. Your post is well written and it gives a powerful, persuasive point of view that is backed by facts. It is also a post that is not trying to slam opposing opinions, which is quite refreshing to read. Going off of what you said, it is the law-abiding citizens that get CCWs, not the criminals. "Gun-control" is a backward concept when it is examined. Thank you for your post. I look forward to reading your future posts.
ReplyDeleteThere are many good points in this blog. I really don't have an opinion as to whether or not people should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I do have one question though, in there it states that it would have to be determined if a person was of god moral character. Wel who decides that, and how? How can anyone true decide the moral character of someone they have never met before. People today are very good at manipulating people and situations, so how can their moral character be truely evaulated?
ReplyDeleteAnn Opinion, I wish thank you for the praise of my blog post. I have always sought to present a logical and factual argument that can be followed relatively easily. While I do believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am a firm believer that when presented with reliable, factual evidence, people should have the ability to admit that there is a possibility that their opinion is incorrect, and if necessary to change their opinions. I believe firmly in free will and seek only to provide people with the factual basis of my side of the argument. I believe that we often need to test our own convictions and seek out as much information as we can in order to find the truth without fear of discovering that our convictions may be incorrect. I have never had a problem admitting I am wrong in light of the proper evidence, as it is one of the best ways to grow. As Napoleon Bonaparte said, "The only conquests that are permanent and which leave no regrets are those over ourselves." I firmly believe that it is only though the pursuit of knowledge that we can find truth. Hopefully I have presented my arguments about gun control and CCWs in just such a manor.
ReplyDeleteHer Mama, I thank you for your response and your question is a very good one. In the State of California, it is up to the issuing department to determine if sufficient need exists for the applicant to be issued a CCW permit. Once the basis of necessity has been met, the applicant must provide three character references who will be contacted and the applicant is also interviewed, often multiple times, by one or many police officers. The final decision lies with the Chief of Police in the case of a city or municipal police agency or the County Sheriff in the case of a Sheriff's agency because a CCW permit in California may only be issued by the city or county in which a person resides. Once an application has been approved to continue the process, the applicant must successfully complete a training course as prescribed by the issuing agency.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point by asking how someone can truly decide someone's moral character. Ultimately the answer is much the same as most things in life: there is no absolute certainty. The background check process, character references, interviews, training classes, fees, and other hoops that someone must jump through to obtain a CCW permit (which must be renewed every two years in California) will generally do a very good job at weeding out many of the people with less than good moral character, or those who want a CCW permit simply to have one. Personally, I am much less concerned with the people who are going through the application process to legally carry a concealed firearm and much, much more concerned with the people who are carrying a concealed firearm anyways. While I would like to see the necessity clause lessened for obtaining a CCW permit in California, I would not mind having slightly deeper background checks performed on applicants. I don't have anything to hide, if the government wants to check further into my background for the protection of others, be my guest, just don't waste too much taxpayer money looking for what's not there.