Ideas for a persuasive essay on concealed handgun licensing

[Scout7507]

Hello everyone! I have been lurking on this site for about two years now and I have learned a lot of valuable information. I recently went back to school to complete my degree and would like everyone's input on a persuasive essay that I am completing on concealed handgun licensing in Texas. Here is the basic outline I just wanted to pick everyone's brains to see if there are any other topics that I could or should include... Any input will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your time and advice!

The licensing of qualified applicants to carry concealed handguns is essential to ensuring personal safety in today's society.

I. If concealed carry had been allowed on the Virginia Tech campus, the possibility exists that fewer innocent lives would have been lost.

A. Would concealed handguns cause uneasiness and distraction on college campuses?

B. Fred Thompson’s comments on Virginia Tech and concealed carry.

C. In my two years of carrying a handgun, I have yet to be able to pick out someone who is also carrying.

It is possible that the loss of innocent lives could have been adverted if concealed carry had been allowed on the Virginia Tech campus. Students who tried to fight back that day were grossly “outgunned� in their attempts to save themselves and their fellow students. Instead of being able to confront a threat to their safety, students were forced to run and hide in the wake of a malicious person set on killing many.

II. “No carry� zones open up areas to criminals looking for safe victims.

A. What are the places where CHL holders cannot carry their handguns?

B. Is there anything a citizen can do to protect themselves in a “no carry� zone?

C. What stops criminals from carrying a handgun at these places?

By limiting the areas where law abiding citizens can carry their handguns for protection we are inviting criminals into an environment that is easy pickings for whatever they desire. These areas are a playground for criminals who know that they will not be facing someone with the ability to defend themselves.

III. Concealed carry did not result in widespread violence on the streets of the United States.

A. I personally did not go out looking for a reason to use my handgun.

B. Some lawmakers changed their outlook on concealed carry.

C. Crime rates have decreased or remained static even in areas where population has grown.

The paranoia surrounding concealed carry in the United States was unwarranted and centered more on perception than fact. This blatant ignorance of fact stood in the way of decent citizens who only wanted to protect themselves and their families.

IV. The recipients of concealed handgun licenses are upstanding citizens who do not have criminal records.

A. What are the usual requirements for obtaining a CHL license?

B. How do criminals obtain handguns?

C. How thorough is the NICS system utilized by the FBI for background checks?

CHL holders really are some of the most law abiding citizens that you will come across. They come from many walks of life; however they have all shown respect of the law in their clear criminal records.
V. Is there really a need to carry a firearm?

A. The thoughts I obtained from law enforcement.

B. Responsibilities to think about before you carry.

C. What if I have to use my handgun in self defense?

Citizens must be able to protect themselves in situations where a police officer is not present. A criminal will not wait for you to call 911 before accosting you.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think you have listed most of the major relevant points already.

To me, the most significant point is that criminals will carry guns anyway. So all banning carry will accomplish is to make the law-abiding leave their guns at home. This results in an unfavorable shift in the balance of power between criminals and the law-abiding.

And the argument that letting the law-abiding carry guns will result in more violence simply because people who have guns handy are more apt to use them can be shown to be false by citing the experience of the now 40 states that allow shall issue concealed carry. Crime rates for license holders are invariably much lower than the general population. And violent crime rates for this group are virtually zero.

This is not mere conjecture or wishful thinking. It can easily be documented as fact by citing original sources such as the Texas DPS data (available on their website) and similar data compiled by other states.

Good luck with the paper!

[dukalmighty]

police officers are usually the last ones at a crime scene,so for people that think the police are our defense against crime a 911 call response can take anywhere from 5 to 15 min in town and even longer in rural areas.good paper though if it opens one closed mind it's worth it

[ELB]

Some thoughts:

The commission that reviewed the Virginia Tech incident claimed they were unaware of any example of a gun being used to protect againt a madman/massacre, but this of course is not true.

In the Appalachian law school case, one of the good guys retrieved a gun and confronted the bad guy, who immediately gave up. Someone has documented that only about four out of a couple or three hundred news stories bothered to report this --- most just referred to some people "subduing" the bad guy.

There was one at a high school in the south (Mississippi) where the vice principle ran out to this car and retrieved a gun with which he stopped a potential rampage.

I don't have citations at my finger tips, but will think about it awhile and post here when/if I come up with them.

I think the key argument for me is that a) bad guys do not obey anti-gun rules; antigun rules are only for (actually against) law-abiding citizens... b) the police have absolutely no duty to protect you against anything (and a large part of their business involves cleaning up the mess AFTER you've been assaulted), and c) worries about armed citizens hurting innocents either accidently or on purpose are far overblown. Ergo concealed carry is an excellent public policy where the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

Oh, one more bit of data you may find useful: The rate at which people are injured as a result of a robbery or assault declines radically with the effort people use to defend themselves. In other words, you are much more likely to be hurt if you do not try to defend yourself than if you do even simple things like scream or run. Unsurprisingly, the lowest rate at which people are injured occurs when people use a gun to defend themselves. You can go check this out here:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/other/NCVS.html


You may also find useful the following study by John Lott and William Landes: Multiple Victim Public Shootings. It specifically addresses the effect of concealed carry laws on mass shootings. You can find it at the Social Science Research Network web page http://www.ssrn.com, specifically at this link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... N=45218462

Abstract:

Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." The criminals who commit these crimes are also fairly unusual, recent evidence suggests that about half of these criminals have received a "formal diagnosis of mental illness, often schizophrenia." Yet, economists have not studied multiple victim shootings. Using data that extends until 1999 and includes the recent public school shootings, our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates and these attacks lead to new calls from more gun control, our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity.

Good luck!
elb

[ELB]

Here's some references to the school shootings that were stopped by good guys with guns:

Appalachian law school incident:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/11-17-03.html

Pearl High School, Mississippi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Woodham

Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but I suspect you can use the wiki article to go to other sources.

elb

[ELB]

One more: St James Church Massacre, South Africa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_massacre

elb

[soccerguy59]

Also include the Supreme Court has ruled several times that LE are not responsible for your safety, only you are responsible for your personal protection. I don't know the cases but this would be something to include.

[lrb111]

The deterrence factor is something that is very difficult to quantify even though we know it is strong.

At one time the DPS listed number of license holders by county. A few days ago I saw a a listing of LEOs by county on some news website, but I can't find it now.

But none the less, a few years ago it was possible to look up numbers of license holders for example in Ward county. There are probably a dozen to 15 sworn peace officers there. But, there were several hundred CHLs. It is like that all over the state. LEOs seem to run at about 10 percent of the LEGAL carrying population, in my best guess.

Now, how is that any kind of deterrence? Since, it is concealed, and probably 75% of the population couldn't care less.
It is a deterrence because, gangsters, thieves, and other criminals that are affected by this, ARE aware. Their success, and survival can hinge on it.

The same as asking "How many folks know how many overhead cameras are in a typical Wal-Mart?"
The answer is "How many folks are going to try to steal from Wal-Mart?"

Those that plan crimes against persons, need to at least be aware of the possibility of a prospective victim being armed.

The bulk of the population may think that we with CHLs are paranoid, but I will bet we are not near as paranoid as our counter-parts on the other side of the law. They have to fear each other, and us.

[Scout7507]

Thank you all very much for your input and suggestions. I really appreciate all of you taking the time to provide some suggestions and ideas. I have two weeks to go before the paper is due, I will let everyone know how I do!!!

Once again, thanks!

[ELB]

Also include the Supreme Court has ruled several times that LE are not responsible for your safety, only you are responsible for your personal protection. I don't know the cases but this would be something to include.

For Scout, or anyone else, interested in this particular angle, here is a list of court decisions absolving state and federal governments of liability for failing to protect individual citizens. David Kopel cited these in a paper he co-wrote. You can see his paper at: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Prot ... _Abuse.htm .

His list of cases:

• See, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal Constitutional requirement that police provide protection);
  Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (Ala. 1985);
  Cal. Govt. Code §§ 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection) and 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody);
  Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal. Rptr. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982);
  Stone v. State 106 Cal. App.3d 924, 165 Cal. Rptr. 339 (1980);
  Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. App. 1983);
  Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981);
  Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977);
  Ill. Rev. Stat. 4-102; Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968);
  Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App.3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977);
  Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.);
  Silver v. Minneapolis 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969);
  N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 59:2-1, 59:5-4 (1972);
  Wuetrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930, cert. denied, 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978), aff'g 134 N.J. Super. 400, 341 A.2d 365 (N.J. Super. Ct., Law Div., 1975);
  Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981);
  Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Commw. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984).
  The law in New York remains as decided by the Court of Appeals the 1959 case Riss v. New York: the government is not liable even for a grossly negligent failure to protect a crime victim. In the Riss case, a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
  Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to beg for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
  
  Dennis Hevesi, New York is not Liable for Murders, N.Y. Times, July 10, 1987. (I believe this one addresses lack of liability of government to citizens murdered/injured by criminals on parole or early release. elb).

