Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

CCW permit holders are so law-abiding that they compare favorably even to police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, during the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 there was an average of 703 crimes committed by police per year, with 113 involving firearms violations.6 With about 683,396 full-time law enforcement employees in 2006,7 that translates into about 102 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers. Of course, this compares very favorably to the U.S. population as a whole over those years, with 3,813 crimes per hundred thousand people – a crime rate that was 37 times higher than that for police.

But concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than that. Between October 1, 1987 and April 30, 2015, Florida revoked 9,793 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders – a mere eighth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a fifth of the rate for police.

Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 officers. For permit holders in Florida, it is only 0.31 per 100,000. Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit. The data are similar in 24 other states.

George M. Lee
John R. Lott
June 2, 2015
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE CRIME PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES JEFF SILVESTER, ET AL., AND SUPPORTING AFFIRMANCE
JEFF SILVESTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
KAMALA D. HARRIS,
in her official capacity as the Attorney General of California,
Defendant-Appellant.

[This makes it extremely clear that if you are concerned about private citizens legally carrying guns in public then there are a limited number of nonexclusive conclusions that can be arrived at regarding your concerns. Which of the following best describes you?

  1. You are far more concerned about the police carrying guns.
  2. You are not concerned about people legally carrying guns committing a crime with them. Instead you are concerned about those people using them lawfully. If you are a rational person we must conclude you are a violent and/or evil person afraid of being legally shot.
  3. You were ignorant about the crime rates of people who legally carry guns and will now cease advocating in support of more restrictive laws regarding the carry of firearms in public.
  4. You have crap for brains and don’t care what the data is.

Other options exist but they appear to be variations of the themes I have already enumerated. Or did I miss some?—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—George M. Lee and John R. Lott

  1. I made the half-joke when I got my commission (thus making my CHL a bit of a moot point) that the group of gun-toters I was joining was significantly less law-abiding than the group of gun-toters I was leaving.

    • It’s not even a half joke, given that it’s entirely true. You were joining a den of thieves by comparison. Hah hah hah.

      OK, so what is it about CHL holders that we are so many times better at policing our own, compared to professional police? One would think that police departments all over the world would be looking to us as a model, looking for clues, and even seeking our guidance. You’d think this tremendous difference would be front and center in just about any discussion of civics in general. You’d think that this would be discussed in classrooms, news rooms, at meetings, at parties, anywhere the subject of civility came up, all over the world.

      By why isn’t it a major focus? Why isn’t this celebrated? Because people don’t WANT to hear about it. Cops don’t WANT to hear about it. Media people don’t WANT to hear about it. Politicians don’t WANT to hear about, and Progressives DONT WANT to hear about it.

      It doesn’t fit the agenda.

      So what’s the agenda, then? You know perfectly well the agenda, but how many will say it?

      The agenda, the goal, is fire superiority for the government, over the citizens, or at the least the perception of such, as part of this war against the American Principles of Liberty. There, I said it.

      • “OK, so what is it about CHL holders that we are so many times better at policing our own, compared to professional police?”

        I can think of three non-exclusive options (i.e. it could be a combination of any or all of them):
        – We have actual skin in the game, as it were, and we all understand that any misbehavior makes all of us look bad, so we hold ourselves individually to a higher standard.
        – We don’t carry firearms as a requirement to a societally-required profession (whether police really are required in a society doesn’t make much difference; most people believe they are required, and that they should carry guns).
        – We don’t have a union looking out for our interests as public employees and providing legal cover and protection in case of misbehavior, intentional or not.

        In short, we — both individually and as a group — face more severe consequences for misdeeds than the police charged with upholding the laws, society at large doesn’t necessarily view private carry of firearms as necessary, and we’re generally on our own to defend ourselves in criminal or legal matters, all of which make us a much better-behaved group overall than nearly any other demographic.

        There may be other reasons, but that’s what I’ve got.

        • Also, police are in a position of power that can be abused more so than ordinary private citizens. My guess is that nearly every police officer of a decade or more of service has been offered a bribe or know someone who has. Not so with private citizens. They also know a lot of people get away with crimes and may believe they can get away with it too, in part, because “no one would suspect them.”

          Those are my guesses.

          • Archer and Joe; both excellent observations. I’m uncomfortable with Archer’s because it means that persecution makes us better.

            The point though is; no one gives a damn. No one one is interested in studying and understanding the differences for the purpose of improving police culture or finding the clues to a more responsible and peaceful society. You’d think that this would be right the Progressive alley.

            In short; the point is that this proves, yet again, that Progressivism is a farce, a smoke screen. It is power-lust disguised as good intentions.

    • I considered that a variation of number 4. Although your expression of it might resonate more with some people.

  2. 5. You don’t believe it because it doesn’t mesh with your world view.

    …and because John Lott.

  3. We heard about this back in the 1990s. You’d think it should have been near the top of the curriculum lists for civics classes, social studies, political science, law, justice studies, etc, ever since, as people sought ways to duplicate this awesome result.

    “Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit.”

    Meaning that they’re not violations at all, of anything. They’re instances of harassment of innocent people by government. They don’t count as crimes or misdemeanors, and so “most” of the given number for CHL holders can be subtracted from the data.

    Regardless; that only shows the total lack of objectivity in government, in education and in media.

    The REAL issue is human rights, which are not dependent on statistics in any way whatsoever. As Tam said so long ago; it wouldn’t matter if every other CHL holder on the planet tried to murder someone last night– I didn’t, so leave me alone!

  4. Revocations are not always founded in crimes or facts.

    A year ago, my Florida CCW was revoked because an ex-girlfriend filed for a Domestic Violence Injunction. The injunction was granted ex parte, and included an order revoking my CCW and demanding that I turn in all of my firearms to the police. The case was dismissed several weeks later, and I immediately applied for and received my permit.

    Here is the story:
    http://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2014/06/prohibited-person.html

  5. Number 3 requires them to change their minds upon presentation of contrary evidence proving the error of their beliefs.
    As it requires them to change their minds, it presupposes they have minds to change.

Comments are closed.