Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr14/ccwcrime.zip/CCWCRIME.TXT

Text File | 1995-03-22 | 18KB | 323 lines

 The following article is under submission.  Reproduction
 on computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational
 purposes only.  Copyright (c) 1995 by J. Neil Schulman.
 All other rights reserved.

               NEWS MEDIA PROMOTES BOGUS CCW STUDY
                       by J. Neil Schulman
     The Associated Press wire story from March 13, 1995, was
titled, "Relaxed Gun Laws Mean More Deaths."[*]
     Its first paragraph reported, "More people were killed with
guns after concealed gun laws were relaxed in 4 of 5 urban areas
studied by University of Maryland researchers."
     The AP story goes on to quote results from a January, 1995
paper titled "Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on
 Homicide in Three States."  Its authors are David McDowall, Colin
Loftin, and Brian Wiersema.
     The AP story reports, "'While advocates of these relaxed laws
argue that they will prevent crime, and suggest that they have
reduced homicides in areas that adopted them, we strongly suggest
caution,' said University of Maryland criminologist David McDowall.
'When states weaken limits on concealed weapons, they may be giving
up a simple and effective method of preventing firearm deaths.'"
     This is a typical media story intended to make you think
that the more guns you have, the more endangered you are.  It has
already been the basis for the \Los Angeles Times\ to editorialize
against reforming California's laws which currently make it
impossible for most Californians to carry firearms for self-
protection without threat of arrest and prosecution under
Penal Code Section 12025.
     The AP story is carefully crafted to pull selected data from
a study designed by anti-gun zealots who cloak themselves in the
lab coats of medical research being conducted for the federal
government; then it goes even further to misrepresent the study
authors' own conclusions to make them seem firm and sweeping
proof of the evil of guns.
     It won't work this time.  I read the study.
     You can, too.  Get a copy from the Department of Criminology
& Criminal Justice, 2220 Samuel Lefrak Hall, College Park, MD
20742-8235 / 301-405-4735.
     The fourth paragraph on page 1 states: "In 1985 the National
Rifle Association announced that it would lobby for shall issue
laws."
     Footnote 1 on page 1 states: "This research was supported by
grant R49-CCR-306268 from the U.S. Public Health Service.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
     Well, we know a couple of things right off.  The funding
came from federal tax dollars which were designated for the
control and prevention of \diseases\.  Instead, it was diverted
from disease control and prevention into \lobbying\ against NRA-
proposed CCW reform laws \using tax money\.
     Using tax money for lobbying is illegal.
     Next, who do we see listed as a researcher on this study?
We see Colin Loftin -- a gun-control zealot whose previous
"study" tried to prove that a decrease in Washington D.C.'s
homicide rate was a consequence of D.C.'s passage of increased
gun prohibitions.  That Loftin study has been shot full of holes
on grounds that the decrease in homicide in D.C. was a trend
established \before\ the D.C. law was passed, that it didn't study
homicide \rates\ because it failed to take into account the
decrease in Washington D.C.'s population during the study period,
and that Loftin carefully cut off his study at the point when
homicide in D.C. started \climbing\ again.
     Now let's get to this new "study" from Dr. Loftin and
friends.
     First of all, it was highly selective in what areas it
looked at.  It looked at "several urban areas within Florida,
Mississippi, and Oregon."
     It did not study homicides statewide in states which had
modified its laws regarding the issuance of licenses to carry
concealed weapons (CCW licenses).
     By focusing on urban areas, the study was sure to select
data from areas where criminal gangs are increasingly using
firearms in their drug wars -- cases where criminal gangsters are
shooting each other.  Since both offenders and victims in these
cases are criminals who wouldn't apply for CCW licenses, data
from these areas are irrelevant to ordinary people legally
carrying guns for protection.
     It did not study murder, it studied homicides.  It did not
study whether these homicides were murders, justifiable homicides,
or excusable homicides.  The source of the homicides was not even
from police investigations; the study says "we used death
certificate data compiled by the National Center for Health
Statistics."
     And it did NOT study homicides linked to holders of CCW
licenses.  There is no statement anywhere in this "study" that a
single homicide was committed by a CCW license holder in the
states studied.
     The "theory" under which this statistical correlation
between easing of CCW's and the increase in homicide is as
follows:
        "[S]hall issue licensing might raise levels of criminal
     violence.  This is so because it increases the number of
     persons with easy access to firearms. Zimring and Cook argue
     that assaults are often impulsive acts involving the most
     readily available weapons.  Guns are especially deadly
     weapons, and higher numbers of firearm carriers could
     therefore result in more homicides.
        "Advocates of shall issue licensing often cite figures
     showing that few legal carriers misuse their guns.  Yet
     greater tolerance for legal carrying may lead to higher
     levels of illegal carrying as well.  For example, criminals
     have more reason to carry firearms -- and to use them --
     when their victims might be armed Further, if permission to
     carry a concealed weapon is easy to obtain, citizens and law
     enforcement may be less likely to view illegal carrying as a
     serious offense."
     What linkage is claimed for the study?  \None\.  These two
paragraphs are based on "might raise," "could therefore result,"
"may lead to," "for example ... have more reason to," "may be
less likely to view."
     This isn't science -- it's speculation.
     And it's not even speculation grounded in anything -- it's
exactly the sort of speculation gun-control advocates use every
time easing of carry prohibitions is proposed: every argument
following a traffic accident is speculated to degenerate into a
shootout -- despite the fact that in the twenty-some states which
have easy carrying, \it doesn't happen\.
     There is no evidence collected or presented in this study
that holders of CCW licenses are the types of people who commit
"impulsive acts" in which easier availability of firearms would be
likely to increase violence.  The "study" didn't look at CCW
license holders at all.
     Why?
     Because if the study \had\ looked at CCW license holders, it
would have found that this speculation is ungrounded.  The sorts
of "impulsive" people to whom easier access of firearms might
result in increased violence are those with no self-control: in
other words, exactly the sort of criminal psychopaths that this
"study" went out of its way to locate by concentrating on inner
cities occupied by criminal gangsters.
     Figures from the Florida Department of State clearly
show that the criminal misuse of their firearms by CCW license
holders is so rare as to be statistically \nonexistent\: perhaps
one case in 12,000 for \any\ misuse -- even technical violations --
and perhaps only one criminal homicide in 180,000 some persons
issued CCW licenses since October 1, 1987.
     The speculation as to whether criminals will be more likely
to carry guns if their victims are armed can be quantified by
data from the Wright-Rossi study reported in the book \Armed And
Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms\, by
James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi.  This study was conducted
for the Carter Administration, and at the time of their research,
Wright and Rossi were gun-control advocates looking for proof
that gun-control reduces crime.  When their data contradicted
their opinions, they were honest enough scientists to report
what they had found and advocate public policy based on the
actual scientific findings.
     Wright and Rossi discovered that while 50% of the gun
criminals they surveyed did give as a reason carrying a gun
because their victim might be armed, 60% of gun criminals agreed
that "most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed
victim than they are about running into the police," one-third
said that they had personally been "scared off, shot at, wounded,
or captured by an armed victim," and "About two-fifths reported
having decided at least once in their lives not to commit a crime
because they had reason to suspect that the intended victim was
armed."
     Wright and Rossi note: "Many of these men's 'victims' are in
all likelihood men much like themselves.  The armed victim
encounters reported by this sample may well be confrontations
between two men with equally felonious histories and motives as
between hard-core perpetrators and total innocents."
     Yes, I noted the "may well be" in the above paragraph -- but
this speculation, published in 1986, was confirmed in 1992 by
\Murder Analysis\ by the Detective Division of the Chicago Police
Department, which found that 65.53% of the murder victims in
their study of all murders they investigated in the previous year
had a previous criminal record.
     Again, all this speaks to the issue of why this study
focused on urban areas where you'd be likely to find criminals
shooting at each other -- and where gun-carrying by ordinary
people is statistically irrelevant because they aren't involved.
     Finally, the speculation that easing CCW license issuance
might lead to a relaxation of enforcement of non-licensed gun
carrying is refuted by Florida's own laws.  Carrying a concealed
firearm in Florida \without\ a Florida CCW license is a \felony\.
     Conclusion: since the McDowall-Loftin-Wiersema "study" isn't
reporting any linkage of an increase of shooting homicides to
persons holding CCW licenses having been involved in these
shootings as either perpetrators or victims -- and since the
authors' speculations on a linkage are refuted by other
criminological work -- it ends up as a meaningless statistical
comparison, akin to comparing the rise in the Dow Jones Index to
the raising of women's hemlines: no rational mechanism for the
linkage is even being offered.
     The study concludes: "The stronger conclusion is that shall
issue laws do not reduce homicides, at least in large urban
areas."
     Well, how could they -- when the criminals are avoiding
encounters with possibly armed strangers -- as Wright-Rossi found
-- and shooting other criminals whose carrying of guns is
unaffected by the change in carry laws which they don't pay
attention to anyway?
     "The weaker conclusion is that shall issue laws raise levels
of firearm murders.  Coupled with a lack of influence on murders
by other means, the laws thus increase the frequency of
homicide."
     And this conclusion is not only "weaker," it is utterly
unfounded because the study's bogus design didn't look at the
question of homicides involving CCW license holders and has
produced no grounded linkage between the increasing gun-homicide
trends between and among criminals, and the ordinary people who
carry guns for protection who might have started doing so when
they could do so without risk of legal penalty.
