Kansas Concealed Carry Killers. Or Not.

 

One of the cardinal rules of journalism: don’t start an article with a statistic. It’ll turn off readers faster than Roseanne Barr singing the National Anthem. Naked. So I’ll say this much before the stat-laden info on concealed carry crime stats after the jump [via sfgate.com]: anyone who thinks that Americans exercising their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms are more dangerous than the general population is meshuga. Perhaps even dangerously so. Common sense tells the tale. Even in those states with Constitutional Carry (no special permit required for concealed carry) legal gun toters have to pass a criminal background check and swear to God they’re not smoking meths. If these folks buy a gun, any gun, they have to pass another criminal background check. So they’re double secret probation safe for society. Not entirely, of course . . .

Of the 51,078 permits issued in Kansas since the law took effect in 2007, just 44 permit holders were charged with a crime committed while using a firearm, according to records from the Kansas attorney general’s office.

The Wichita Eagle reported that works out to one charge for every 1,161 permit holders, or 0.09 percent.

For those 44 permit holders charged, 17 had their licenses revoked because they were convicted of a crime that disqualifies them from having a permit.

So less than half of those .09 percent of revoked licenses were related to criminal activity. What’re the odds that half of those revocations were drug consumption related? In fact, I’d be willing to bet that none of them involved homicide. Here’s what we know . . .

While Kansas has since issued a little over 51,000 permits, 48,200 people hold one now, according to the attorney general’s office. Conviction of a felony while using a firearm brings a lifetime revocation. Aggravated battery is the leading cause for revocation in Kansas.

Some Kansans have their licenses revoked because they move out of state. Others have not renewed their licenses. A drunken driving conviction draws a one-year revocation. Conviction of a felony where a firearm was not used will bring a revocation of five to 10 years.

Clearly, unequivocally, logically, concealed carry weapons license holders are law-abiding citizens.

I know this may sound strange, but I’d be happier if the total number or even percentage of revocations was higher. That would indicate that a larger percentage of the population was legally carrying a firearm.

Which would be a good thing, not a bad thing, in terms of protecting our gun rights and making society safer for everyone. IMHO. But not everyone’s HO.

But Michael Birzer, criminal justice professor and director of the school of community affairs at Wichita State University, said no empirical studies back up claims that the permits deter crime.

“It’s hogwash,” said Birzer, who spent nearly two decades with the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office.

And there you have it: the same sort of informationally-challenged, emotionally-charged conclusions that gun control advocates use when they fly in the face of facts.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Yep, not allowing me, a granpa with a spotless record and a DD214 and no substance abuse issues to carry a gun is making Chicago and NYC and LA safer places to be. Just exactly how retarded do you have to be to believe strict gun control laws will have any effect on the bad guys?

    1. avatar Jan says:

      That almost describes me, except for the grandpa part.
      And that means I can’t get a ccw permit because I live in Stockton, the “safest city in California”. Or so I’ve heard.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        The last time I got shot at, in the late 80’s, was in the Port of Stockton by the Continental grainery. The only town I’ve been to where the gas stations were displaying shotguns to discourage would be robbers.

  2. avatar MD Matt says:

    Uh, when he says:
    “…no empirical studies back up claims that the permits deter crime.”

    Nothing in this article says that either. The article states that holding a carry permit means you were probably a good citizen to begin with; which would seem to imply that permit or no permit, you weren’t going to turn to a life of crime regardless.
    OTOH, the professor may be talking about the potential presence of permit holders acting as a deturrent to criminals, which also isn’t the point of this article.
    Using a statistic to start off an article may turn off readers, but dropping an unrelated quote in doesn’t help your case either.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      beat me to it.

  3. avatar Aharon says:

    Whichever way I move in my computer chair, I swear the eyes in that angry looking skeleton head keep following me.

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      Hey, what happened to the initial photo with the front of the store shown and that nasty looking skull eying you?

  4. avatar Greg Camp says:

    Cue the control freaks to tell us that thousands of license holders commit crimes, but no one bothers to check for a carry permit. That would be the police who can’t get around to doing a simple computer search–in other words, the very people who are the only ones professional enough to carry a gun.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      You mean the very police that’ll run your name through a computer at the slightest, quasi-legal opportunity?

