From the Times:
The New York Times examined the [concealed-carry] permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.
More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.
All of these numbers are completely meaningless; in any large population, there will be some crime. The only way to see what these numbers mean is to compare concealed-carry holders to the general population. Fortunately, state-level murder data are easy to find.
North Carolina has a statewide murder rate of about 5 per 100,000. Even without counting manslaughter, that’s 25 murders committed per 100,000 North Carolinians every five years. There are about 230,000 valid concealed-carry permits in North Carolina, so by pure chance, you’d expect these folks to be responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years. And yet only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter. Instead of “rais[ing] questions,” the Times has demonstrated yet again that permit holders are more peaceful than the general population.
Why only look at murder stats? How about armed robbery, rape, and other violent offenses? Or are those stats not quite as persuasive to your argument?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy only look at murder stats? How about armed robbery, rape, and other violent offenses? Or are those stats not quite as persuasive to your argument?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust a quick note on statistics. If the murder rate is 5/100,000, this is talking about victims, not murderers. I am not trying to disagree with the overall sentiment, but your extrapolation would actually be that 60+ CCW holders would be expected to be killed...not sure what the actual number is. In addition, the CCW population is unlike the general population in that it is constrained by age and possibly other factors that would impact a statistic of this sort.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis extrapolation is 100% correct if you're assuming 1 victim to 1 murderer, which I beleive many will find to be a valid assumption.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>And yet only ten of them committed murder or manslaughter.
And only eight of those used a gun. Apparently if stranglers have gun permits, that proves we need to ban guns.
Of course the NYT has to use the more-ominous "all but two of them" phrasing.
Which is another vile trend in media bias: if you want to make the number 14 sound big, you say "more than a dozen." If you want it to sound small, you say "fewer than fifteen" or "not even fifteen."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, an even better example of bias is right there -- when stating that there were ten people convicted of murder/manslaughter, they describe it as "at least ten."
Isn't that brilliant? We went through the data and found ten.... BUT THERE COULD BE MORE!! Maybe we missed some! Who knows?
Next week in the NYT: Mitt Romney has at least one wife.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemind me of the old saw, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Would that we all could exercise the kind of discretion of Mr. VerBruggen. Thanks for the posting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseM.V. -- Yes, that's why I was careful to say "responsible for nearly 60 murders over five years" (each 100,000 people contains, on average, six murder victims and those responsible for six murders). I guess it's possible that each of the 10 criminals killed six people each, but in that case, I'm sure the Times would have explained it all in graphic detail!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArgh. Meant 60, not six. Wrote too fast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny tangent I've been wondering...
For those folks who want (say) Ohio to recognize and honor Connecticut's same sex marriages... does that mean Connecticut has to recognize and honor my Conceal Carry license?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's interesting is that the NYT has turned OFF their own comments for this one particular article.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNote too that the NYT didn't try to ascertain whether those 10 concealed permit holders were charged in instances of self-defense or whether they were aggressive murderers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe limp wrist anti-gunners at the Times are still grumped that the wave of Tombstone-style gun crimes from permit holders not only never materialized, but crime actually dropped in most instances. And even under the most liberal President of our lifetimes, legislative support for gun control is a non-factor in today's politics.
So they're reduced to pitiful straw-grasping like this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree the article is biased against concealed carry. I also believe the use of statistics regarding concealed carry permit holders without a comparison to a similar group without permits is either: (1) intentional bias; or (2) ignorance about how to meaningfully present statistical information. However, a criticism using general population numbers also reflects a lack of understanding regarding the proper use of statistics and, unfortunately, is probably worse than the lack of a comparison in the Times' article, i.e., using an improper comparison is worse than no comparison at all. You cannot validly use statistics regarding the poplulation as a whole because it includes children (who are not at all in the concealed carry statistics) and women (who are few in the concealed carry statistics). A valid statistical comparison would need to be based on statistics of the group of persons with similar demographics as the concealed carry permit holders. i.e., largely white midlle age males. I assume the Times would say such statistics are not available.
But,as biased as the Times article is, the article also contains a startling admission effectively conceding concealed carry permits do not increase crime:
"In the end, most researchers say the scattershot results are not unexpected, because the laws, in all likelihood, have not significantly increased the number of people carrying concealed weapons among those most likely to commit crimes or to be victimized."
So, while the admission is buried in the middle of a lot of anti gun bias, the Times should be credited with effectively acknowledging that concealed carry permits do not cause a more dangerous society.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased upon the typical statistical analysis of the NYT where correlation proves causality the headline should read "Reduce crime by 83% by requiring citizens to conceal carry".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot surprising that a NYT article would be written to not provide answers. Oh, but their agitprop does indeed raise questions.
They could save lots of ink if each issue simply got to the point: "We don't trust you people to run your own lives responsibly; please relinquish life's liberties to the properly-educated sophisticates of our choosing."
Or as another famous Progressive was explained, "Liberty is so precious it must be rationed." Easy to say if you're the guy who does the rationing!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf those 8 killings in 5 years by concealed-carry permit holders, how many of the killings occurred while the gun was being legally carried concealed?
If a killing took place in a place where the concealed-carry permit was irrelevant -- in the permit-holder's home, for instance, where no permit was necessary to posess the gun -- then by definition, the issuance of the concealed-carry permit had nothing to do with the crime, which is therefore irrelevant to the debate.
Friends don't let liberal friends do statistics. They're just not grown up enough to handle them responsibly. If anything ought to be licensed, it should be use of statistics by liberals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKansas City -- excellent points. However, I would like to note that if we removed children from the general-population statistics, the murder rate would go up, making permit holders look even better.
Also, while it would certainly be interesting to see how concealed-carry holders compare with a demographically similar group, I don't think this information is necessary for a "proper" comparison. The question is: Should we be worried about the people who get concealed-carry permits committing crimes? The answer is no -- a random non-permit-holder is more likely to kill you than a random permit holder. This holds true regardless of whether permit holders' peaceful nature results from their broader demographics or from some characteristic unique to them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a little confused- you've responded to two posters, "MV" and "Kansas City," whose comments themselves don't show up on this string.
Is this a technical glitch, or are you answering email?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, that's bizarre. Maybe because I have editor privileges in our system, comments show up for me before they're moderated? Sorry about that, I'll be more careful!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse