2/14 cguns (pascoe and seebach point/counterpoint)
pascoe at end
People are passionate about guns, for and against, so no one should be surprised that debates about gun policy are as much emotional as logical.
That's been clear as the legislature has considered several gun bills this year, and appears on track to approve at least one that would allow most Colorado adults to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Two were approved in committee. In the Senate, SB 156 sponsored by Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, requires sheriffs and police chiefs to issue such permits to anyone eligible to purchase a weapon under state and federal law. In the House, HB 1305 prohibits cities and counties from enforcing any ordinance more restrictive than state law. 
To people who react with a visceral fear and anger, such policies are simply incomprehensible. In genuine distress, they envision legions of innocents sacrificed and streets running with blood.
What's less clear is that such emotional arguments are the only arguments they have. As one state after another has adopted these ''shall-issue'' or nondiscretionary concealed-carry laws, the dire predictions have failed to come true. Instead, the statistical evidence weighs ever more heavily in favor of the proposition that allowing otherwise law-abiding adults to arm themselves as they see fit makes everyone safer.
The most comprehensive statistical studies have been done by John R. Lott Jr., the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. The results appeared first in a 1997 article in the Journal of Legal Studies Lott wrote with David Mustard, and were expanded into a 1998 book with the provocative title More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws.
Lott's analysis is based on counties, which gives him enough data to account for a host of variables - population and population density; age and race; income, unemployment and poverty; arrest rates - in addition to changes in the concealed-carry laws. Like Colorado today, many states where sheriffs and police chiefs issue permits at their discretion have very different policies in different counties before a state law is passed making them uniform.
''When state concealed-handgun laws went into effect in a county,'' Lott says, ''murders fell by about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.''
If the laws had been in effect in every U.S. county, he estimates, there would have been 1,400 fewer murders in 1992, 4,200 rapes and 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults.
Looking at state-level data, rather than counties, makes the effect seem larger, which suggests to Lott ''that aggregating observations into units as large as states is a bad idea.''
Lott's taken a lot of criticism for being too ideological, but his preference for a superior methodology over better numbers indicates to me that he's approached his research with a lot of intellectual honesty.
And that's more than can be said for many of his critics. One of the most interesting parts of the book is the chapter on the response to his and Mustard's original article. 
When it began to attract media attention, advocates of gun control who had refused to look at his results offered television soundbites calling them ''flawed.'' Others refused to appear on shows if he was invited.
A common tactic was to say the study was worthless because he held an Olin Fellowship and one division of the Olin Corporation manufactures ammunition.
This is McCarthyism in the third degree - guilt by very remote association. John M. Olin's fortune created the Olin Foundation; the foundation gave money to a number of universities to endow fellowships; the universities chose people for the positions, without knowing in detail what research they would be doing, let alone what the results would be in advance. People who think they have to make arguments like this are desperate.
''I never would have known how much effort goes into deliberately ignoring certain findings in order to deny them news coverage,'' Lott writes. ''I was also surprised by the absolute confidence shown by gun-control advocates that they could garner extensive news coverage whenever they wanted.''
Lott's more detailed findings help to answer the argument, made for example by Denver Dictrict Attorney Bill Ritter, that big cities like Denver ''have different problems'' that make the permits impractical.
It's precisely the biggest cities, with the highest crime rates, that see the greatest decreases in crime when law-abiding people are allowed to defend themselves. And it's the most vulnerable populations that gain the most; women who are physically weaker than potential assailants, or African-Americans who are disproportionately victims of crime.
States need not issue permits to a very large fraction of their residents to see reductions in crime. It's 5 percent in Pennsylvania, 2 percent in Florida (but growing fast). Nor need they worry unduly about crime committed by permit holders; in Florida, where more than 380,000 licenses were issued, only 72 had to be revoked because the license holders committed crimes (not necessarily related to guns).
Colorado has been slow to adopt concealed-carry laws because of former Gov. Roy Romer's intransigence. Fortunately, that is a barrier the legislature need fear no longer.
Hammer: Is it safe for us to carry guns? 
Point underline: Concealed-weapons law would cost Colorado lives
Counterpoint underline: Law-abiding should be able to defend themselves
By Pat Pascoe
#
A gale-force wind to pass a concealed weapons bill is rushing through the legislature now that we have a governor who is expected to sign the bill. To the advocates, the world is a very dangerous place full of unknown criminals whom they must be ready to shoot at a moment's notice. That's why they must carry a hidden gun, in spite of the specific prohibition against concealed weapons in the Colorado Constitution which says, ''The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property . . . shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.''
In the old West, only sneak thieves and cowards concealed their guns. As we know from the Western film, the good guys carried their guns proudly, but they checked them at the saloon door, because they knew that liquor and guns don't mix. 
Advocates for these bills claim we will be safer as soon as more people are carrying concealed weapons, but that is simply not true. Guns do not make people safer. In fact, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a family member or someone you know than it is to be used for self-protection (Kellerman, New England Journal of Medicine). A loaded gun carried on a person will lead to more accidental and angry shootings. 
Even highly trained police officers can not always save themselves with guns. An FBI study found that when police officers were victims of shootings, 85% did not have the chance to fire their own weapons, and 20% were shot with their own guns. Think about the situation in which a woman is threatened by a robber or assailant. If the gun is in her purse, she could protect herself only if she got it out and shot her assailant before he was close enough for her to know his intent.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted out S.B. 156, a bill that would allow anyone who can pass the Brady instant check of criminal records to get a concealed weapons permit. The bill says that the sheriff or chief of police of the local government shall issue a permit to such a person. 
A rational stand against this gale force for a state concealed weapons law would require that the applicant show a need, such as a recent threat, a stalking by an ex-husband, or the responsibility for carrying large amounts of money. It would require a background check for substance abuse problems, mental illness, domestic violence, and restraining orders. The chief law enforcement officer would have discretion about whether or not to issue the permit, as he or she does in many states. It should also require some training with firearms. 
Sen. Dottie Wham, who voted for the bill in committee, added a few exceptions - places where concealed weapons are not allowed: airports, courthouses, government buildings, schools and school events, and school, college, and professional sports events. Property owners could also bar concealed guns from their property because they will face potential law suits if they allow employees and customers to carry concealed weapons and someone is injured or killed. Permit holders could still take guns into parks, bars, and hospitals, however. 
As of April 1997, seven states prohibit carrying concealed weapons, 13 allow law enforcement officers to issue permits, usually based on an unusual need. Twenty-nine states have shall-issue laws, which require the law enforcement officer to issue the permit. An advocate's book, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, can also be used to show that such laws make the state less safe. For example, in counties with populations above 100,000 his data shows that while aggravated assaults were reduced 67% in Maine, murders increased 105% in West Virginia. Philadelphia passed a concealed-carry law in 1995 and the murder rate remained just as high as it had been for the previous decade. 
The supporters of concealed carry permits argue that no permit holder has ever committed a crime. This is nonsense. According to Handgun Control, in Florida between Oct. 1, 1987 and Jan 1, 1997, 698 CCW license holders were identified as having committed a crime either before they received their licenses or after. Their crimes include assault with intent to murder and kidnapping.
Now approximately 500 Colorado citizens die from guns every year. If the concealed carry advocates are successful, many more will be blown away.
#
Pat Pascoe is a Democratic state senator from Denver.