America could use more concealed carry gun permit holders |
Featured Commentary

America could use more concealed carry gun permit holders


Since the terrorist attacks in Paris, such far-away places as Pennsylvania have experienced a surge in applications for concealed handgun permits.

Permit requests have at least doubled in some large counties, including Allegheny. Pennsylvania has more than 1 million permit holders — 10.6 percent of the adult population — so the undoubtedly short-lived surge won’t dramatically change the number of permit holders, but an increase still will make Pennsylvanians safer.

Police tend to support an increase in permit holders. “What would help most in preventing large-scale shootings in public?” PoliceOne asked its 450,000 American officer members in 2013. The most common answer: “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.”

Eighty percent of the surveyed officers believed allowing permitted concealed handguns would reduce the number of victims of mass public shootings.

Israel learned that lesson the hard way. In its first decades of existence, Israel responded to attacks by increasing the number of soldiers and armed police on the streets. Mass killers, however, can target the officers first or pick a target that isn’t guarded.

No matter how much money Israel spent, all the terrorists needed was a little patience.

In 1972, Israel started letting civilians carry licensed firearms. That has complicated things for terrorists — they can’t know for sure whether they have found an easy target.

Just because there are no police or army uniforms present does not mean that people can’t fight back.

Politicians and national police officials frequently remind Israelis to carry their guns when they are out in public.

Even in Europe, diverse groups of people are beginning to recognize the value of concealed carry.

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, leading European rabbi Menachem Margolin called for European Jews to be able to carry handguns. But that isn’t going to happen in countries that won’t even allow off-duty police officers to carry guns.

In the most recent attacks, Parisians were close enough to take videos of the terrorists as they walked within yards of them, but they were powerless to stop them. France’s ban on carrying guns in public only disarmed law-abiding citizens, as the terrorists clearly were not concerned about guns laws. The eight were armed with AK-47s and explosive suicide belts. Obviously, all of that was illegal.

In the United States, more than 13 million Americans are licensed to carry concealed handguns. If not for permit holders, you would have heard of dozens more mass public shootings.

Some people are concerned that permit holders will use their weapons to threaten others. Data, however, shows that permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Their permits are revoked at a rate of just tenths of a percentage point. Very few revocations are a result of firearms violations — those are in the thousandths of a percentage point. Police are convicted of firearms violations at a higher rate.

Some fear permit holders will accidentally shoot bystanders, or arriving police will shoot permit holders. But there has never been such a case.

The only problem with permit holders is that Americans could use many more of them.

Like Israel, we should encourage people to carry when they go out in public. This is especially true when there is a specific threat to national security.

Police and intelligence operations are critically important, but an effective backup plan is needed. We know that armed self-defense saves lives.

John R. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3rd edition).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.