     And even the authors are afraid to do more than speculate,
perhaps fearing that making refutable claims will interfere with
their getting more federal bucks next time: "Despite this
evidence," McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema write, "we do not
firmly conclude that shall issue licensing leads to more firearm
homicides.  This is so because the effects varied over the study
areas.  Firearm homicides significantly increased in only three
areas, and one witnesses an insignificant decrease.  In
combination, the increase in gun homicides was large and
statistically significant.  Yet we have only five replications,
\and two of these do not clearly fit the pattern\."  [Emphasis
added by Schulman.]
     In other words, even their bogus design study couldn't find
the data they were looking for to battle the NRA.
     Yet, does the AP wire story report that the study's authors
consider their conclusions "weak" and that two of the five cases
they looked at do not support their conclusions?  Do they
quote the authors stating, "we do not firmly conclude that shall
issue licensing leads to more firearm homicides"?
     Is the headline, "Researchers Fail to Establish Linkage
Between CCW Licenses and Homicide"?
     Nope.  The Associated Press headlined its story, "Relaxed Gun
Laws Mean More Deaths."
     "Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on Homicide in Three
States" by David McDowall, Colin Loftin and Brian Wiersema is
bogus science at best and criminal misuse of federal tax dollars
at worst.
     It was designed to produce the headline of the AP wire story
-- "Relaxed Gun Laws Mean More Deaths."  The Associated Press
wants you to believe that a new scientific study proves that
making it easier for the public to carry guns legally will
increase gun-related murders of innocent people -- a conclusion
which is completely unsupported even by the claims of the
researchers.
     This is further proof that in the absence of any provable
case that the increase in availability of guns by ordinary
civilians will have adverse effects on society, gun-ban zealots
will lie, under cover of science, in an attempt to provide their
willing co-conspirators in the mass media soundbytes to try to
fool the American people into being passive victims relying on
the government to save them from armed and dangerous criminals.
                             #
Footnote:
[*]  WASHINGTON--More people were killed with guns after
concealed gun laws were relaxed in 4 of 5 urban areas studied by
University of Maryland researchers.
     The university's Violence Research Group studied homicides
by gun and other means before and after new, relaxed concealed
gun laws took effect in Jacksonville, Miami and Tampa, Fla.,
Jackson, Miss., and Portland, Ore.
     Average monthly homicides by gun increased 74 % in
Jacksonville, 43 % in Jackson, 22 % in Tampa and 3 % in Miami.
Portland had a 12 % decrease, the researchers announced Monday.
     They found that while homicides by gun increased after the
less restrictive laws were adopted, homicides by other means
remained steady.
     "While advocates of these relaxed laws argue that they will
prevent crime, and suggest that they have reduced homicides in
areas that adopted them, we strongly suggest caution," said
University of Maryland criminologist David McDowall. "When states
weaken limits on concealed weapons, they may be giving up a
simple and effective method of preventing firearm deaths."
     Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming adopted relaxed
concealed weapons law in 1994; Idaho and Montana, in 1993. The
Virginia, Texas and Colorado legislatures are working on measures
that would ease restrictions on concealed guns; the governors of
Virginia and Texas have indicated they would sign such
legislation. El Paso County, Colo., just adopted that state's
most lenient concealed weapons policy and was flooded with
applications.
     National homicide rates by gun and other means were going up
during the study period, but, when those figures were factored
in, the overall pattern of 4 increases and one decrease remained
the same with only slight changes in magnitudes, said Brian
Wiersema, one of the researchers.
     Average monthly homicides between January 1973 and December
1992 were studied in each city, except Miami. For Miami, the data
covered monthly homicides between January 1983 and December 1992.
Florida relaxed concealed guns laws Oct. 1, 1987; Oregon, Jan. 1,
1990; and Mississippi, July 1, 1990.
     McDowall said the results support other research showing
that policies to discourage firearms in public may help prevent
violence. One such study, by University of Maryland criminologist
Lawrence Sherman, found that gun crime fell during a Kansas City
program he devised to confiscate guns from people who traveled
with them outside their homes. Sherman is now conducting a
similar program and study in Indianapolis, Ind.
                                          (From AP)
    Reply to:
 J. Neil Schulman
 Mail:                 P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094
 Voice Mail & Fax:     (500) 44-JNEIL
 JNS BBS:              1-500-44-JNEIL,,,,25
 Internet:             [e-mail]
"Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the
gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second
Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who
would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose."
 --Charlton Heston
 STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
 by J. Neil Schulman
 Foreword by Criminologist and Civil-Rights
 Lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr.
 Published by Synapse--CenturioN
 Price: $22.95 USA / $29.95 Canada
 ISBN: 1-882639-03-0
 Hardcover, 288 pages
Post as filename: CCWCRIME.TXT

J. Neil Schulman is the author of \Stopping Power: Why 70 Million
Americans Own Guns\ (Synapse--Centurion, 1994), as well as being
a novelist, screenwriter, and journalist.  He's the recipient of
the Second Amendment Foundation's James Madison Award for his
1993 \Los Angeles Times\ Op-Ed, "If Gun Laws Work, Why Are We
Afraid?"
---
=================================================================