“The best evidence to date suggests that right-to-carry laws increase gun violence, so efforts to eliminate or tighten those laws and to oppose their adoption in the states that do have them would be prudent at this time. A recent study noted that since May 2007, 29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting sprees that killed at least three individuals. In general, legislative tightening of those allowed to possess guns to the fullest extent that the Constitution allows is clearly worth exploring.” – Stanford Law Professor John Donohue quoted in Improved gun buyer background checks would impede some mass shootings, Stanford expert says [via news.sanford.edu]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

76 COMMENTS

  1. How many of those “sprees” involved lawful self defense against three aggressors? I’m guessing an overwhelming majority of them. Even if all 29 were murder, that is still an extremely minuscule percentage. Another anti that can’t or won’t use critical thinking skills.

    • If it saves just one life… it’s worth it. Right? That’s what many people believe. But these same people don’t consider removing every car (or anything else that can purposely be used as a deadly weapon) off the street if it “saves just one life”.

    • Not only that Donahue is comparing states and jurisdictions that are vastly different. Mississippi vs Hawaii?

      When you look at same region, similar mean age, income, education demographic states, those with more guns and less gun control have less violent crime and less murder.

      Look at Maryland vs. Virginia. Maryland has ever gun law, including may issue. Virginia has way more guns, and 27 time the number of non law enforcement/non corrections affiliated carry permits.

      Maryland has 75% more murder

    • That’s just a bunch of horse shit. We all know that CCW license holders aren’t the bad guys in the real world. Some anti-gunner group just said that BS to further rally support for thier cause. It’s harmless don’t pay it too much attention.

    • A recent study noted that since May 2007, 29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting sprees that killed at least three individuals.
      This is statistically insignificant given the large base of citizens with gun permits, and this ignorant buffoon should not be part of a college faculty.

        • It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if he owned more than one and had a CCW permit. These people think they’re above it all. It’s what the progressive politicians do…

      • It is not insignificant when you consider that non gun owners probably committed murder at higher rates.

        And Donahue is MASSIVE undercounting the number of concealed carry permit holders. The second amendment deniers like to use old numbers because permits have been growing at a incredible pace, and gun murder has declined .

        The estimates now are 1 in 20 adults now has a carry permit

        • JJ, I read your numbers above and my initial thought was that 1 in 20 adults was way too high. Not giving up, I took the popular estimates of 11 to 11.5 million CCW holders and attempted to see if I could justify your 1 in 20 claim.

          Using census data (thank you Wikipedia) I found the adult population to be about 225 million, dividing by 20, that’s 11.25 million.

          I’m sure you’re not surprised that the number you offered is correct, but I am pleasantly surprised by it. The data was always there of course, but I’d never thought of it as a percent.

          1 in 20 is impressive enough on its own, but considering how many people live in what are essentially no issue locations, the density of concealed carriers must be substantially higher in many places.

          It’s heartening to see the right expanded and practiced.

    • And how many LEO have committed “gun violence” in the same time span?

      That term is a problem. It has been carefully crafted to lump all shootings, legitimate defense or lawful enforcement alike, with unlawful / criminal shooting. It makes it easier to pad the statistics in their favor, especially for those who don’t look past flashy attention grabbing statements. As a scientist I view all statistics as utter garbage until the method is proven to be on the up and up; and the anti gunners never use truth to advance their agenda. Statistics are more frequently used to support the desired conclusion than to objectively analyze data. 76.125% of scientists agree.

      If a home invader kicks my door in how do I respond? With violence to be sure, whether with a gun, knife, axe handle, or a cup of that special McDonald’s scalding hot coffee.

    • If it only saves ONE child’s life…isn’t worth letting the other millions simply fend for themselves?? I’m beginning to think you may not be progressive enough….

  3. What evidence is that? Last I heard the murder rate hasn’t been this low since JFK was President.

  4. Oh I’d love to see the particulars of these 29 “sprees”.

    Secondly, my rights will not be constrained by the illegalities of criminals.

    • I believe this was carefully worded to sound like he was saying that 29 times permitted carriers went on shooting sprees that killed at least 3 people in each case when what he was really saying is that 3 people in total were killed out of all 29 ‘sprees’. He’s making it sound like the death toll was 29 times higher than it was. My guess is a ‘spree’ is anytime a permitted carrier fired more than one bullet from his gun and that 28 of the 29 were legitimate acts self defense.

    • I vaguely remember someone going after similar numbers a while back (maybe Leghorn?). The “study” counted people like Jared Loughner as a “concealed carrier” because AZ has constitutional carry. Because somehow, that’s academic honesty.

      If the anti’s didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

  5. So let me get this straight. The guy is not a lawyer, but a professor of lawyers, and he’s telling lies? Say it isn’t so.

  6. I rhink this guy just needs a leason in Venn Diagrams or something.

    In *any*population of people there will be those that commit crimes, permit or not.

    How long did these 29 have permits before killing someone? Did *overall* violence increase/decrease in the time since permits were issued. What % of permit holders commit crime relative to % of non-permit holders. You know, actual science/data.

  7. I believe it was pointed out on TTAG by some astute reader in a similar situation that this gentleman is entitled to his own opinion. He is NOT however, entitled to his own *Facts*.

  8. “…legislative tightening of those allowed to possess guns to the fullest extent that the Constitution allows is clearly worth exploring.”

    I agree. The Constitution says “shall not be infringed.” so I expect to see a net rollback of all government infringement of the Second Amendment right.

  9. Since the elite has proclaimed from his gated community ivory tower with cherry picked information, I’ll counter with anecdotal information from flyover peasantville. Where I live, our violence problem stems not from carry permit holder, but from the professor’s preferred utopia of people he wants in Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor style housing. Where the antiquated notion of fathers and family has been virtually eliminated. Where government dependency is strong, where we don’t want to make judgments about life choices, where the education system is whole owned by an union. This is where our violence problem is. Where this isn’t the case, there is virtually no problem.

  10. I wonder if Stanford is aware of this selective research/quotes? Sure makes a case for academic charges. . . . just sayin

    • I love the marching band, SLAC, and a few alumnae over the years.

      The last time I was on campus was 15 years ago, and it was getting insanely PC even back then. This ‘gun study’ is just a piece to solidify his creds, regardless of of the veracity of the actual conclusion. I looked him up quickly, and he’s also an ‘economist’ and has several other hit pieces on guns, which I’m sure carry the same bunch of half-truths and selected facts.

  11. People people people…..
    We ALL know that the grabbers don’t, with very few exceptions, base their statements on fact. Science? Data? Verified, quotable studies? Nah….
    Those few that do somehow mange to manipulate the results to their desired outcome. (Yes, I know… mostly everyone has done this at one point or another. My point is that you can make the any data say anything you want. And remember, 78.3% of statistical data is made up on the spot.)

    Reminds me of the old joke “Q: What do you call 20 lawyers buried up to their necks in wet sand? A: A good start.”

    Ditto for law professors.

    • “And remember, 78.3% of statistical data is made up on the spot.”

      Your made-up stats don’t agree with my made-up stats above! Since your statement doesn’t fit my narrative you must be wrong.

      /sarc off. That’s how it’s done, right?

  13. Uh… what study? I mean, I know it’s a “recent” one but can we get more specific?

    No? Oh, okay. I guess that’s Standford’s rigorous research and reporting on display.

  14. Soooooo………. 29 licensed concealed carriers went on shooting sprees and killed at least 3 individuals. Those licensed concealed carriers must be really poor marksmen. They make the NYPD look competent.

    Little Johnny is not just playing fast and loose with the facts, he is playing fast and loose with reality.

  15. “A recent study noted that since May 2007, 29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting sprees that killed at least three individuals.”

    Don’t really need to read further to know his conclusions are fantasy, do you?

  16. So…..infringing on the rights of 1/3 of the citizens of this country is necessary in order to enact “legislation” that MAY IMPEDE 0.00001% of fatal shootings in the US?

  17. “Moreover, while one can clearly find instances where gun defense was helpful in confronting a criminal, in 99.2 percent of violent crimes in the U.S., the victims do not use a gun in self-defense.”

    ^ This is why we have criminals^. Just what does the law professor imply? Since 99.2% do not self defend with a gun, the remaining.08 should as well?

