Andrew Buyalos, author of “Statistics show concealed carry saves many lives, takes few” (CT, Nov. 13), makes a number of statements, which misrepresent concealed carry laws.
While undoubtedly a responsible permit holder, he takes for granted that everyone else is.
The fact that he has taken the classes does not demonstrate that everyone else will. He asserts that all his friends have taken the class, but this seems natural — because his friends probably applied before the online option (recently added, he admits) was available.
The author mentions a background check is required — but tier one universities mostly only admit students who would pass background checks anyway; even Cho would have passed a background check when applying to Virginia Tech. Frankly, a background check does nothing to assure me that keg-stand guy next door knows how to exercise proper restraint or firearms safety. (Sorry, keg-stand guy, I’m sure you’re still awesome.)
There are several outright falsehoods in the column. The piece comments on the four occurrences of murders committed by licensees — but, in fact, Elilta Habtu was citing four mass murders by licensed individuals in her column. We have no way of knowing how many murders have been committed by licensees because of the so-called firearms “privacy” laws, which exist in most states. Further, Virginia does not require fingerprinting of applicants, as the column’s author claims.
He also says felons would never submit to background checks, but between 1994 (when the Brady Act became effective) and 2008, 1.8 million ineligibles have applied. Around half of those rejected at the federal and state levels were felons (according to the Department of Justice), as well as 23 percent at local levels.
Indeed, the LA Times reported in 2000 that Texas mistakenly gave out hundreds of concealed handgun licenses to felons in the first five years of its concealed carry program. Note that Texas concealed handgun licenses are valid in Virginia.
But the biggest problem is that so few reliable statistics are available. The NRA claims having a gun makes a person less likely to be shot. When statistics contradict that claim, the NRA introduces a bill to prevent reporting of those statistics, citing individual privacy. The LA Times analysis from 2000 could not be repeated today in Texas because of NRA-sponsored “privacy” laws.
Buyalos holds up Texas as a shining example of concealed carry states. Yet, “From 1996 to 1999,” — pre-“privacy” laws — “Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 66 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older,” according to a Violence Policy Center study using statistics easily obtained from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Buyalos cites further unreliable statistics. Kleck’s study claims 2.5 million uses of firearms for self-defense; however, David Hemenway of Harvard demonstrated in 1997 that by applying Kleck’s own methodology “we might conclude that 20 million Americans have seen alien spacecraft, and 1.2 million have been in actual contact with beings from other planets.”
The data does not support Students for Concealed Carry on Campus’ conclusion that concealed carry would make campus safer. Indeed, 93 percent of violent crimes against students happen off campus, according to the DOJ. By introducing additional guns to college campuses, we stand not to prevent mass shootings — which are extraordinarily rare — but to facilitate smaller-scale crimes of passion.
The 22 states with the highest levels of gun violence are all “shall-issue” (law enforcement has little or no discretion about who gets to carry). The six states with the lowest levels are either extremely restrictive with permits (“may-issue”) or do not allow concealed carry at all (“no-issue”), despite mostly having much higher population densities.
John Woods
Tech alumnus, '07