Permitless carry means more gun violence

Posted by:

Bowling Green State University recently published a study concerning a law passed in June 2022 that permits citizens to carry firearms in public without a license. In the year since, we are told, there was “a significant decrease in crime incidents involving a firearm” in Ohio’s eight most populous cities.

Gun zealots will surely herald this study as proof that relaxed gun restrictions pose no risk, and Attorney General Dave Yost crows, “The surest takeaway is that it didn’t really have an impact on gun violence.”

Memo to AG Yost: the study isn’t comprehensive enough to be significant. It covered just one year prior to the law’s passage and one year after. More in-depth studies conclude that an increase in permitless carry leads to an increase in gun violence.

The American Journal of Epidemiology published in 2022 the results of a study that covered the change in gun laws for several states over 40 years. States that passed “shall issue” concealed carry laws (where law enforcement has little discretion to deny a license) saw a 9.5% increase in gun assaults during the first 10 years after the law was passed.

In 2022, the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health published its findings concerning 36 states that weakened their concealed carry permit requirements from 1980 to 2019. The study measured the impact of shall issue laws in conjunction with: live-firearm training; discretion to deny a permit to an unstable applicant; and discretion to deny a permit if an applicant has a history of violence and/or other violent misdemeanor convictions.

States that changed their laws without including one or more of these provisions saw an average increase of 21.6 % in gun assaults and 34.9% increase in gun homicides compared to forecasted trends.

Between 1992 and 2017, according to research published in the American Journal of Public Health, permitless laws were associated with 29% higher rate of firearm homicides in the workplace.

Why the increase? One reason, likely, is that gun owners lack training and may be too prone to reach for a firearm in situations that don’t justify using a firearm.

Based on a survey conducted in 2013 by U.S Department of Justice, law enforcement recruits receive 168 hours of training in firearms, self-defense and use of force. Think about it—professionals are required to undergo firearm training, but civilians aren’t.

Even with the training they receive, law enforcement officers can still get it wrong. NBC reported that 21 police officers were charged in 2021 with murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting. Three former Columbus law enforcement officers are facing trial for murder.

We have plenty examples of civilians who have been arrested for the unjustified use of firearms. In 2018, Markeis McGlockton and Michael Drejka were involved in a heated argument in a Florida parking lot. McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka, who had a concealed carry permit, pulled his gun. As McGlockton took a step back, Drejka shot and killed him. Drejka was convicted of manslaughter.

In April 2023, Andrew Lester shot teenager Ralph Yarl after Yarl mistakenly came to Lester’s home and rang the doorbell. Lester told police he fired at Yarl through a locked glass door, without either of them saying a word. Lester will be tried this October.

Also last April, 20-year old Kaylin Gillis, a passenger in a car, was killed by 65-year-old Kevin Monahan, when the driver mistakenly pulled into Monahan’s driveway in upstate New York. Monahan fired from his front porch and was convicted of second-degree murder this past January. His defense? He stumbled and fell, and his shotgun “went off by accident.”

Less restrictions on carrying firearms will mean more firearms on the street, and with no required training—nothing good can come of this. If trained professionals are capable of unjustified shootings, what makes us think that more guns for untrained firearm owners is a good idea?

[This post was published as an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch on February 29, 2024.]

_______________________________________

Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com

__________________________________________________

 

2
  Related Posts
  • No related posts found.

Comments

  1. Bruce Lackey  March 4, 2024

    1.) GO FALCONS!
    2.) Agreed on the limited scope and duration used in the BGSU study
    3.) Generally agree this was an unwise decision without associated training and required gun storage requirements.
    4.) Deb wants to attend an OSU Men’s Baseball game this spring. Are you still following?

    reply
  2. Gary L Sigrist Jr  March 4, 2024

    Figures lie and liars figure. Percentages mean little if they are not backed up with numbers to put things in perspective. For example, after my first son was born in 1986 I saw a 200% increase of offspring in my house in the next six years.

    In justifying your argument against permitless carry you used the shootings of Ralph Yarl and Kaylin Gillis. These were both criminal acts that had nothing to do with not needing a permit. These people were in their own home where a carry permit has never been needed when they committed their crime.

    I am not a fan of people carrying firearms without legal training. Too many people get their law degree from social media and television and do not understand the concept of ‘use of force.’ Some people put themselves in harm’s way because their firearm gives them a false sense of security. Both Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman were legally allowed to carry a firearm. However, neither would have been attacked and forced to shoot had they not put themselves ask risk going ‘where angels fear to tread’ if they did not have a firearm to back up their bravado.

    Whenever there is a change in gun laws, both sides argue their positions and both sides are wrong. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm will NOT cause a reduction in crime in a community. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm will NOT cause a community to become the Wild Wild West.

    There is one thing both sides should be able to agree with. Responsible gun owners should keep their firearms secure so they do not get into the hands of someone who should not have a firearm. If you can afford a firearm but cannot afford a safe, check with your local law enforcement agency to see if they are giving away firearm locks.

    reply

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published and your last name is optional.