    And this utopian dreamer statement.
    “…and with a law in place( referring to 10 round mag limit), efforts to limit the power and lethality of weapons in a rational and societally beneficial way could be more readily undertaken.”

    Since when are criminals rational law abiding citizens?

    Then a final parting socialist note or memo if you will indulge, condemning citizens spending their own money purchasing guns for self defense.

    “private citizens spend billions of dollars each year to purchase guns for self-defense when far greater reductions in crime could be achieved if those resources were instead devoted to the most productive and efficient crime-fighting.

    Billions are spent on ineffective crime fighting. More police are not the answer, & social programs have at best have less than 10% of changing a warped criminals mind. Let’s try the best criminal behavior modification program in existence…getting shot by a victim of their behavior. Notice every video showing a robbery, the moment a law abider points a gun at a criminal, behavior of that criminal instantly changes or his existence is altered. Crime drops when lawfully armed citizens defend themselves.

    This “professor”, police, legislators and judical system have no compelling interests in reducing crime and the main reason slave states restrict or deny lawful carrying of arms.

    • “…in 99.2 percent of violent crimes in the U.S., the victims do not use a gun in self-defense.”

      Donahue is only counting where the gun was fired. This is below 1% of defensive gun use.

      In 2007 my sister pulled her gun on man approaching her with a knife In an underground parking garage. He fled and due to my sister be uninjured and able to call in a description of him he was apprehended three levels down hiding under a car.

      He was on early release for a prior sexual assault in which he had severely injured a woman.

      Not only did my sister prevent a violent felony against her, it is likely she prevented subsequent felonies by the same man.

      Her case does not count in Donahue’s methodology since she did not shoot the guy

    • The actual numbers from the “study” (and they are quite pathetic):

      “Overall, Concealed Carry Killers documents 579 fatal incidents since May 2007 in 38 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in the deaths of 763 people. Twenty-nine of the incidents were mass shootings as defined by federal law (three or more victims), resulting in the deaths of 139 victims.”

      And:

      “In the vast majority of the 579 incidents documented in Concealed Carry Killers (485, or 84 percent), the concealed carry permit holder either committed suicide (223)…”

      Over a nine-year period. Almost half were suicides, and the remainder are not statistically significant.

      LEO are responsible for about as many non-justifiable homicides annually as CCW holders have committed over a nine-year span. And there are about 15 times as many CCW holders as there are LEO.

      I also find it interesting that VPC claims that their numbers, gleaned from news reports, represent only a “fraction” of CCW homicides, while at the same time, assert a demonstrably low number of DGUs, based on similar, anecdotal evidence.

      Stanford backs up this hogwash, eh?

      • EXACTLY. Lets run a few numbers here. Currently there are say ~11 Million CCW holders and 529 CCW holders have killed 763 people.

        763/11,000,000=0.0000693636363636

        Now then, lets compare and contrast that with 8300+ murders a year committed by the general populous over a period of ~7.5 years committed by the general populous:

        8300*7.5/350,000,000=0.000177857142857

        If we take a look at those per capita numbers the general populous is significantly HIGHER than CCW holders. This is using flagrantly generous data. Lets say we eliminate suicides by CCW holders (NOT murder-suicides) and see how we do:

        520/11,000,000=0.0000472727272727

        This takes into account ZERO crimes that would have been committed by people who flat out didn’t care that they were carrying illegally. Which is likely the majority of felons.

    • yeah, i googled it and found the study, too. “concealed carry killers”. adorable. i cant WAIT until that becomes a thing people say.

  20. Playing fast and loose with numbers and logic to push his agenda. Is he saying 29 persons killed at least 3 people each? Or is he saying 29 people went on spree killings and 3 people in total died? And concealed carry permits caused these killings or facilitated these killings? Was concealment the big factor? These killings wouldn’t have occurred otherwise?

    • Professor Gary Kleck is the only person that has peer reviewed empirical evidence that higher general gun ownership rates reduce homicide rates, victims who resist with guns typically have lower injury and crime completion rates, and adding more police does not produce a deterrence in crime effect:

      https://youtu.be/T6pAYJytnBQ

      Currently he’s working on some new studies as his previous work is becoming somewhat dated.