I don't see the recent more recent Castle Rock vs Gonzales case on that list; you can read about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... ref=slogin

An explanation of the infamous Warren vs DC can be found here:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html

Another write-up, with citations, on the no-duty-to-protect, is
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasle ... ction.html

One from Vermont:

burlingtonfreepress.com

High court upholds dismissal of suit against police in abuse case

By David Gram
The Associated Press

August 31, 2007
MONTPELIER -- A state trooper had no special duty to arrest a man who had sexually assaulted and battered his former girlfriend and continued to do so after the trooper left, the state's highest court has ruled.

Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police, and Sarah Kenney, public policy coordinator with the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the case points to the fact that whether to arrest an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence is often a tough call for police who are responding.

Trooper Maurice Lamothe of the St. Albans barracks, responding to a domestic violence call on Nov. 18, 2002, saw marks on the victim's face but did not arrest the man later convicted of battering and sexually assaulting her, despite what Baker described Thursday as a "pro-arrest policy" in the state police manual.

Also contrary to the manual, the court said, the trooper interviewed the woman about the case within the perpetrator's earshot.

After Lamothe, who Baker said is still a trooper in St. Albans, left the scene, the man beat and sexually assaulted the woman again; he did both things again after breaking into her apartment early the next day, the court said.

The court's decision said the man was arrested a week later. He was later convicted of sexual assault and domestic assault and is serving a 20-to-45-year sentence. The court did not identify the man; the woman's lawyer, Kurt Hughes, identified him as Stephen Desautels. The state Corrections Department's online offender locator lists a Stephen Desautels, 47, serving time at the Lee Adjustment Center in Beattyville, Ky., where Vermont houses inmates.

The court did name the victim; she was the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Associated Press does not identify the victims of sexual violence.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Brian Burgess, the court said there is a high bar for someone suing the state, because it is protected by a legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity."

The victim would have had to show gross negligence on the part of the trooper, Burgess wrote, and his failure to foresee and prevent further violence did not rise to that level.

"Ordinarily, the duty owed between strangers does not extend to controlling the conduct of third persons to prevent physical harm," he wrote. And while Vermont law calls on police officers to protect public safety, "the statutes create no special relationship between crime victims and law enforcement personnel."

Baker said domestic violence is a high priority for the state police because so many homicides result from it, but he said it is not always possible for a trooper to make an arrest at such a scene, or to interview the victim outside the perpetrator's earshot.

While saying he could not comment on the specific case, Baker said, "Sometimes the victims are not cooperative with us. ... The whole idea is to get them separated but sometimes that is easier said than done."

Kenney said she, too, could not second-guess the trooper's actions. "I don't know the facts of the case well enough to say that" he acted inappropriately, she said.

"In terms of the police response, we don't have mandatory arrest laws or policies in Vermont," Kenney said. "We do have pro-arrest policies, but they allow law enforcement officers some discretion at the scene of a domestic violence incident. And that affords an opportunity for increased safety for victims."

A quick arrest can sometimes result in a perpetrator's being released the next day on bail or conditions, Kenney said, "and potentially be even angrier."

On a different note, here is a CDC study that basically concluded that there is no evidence that any gun control law reduces crime. Of course they include "shall issue laws" and claim that the only broad-based study on that is defective (a shot at John Lott), but I think that is probably just a bone they felt the had to throw to the left to keep their liberal credentials from being revoked.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm


Scout7507, at this point this is probably far more than you need, but it was helpful to me to round up some citations I knew about but has squirreled away in various folders and bookmarks. If you like writing about 2A issues, I suggest you begin amassing a set of references yourself, so it's easier to get started on your next paper. With that in mind, you should certainly have these websites, among many others, bookmarked:

http://www.davekopel.com/
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
http://armsandthelaw.com/ (Dave Hardy)
http://www.guncite.com/2ndlawlib.html
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm (Professor Volokh's "Sources on the Second Amendment.")

Good luck!

elb