2009.09.05
7 cops, 43 citizens gunned down by CC permit holders
Joshuashearn/Wikicommons
One of the frequent and false claims that come from concealed-carry advocates is that nobody can point to CC permit holders who have unlawfully killed or harmed anyone.
Now we have a report that documents victims' deaths and injuries, dates, places and criminal charges and convictions of concealed-carry permit holders. It was published in July by the nonpartisan Violence Policy Center:
In the last two years, across the United States, at least 7 police officers have been killed by concealed carry permit holders who were criminally charged (unless they committed suicide).
In the same time frame, concealed carry permit holders have slain 43 private citizens. In each of those cases the shooter was charged or committed suicide. Six other private citizens were wounded.
Some of these people were issued carry permits despite a criminal history, or restraining orders against them.
It's quite a collection of information. You will read about Officer Joshua Miktarian, of Twinsburg, Ohio, who on July 13, 2008 was gunned down by CC permit holder Ashford Thompson, whom Miktarian had pulled over for playing loud music.
You will read about Christina Korbe, the Indiana, Pa., wife and CC permit holder who on Nov. 19, 2008 allegedly shot and killed FBI agent Samuel Hicks as he entered her house to arrest her allegedly drug-dealing husband. According to transcripts of prison phone calls, Korbe also threatened to kill more people while she was in jail. She is awaiting trial. So is her husband.
And you will read about concealed-carry permit holder and triple-murderer Terrence Hough Jr. On July 4, 2007, this Cleveland, Ohio firefighter, whom a colleague described as a "ticking time bomb" grabbed his gun, slaughtered three neighbors and wounded two. All because they were lighting off fireworks on the 4th of July. A jury convicted him on three counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
And 47 more victims and their concealed-carry permit-holding killers.
It's gripping reading for anyone who cares about the truth. And it proves the falsity of gun zealots' claim that nobody, nowhere, can ever point to an unjustified killing by a permit holder. It also undermines the notion that every CC permit holder is responsible and law-abiding.
There are a few reasons as to why this information has been hard to collect. One is that the gun industry has successfully lobbied Congress to prevent the collection of such information -- so that it doesn't get used against them.
Another is that that records of permit holders in those states are not necessarily open to easy inspection. In Virginia, for example, one would have to query each individual clerk of court -- and there are more than 100 of them, spread over 42,000 square miles. This is also the result of lobbying by gun-rights supporters.
But, folks, the report has the answers you're looking for -- if you really want them. Click on the link above and read it for yourself. Each murder/multiple murder or criminal shooting by a concealed-carry permit holder is documented.
Being a female, and one who has a permit, not to carry concealed, and enjoy the sport of target practrice, I think it is a shame how lax the background screening is for a permit, let a lone a concealed ( i believe its the same background check)
As I do not carry my guns anywhere, other than to the shooting range, and at that time they are without ammunition, and in my trunk locked in a lock and carry case, I do not believe anyone, other than law enforcement should be able to have a concealed weapons license. Lets take the Virginia Tech shootings, I do not know if he had a license to carry concealed, but with todays technology, his metal health background should have been able to been accessed somehow. I do know there are hospitals that have the technology, in the ER to run every patient in the event they are wanted...
Thank you for this article it I believe it brings a lot of things, to light for those that think that all cc holders are not violent.
KMS
Roanoke
Comment by Kelly — September 5, 2009 @ 7:56 am
Mr. Casey, As a law abiding citizen who has a CHP,(Concealed handgun permit),I have yet to had to pull my weapon in the 22 years I have carried. I fervently hope I never have too. That sir,does not mean that I will not if my life,or that of my family is in danger of being harmed by someone who is intent on doing harm to me or mine.With that being said, I believe that your misguided veiw is somewhat angled toward the fact that you believe that the Police are your best defense.On average it takes Law Enfocement 3 minutes to respond to a situation,in that three minutes any number of things can happen; you could lose your life or that of a loved one,an innocent could be harmed or a child could be abducted. I, for one,do not like my chances. I conseed the point that is too easy to get a permit,however do not lump all of us(permit holders) in the same class.
Comment by Jeff Worley — September 5, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Another attempt by Liberals to take away our right to protect ourselves.
Comment by Thomas Morrow — September 5, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Others studies, not done by gun control advocates, show that a citizen with a concealed carry permit is much less likely to kill or injure an innocent person than an off duty policeman.
By the deceitful logic of this article, off duty policemen should not be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Then again, the article starts with a lie slandering concealed carry advocates with a lie. Who says that NO permit holder ever abused it? That is something you need to document to have any credibility.
Comment by Joseph Bell — September 5, 2009 @ 9:39 am
Mr. Casey, you say: "And it proves the falsity of gun zealots' claim that nobody, nowhere, can ever point to an unjustified killing by a permit holder. It also undermines the notion that every CC permit holder is responsible and law-abiding."
Gun zealots? Ah yes, the straw man argument. Nobody? Nowhere? Can ever point to an unjustified killing? Says who? How about anti-gun zealots? What irrational claims are they making? Better yet, how many CCP holders succesfully defend themselves or others each year? Concerned about the truth? Tell the whole truth.
Comment by bullwhacker — September 5, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Dano, you should read the bio of Josh Sugarmann founder of the"nonpartisan Violence Policy Center". The organization is absolutely anti-gun. And it appears that banning guns may be it's sole purpose. Nice spin, but wrong!
As a cwp holder I do agree with you that the dummed-down course to obtain a cwp is a joke.
Comment by Moish — September 5, 2009 @ 9:41 am
The only problem is that this is false. The data comes from an extreme anti-gun group who apparently did their research via a cursory Google search. Calling the VPC nonpartisan is equivalent to calling the KKK law and order supporters. A number of these people weren't carry permit holders and in some jurisdictions all civilian shootings must result in a charge and grand jury proceedings. Charged is not convicted.
Since there are more than 6 million carry permit holders currently in this country, even if the above claims were true, that would still make them far more law abiding than the general populace.
Comment by James Nelson — September 5, 2009 @ 9:43 am
sounds to me like a light afternoon in Detroit
Comment by boozy — September 5, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Casey repudiates his own argument. With full recognition of the pain and tragedy that those miscreants have caused, these statistics cover two years in a country of 300 million people.
Casey even states without any sense of hypocrisy that some of the licensed gun owners who turned into murders were not legally eligible for the license in the first place.
Comment by Jon Fraud Carry — September 5, 2009 @ 9:45 am
The Violence Policy Center is just about as "nonpartisan" as Nuns for Virginity, with the exception that the nuns most probably would not lie or distort the truth.
It is estimated that guns are used some 2,5 million times to prevent crime in the US. An old ATF figure comes to mind, where guns are used some 70,000 times for self-defense annually without killing anyone. The real sources and statistics are out there: FBI, BAFT, BJS, etc.
Dan, check your sources.
Comment by Chris — September 5, 2009 @ 9:46 am
To quote Winston Churchill "figures lie and liars figure". First follow the money VPC has an agenda to disarm everyone. The second amendment was written to protect us from the government. Second over the same time span how many people were killed by baseball bats? Spin it any way you want, people who carry save more lives then the police. If you want to inject your personal agenda do so, just don't pretend otherwise.
Comment by Warren Wasmer — September 5, 2009 @ 9:57 am
Lies, damned lies, and statistics...what Mr. Casey does not provide is context. If 50 people out of 300 million were harmed by concealed carry permit holders in the past two years, how does that compare to those harmed by people that did not have concealed carry permits? The most recent numbers I could find are from 2005 and show about 12,000 homicides by gun in the United States that year. That means you are about 500 times LESS likely to be harmed by a concealed carry permit holder than non-holders. Most concealed carry holders are law abiding and responsible citizens. There are always going to be exceptions because humans are...human and unpredictable. What is predictable, however, is people like Mr. Casey using falsehoods to advance a political agenda.
Comment by Mike Constitution — September 5, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Mr. Casey "lies like a rug" and throws out a red herring when he says:
And it proves the falsity of gun zealots' claim that nobody, nowhere, can ever point to an unjustified killing by a permit holder.
I have NEVER heard anyone making the claim that a CC permit holder has never unjustly killed anyone.
Mr. Casey - you are a liar SIR !
Please excuse my "shouting" but this hack really goes to far with his bogus claims at being some type of a "journalist".
Comment by Dan Casey Lies — September 5, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Hello Dan.
I think you have left some information out.
7 officers killed by concealed carry permits.
? officers killed by criminals WITHOUT concealed carry permits.
So your point is............?
43 private citizens killed by concealed carry permits.
?? private citizens killed by private citizens WITHOUT concealed carry permits.
Again, so you point is.........?
Cherry-picking the data shows that you have already lost the argument.
If you want the criminals to have the guns and the private citizens to be unarmed, move to Australia. You would feel better knowing that you are a good person who would NEVER have the courage to protect your own family from criminals.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
Comment by Peter Voisin — September 5, 2009 @ 10:12 am
This is simply the liberal media planting the seeds for Obama's next "crisis requiring immediate action." The administration is preoccupied with nationalizing healthcare and raising energy costs right now, but wait until next year. Guns will be the next target. Obama has a long history of being against concealed carrry specifically and gun ownership in general. We can expect more of this disingenuous, misleading garbage from Obama's media lapdogs in the months to come.
Comment by Another Chris — September 5, 2009 @ 10:21 am
The "non-partisan" Violence Policy Center. Hardly. Just go to their web site and see what other anti gun reports they have produced. The Violence Policy Center is nothing more than an agenda driven organization.
Comment by Dave — September 5, 2009 @ 10:22 am
How many cops have been killed by people carrying illegally? How many people have died in the city of Chicago in the last 6 months by people wth guns illegally? How many people are killed every year by guns carried illegally? Contrast and compare.
Comment by Andrew Mini — September 5, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Mr. Casey, citing an admitted anti-gun organization's report on CC gun incidents is hardly a credible analysis of the data. While they were quick to note the mistakes made by government in issuing permits, they didn't get around to talking about the number of lives saved by CC permits. Hardly "fair and balanced" is it?
But, we who live in Southwest Virginia have gotten used to being embarrassed by the "all liberal all of the time" Roanoke Times, and we just discount any opinions expressed by it's staff. But, readers from other areas may be unable to keep from laughing at a "news" organization praising a clearly biased report.
Comment by techwreck — September 5, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Whan your source of data is the VPC your conclusions are immediately suspect.
Did you also note from their materials that Josh Sugarman is a licensed Firearms Dealer?
As Chris said, "Check your sources."
A background article about the VPC would be much more informative. Hint, hint.
Comment by USCitizen — September 5, 2009 @ 11:22 am
What a stupid, stupid article. No one has ever claimed that all permit holders are perfectly law-abiding. However, the statistics in this article, assuming they are accurate, are almost unnoticeable compared to the tens of thosands of "gun owners without permits."
Isn't that a nice phrase for the gang-bangers who conduct shooting galeries in all major cities in the US?
Furthermore, this writer made no consideration of the rapes, robberies and murders that are prevented by permit holders. As Mark Twain wrote, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This article is an example of "statistics."
Comment by John Armor — September 5, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Fifty people killed by guns in two years. Sad, very sad! It is documented that 150 people die every year from coconuts falling from the trees and hitting them on the head. So, does this mean that we need to ban coconuts trees? The report did not rely the total people who were killed by guns over the two year period. No one had said the ALL people who carry weapons are sane and rational but by the same token not ALL people who carry no weapons are sane and rational. You Sir can be killed with a knife, a baseball bat, a car, a pen, a rock, a 2x4, etc. When I retired from police work in 1998, most of the people on death row for murder in New York, the weapon of choice was hands and feet. Now should there be a waiting period for arms and legs? Remember that those who are liberals have not been a victim yet. And so it goes....
Comment by Frank — September 5, 2009 @ 11:32 am
50 deaths caused by persons holding CWP. I do not dis believe that at all.
What you fail to add to your list is the number of lives taken (in error) by off duty Peace Officers in the same time period.
The fact that 50 out of 1 million is .005 %, you are such a base line sniveler.
I do find it hard to believe that you find the time for such a report.
But then your bio - tells it all ( Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. )
Comment by William L. Anderson — September 5, 2009 @ 11:34 am
A new study shows one example of a pudgy, buffoonish liberal with a concealed carry permit who is guilty of shooting off his fat mouth with the intention of damaging the right of Americans to defend themselves. Of all the tens of thousands of concealed carry permit holders in this country, why is it suprising that a handful are non-law abiding? How many non-concealed carry permit holders have committed crimes? Schmuck.
Comment by Eric — September 5, 2009 @ 11:39 am
OK, I've read the report and it is clear to me that both it and this columnist distort the truth. A number of the criminal acts are accidents and/or negligence. Not the "wild shootouts in the streets" gun phobes predicted would result from "shall issue" laws.
Comment by John Gardner — September 5, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
These types of hyperboly about the "inherent" danger of guns in the hands of free citizns is as predictable as the sunrise. Mr. casey should simply lay in an extra supply of Depends so that he can change them as frequently as neceesary whenever the thought of someone actually having the ability to defend themselves, enters that void between his ears.
Comment by Ron — September 5, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
In the interest of fairness, I would like to see the statistics you have just shared with put into context. I do not have the information at hand, but wonder:
-In the same two years, how many citizens (and others) had permits?
-How many officials (like cops and Asst. Commonwealths' Attorneys) had exemptions which allowed them to carry concealed without an actual permit?
-How many cops, and how many others, were killed by handguns, and by other means?
-How many times were handguns used lawfully in self defense? (I realize this would be a partial statistic because incidents where the defensive handgun is not discharged don't always get reported)
-What is the adult population of our countyr during these two years?
There are zealots on BOTH sides of the question. While I believe that Dan's employer wants him to find topics which help sell papers, I also believe that Dan is trying to be fair in his reporting on those topics.
Comment by YetAnotherJohn — September 5, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Getting accurate gun statistics from the VPC, Brady Center, or MAIG is like getting accurate sexual education materials from Hustler and Penthouse. Provocative yes; factual no.
Comment by F. Hopkinson — September 5, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Very weak argument against private gun ownership. Only 47 murders in two years by people with concealed weapons permits versus the the thousands with out permits, gang bangers, drug smugglers, bank robbers, liquor store theifs, etc. Just think how small the murder rate would be if every one was required to have apply for a concealed weapons permit and actually own a gun. 99.99% of the above mentioned would not qualify.
Comment by Ralph Woods — September 5, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Can you explain to me why I should take seriously the writings of a man who:
a) Calls the Violence Policy Center "Non-Partisan".
b) Quotes figures for people killed by people who happen to have a CCW permit but does NOT quote the figures for the total number of people who HAVE those permits; thus avoiding anyone doing any inconvenient math.
c) Who makes straw man claims about CCW advocates claiming that no permit holder has ever broken the law when in fact the claim that ACTUALLY gets made is is in reference to the overall crime statistics and the dramatic plunge in violent and serious crime.
As a Veteran, I would like to ask you a personal favor. If YOU don't wish to exercise some of your rights, don't. But don't presume to decide which of MY rights you are willing to tolerate. I didn't ask YOU to give up any of yours, don't ask ME to give up mine.
Comment by Eric — September 5, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Dan-
Ive given careful consideration to your PREVIOUS column on this and I do agree with you that there should be a bit more to getting a CHP. However, I think you further show your bias by writing a column like THIS one.
Good arguments are good arguments...I was a bit reactionary to your last argument...although I did also say, it was a good idea for someone to become proficient IF they decide to carry.
We should respect our state laws AND also hope to make them more formidible. I believe a requirement to shoot 10-50 rounds with an instructor is reasonable and would actually make our State's law even stronger.
Comment by T Witten — September 5, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
So I read the report: On page 27, it lists ONE DEATH in Virginia (which is the only state in which we control the laws) which was pleaded down to manslaughter with NO JAIL TIME.
So that is 13 years of concealed carry in Virginia and over 250,000 registered carriers and this report comes up with exactly ONE CRIME.
Well, I'm terrified now, how about you all? This huge crisis must be addressed now! LOL.
Comment by Robocarrier — September 5, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
So, less than 1% of all murders were committed by concealed carry permit holders? And you think this is a gotcha??
Comment by Warner Todd Huston — September 5, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
VPC "non-partisan"? Oh, that rich. Either your sarcasm has taken a new and wierd turn, or you didn't do a minute's worth of research into who they are.
Comment by Ed — September 5, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
The writer does not state that over 1.5 million times concealed carry stopped violent crimes!
Comment by DavidM — September 5, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Is this all you got? If only the bad apples in the Law Enforcement community were so benign. Let me know when the so-called Violence Policy Center bothers to do a little analysis on these folks.
Comment by ChuckAtPodunkOutpost — September 6, 2009 @ 12:38 am
Dan:
I breezed through the VPC "report" and found a few things rather interesting. First of all, I don't pay much attention to an organization like VPC that is so clearly biased in their approach and goals, that they spin the stats to reach their foregone conclusions. Nobody with any sense should ever say that any group of people (in this case, those who have been issued concealed carry permits) will never do anything criminal. Of course there will be cases that you can point to, in the absence of any perspective, that will make the case that VPC is trying to make. In this instance, it's the VPC's agenda to rid the world of shall issue permit legislation.
In just the brief read-through, there were several cases where the accused was issued a permit, and they should never have received one. This is the fault of the issuing governmental body. In another case, a judge allowed a former permit holder to be reissued a permit, after anyone with common sense could see the that this individual had acted in a way that should have caused him to never again receive one. In another case, the "permit holder" strangled his victim. The permit was irrelevant, except that it gave the VPC another criminal permit holder to add to the list.
The biggest fraud in this "study" is that it gives no perspective. It says nothing about the number of permit holders there are versus the number of perpetrators mentioned who were permit holders. It didn't compare this percentage with the percentages of the public at large who commit crimes of a similar nature. The study is without merit and is unhelpful in determining whether permits are good for us or not. VPC needs to step out of the discussion until they can develop some level of objectivity. Until that time, they should be ignored.
Dave Mason
Comment by Dave Mason — September 6, 2009 @ 1:11 am
I couldn't find statistics about how many murders are committed every year in the US with guns, but over two years those 43 murders are .00126% of all murders in the us. Talk about a scare tactic. Are you just trying to get people to say "43 murders by CC permit holders??? Oh My God!!! Somebody should take away some constitutional rights!"
Comment by Elliot — September 6, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Heh
Casey gets a permit and then demonizes it.
Comment by Henry — September 6, 2009 @ 9:00 am
What you fail to acknowledge is that only 50 people were killed by concealed carry permit holders over the past two years. How many law-abiding permit holders did not pull their gun on someone during that same time? This is nit-picking at it's finest.
Comment by MrsHull — September 6, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Dan,
1) "Non-partisan" means nothing in this context. There are all sorts of groups that are "non-partisan". That does not mean that they do not have an agenda. The report that was printed may contain factual information, but non-partisan is irrelevant, and non-biased they are not.
2) Who is claiming that CHP holders never commit crime? The language that I remember hearing from most of the major groups is that CHP holders are less likely to commit a crime, or the group has a very low rate. And looking at the numbers you posted, that appears correct.
But the permit is not the cause. The fact is that most people in our country are fairly honest, or at least "do no harm" types. And we all deserve the ability to protect ourselves and families.
I hope you'll agree, however, that there is *another* set of statistics that we'll likely never know. The statistics of people who were killed because they could not protect themselves in areas where permits or guns are restricted or banned.
Comment by Ed S. — September 6, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Another anti-gun scare job by the liberal media.
The Violence Policy Center is Joe Biden's and Hillary Clinton's darling whose mission is disarm all Citizens and ban all guns. Do your research and you'll discover the crime rate is higher among law enforcement officers than private citizens holding concealed carry permits nationwide.
In Atlanta, it's getting worse! "One in three recent Atlanta Police Academy graduates have criminal records" -
http://www.ajc.com/eveningedge/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/10/12/atlanta_police_academy.html
To the Good Citizens of Virginia, take a look a GeorgiaCarry.Org (
http://www.georgiacarry.org/) for a highly successful 2nd Amendment Rights movement.
- Robert
Comment by Robert — September 6, 2009 @ 10:48 am
According to the St. Petersburg Times, one of the cases was thown out:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/thonotosassa-bicyclist-who-killed-attacker-dodges-manslaughter-case-under/1032920
The case was dismissed recently, but I call into question a paper that includes tenuous information such as this. Even the story in the report lends credible information that Podany was acting in self defense.
Also, there was one case where the murder was a strangling (Villegas; was that taken into account in the headline for this blog?). One appears that it may have been an accident (Conley), and wouldn't seem to belong in the list.
If the point is to say that having a CHP doesn't make one a saint, then there's really nothing to discuss. That's about as true as saying no policeman, postal worker, or journalist have ever murdered someone.
Beyond that, the report covers 2 years and came up with 56 murders...a number that I argue is padded because of the addition of suicides, cases that were thrown out, and perhaps the strangling.
Comment by Ed S. — September 6, 2009 @ 11:53 am
The VPC nonpartisan? Somebody's been drinking the Kool-Aid. This is one of the most anti-gun organizations in the land. They have never had a problem with creative accounting to forward their agenda. DO YOUR HOMEWORK, DAN! The killer of 3 police officers in Pittsburgh has been counted as a permit holder, but also as having been dishonorably discharged from the military -- which disqualifies him by federal law from owning or possessing, let alone carrying, ANY gun. Which is it?
It is also of note that in many jurisdictions anyone who kills with a firearm will be routinely charged with murder -- justification or lack of it is left to be sorted out later. The most credible numbers I've seen says concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding as police officers and far more law abiding than the average American.
Comment by Don M — September 6, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Mr.Casey, The vast majority of people who carry concealed do so for personal protection, which is a basic human right. Please consider how many people were killed by drunk driving in the same time frame. A great many of these drink drivers were licensed. Where is your concern for all those dead innocent people? In 2007 alone 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. Assume another 13000 in 2006 and that's 26,000 people killed! All because you and I are allowed to go down the street and buy liquor. LET'S BAN ALCOHOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(This "rant" is merely to prove a point, not to actually ban Alcohol)
Comment by PC Jackson — September 6, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
Dan,
How many police officers and private citizens were shot by criminals with handguns in the same period? It's such a shame you are so jaded in your mindset. How many times do we need to read that a prior convict is charged with posession of a weapon by a convicted felon? As a friend told me tonight, "you got the permit, now stop being a pussy and buy a gun"!
Comment by Jim — September 6, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Dan- I found your article on the gun permit interesting. This same sort of tactic was employed by the government to make what we now call illicit drugs illegal- by requiring drug distributors to register and buy tax stamps. Except they would never issue such stamps, so anyone selling the drugs was violating the law. Reminds me as well of poll taxes, literacy tests, etc, used to disenfranchise blacks and the poor. Interesting. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Boozy- For you, we need a "report" button.
Comment by Business Model — September 6, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Dan,
You said, “In the last two years, across the United States, at least 7 police officers have been killed by concealed carry permit holders who were criminally charged (unless they committed suicide). In the same time frame, concealed carry permit holders have slain 43 private citizens. In each of those cases the shooter was charged or committed suicide.”
