[HTML]

“Because most state systems that allow the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC [Violence Policy Center] reviews and tallies concealed handgun permit holder killings primarily as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.” If you can’t see anything wrong with that statement, you’ll probably take the VPC’s most recent conclusions about conceal carry firearm fatalities at face value. The fact that the March update doesn’t actually include a March-specific update should raise some skepticism. In any case, Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand goes for it:

Each month we are finding more and more killings by concealed handgun permit holders. Just as opponents of weak concealed carry laws warned, we now know that concealed handgun permit holders are killing people in road rage incidents, arguments over parking spaces, and domestic disputes.  The incidents we document graphically demonstrate how the presence of a handgun escalates an argument to a homicide.  How many more people must die at the hands of concealed carry killers before state legislators act to fix these laws?

You’ll find anecdotes aplenty at the link. Reliable statistical analysis and balance, not so much.

5 Responses to Violence Policy Center: “Concealed Carry Killers” March Update

  1. I love those guys. When the facts don't fit their theories…throw out the facts and argue emotion. Nice. I wonder if Ms. Rand has ever held a handgun, fired one, or even received any training that would disabuse her of many of her wrong-headed notions.

  2. I hate to even comment on this because the VCP and their director’s conclusions are so asinine. Their Chicken Little statistics are meaningless. Their stats show that people commit crime, even CHP license holders. Tell me something I don’t already know. But from this they are concluding that CHP holders are more likely to commit murder because they have these licenses. Their data does not show this. Show me:

    • Murder rates of gun owners that do NOT have CHP licenses so we can compare populations and see which group poses a greater threat. I would expect that overall the CHP owners would be the more law abiding since they 1) have complied with the CHP laws and 2) they have passed whatever state background check is required.

    • Compare murder rates of states with CHP laws vs. states without and let’s see who has the bigger homicide problem. All of the statistics I have heretofore seen have shown that violent crimes, including murder, have gone down in every state that has enacted CHP laws.

    • Show me who among the criminals cited in their anecdotal evidence would NOT have been packing heat if a CHP was not available in their state. It looked to me like these perps were a bunch of suicidal, white supremacists, drug dealers, etc. who would have had a gun and committed murder with or without a CHP.

  3. The VPC's statistics are meaningless for all purposes except for the fact that these people happened to have been issued a Concealed carry permit.

    Many of these incidents take place in locations where CHL's are not needed, such as the person's home or in their car. They pay no attention to whether a handgun, rifle, or shotgun was used in their numbers. They also do not differentiate between Carry permits, security permits, or even when it is a police permit. They even attribute deaths to people with CHLs when someone else used a gun that was owned by a CHL holder. Their statistics are a joke.

    There are 6 million people with CHL permits in the USA, using the statistics that VPC gives lets do a little math. So if we have a total of 150 deaths attributed to CHL's in 3 years, that means that with 50 deaths a year we have 1 death for every 120,000 holders per year. Those are pretty safe statistics. Being around CHL holders is safer than owning a pool or a car.

  4. I have nothing to add on the gun issue, but I do on the quote above, “A weapon’s proximity to narcotics may be sufficient to provide the nexus necessary to enhance a defendant’s sentence.” The government decided over the last 99 years that it can do just about anything it wants to. Legal “possession” of a drug have never in my lifetime meant what “position” means commonly. If you happen to be standing in a room where there are drugs, you are in “possession” of those drugs if a cop says so. Similarly, if a cop wants to arrest you for drug trafficking for passing a joint to a friend, he can. That’s what I don’t understand about gun rights people: the government has been on tilt for so long in so much more invasive ways, I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Increased background checks? Really?! You think if the government didn’t want to take away all guns, they wouldn’t do it, and do it as effectively as they lock up more people than any country in the history of the world? If you do, you’re living in a dream.

  5. Yeah, I’m one of those hardcore thugs they’re talking about. I forgot to signal before a left turn yesterday.

    I’m a rebel, y’see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *