No evidence needed when it comes to gun legislation

If you pay attention to the reasoning given by legislators for the bills they propose, you’ll frequently see more anecdotes and personal opinion offered as support than statistics or other forms of evidence. Gun legislation provides a good example.

Pending in the Ohio Statehouse is H.B. 178, which is sponsored by Republican representatives. The bill would permit anyone 21 years or older, who passes the standard background check, to carry a concealed weapon without a license or training. The training required right now is minimal, but at least it introduces a gun owner to the laws and responsibilities that come with carrying a weapon.

Representative Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, proposed an amendment that would have required Ohio firearms dealers to include with each firearm sale a single-page brochure explaining that citizens have a duty under Ohio law to retreat before using deadly force. Members of the Ohio Gun Owners expressed their displeasure with the amendment to Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, telling him the amendment “can get gun owners killed.”

With that, Householder put the brakes on the amendment. “I take statements like that very seriously,” the speaker posted. “I have instructed my staff to draft an amendment to remove that amendment from the bill and have instructed the bill’s sponsors to go out and get the votes to clean this bill up.”

Before we get to the lack of evidence concerning the Ohio Gun Owners’ position, a couple preliminary points. First, the pamphlet proposed by Koehler recited Ohio law. How is that a bad thing?

Second, the premise behind concealed carry is the fiction that citizens need to carry because armed criminals are everywhere. The reality is, FBI statistics show us there’s a much higher likelihood of being shot by someone you know—spouse, co-worker, neighbor, etc.—than a stranger. To minimize the chance of being shot, we don’t need to carry a firearm so much as we need to be more selective about who we associate with.

Now, let’s get back to the Ohio Guns Owners. They didn’t offer any evidence for their objection to the Koehler amendment—likely, because there is none. And how is it that Householder was so taken with what they had to say? Sure, what the Ohio Gun Owners had to say was serious, but that alone doesn’t give it credibility.

What if someone had told Householder that H.B. 176 will lead to increased gun deaths but didn’t offer any supporting evidence. Though no less serious a statement than what the Ohio Gun Advocates offered, I suspect Householder would not have been swayed.

But there is evidence for the risk H.B. 176 creates by eliminating the training now required. As explained in a letter he wrote to the Columbus Dispatch on July 3, 2019, Mark Marthys, a retired firearm instructor, stated, “I have seen firsthand the profound ignorance of firearms many people exhibit when they come for concealed weapons permit training.”[1] Why do we want to take the risks associated with untrained people carrying firearms?

I attended the committee hearing where several people, including me, spoke against the risk that H.B. 176 creates. None of it made a difference.

The reality is, those who object to gun safety policies are very vocal and command attention, and when it comes to loosening firearm laws, evidence isn’t required. All you have to do is say, “Second Amendment” and “self-defense,” and most Republican legislators will give you whatever you want.

_________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

____________________________________________________

[1] I don’t know Mr. Mathys and assume he is being genuine about his experience as a former firearms instructor.

7
JUL

Brent Rosenthal July 8, 2019

All gun legislation can be explained by one word – pandering. They are simply attempts by conservative legislators to get NRA money and NRA members’ votes. There are lots of very serious problems in this state that need to be addressed but are not because of the obsession with gun rights.
reply
Alex Heckman July 8, 2019

The bill number is HB 178. And things are worse than you think.
Even in the circumstances under which its proponents envision – a bad guy with a gun in a public space – people are not prepared for this type of high stress situation. The scientific research is very clear on what happens when an individual shoots a gun in a high stress situation – they miss their target much more often than they hit it. Research shows that while under stress even highly trained individuals, such as police officers and military personnel, hit their intended target with any given shot less than 20 percent of the time. Yes, trained professionals miss their target more than 80 percent of the time. Even with multiple shots, they hit their target less than 50 percent of the time. For example, see Gregory B. Morrison, Bryan J. Vila, (1998) “Police handgun qualification: practical measure or aimless activity?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 21 Issue: 3, pp. 510-533, https:// doi.org/10.1108/13639519810228804 and Arne Nieuwenhuys, Raoul R. D. Oudjans, (2010) “Effects of anxiety on handgun shooting behavior of police officers: a pilot study”, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp. 225-233.
reply
robin lorms July 8, 2019

Jack, just an FYI. The H.B. is 174 not 176. I thought you should advise your readers. Thanks for the heads up on this issue.

