Missouri: Concealed gun law has little impact

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,892
Location
Alma Illinois
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...DBC9209BC0F3521E862571190064AB9B?OpenDocument
Concealed gun law has little impact
By Heather Ratcliffe
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/18/2006



Some expected less violence. Some expected more.

But two years after the Legislature provided permission for qualified Missourians to carry concealed firearms, neither side of the controversial measure seems to have a license to say, "I told you so."

Police say crime has not dropped since residents began to legally arm themselves. Neither does the number of unjustified or accidental shootings appear to be up. Few officials can even recall anyone with a permit firing a gun, deliberately or inadvertently.

"I had no idea what to expect," said St. Louis County Police Chief Jerry Lee. "To be honest, it's really been a non-event."

His county, with about one million residents, issued about 1,500 permits. That's approximately 1.5 for every 1,000 people. The rate in the city of St. Louis is a little lower, about 1 per 1,000. In the much less densely populated Franklin County, the ratio jumps to 6.5 per 1,000.

When the Legislature established concealed-carry permits in 2004, the Missouri State Highway Patrol expected 60,000 to be issued statewide the first year.

"We were nowhere near that," Capt. Chris Ricks said recently.

The patrol processed about 23,000 criminal background checks for permits in 2004 and 2005. The permits themselves are issued by local sheriffs or, in the case of St. Louis County, the county police.

There is no way to estimate the total number of armed Missourians, Ricks said, because the same law allows anyone who meets the concealed-carry requirements to keep a loaded gun in a vehicle without getting a permit.

Sheriffs reported being bombarded with applicants in the first few weeks, but requests soon slowed to about a dozen a week in most St. Louis area counties. Some say they see a surge in applications after a local instructor holds a gun safety course; attendance is required for a permit.

"There's not even a clear profile of a typical applicant," said St. Charles County Sheriff Tom Neer. "They are rich, poor, black and white."

He added, "Other than being time-consuming ... there's been not much of an impact on our agency."

Each county in the region reports denying about a dozen applications - mostly because a record check uncovers an old criminal conviction.

"I still don't think it makes any sense for all of us to be packing guns in our pocketbooks and our cars," said St. Louis Alderwoman Lyda Krewson, who was widowed in 1995 by an armed carjacker and who lobbied against the law. "We just have a situation where there are more guns on the street."

She added, "I don't think as a public that we are safer or better off."

Krewson said she also didn't think there was much chance to get the permit law repealed. "It's not a hot issue for everybody," she said. "But some people will remember when they go to the polls to vote on their state senator or representative."

Zachary Bauer, a computer graphics designer who co-founded a group called Missouri Carry, said experience elsewhere made it clear that permit holders weren't likely to run amok.

"There was no blood in the streets in other states, why would in happen here?" he asked.

He also said it would be wrong to expect a noticeable effect on crime right away.

"It is not going to solve crime," Bauer said. "We're still going to have crime. But now at least people have a way to protect themselves."

Joe Mokwa of St. Louis was one of several police chiefs who campaigned against concealed-carry legislation. A main concern for him was that law-abiding people would help feed the supply of guns in the hands of criminals by leaving firearms in parked cars, vulnerable to theft.

And that has happened on numerous occasions, he said.

He pointed to a case in August 2004, when police exchanged shots at a fast food restaurant with occupants of a stolen truck whose owner had left his handgun inside.

Mokwa said there were several incidents in which someone reported the theft of several weapons from a car, although the department does not keep statistics on such occurrences.

St. Louis County police reported a slight increase in the number of guns stolen from vehicles in the unincorporated county. In 2003, there were 14; that rose to 23 last year.

The law bans even permit holders from carrying guns into specific places, such as stadiums and schools, and allows business to post guns off-limits, which many have. Presumably, armed people leave their firearms in their cars when visiting such locations.

Missouri Carry sells vehicle gun safes, to cut down on such thefts.

"You don't want to leave your gun in your car if you don't have to," Bauer said. "It's not basic gun safety."

Jefferson County Sheriff Oliver "Glenn" Boyer said many officials worried that the mandatory eight-hour gun safety course was too basic. He said the Missouri Sheriff's Association was asking for legislation to expand that to 40 hours of training.

"I think we are short-changing citizens by not requiring more training," Boyer said.

Jeremy Kohler of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

[email protected] 314-863-2821
 
You know, this may be a confirmation of something I've suspected for a while. That gun control (or the lack thereof) is neutral with respect to crime rates.

