Wisconsin – Concealed Carry

Since I’ve never talked about this subject, let me just get this out there so you know where I’m coming from and can stop reading now if you want — I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. I support the individual right to keep and bear arms and to engage in righteous self-defense. I support both concealed carry and open carry (open carry to a degree but I’ll save that for a different post).

To get an idea of what I think the Second Amendment means, watch this clip from Penn & Teller: Bullshit!:

I recommend you watch the Bullshit episode on gun control (psst: it’s available on YouTube start here).

With that out-of-the-way, on with the show.

Wisconsin has become the 49th state to allow concealed carry and the 37th to allow it on a shall issue basis (4 states, Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming have no restrictions). Gov. Scott Walker signed the bill into law on July 8, 2011 and it went into effect on November 1, 2011. Shall issue means that if you meet the requirements, the Wisconsin DOJ must issue you a concealed carry licence. This leaves Illinois as the last state that denies concealed carry.

[note: some states call it a concealed carry permit and some call it a concealed carry licence from this point forward I will refer to both as concealed carry licence.]

Over at madison.com, a web-based Wisconsin rag, a letter to the editor was posted last week. The letter, by Nicholas Wiedenhoeft, speaks firmly against Wisconsin’s new concealed carry law. Please read the letter in its entirety.

As far as I can tell the letter is Copyright 2011 madison.com. Isn’t it nice how madision.com claims copyright on a letter it didn’t write? Anyway, I will be quoting chunks of the letter here to clearly refute the assertions made. This use of the letter, I believe, falls squarely under Fair Use.

From Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter:

The new concealed carry law is the worst possible idea for Wisconsin or any state.

One thing that I’ve learned since I started to pay real attention to the “gun issue” is that people who are opposed to gun ownership, concealed carry, self-defense, etc. are prone to argue using extremes. A lot of their augments are also appeals to emotion — “think of the children” — and all that.

Take the quote above from Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter: is Wisconsin’s new concealed carry law really the “worst possible idea”?

I don’t think it’s the “the worst possible idea” for a state to change its laws so that citizens can exercise their rights. Police cannot be everywhere and often arrive too late. Police have no obligation to protect individuals. Individuals have a right, protected by the Second Amendment, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to protect their lives using a gun. If anything, Wisconsin is behind the times in recognizing this right.

From Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter:

The basic premise is that people will be safer because they can carry hidden, on their person, a deadly force. This is the civic version of mutually assured destruction.

It’s a little disguised here but this is the classic “the streets will run with blood” argument. This argument has been parroted by everyone who opposes concealed carry. The problem is that they can’t prove that it’s true.

In fact, the data shows that even when gun ownership goes up, and even when liberal concealed carry laws are enacted, crime drops.^{1, 2, 3} Also, contrary to this argument, when concealed carry laws are relaxed the streets do not run with blood from people shooting each other over parking spaces.

From Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter:

This notion assumes that crime will be held in check because the criminal will never know who is armed and therefore fear to attack. This is extending to the criminal significantly more intellectual range than is in most cases possessed. Violent crimes are not committed by rational people who are thinking clearly, or who are in the least concerned about whether you are armed or not. It also encourages the assailant to simply shoot you first in case you’re armed.

The notion that crime is held in check when gun laws in general are relaxed, and concealed carry laws specifically are enacted or made more liberal is supported by the data. I’ve not run across anything that supports the notion that liberal concealed carry laws lead criminals to shoot their victims outright. Criminals do worry more about meeting an armed victim then they do meeting the police ⁴ and will generally try to avoid the former which helps to explain the correlation between reduced crime and liberal concealed carry laws.

From Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter:

A person carrying a concealed weapon must be capable distinguishing real from perceived threat. It would be foolhardy to believe that a person who is so terrified they cannot leave the house without a loaded gun is capable of distinguishing a real threat from their own fearful worldview.

I take the most issue with this assertion. For one thing, it’s an ad-hominem. Mr. Wiedenhoeft doesn’t have anything substantial to say here except “they must be crazy.” Mr. Wiedenhoeft has to resort to name calling. Besides, if Mr. Wiedenhoeft is corect then police officers, military personnel, and private security must all be crazy too.

It’s true that people who carry concealed firearms could misidentify a threat and shoot an innocent bystander. I could not find anything that suggested this happens with any statistical significance, however. There is research showing that citizens can be competent with guns in self-defense situations.⁵

During the 2011 Tucson shooting, Joseph Zamudio ran towards the shooting to offer help. He was legally armed. According to Zamudio he had clicked the safety off and had his hand on his gun as he was running towards the shooting. When he arrived on the scene he saw a man with a gun. That man was not the shooter but rather someone who was holding the shooter’s gun and was helping to subdue the shooter. Much is made of how Zamudio could have fired on an innocent bystander, Zamudio himself admits that he had to make big decisions very fast and that things could have gone wrong. Zamudio was able to make those decisions under unimaginable stress despite not having any military or police training, he didn’t fire on the innocent bystander, he didn’t even pull out his gun.

Zamudio’s story is noting more than anecdote but it does serve as an example, showing that “ordinary” citizens are capable of distinguishing between a threat and a non-threat and acting accordingly, even in extreme circumstances.

From Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter:

Perhaps the worst aspect of concealed carry is that it will replace our “constitutional rights” with “might makes right” — literally placing in the hands of the people who can obtain the permit the ability to decide who in our community will live and who will die.

Concealed carry is not about vigilante justice, or denying people their rights. Concealed carry is about recognizing an individual right to bear arms and to self-defense. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held that self-defense is “the central component” to the Second Amendment.⁶ Mr. Wiedenhoeft ignores that individuals have a right, protected by the Second Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court, to defend their lives using a gun.

Mr. Wiedenhoeft also fails to recognize that people who would use deadly force in self-defense must do so in accordance with the law. A concealed carry licence is not a licence to kill. Self-defense laws very from state to state but in general lawful use of deadly force requires that a reasonable person, faced with the same circumstances, would feel an immediate fear of grievous bodily harm, or death. “If the use of deadly force is to be justified, it cannot be criminal at all.”⁷

Contrary to Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s assertion liberal concealed carry laws allow people to exercise and protect their rights, not take them away from others.

From Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s letter:

For you basically good people out there who think concealed carry to be necessary please ask yourself: Do you truly believe the world will be a safer place when globally all factions have nuclear weapons?

This is noting but hyperbole. Allowing people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms and defend their lives with handguns is hardly apt for comparison to nuclear weapons.

The heart of Mr. Wiedenhoeft’s argument is that Wisconsin’s new concealed carry law it makes him uncomfortable. He gives a few anecdotal, emotionally charged, arguments but does not back them up with any real data. That’s fine, he has the right to feel uncomfortable and he has the right to voice his opposition to the new law.

That said, Mr. Wiedenhoeft seems to think that one’s comfort level should dictate whether people are allowed to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights. For very good reasons, it just doesn’t work that way.