Robin
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com July 8, 2019
  
  So much for my proofing skills. Thank you, Robin.
  reply
  - jdaurora@behallaw.com July 8, 2019
    
    There appear to be two similar bills, H.B. 174 and 178. I had intended to refer to H.B. 178.
    reply
Bruce Lackey July 8, 2019

Does your statement “The bill would permit ANYONE 21 years or older to carry a concealed weapon without a license or training.” include felons?
reply
- jdaurora@behallaw.com July 8, 2019
  
  I should have been more specific. The phrase should read, The bill would permit anyone 21 years or older, who passes a background check, to carry …” (But I think you knew that.)
  reply
Kay G. July 8, 2019

As a carrier of a concealed gun carry permit I can attest that important information is relayed to the gun owner in class structured training. The training is minimal but in North Carolina, where I obtained my permit, it is necessary to pass a written and shooting proficiency test. I received my training from an active law enforcement officer who was up to date on state law. The gun owner has a responsibility to use his or her weapon ONLY if a provable threat to the person exists. Those “threat conditions” are few and should be understood by anyone who owns a gun. We also learned that it is state law that a gun owner must protect children from access to the weapon and if they do not do so, can be prosecuted. Republicans rely on ignorant people to promote their interests and want nobody to be educated. After all, they assume that they will never be harmed by ignorant gun owners, only the minorities and people of color will be harmed.
reply
Stephen Courts July 8, 2019

This type of irrationality is almost always a rural legislator, rarely by a large city democrat or republican. It is truly a phenomenon of the NRA. With less than 5 million paid members, the clout they carry in bribes (donations) is far more considerable than the actual members. The NRA is a mini-version of the drug companies contributions and most other significant lobbying interests. It is always interesting to see how any concealed weapon is off limits to courthouses & state capitals. I had to participate with guns, including the AR-15 while in the Army. Other than that experience, I have not shot one round in my life.
The NRA is a bunch of pusillanimous distorters of the second amendment. I seriously doubt that these holy rollers will form a militia to fight the government. From all of the amendments and bill of rights, this is the most obscene. Imagine a citizen revolt with these folks and see how far they get against the forces of the Federal government.
reply
Steve Hunziker July 8, 2019

Jack: with all due respect: (1) u reside in ohio, which trump carried handily. (2) take a close look at larry householder, no suprise here. (3) fear— “ they “ will take your guns, a play on fear & ignorance. (4) as much as i dislike the nra, they do a fantastic job of (frightening) guiding their membership & getting them to vote !! (5) our battle agsinst larry & his friends in the statehouse, will be fought long after larry retires. Ours is an uphill battle. Do N O T give up. Steve Hunziker
reply
Jim Pucci July 8, 2019

Jack,

I largely agree with the idea that one should be trained. Just a couple points – one regrading a prior comment in this thread.

First, This statement is misleading in my opinion:

“Second, the premise behind concealed carry is the fiction that citizens need to carry because armed criminals are everywhere. The reality is, FBI statistics show us there’s a much higher likelihood of being shot by someone you know—spouse, co-worker, ”

A criminal doesn’t need to be carrying a gun to be armed. In fact, to over power one my 110 lb daughters they likely need not be armed at all. I believe that data backs up the fact that concealed carry laws deter violent crime. And that deterrent doesn’t always end in a bad guy being shot.

Second, in another thread it was stated that these laws are often presented by legislators from rural areas. Not sure what that was supposed to mean but certainly representing their constituents best interests is what they are there for. But the comment reminded me of something that we discussed in the past which is that fact that laws are often made at too high a level. Why cant we have more restrictive laws in areas where the people think the police will keep them safe and more liberal laws where folks know police almost always arrive too late? At a minimum the diversity would provide much better data for analysis.

I remember when CC came to Ohio and the worry was that it was going to turn into the wild west. That hasn’t panned out. I think that the people worried about this law also have a burden to back up their fears with data. Have other states or localities that offer right to carry seen large upticks in shootings? I really don’t know but I am surprised that isn’t in your piece as it would make your case stronger. Of course we see in places like Chicago that stricter guns laws have relatively no impact when your population is out of control.
reply

Subscribe to Comments

Blog