I started think about this when I got the feeling that all of the statistics from both pro- and anti-gun groups seemed to support the biases of the researchers compiling them.

They can't both be right, and unless I assumed that one of the other (or both) were faking the results to support their assumtions, it seemed likely that the data are so ambiguous as to support any conclusion one wants to draw.

Does anyone know of any research into the effectiveness of gun control or CCW legislation that is either unbiased, or that contradicts the biases of those who paid for it?

And if, in fact, the effects of either policy are essentially random with respect to effect on crime, how does that shape the policy discussion? For 40 years, the arguments for and against gun control have been crime-based, with one side saying that reducing access to guns will reduce crime, and the other saying that armed citizens will reduce crime.

What if they're both wrong?

--Shannon
 
What if they're both wrong?

Say there's a nationwide ban on wearing white clothing after Labor Day. 10 years later, both sides conclude it doesn't affect unemployment, taxes, crime, graduation rates or obesity of the public in any significant way. A sensible person would conclude there is no reason to continue the ban; an energetic person would push to overturn the ban; anyone pushing to keep the ban is doing it for emotional reasons only (or to keep the donations rolling in). Some won't wear white anyway but don't oppose others (non-vocal majority of the public); some would be "offended" or "frightened" by the sight (demanding something be done); some would wear white year-round.

Laws should be based on reason, not emotion.

added---> Ineffectual laws should be stricken, not amended.
 
Last edited:
The argument of "More Guns, Less Crime" may be over-stated, but that isn't the point of carrying a defensive weapon.

It's so you can defend yourself if need be. If you never have to, so much the better. But the lack of an attack doesn't mean you were wrong to carry.

It's about absolute rights, not statistics.
 
40 hour classes?
Id dare say it takes 2 hours to run over the basics, 4 hours and you toss in some target practice... what the hell you teaching people over all that extra time?

Well, some thoughts as to why more guns != less crime in all instances.

First of all this is a permit system that allows people to be armed, right?
Its not a literal implimentation of the 2nd amendment, but a work around to have gun control and also have "Freedom*(some restrictions apply, void where prohibited)" to carry.

A permit hassle means not as many people will be armed.
To get a permit you need the time, money, and will. Its not as simple as stopping by the corner store and getting a cheap weapon. This changes the kinds of people who will pickup weapons for self defense... and I would argue these people were already less likely to get hit.

I guess I should summise it by asking if, now that youve got legal CCW, are weapons getting into the hands of people who are likely to be attacked?

Its as if your a criminal playing a game of whack-a-mole, but only one in a thousand moles is going to whack back... on top of that, the dangerous mole is likely to be on a different machine to the one your playing.

No news is good news, so its a win for RKBA anyway.
I just think that better results might be getting lost because of the added limitations.
 
Actually, the places that most need armed citizens are the least likely to have a permit system. When they do, often good people aren't armed. Wyoming has ccw and little crime. Well, Wyoming isn't a hotbed of criminal activity.

Chicago could benefit by good people carrying, but even if Chicago had ccw, very few people would likely sign up. Why? Because Chicago is a very anti-gun area.

History teaches us that armed populaces generally do not go to the camps. It also teaches us that good people with a sense of ethics being armed can have a huge impact on crime (making it very low). And bad people with arms have a huge effect on crime (making it very high).

It really is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

That being said, am I saying that Wyoming should lose the ccw b/c of lack of need? Of course not. Self-defense is a human right. I'm just saying that in an area of low crime before a ccw law, a ccw law will do virtually nothing to crime either way.

You wanna see ccw work, get all the people from the Western states to move to Chicago's lower East side, let 'em carry, and see what happens ;)

You'll get to see how well civilian armament in the hands of good folks works at that point.
 
I can't see 0.1% - 0.15% making any great impact either way - so hardly surprising about the comments in the article. Nonetheless, I was pleased when MO adopted carry. It's still early days in some respects.

In PA we have now an approx 6% uptake - that is 60 per 1,000 - and I would say that overall crime figures will be able to be proved declined compared with pre shall issue - plus instances of ''blood in streets'' from legal firearms carry is all but non existent to my knowledge.

It is in some ways immaterial whether pro or anti gun folks can prove good or bad - the bottom line is carry is a right for law abiding folks wherever they are. A simple right to defend themselves. Just so happens that some states and cities do not honor the 2A rights.
 
