While most citizens are not concious of the fact, it has been a proven defense in court cases across the country that the police are to act only as a general deterrent to benefit the community as a whole. The police are not responsible for the protection of any single person from crime. Department of Justice statistics reveal that the police can get to a crime-scene within 5 minutes only about 28% of the time. And according to FBI estimations, there is a violent crime committed somewhere in America every 22 seconds. I’m here to address the advantageous aspects of conceal-and-carry laws for firearms. I will present the problems a lack of conceal-carry laws presents, the causes to these problems, and practical solutions to this hotly debated argument.

To understand the controversy surrounding conceal and carry laws, one must realize the problems that arise from the lack of such laws. To paraphrase the often cliché adage, if concealed weapons are outlawed, only the outlaws will have concealed weapons. There appears to be no reason to make carrying a concealed weapon illegal, if criminals are already walking around with concealed guns. But because of this lack of logic by law-makers, innocent, law-abiding people walk the streets, next to and at the mercy of violent, gun-toting criminals.

Another problem with infringing on people’s right to carry a concealed weapon is that it promotes high crime rates. If these gun laws didn’t work, there wouldn’t be such a dramatic fall in crimes once they were enacted. According to John R. Lott Jr., professor at Chicago University, author of “More Guns, Less Crime” and co-author with David Mustard on “Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” counties that enacted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1992 saw a 2.2% drop in robberies, a 5.2% in rape, 7% fall in aggravated assaults and a whopping 7.6% drop in murders. When expanded to a rational number, this would calculate to 1,414 fewer murders, 4,177 fewer rapes, 11,898 fewer robberies and 60,363 fewer aggravated assaults. All of this missed out on in states where conceal-carry laws are illegal. This information, coupled with the FBI data from 1992 to ‘97 that said that the nation dropped 19% in violent crimes, while Missouri (which enacted a right-to-carry law in that time dropped almost 25%. Even government officials recognize the importance of conceal/carry laws. In the wake of the devastating school shooting at Columbine High School, Minnesota governor Jesse Venture said in an official announcement, "To me, it justifies conceal and carry more." Upon social pressure from outraged citizens of Minnesota (where concealed weapons are restricted), however, the governor retracted his statement. Would the massacre have been avoided if one of the teachers possessed a concealed weapon? No one can say for sure. But what is known is that, in order for people to truly be safe from crime, they must be able to prevent it themselves. And that means, they need a gun.

Once you’ve heard the problems associated with a country without these laws, you must also understand the reasons these laws are not in such high quantity. Despite the fact that strict regulations are in place in order to obtain a permit, The main reason these laws are not seen in every state is because of public ignorance. In order to obtain a conceal-carry permit in the states that allow them, one must be a resident of the state, must have a record free of any felony and drug/alcohol history, no previous cases of mental illness, must not have been convicted of a misdemeanor in the last five years (though they are prevented from obtaining a permit if they were convicted of a violent misdemeanor), they must have fingerprints registered with the state, and (as far as most states are concerned) they must have completed a given number of gun training courses (at the applicant's own expense). Though this is public knowledge, many people possess many misconceptions about the actual conceal-carry laws and their ‘inevitable’ effects. The first argument most anti-conceal/carry activists spew, is the presumptuous notion that a person with a conceal-carry permit will automatically turn any traffic dispute into a gunfight. This notion is ridiculous when one looks at the statistics. In Texas, for example between 1996 and 1997, 163,000 conceal-carry permits were granted. During that span, only seven permit holders were arrested during that period for ‘deadly conduct’ or ‘discharge.’ One might be concerned with that number if all seven permit holders had not had the charges dropped in light of self-defense.

Another thing anti-gun activists spout is that conceal-carry laws ‘put guns into the hands of inexperienced and untrained civilians who will create the potential for more violence.' This is yet another charge of second amendment abolitionists whose words don't quite ring true in the real world. In reality, there are an estimated 1,000,000 permit holders between such cities as Miami, Houston, Dallas, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans, Seattle and Portland. Yet no mass accidental shootings have been reported; not even conflicts notable enough to warrant public documentation. For example, training qualifications for obtaining a permit are so strict in Nevada, that, five years after the conceal law was first passed, only 12,500 permits were issued for Clark County. As Bob Irwin, concealed weapons instructor for the Southern Nevada area stated, "that's not many people."

Another major argument for the opposition is that many condemn John Lott for his book of statistics saying that he has fabricated or embellished most or all of his numbers in favor of expressing his point. As Robert P. McCulloch, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, stated, "The problem is, he has a title, and that gives him instant credibility." While it may be true that Lott chooses only the facts that aid his argument, no one has been able to gather evidence that contradicts Lott's. Their only argument is that conceal-carry laws do not affect crime rates AS MUCH as Lott claims they do. No one who disputes Lott's claims can deny that these gun laws DO lower crime rates; their only objection is to HOW MUCH they benefit society.

With full knowledge of the problems and causes of the small amount of existing conceal-carry laws, one can begin to examine the most logical solutions to these problems. The most logical view, to me at least, is to simply increase the number of states that carry the existing laws. You might be surprised to discover that a large number of states, 33 in all, have conceal-and-carry laws; a majority. If these laws work in such places as Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, Nevada and Florida, they can only benefit the remaining 17 states. After all, between its conception in October of ‘87 to December of ‘97, 478,000 Floridians were issued right-to-carry permits, yet only .018% had permits revoked. One other solution, which is the one currently in practice in-between adoptions of new legislature is to keep the laws as they are. The only fault in this is that those states that don't have conceal-carry laws are just as lawless as before, and must rely on 'shall-issue' laws. While 'shall-issue' laws have currently been used to define any conceal-carry law that allows one to obtain permit if you pass the state requirements, shall-issue dates back to statutes passed in the 1930's and '40's. These laws allow those in authority (most commonly the police) to distribute conceal-and-carry permits to people upon their own discretion, as they see need. Between 1984 and 1992, according to California public records, the city of Los Angeles approved not 1 conceal and carry permit. I find it near impossible that, of over 3,500,000 citizens, none where in identifiable danger that would have warranted them obtaining a gun permit. Reversely, in places where shall-issue permits HAVE been granted, they have been granted mainly on social and celebrity status. In New York, for example, people who have been granted conceal/carry permits based on shall-issue systems were real estate mogul Donald Trump, comedians Bill Cosby and Joan Rivers, and radio 'personality' Howard Stern. And what about taxi drivers, for instance, who are constantly at risk for robbery or assault? They were denied permits (as a profession) because they rarely carry over $2,000 in cash. As Jeffery R. Snyder, an attorney for New York's Wilikie, Farr & Gallagher firm and columnist for USA TODAY stated, "The implicit suggestion that some lives are more worth protecting than others is morally repugnant and insupportable."

You might argue that there is no reason for people to obtain a permit through these means. Yet, when one hears a story like that of Alan Berg, a former talk-show host, the need for universal conceal-carry laws becomes apparent. Berg had his life threatened by white supremacists because of his public status and personal beliefs. When Berg tried to obtain a shall-issue permit, he was denied. He was later killed by the same group of people he had tried to get a permit to protect himself from. Had he been able to pass a background check and the minimum requirements for a permit in any other state, Alan Berg might've lived.

Throughout this paper, I have presented the problems of restricting conceal-carry laws. I have addressed the causes of this infringement of human rights, and I have given two possible solutions to this debated issue. Since most criminals choose their victims based on the presumption that they are more powerful than the victim (be it by youth, physical strength or possession of a weapon), you must ultimately ask yourself one question... 'if a crime happens every 22 seconds.. if I were walking home and confronted by an armed assailant, would I have a legal handgun concealed in my purse or carrying case... or would I rather leave my life up to the luck of the draw?

Bibliography

• “A Lott More Guns.” March 23, 1999. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. <http://infoweb7.newsbank.com/bin/graff=990323025&RGD=19990323&Prod=apil>
• Bell, Kin. “More Guns Equals Less Crim, Professor Says.” March 20, 1999. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. <http://infoweb7.newsbank.com/bin/graff=9903200461&RGD=199990320&Prod=apil>
• Japenga, Ann. “Would I be Safer with a Gun?.” March/April 1994. Health Magazine. <http://sks6.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-a...type=ART&sound=no&key=CONCEALED_WEAPON_LEGAL>
• Korwin, Alan. “The Lost National Right to Carry: Support Grows for the American Historical Rights Protection Act.” June 6, 2000. GunLaws.Com. <http://www.gunlaws.com>
• McDermott, Kevin. “Concealed Gun Bill Heads for House.” March 19, 1997. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. <http://infoweb7.newsbank.com/bin/graff=9703190262&RGD=199990319&Prod=apil>
• McDermott, Kevin. “Legislative Maneuvering Kills Chances for Gun Bill’s Passage.” April 21, 1997. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. <http://infoweb7.newsbank.com/bin/graff=9704210408&RGD=19970421&Prod=apil>
• Pearkstein, Mitchell B.. “Conceal and Carry: The World Would be a Safer Place if Responsible Adults Could Carry Concealed Firearms.” Twin Cities Buisness Monthly. <http://www.gunlaws.com>
• Przybys, John. “Packing Heat.” July 23, 2000. Las Vegas Review-Journal. <http://sks6.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-a...type=ART&sound=no&key=TRISH_HYLTON>
• “Responses to the 3rd Period 1998 Survey Question.” April 1, 1998. <http://ponetwork.com/Q*A/Q*A.3.98.html>
• Snyder, Jeffrey R.. “Easing Handgun Licensing Laws: Helping the Public FIght Back.” September 1998. USA Today. <http://sks6.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-a...ound=no&key=CONCEALED_WEAPON_LEGAL>
• Volkmer, Harold L., et all. “Letters to the Editor: Conceal Carry Debate - For.” April 4, 1999. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. <http://infoweb7.newsbank.com/bin/graff=9904040127&RGD=19990404&Prod=apil>