First, let me point you to the VERY key word in the report there: “charged”. Would you care to tell us how many of these “charged” individuals where "convicted" of the crime of killing someone with their hand gun? Last I checked we were still innocent until found guilty and convicted in a court. In many localities it is not uncommon to initially change someone with a crime when they are involved in a self-defense shooting. These charges may then be dropped as more details and information become known by the DA, a grand jury, or the individual may ultimately be deemed justified in the use of deadly force.
Second, to call the “Violence Policy Center” nonpartisan is misleading. You should have known they would be biased and not neutral. You should also know that many people will take “nonpartisan” to mean neutral. According to their own web site the Violence Policy Center is “A national educational foundation working to enhance gun control in America.” You might want to let your readers know when you are using a biased source. I’m sure you would if you cited something from the NRA.
Third, how did they know these where people with concealed carry permit? Well for many of them they didn’t really. If you read the study they say, “Because of the secretive nature of concealed handgun permit laws, the VPC relied primarily on news accounts.” So news accounts where primarily the authoritative source for this report. News reports? If these cases had gone to trial this wouldn’t have been a problem, as whether or not the shooter had a concealed carry permit would have been entered in to the court record. But that takes me back to my original issue, this study wasn’t based on convictions, or even prosecutions, but simply the initial charge. And since it would appear a large percentage of these never made it to court, the VPC doesn’t know for sure if they even are CC holders or not.
But lastly let us take you “facts” at face value. Let us assume that 50 carry permit holders killed 50 people over two years. There are over 6 million permit holders in the US. That gives us a murder rate of 0.0042 per 1000 per year for CC holders. Now looking at the FBI Uniform Crime Report for the same time, they report an average of .042802 murders per 1,000 citizens per year. Congratulations Dan, you just helped to prove (using your own numbers, that where flawed in your favor) that people with a concealed handgun permit are about 10 times LESS likely to kill someone than the average citizen.
I don’t believe those on the side of concealed carry have ever said that concealed carry permit holders are incapable of killing someone. But we have asked you to show us the cases and show us the numbers of people with concealed carry permits killing someone feloniously is a real problem. So far you have showed us a few suspect cases, but you have failed to show that people with concealed carry permits are a bigger problem than people without them. And we have not even got to the offsetting fact that people legally with guns stop and prevent hundreds of thousands of crimes and potential murders each year.
Do read the report, and keep these facts in mind and who it is that prepared the report and what their publicly stated agenda is.
Comment by ML — September 7, 2009 @ 1:52 am
Dan-
This is a really disappointing column. A list of offenses:
*The VPC is "non-partisan". They are one of the most radical anti-gun groups.
*Whopper of a straw man. Who said that CCWs have never ever committed crime? And you know good and well that we have supplied you with statistics from both Florida and Texas showing that legal carriers commit crime at a lesser rate than non-carriers.
*The report ignored carriers that shouldn't have had permits but that did because the system in their state failed.
*The report, in its desperation to get the body count as high as possible, included a strangulation death, and several deaths that were committed with non-concealed guns, including rifles. They even threw in a negligent discharge (what you would call an accidental shooting). Pathetic.
*And worst of all Dan, and really, you should hang your head in shame for this, is the number. Let's pretend that they got it right. Each and every one of those 50 deaths by CCWs is legit.
That was over nearly two years. 23 months, just a bit over two a month. In a country of 300,000,000 people. Where the total number of homicides for that period will roughly be about 30,000. That's 0.0016 of all homicides. In the meantime, the absolute lowest estimate of defensive uses of guns per year is in the tens or low hundreds of thousands.
Seriously, did you do any background on the VPC? They've been caught lying or getting basic facts wrong so many times.... Jesus Dan, you are usually reasonable, this column is just embarrassing.
Comment by Jason — September 7, 2009 @ 2:39 am
Also forgot to mention that despite the population being at an all time high, and despite their being more guns and more cops than ever before, the number of cops killed on the job is at a 50 year low.
Comment by Jason — September 7, 2009 @ 2:42 am
Your arguments and figures are in error. I am not a concealed carry person and probably never will be one, but that is my choice. Belive it or not, but not all the people who get carry permits are up standing citizens. Shocking isn't it. During those 2 years that you said 50 people were killed by carriers of the permit. I do not doubt that. But how many were killed by criminals during that time? How many crimes were stopped by weapons that some had a permit for? How many people lossed their life to drivers that were licensed by the state. Just because they have a permit to drive doesn't mean they are good drivers.
In this arguement, the good the concealed permit creates far out weighs
the bad.
Comment by Jim — September 7, 2009 @ 7:13 am
This blog is better than the comics everyday....facts and nonpartisan...what a joke...do some real research
Comment by Lisa in Hollins — September 7, 2009 @ 8:39 am
Mr. Casey did not make a point. He simply advanced a personal agenda.
His which is anti-gun. Why didn't he publish the number of innocent
unarmed people shot and killed by armed felons? Illegal aliens? Mentally
ill? Because, that wasn't his agenda!
Comment by Jim Jenkins — September 7, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Another article by a liberal anti gun journalist. How many cops are arrested for shooting their wives or girl friends every year? How many cops are arrested for domestic violence every year? Cops have superior firearms training but that does not prevent the rogues from killing their wives or girl friends. No, the anti gun radicals never publish the names of citizens that have prevented violent crimes against against themselves or their families by having their own concealed weapons. Here in Florida the gun stores are packed with customers every day and the majority of their customes now seem to be women.
Comment by Bob — September 7, 2009 @ 10:14 am
Well, another skewed view. If you really want to use your research time to a fair and honest story. Track down the number of Chefs that have hacked someone to death with a butcher knife. Ir possibly the number of people that have been killed by automobiles where the driver (who has a permit to wield a 3 to 4 thousand pound vehicle) was just inder the legal limit of alcohol, or drugs.
The background check may not be as deep as some would have it, but those of us with CC permits are law abiding citizens, most are trained, and many never have even shown their weapon to someone, much less pulled it and used it. Also if you will check, the shoot to kill reasoning is that if the assailant is wounded, he can still kill you.
Comment by John — September 7, 2009 @ 10:22 am
In 2006 and 2007 1265 people were murdered with hammers (and other blunt object weapons). Seems to me we need some regulation of the hammer industry.
Comment by Al — September 7, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Once again Mr. Casey publishes an article that goes further to combat his point than to support it.
50 deaths in two years is tragic but when one considers that number against 48 states and many millions of CCW permit holders then one also has to wonder just how many lives were protected and/or saved by CCW permit holders in the same period of time.
Of course we'll never be able to answer that question because nobody files a report when a crime is prevented since there is nothing to report.
If an entire class of equipment (or licensing) should be banned based on risk and misbehavior by a fractional percentage of rogues then we need to take a serious look at law enforcement accreditation let alone motor vehicle licensing. Compared to those items, the risk from a rogue CCW permit holder doesn't even show up on the radar.
Comment by Dale — September 7, 2009 @ 11:55 am
Bob wants you to believe that he media never publishes stories about people who defend themselves with their concealed weapons. This is untrue, and he knows it.
Comment by Dan Casey — September 7, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
@Robocarrier,
The report covers only the last two years. Of course there have been other upstanding citizens with concealed carry permit who have committed multiple crimes, including murder, in Virgina. Just not in that defined window (apparently).
Comment by Dan Casey — September 7, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
With all due respect Dan Casey's article on concealed carry permits misses an obvious point. Dan do you really believe any of these individuals would have altered their actions if they had no CCP? I mean they could have purchased a gun almost anywhere, and concealed permit or not if their intention was to shoot someone they would have. To put it in context you could have written that had they not had a drivers permit they wouldn't have been able to shoot those people because they didn't have a way to get there to do it. Either way its way off base.
Last during the same period of time how many police officers were shot and civilians shot by people who had no permit to carry a concealed permit?
Comment by Doug Thompson — September 7, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Dan-
Please respond to to the fact that you swallowed hook, line, and sinker an idiotic report without doing the slightest bit of fact checking. One that even if taken at face value failed to make its point. Also address why you refused to acknowledge truly unbiased data collected in Texas and Florida.
Comment by Jason — September 7, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
I would be embarrassed to have my name attached to this article, regardless of the spectrum I'm in - no wonder reporters have a worse reputation than lawyers. Did you honestly pass a college-level course in journalism?
Innuendo, straw-man arguments, hyperbole and outright falsehood; if you think we fall for this, then you're definitely as stupid as you - very obviously - think we are.
You folks in the media really ain't too bright now, are you?
Comment by AndyC — September 7, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
@Dan #58
Dan you should stop this. Your contempt, disrespect, and dare I say near hate for some of the most law abiding among us is on display for all to see. It is giving both you and your paper a bad name. Instead do some real journalistic, unbiased, reporting and properly research that which you write on. It is because of stories like yours, ones that are clearly and blatantly biased and poorly researched, with an agenda to push, that I’m skeptical of all news stories. Because if a news agency will let tripe like this out when I know and can prove it is tripe, how can I trust them on more important and complicated matters where I do have to rely on them to be unbiased and do the research.
Comment by ML — September 7, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
@ML #62
I don't hold law-abiding people in disrespect, or contempt, and heavens! -- I don't hate anyone.
But I view very dimly the claims from some concealed carry permit holders who are gun zealots that the possession of a CC permit means they are well-trained and law abiding.
The possession of a CC permits guarantees no such thing.
You may be well-trained. But as I have demonstrated, you certainly don't have to be to get a CC permit, at least in Virginia. And you may, and most likely are, law abiding. But passing a background check for a CC permit doesn't guarantee that either.
It means that you haven't been caught breaking the law. Or, if you have, that the crime didn't show up on the background check. Because we all know that some folks who have disqualifying factors in their backgrounds have been able to get concealed weapons.
Comment by Dan Casey — September 7, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Dan,
Care to comment on why you chose such a ridiculously flawed "study"?
Comment by Bradford Wiles — September 7, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
@Bradford Wiles,
The study is what it is. You claim it's ridiculously flawed but you don't cite any facts that justify such an opinion.
At the least, this contains facts: names, dates, places. Most of the stuff you get from the opposing side is unsupported belief/argument.
Comment by Dan Casey — September 7, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
"The study is what it is. You claim it's ridiculously flawed but you don't cite any facts that justify such an opinion.
At the least, this contains facts: names, dates, places. Most of the stuff you get from the opposing side is unsupported belief/argument."
You have seriously got to be kidding. Answer the question Dan, did you do any fact checking on the report? Did you read for yourself that one of the deaths ended up being found to be a justifiable homicide? Did you find that one was a freaking strangulation and one was an accident?
And since you aren't replying about the Texas data, here you go. This is the best summary I could dig up, from an editorial by Professor Carl Hubbard of Trinity University. This was published in 2000 in the San Antonio Express-News in reply to a "report" by, you guessed it, the Violence Policy Center. The data is taken from the Texas Department of Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau. Are they non-partisan enough for you?
"...the data show that average annual arrests for all crimes among all adult males in Texas (9,508 per 100,000) is 14 times greater than the rate for concealed-handgun-license-holders (671 per 100,000).
The violent-crime arrest rate of all adult men in Texas (306 per 100,000) is five times greater than the violent-crime arrest rate of concealed-handgun-license-holders (62).
Furthermore, since Jan. 1, 1996, a total of three concealed-handgun-license holders have been convicted of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Only at the Violence Policy Center do three convictions in four years add up to a 'License to Kill.'"
So there you go Dan, actual stats as opposed to the VPC citing a hilariously low number of homicides in a 23 month period, not all of which were committed with guns, not all of which were murders, and which completely ignores the number of times people defended themselves with guns during that period.
This is one of those instances where the more you defend something and the longer you delay admitting you made a mistake, the more foolish you look. The VPC don't even try to approach their issue from a scientific perspective, they are a purely emotion-based PR machine. Pointing out that some on the other side engage in similar tactics doesn't absolve you from being a professional and applying due diligence as a journalist and as a thinking human being.
Comment by Jason — September 7, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
I found some statistics from Florida (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html)
These are current as of 8/31/2009.
Florida has issued a total of 1,632,172 concealed weapon permits (they are weapon permits as opposed to handgun specific permits in Virginia).
Of those, they have revoked 5,035, though not all due to crime. 4,317 of those 5,035 were actually revoked due to a crime being committed after the license was issued. Of those 4,317 only 167 were crimes where a firearm was used.
So we're talking about .01% of their CHP holders have committed a crime with a firearm after being issued a permit.
I wouldn't imagine that the numbers would fluctuate much from state to state in this regard.
By the way, 572 of the 4,317 rejected permits were reissued... possibly more.. they didn't keep that statistic until 1990.
Comment by Jack — September 7, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Dan,
The facts were already readily apparent. Strangulation? Charged, not convicted? Accidental death? I don't have to provide anything, I'm not writing a column! If I were writing a column, I'd be darn sure not to use some shoddy piece from the VPC upon which I base my argument.
I will offer the following free lesson in gun control policy debates: The Brady Center and Violence Policy Center both LIE.
It is clear that you did not even think to check the face validity of this "study". Please just admit that the "facts" are wrong and that this should not have been the basis for your column. I have made mistakes and I admit when I am wrong. Can you do the same here?
Comment by Bradford Wiles — September 7, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
@ Dan #63
Dan you said, "I don't hold law-abiding people in disrespect, or contempt, and heavens! -- I don't hate anyone." And then quickly follow that up with "concealed carry permit holders who are gun zealots". You must have called those of us who believe those with concealed carry permits are less likely to commit crimes (and have facts to backup that belief) "gun zealots" at least three times now. Even the study you just cited showed that concealed carry permit holders are 10 times less likely to murder someone than the average citizen, and yet you still call us disparaging names like "gun zealots". Are you sure you don't hold law-abiding people (or at least concealed carry permit holders who carry guns) with some disrespect, or contempt?
You also said, "But I view very dimly the claims from some concealed carry permit holders who are gun zealots that the possession of a CC permit means they are well-trained and law abiding." Nothing proves anyone's future law abiding status. We all have free will. However, they do have to pass a criminal back ground check to get the concealed carry permit. So to the satisfaction of the state they have proved themselves to have been law abiding up to and until that point. But you would sully all concealed carry permit holders by your implication that they are all just potential criminals who have not yet committed their crime or been caught.
You have also failed miserably to demonstrate that there is any problem with the current system, or suggest any reasonable fixes to your perceived problem with the current system. Again the study you cited provides data that concealed carry permit holders are at least 10 times less likely to kill someone than the general public. How is that a problem? Would you prefer concealed carry permit holders killed at the same rate as the general public? Or perhaps you expect concealed carry permit holders to meet the absolutely unobtainable goal of being perfect and never having an accident, never killing anyone.
You also ignore the good that a law abiding citizen with a gun can do. You ignore all the crimes that where stopped and lives that where saved because a law abiding citizen had a gun to defend themselves with. So what if a 100 lives were saved (it is many hundreds of times higher than that by the way) 50 where lost and that is unacceptable, seems to be the implication. You further give no evidence that those 50 lost lives would have been saved if those 50 individuals had not been issued permits. So what fix are you proposing that would have saved these 50 lives?
Also, in the hypocritical column, I have heard you compiling that concealed carry permit holders are unlikely to be able to eat a hamburger and fries with their family at Famous Anthony's (a "bar" as you call it) without getting drunk and having smoldering wisps of smoke emerging from their guns. At the same time I have not heard any complaints from you about the fact that Virginia Commonwealth Attorneys can 1) carry concealed, 2) don't need any training at all, not even your on-line course, 3) need no background check, 4) can carry concealed in "bars", and 5) can actually drink while doing so. Where is your column and outrage about that? At least then your articles wouldn't be quite so hypocritical.
The more you deny it the more plain your bias is, as is your lack of honest research on the subject. You came to this subject with your opinion preformed, and minded closed. You admit you have never touched a gun and are proud of it. If you are an open minded person why don't you talk with a licensed firearms instructor and go try some shooting? Go talk to and with some people who really do like guns and get their perspective. Try seeing a subject from a different point of view.
Comment by ML — September 7, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Why don't you move to one of those really 'safe places' like D.C or Chicago where guns have been banned and the crime rate is so low Dan. Really, us poor dumb Virginians don't deserve to have such a saint like you amongst us.
You and your kind are one of the reasons that rags like the times are in financial trouble all over this country. I look forward to the day you're out of work in these parts.
Comment by James — September 8, 2009 @ 8:31 am
Mr. Casey; Although we disagree on specifics of gun rights in this country, I compliment your reading of every comment and the civil tone you maintain in discussing the issue. I'd like to invite you to join a website aimed at civil discussions of all gun rights issues; http://www.thehighroad.us I won't promise that it's always civil, but the moderaters and members try to keep it at least calm enough to be an intelligent discussion.
By the way, I didn't read all the 71 comments on this blog, but if no one mentioned it, the Violence Policy Center is anything but nonpartisan.
Comment by Jim — September 8, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Do you wonder why newspapers are failing? Columns like this one in a fairly conservative area are media suicide - have some sense. Dan, resign before you're fired.
If CCW were allowed in colleges, our VT shooter would have been sprayed with bullets long before so many families were left without thier loved ones. At ODU in Norfolk, my next door neighbor's house was sprayed with bullets and someone shot from a drive-by before a "50 Cent" concert... you think the thugs had CCW? You think they'd think twice if I was shooting back?