I personaly dont like CCW permits. I believe in full and open "no papers required" ownership. Go to the store, plunk down your dollar, go on about your business with weapon in hand / in pocket / over shoulder or whatever have you.

Alot of people who live in a no-gun area will still own a weapon, illegally, for self defense. If it was me Id have to ask myself what is the greater likelyhood, That a mugger will kill me or a cop arrest me?
Then you got a number who dont consider ownership because its been against the law or too expensive. A pizza delivery boy could well use a good firearm, but which one would have $500 to spare plus the cost of classes and fees?

I think if ownership and carry are made easy enough, logic will win out again.

the bottom line is carry is a right for law abiding folks wherever they are

Yes its your right by law, but its not the first time our rights have been tossed aside in the name of greater public good. The old "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater" being a perfect example of your 1a right trumped by the peoples safety.

I think the best point is that there was no increase in violence. Meaning we should never have had to make that choice between public safety and the 2nd amendment.
 
Mokwa said there were several incidents in which someone reported the theft of several weapons from a car, although the department does not keep statistics on such occurrences.
The law bans even permit holders from carrying guns into specific places, such as stadiums and schools, and allows business to post guns off-limits, which many have. Presumably, armed people leave their firearms in their cars when visiting such locations.
How could this be avoided?????
 
Part of Lott's research stated that the effect was fairly minor, but the depressing effect on crime definitly increased the less restrictions put on the permit.

IE States that charge $40 for their permit have a stronger effect than those that charge $400. Those that require an hour's training/testing do better than those that require a week's worth.

The arguement for training/testing would be to prevent accidents, but then again, many state's 'training' is a joke, and there's still not a problem. For that matter, accidental shootings are rare and usually involve alcohol in the general populace that doesn't need training at all.

Why is it that, in some states, getting a CCW permit requires 'storage' training for the home, when no training is needed for simply purchasing the gun?

The strongest effects are when you do away with the need for the permit. :cool:
 
carebear said:
The argument of "More Guns, Less Crime" may be over-stated, but that isn't the point of carrying a defensive weapon.

It's so you can defend yourself if need be. If you never have to, so much the better. But the lack of an attack doesn't mean you were wrong to carry.

It's about absolute rights, not statistics.
+1.

A person has an inalienable right to pack a concealed weapon. It does not matter what the "law" says about this. And the existence of this right does not depend on "crime statistics."
 
The REAL story here is what didn't happen when MO adopted this law:

1) No permit holders going all Rambo and shooting all kinds of folk. It just hasn't happened.

2) No car-carry people going nuts and shooting people in fits of road rage. A complete fabrication.

3) No permit holders using their legally carried guns to commit illegal acts. If you go to this kind of trouble to get a permit (class + background checks at local, state, and federal levels), you aren't going to be out there robbing convenience stores.

Those of you in less free states, feel free to use MO as an example of how horrible things don't happen. You could also use any other state with shall issue (or even VT or AK) for this. However, if the blissninnies were interested in truth and facts (a necessary prerequisite for this to work), they wouldn't be blissninnies.
 
Technosavant said:
The REAL story here is what didn't happen when MO adopted this law:

1) No permit holders going all Rambo...

2) No car-carry people going nuts...

3) No permit holders using their legally carried guns to commit illegal acts.

And WE TOLD 'EM SO.

We never claimed CCW would give immunity to crime even to armed permit holders. We always kept our claims within reason.
 
He added, "Other than being time-consuming ... there's been not much of an impact on our agency."
There's an easy solution to that ... just go to a system like Vermont has ;)

Really I just can't understand how anyone can possibly think that a person who would use a gun to commit a serious crime like robbery, rape, or murder would be detered by a simple prohibition of concealed carry :rolleyes:
 
I look at it this way. We have more insured drivers today that we ever have before, and more car accidents than ever before. The fact that someone buys insurance for their car does not prevent accidents, but it protects the victims of the accident. If you never have an accident, you never needed the insurance, but it was nice to know you had it there in case you needed it. CCW may not decrease crime overall, but it certainly may decrease one incident of crime with resepct to me, and that's all I really care about.
 
Living in Missouri, I was amazed that the Post Dispatch rag of a newspaper printed such a relatively unbiased article on the subject- considering the fact that the Dispatch leans smartly to the left and was editorily outspoken against concealed carry, my only conclusion is that the editors were all off on some kind of paid sabatical and this article just snuck by into print- I generally read the sports page, do the cross word and use what's left for bum wadden in an emergency-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top