  22. The best evidence to date suggests that right-to-carry laws increase gun violence …

    Is he talking about the HARD FACTS that show concealed carry licensees commit fewer crimes than any other demographic? Is he talking about the HARD FACTS that concealed carry licensees commit fewer crimes than sworn law enforcement officers? Methinks that man is confused.

    A recent study noted that since May 2007, 29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting sprees that killed at least three individuals.

    First of all, how many of those were murders and how many of those were justified homicides? Second of all, how many of those would have happened regardless of concealed carry laws?

  24. Hey look, I can make stuff up too….
    “Research shows that since 2009, 29 college professors have raped children. And three of those children died.
    Therefore, evidence clearly suggests at we need to keep college professors away from children.”
    After all, if it saves one life.
    For the children.

    • You may not be making things up, in fact your numbers may be low.
      AAUW conducted a survey of students in grades 8-11, a whopping 10% claimed some form of sexual abuse, misconduct or other inappropriate behavior on the part of teachers or other staff.
      Of that group, 2/3 reported physical contact was made.
      If those numbers are accurate and translate nationwide, that’s at least 3 million grade school students having been physically abused to some degree by teachers and staff.
      I wonder if Professor Fondles will be doing a “study” on that?

  25. I would agree. Carrying a firearm and using it to defend your life would be chalked up by the firearms-disarmament people as gun violence. After all – you are shooting someone with a gun. That said – it is justifiable violence – as someone is attacking you possibly for the purpose of ending your life. You have every right to defend your life. Obviously if you didn’t have the gun, (gun) violence may not have occurred, but you could also be dead, raped, robbed, and left for dead. No thanks professor. My life is worth more than your empty statistics.

  26. Meanwhile in Chicago, the bastion of the perfect gun control utopia, actual crime and murder has been on the rise. Compare 29 “incidents” from concealed carriers since 2007 to the number of “incidents” in Chicago since 2007. I’m pretty sure there are less than 12 million people in Chicago and most likely no Chicago resident was carrying legally before last year. On a bad ( as in high criminal activity) weekend Chicago can hit 29 truly criminal “incidents”. Then compare the trend since 2007. If your policy is to institute the gun control laws look at the results, but academics don’t like data they can’t skew and control.

    • You can’t shoot a gun in South Side Chicago without hitting at least one, if not several, criminals. Full auto, maybe the 29 of whom the Perfesser speaks. Has he walked around the streets to take an opinion, or is he too frightened to leave his gated community? Do it, for the children. Gangbangers need more target practice.

  29. I found this.

    http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwprivatecitizens.pdf

    I highly suspect this is the source in question. However, reading through the document I can’t find one instance where holding a CCP had any bearing on the incident or outcome. You could just as easily blame this on killers who were registered to vote.

    But they chose to call the concealed carry killers. I bet there are many more people killed by people who did not have a CCP. So should we conclude that everyone should have a CCP?

  31. If you find the “study” (from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center”; and it isn’t much of a “study”) and read it, it confirms everything that gun owners have said about “mass shootings”:

    “Dealing with mental health, making more accessible, less of a stigma, and cheaper to treat, if the best way to stop ‘mass shootings'”

    Every one of the “29 concealed carry permit holders have gone on shooting [spree]” were either involved in a robbery, a murder-suicide, or “workplace violence” (‘murder-suicide” at work; no information if the various workplaces were “gun-free zones”, but I think it is a safe assumption that most were).

  32. I don’t give a flying F about his lies, and that’s what they are, lies. People have been mass murdering each other since way before guns were created. Erasing guns will do NOTHING to curb violent crime, it only makes the little guy that much more vulnerable.

  33. Any study that “proves” the right to carry increases violence would have to explain why violent crime fell by 50% while the right to carry has increased. Both statements can’t be true. Since the 50% decline has been documented it would appear that the professor’s claim must be false.

    • Actually both statements could be true. I am not saying they are, but right to carry and violence rate are only two variables in a very complex equation. It is absolutely possible for overall violence to decrease while some other factor that contributes to violence increases, because the contributing factor may only have a small effect. In the case of right to carry, the number of people licensed is less than 1% of the population so the effect either way is not likely to be very large. The overall crime rate being down is also due to less gang activity, a better economy and the end of the crack cocaine wars.