Comment by Jason — September 8, 2009 @ 10:54 am
If you do not like Dan's columns, don't comment on them.
How can you expect him not to continue with his drivel if every time he writes about guns, he gets close to 100 comments.
That's his job, to get people to go to his blog so the RT can sell ads.
We are never going to convince him he is wrong.
And yes, I know commenting with a request not to comment makes me a hypocrite.
Sincerely,
M. Fried Man
Comment by M. Fried Man — September 8, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Chery picking data is fun. I wanna try!
There were 11,773 alcohol-related crash deaths in 2008...assuming the majority of these were by law abiding, motor vehicle operator permit holders.
And let's not forget to loMok at a bigger picture from the left's mouthpiece:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIE/12/29/police.deaths.down/
"Based on preliminary data, the groups found that 140 law enforcement officers were killed in 2008 -- 86 of them accidentally and 54 intentionally.
Just the year before, the group found 181 deaths -- 108 of them accidental and 73 intentional.
"Fewer officers were killed by gunfire in 2008 than in any year since 1956," the report says. "Preliminary data indicate 41 officers died in firearms-related incidents this year, compared with 68 in 2007, a reduction of 40 percent."
Comment by Rich — September 8, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Dan,
You have now been inundated with information on this topic. Unfortunately, the number of folks responding here are about the only folks who get to see the subtle nuances of actual information from reliable sources. You have done your damage because the vast majority of readers won't get to see the comments here. I'm sure that has been your main goal all along - you'll be able to stir up a lot of readers who won't read anything on this blog, so they'll only get to see your viewpoint and shoddy research.
Reading the original column made me realize that you were really just trying to demonize Ken Cuccinelli because he made it possible for the folks wanting to get a CCP to meet the competence requirement by taking an online safety course. Guess what - I got no hands-on instruction in the in-person course I took 5 years ago. Haven't shot myself, or anybody else in the time since then. Still haven't gotten my CCP, but I'm sure I will now.
Competence, in this case, means safety. No course with more than a handfull of attendees will be able to address the particulars of how an endless number of weapons function. Just can't happen. It all comes down to personal responsibility. If you, or anyone else, is too stupid or lazy to figure out how your particular weapon operates, go ahead and get your permit and blow your leg off. All of these courses teach you safety and what your responsibilities are once you get your permit. Even if you know absolutely nothing about a particular weapon, the very basic safety rules that are covered in these courses will keep you from being a danger to yourself or other.
Even though the Roanoke Times, and you, feel that personal responsibilitly can be taken out of the equation through legislation, most of us don't feel that way. Again, I just regret that most of your readers won't take the time to look any farther than your column, or your referenced source.
Comment by Jerry W — September 8, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Dan,
Instead of ranting about everything that is wrong with this article, I will point out the most blatant facts. Where in the articles you list does it state that any of these people were CWP holders?
The article of officer Joshua Miktarian states that "Thompson shot Miktarian four times in the head after pulling out a gun that had been concealed in the car." I'm assuming because the big, bad word "concealed" was in this article that you thought it concrete evidence. Does concealing a gun in a car that make a person a CWP carrier? Absolutely not. Please stop throwing your beliefs on everyone because you get paid to write articles. You don't have a leg to stand on with this one.
Comment by Chris N. — September 10, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
@Chris,
If you would bother to look, there are many sources, including news accounts of court testimony, that document Thompson had a CC permit. You can find them with a google search on the terms "Ashford Thompson" and "permit."
What's interesting here is you don't claim he didn't have one -- you merely raise a question as to what suggests he did. It's a classic debating trick. Uh, FAIL.
Fyi, Thompson had a permit issued in Cuyahoga County Ohio.
Comment by Dan Casey — September 11, 2009 @ 12:04 am
Dan,
Please feel free to post the websites that you speak of and I will gladly read them. I have searched on Yahoo and Google and found one website that stated the following:
"Thompson reportedly has a Concealed Carry permit but police say it's not clear if the weapon he had the permit for was the one used in the shooting."
1. "Reportedly" does not supply concrete evidence in my book (especially after reading things that you "report").
2. I am not currently aware that handgun registration is required in Ohio (please find where it states it is and I'll stand corrected).
My main question is if you had all of this information stating that he was 100% confirmed to have a permit did you not post the article stating such? I am once again unimpressed by the "all-knowing" Dan Casey.
Comment by Chris N. — September 14, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
7 police officers, 43 citizens. Across the entire nation. Fifty murders by concealed carry permit holders. That averages to one per state in two years.
How many of these were in Virginia? Only one, in December 2008. There are over 200,000 permit holders in VA. The VPC wants to color the public's view of all 200,000 of these citizens with the actions of one?
One could use a study on the instances of killings of abortion doctors to insinuate that pro-life citizens are a danger to our society. It would be just as valid an argument.
I've never said that CHP holders were incapable of being morons, or criminals. But one can conclude from this study that the VAST majority of them are the law-abiding citizens we claim them to be.
Comment by VT Hokie — September 14, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
There are over 5,000,000 permit holders in the US. Assuming every case you documented were correct, that means the odds of a permit holder committing such a crimes is 10 / 5,000,000 or .000002 - that is for all practical purposes statistically a zero.
The 10 was from the claim of 30 incidents in a 3 year period.
Comment by Philip Van Cleave — September 14, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Chris N-
Ohio does not have handgun registration. What the article shows is that the journalist who wrote it had no idea that a concealed carry permit is not attached to a particular weapon. So if the writer was told that the assailant had a "permit", it was likely a CCW, since there is no other permit available (barring something way off like a hunting license, private security, etc.). This is par for the course for journalists nationwide on the subject of firearm laws.
None of this has anything to do with Dan citing a fundamentally idiotic "report" that actually disproves its own hypothesis. That Dan has not distanced himself from it and continues to cite it is amazing.
Comment by Jason — September 15, 2009 @ 2:38 am
Jason,
Agreed.
Comment by Chris N. — September 21, 2009 @ 9:34 am