  5. avatar speedracer5050 says:

    Just more proof that the MSM is in cahoots with the government to get rid of more and more of our rights!!
    And to them the sooner the better!!!
    OMG” Think of the Children”!!!!!

  6. avatar Leon says:

    Folks….this has nothing to do with the topic.
    I just wanted to say that I am thankful for this great forum.
    As a black, middle aged, guy I have been turned off by many gun forums.
    TTAG is the first forum that doesn’t offend anyone with liberal views.
    I proudly display my NRA sticker with my Obama tag on my car.
    I cannot tell you how many intelligent conversations that has sparked in my travels between my home NM and my job MA.
    So on this holiday, in this great nation, I want to thank you all for your thoughtful opinions. The 2A is what brings us together . We are civil, thoughtful and vigilant.
    Thanks to all…….and thanks to TTAG!

    1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

      And thank you sir for being here in our ranks and for being open minded enough to enjoy being here!!!
      God Bless You!!!

    2. avatar Aharon says:

      Hi Leon,

      Thanks for your comment. It’s great to have you here.

    3. avatar Greg Camp says:

      I’m with you on this. Gun ownership and carry is a basic human right, not limited to any political party, race, orientation, or religion.

  7. avatar texmln says:

    A few years ago a I saw a similar report for Texas CHL holders. As a bonus the writer included not only CHL holder crime stats but the stats for all law enforcement officers in Texas. Not only did the cops have a substantially higher crime rate than the relatively squeaky clean CHL holders, they also had a substantially higher crime rate than the general population of the state. Plus, the cops were involved in more violent crime than the other groups. But you already knew all this even though it’s rarely reported… Just imagine what the real crime rate is for cops once you include all the stuff they get away with just because they have a badge.

  8. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I don’t understand these two lines, but it’s late, so maybe I’m missing something.

    “…just 44 permit holders were charged with a crime committed while using a firearm…” and “For those 44 permit holders charged, 17 had their licenses revoked because they were convicted of a crime that disqualifies them from having a permit.”

    44 were charged with committing a crime while “using” a gun, but only 17 were revoked due to conviction? Does that mean 27 were found not guilty or the charges were dropped? Or was the initial sentence incorrect, and should have read “44 were charged with committing a crime while in possession of a gun” perhaps, in which case the possession of the gun is not relevant to the statistic.

  9. FYI, here’s the link to the original article: http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html#storylink=misearch

    Excerpt that may clarify why the Birzer quote:
    “Gun-rights backers point to exercising constitutional rights, personal safety and deterrent to crime as reasons to carry a concealed handgun. ‘The main reason people get a license is because this is a broken world, and we don’t want to be defenseless,’ said Dirk Sanders, a state-certified concealed-carry instructor from Rose Hill. ‘Critics of concealed carry take issue with claims that those with permits help reduce crime. Michael Birzer, criminal justice professor and director of the school of community affairs at Wichita State University, said there aren’t any empirical studies that back up claims that the permits deter crime. ‘It’s hogwash,’ said Birzer, who spent nearly two decades with the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office….”

    Interestingly, while Birzer claims there are no studies that conclude CC is a deterrent to crime, he offers no evidence that conclude otherwise.

  10. avatar HAVE GUN says:

    I would expect CC isn’t really much, if any deterrent to crime.

    But Ya know what? I don’t care. It isn’t obvious to me fire extinguishers are a deterrent to fires either. But when you need one, it is indispensible.

    But then what do I know? Just your local humble country boy Concealed Carry Kansas killer.

  11. avatar Sammy says:

    Gun control does for crime what rent control does for housing.

  12. avatar Ceefour says:

    Who cares if CC deters crime? Like the death sentence does not deter crime..but it does insure that the perp will not be able to hurt/kill anyone else.

  13. avatar bontai Joe says:

    ““It’s hogwash,” said Birzer, who spent nearly two decades with the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Office.”

    Hogwash, now there is a technical term if I ever saw one. Would this “hogwash” be clean hogwash, or used hogwash? And is it biodegradable? Will it hurt the children? Is it safe to come in contact with skin? Does he have a material safety data sheet for this hogwash? And seeing as he is a county gubmint official, were the proper bids put out on pricing this hogwash? These are all important questions that need answers, think of the children!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email