      If the reduction in violent crime was due solely to carry laws, it should have no effect in states like CA and NY and a greater effect in states that respect 2A. But that’s not the case unfortunately.

  34. These same people who want to take the guns from everyone will turn right around and condemn Stop & Frisk for being “racist,” or ineffective, or both.

    So, regularly confiscating illegal guns from high-crime populations doesn’t work (and is raciss), but routinely trying and failing to take guns from the law-abiding will work.

    I think it’s leftists’ brains that don’t work.

  35. Fisking. He should look it up.

    It’s the internet, stupid. The WWW started as a way to index n access data, so people could find it. So, show your work and sources or get a job with Salon. You wanna be a “journalist” go do that.

    BTW, “violence” is way too important to be sloppy about. Shame on him.

  38. “The best evidence to date suggests that right-to-carry laws increase gun violence”!? What evidence? The same evidence that the earth is flat, the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it? If you are going to totally ignore the overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary and just make shit up then no amount of logic or dialog is going to change your mind.

    “Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” – Mark Twain

  39. I’m pretty sure I had some stupid professors in law school too. But none of them was stupid enough to so publicly display their stupidity.

  40. Here is a good year end article about gun lies by the Left, useful for debating with facts.
    I suspect the silent majority is listening- and talking with friends and co-workers will pay off, in the next couple of months – as the StateRunMedia seems to be doubling down on the agitprop and lies by Obama and Bloomberg, and the array of faux community organizers whom they pay to play.

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/31/2015-the-year-in-gun-politics

  41. Yes, I had a look at the FBI stats referred to in that article, and they do show a significant drop in the level of crime overall, particularly crimes against the person or burglaries of private property. There is a corresponding rise of robberies against small businesses, possibly due to the perception by criminals that these might be safer targets of opportunity.
    There can only be one reason for this overall reduction: The fear of an increasingly armed public that will respond to threats and home invasion by deadly armed force. And that can only be a good thing, for which we probably have Obama and Hillary to thank.

    One other statistic I have recently heard or seen somewhere: Of the overall total of “gun violence” deaths in the past year, approximately 6,000 of these were gang related, so NHI (no humans involved). Probably a public service. Another 6,000 of them were suicides by older individuals with either terminal illnesses, or suffering painful, incurable conditions that they were unable to afford medical help for. Plus, of course, the terminally depressed. So the “gun violence” figure conceals large scale public problems in health care and law enforcement policy. The guns were only the tools available. The real level of public danger from criminal use of firearms is far less than indicated. However, there is enough criminal violence to require armed civilians to supplement the Police in their work.

    There are many other problems in the policy arena in American life. There is the fragmentation of law enforcement, where most other nations have national police forces with shared information services and uniform performance standards. Other countries have a national health system, where the elderly and the indigent don’t miss out on health care. This is just as bad as the earlier racist policies of whites only hospitals, in my opinion. And no, it is not a form of socialism. It is just common sense. Other countries have more stringent criteria for gun ownership, like being able to pass a gun safety examination, and have their character and history (not just criminal history – many evil and mentally disturbed people have no criminal history) checked before being given a license to own and carry a firearm. This would possibly count as an infringement of 2A, but do you really want maniacs and lunatics carrying guns in your community?

    So all the real evidence completely debunks this “Professor’s” inane gabbling, which is probably only to ensure Bloomberg funds for his faculty. And if Hillary is relying on this kind of weak sister academic support for her gun grabber campaign, she is more of an idiot than I thought before. And she really is an idiot.

  42. I’m glad that Im not paying for any of his classes. “Constitution GIVES the right???” Well, perhaps he teaches contract law.

  43. Really? Best available evidence? Being that violent crime has decreased about 50%, and gun crime about 30%, over the past 20 years as right to carry has drastically liberalized, I’d love to see his evidence and have him square it alongside this negative correlation.

  44. Anyone ever notice how these “wizards of smart” never allow comments on their “thought out analysis”?

Comments are closed.