The US Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program supported the project.  CU Professor Mark Pogrebin led the team of CU and CSU researchers, who surveyed prisoners in 2003, 2004.

We should keep in mind that 73 individuals constitute an extremely small sample size, totaling about four percent of the subjects of the landmark prison study done by Professors Wright and Rossi.  (See my post under the Category: “Research.”)

The Colorado study group may have been an available sample rather than a random sample, but we will have to wait for the book in July to look at their selection process.

Given these potential limitations, we can consider the self-reports of the prisoners to be representative to some degree of the Colorado population of convicted felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime.  (We should keep in mind that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.)

It will be instructive to find out if the book goes into other crimes committed by the research subjects.  The book does apparently touch on the role of drugs, especially Meth, in increasing violent criminal behavior.  (It is also illegal for drug addicts to possess firearms.)

According to the article, the Colorado findings suggest that “gun-control laws would have had little effect on the study subjects’ criminal behavior.”  The impressive CDC Study and the even more massive NAS Study, which indicate that there is no substantial scientific evidence that gun control laws prevent crime, support this conclusion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

Another interesting finding of the study in question is that some criminals would be deterred by liberal concealed carry laws.  Wright and Rossi found that criminals are risk averse and, in effect, do a kind of risk/benefit analysis when selecting victims.

Florida Scientist Gary Kleck found up to 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in the United States.  Economist John Lott postulates that “shall issue” concealed carry laws save lives and reduce crime.  (See David Kopel’s review of John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime, here.)

An interesting artifact of the Colorado Study is that “most inmates said that concealed weapons…” or “the perception” of concealed weapons in the hands of potential victims would lead to more violent behavior on the part of the criminals.  There are two possible problems with giving credence to this idea.

The first problem is that the criminals in the study group could have been motivated by bravado, attempting to convince the researchers (and themselves) that they were not intimidated by the idea of relatively widespread, spontaneous, armed opposition to their felonious acts.  The second, and more insidious possibility, is that the convicts knew that their responses might find their way into public policy debates on concealed weapons permits.  What better way for a career criminal to improve “business conditions” than to provide responses to researchers that might actually disarm potential victims?

Most criminals do not attack police officers in order to take their weapons.  Few criminals attempt armed robberies at gun stores or gun shows.  I personally give more weight to the much larger Wright and Rossi Study and the evidence of crime deterrence suggested by Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott.

One convict’s remark that he would shoot people he thought were carrying concealed guns should make it abundantly clear that CCW permit holders’ names must be kept private to protect them and society as a whole.  Another implication of this individual’s attitude is that we should incarcerate dangerous felons for as long as possible to keep them from committing future criminal acts.

According to the Post article, this small Colorado study seems to agree with much of the research supporting the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of American Citizens to self-defense against crime.  Defense against tyranny and genocide appear to be beyond the scope of the study.  It will be interesting to check out the book.

Def Mech

While it may be true that Heller  makes American women nervous about Roe v. Wade, I would submit that had the decision gone the other way, the outcome could have been either heavenly or catastrophic for the Republican Party.  If around 80,000,000 U.S. gun owners, including many women, had been demeaned and marginalized by a finding of no individual right in the Heller decision, it might have energized them into a hammer that would have politically smashed the Democrat Party into pieces for years.

A decision against the “Standard Model” could have as easily so demoralized and angered the “Community of Honest People Who Own Guns,” that they would defect en masse to a third party candidate, dooming the GOP to second class status for decades.  As it stands, as flawed as John McCain is on the issue of the individual right of self-defense against crime and tyranny, he remains head and shoulders above Barack Obama, who has said that he wants to ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

As for Mr. Morris’s “schizophrenia” about gun control saving lives and reducing homicides, let us again summarize the scientific evidence.  Three powerful anti-gun rights research organizations affiliated in two cases with the U.S. Government and in one Case with the U.N. have studied the findings in the field of gun control and violence.  These organizations, sometimes funded by grants from anti-gun foundations, such as the Joyce Foundation, have reviewed, assuming no duplication of effort, almost 450 studies, journal articles, books and publications.

According to these unfriendly organizations, there is no scientifically significant evidence that gun ownerhship promotes crime, or that gun laws reduce violence.  There is one indication, to be completely fair, in CDC research, that waiting periods for buying a gun may reduce the gun suicide risk among persons over 55, although it does not seem to reduce the overall suicide risk for this group.  (I don’t believe this questionable benefit justifies the 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws that we have in this country.)  (See my post, “Gun suicide article typical ‘advocacy journalism,” below on this site.) (See The National Academy of the Sciences Executive Summary on Firearms and Violence-A critical review-2004, here) (See Small Arms Survey results here.)

At its most basic level, the pro-self-defense argument runs something like this.  If a person plans to commit suicide, he or she will find a way.  Many unhappy women in the Third World kill themselves by ingesting agricultural pesticides. In “gun-free” Japan in 2006, 32,155 people killed themselves. (”4 commit suicide by inhaling fumes, rate high in Japan,” Rocky Mountain News, Denver Newspaper Agency, 04-26-08) This is roughly the same number of persons who are the annual victims of “gun” violence in the U.S., even though America has a much larger population. Suicide seems to be a particular problem among the elderly in Japan.

If a felon is intent on committing a capital crime, a misdemeanor gun law is of little deterence.  In the absence of guns, knives, clubs, broomsticks, ball bats, barstools, shoestrings, neckties, cars, and bathtubs work about as well and don’t make as much noise.  A gun used in the defensive role, up to 2 to 2.5 million times a year, according to Kleck, gives a smaller potential victim an advantage over a larger, stronger attacker.  According to Kleck, Kates and Mauser, Wright and Rossi, and Lott, the overall impact of guns in a society would seem to be positive.  See my post, “Gun suicide…,” as above.

The Left makes much of “acquaintence homicide.”  See my 06-30-08 post, “Stay safer, avoid criminal behavior and criminals,” on this site, regarding the higher incidence of homicide among persons with criminal records.  Very few people “snap.”  Most spree killers and killers in general have mental health histories that have been ignored or minimized by civil authorities and the courts.

America has 22,000 gun laws and regulations, many of which may not be affected by Heller.  These laws include the unfortunate creation of “gun-free zones” (actually upheld by Heller ) in schools and some other places.  These zones should actually be called “criminal-safe free-fire zones,” since felons benefit from the governmental disarmament of honest citizens, creating a “target rich” environment of helpless victims.

Robberies and spree killings in Northfield Minnisota, Coffeeville, Kansas, Pearl Mississippi, Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the Appalachian School of Law were all disrupted or stopped by armed citizens, some of whom were in law enforcement or had law enforcement backgrounds.

Why are there no spree killings at gun shows?  I would opine, because the life expectency of a shooter would be about one minute, even though ammuniton boxes are routinely sealed and gun actions are rendered momentarily inoperable.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s parents died in the Luby Cafeteria Massacre in Killeen, TX.  Her handgun was locked in the car in accordance with TX state law at the time.  Anti-self-defense laws had created a perfect criminal free fire zone.  She vowed, “Never again!” and worked to reform Texas law regarding concealed carry.

Gun laws don’t prevent crime and may very well enable it.  Thomas Jefferson echoed the ideas of Italian criminologist Caesare Beccaria.  “The laws that forbid the carrying arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…they” (the laws) “serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides…”

 In conclusion, Heller  affirmed the “Standard Model” of an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Guns in the hands of honest citizens prevent, rather than cause crime.  “Schizophrenia” or “hoplophobia” (fear of weapons) are unnecessary psychological burdens for a free citizen of the United States of America.  I believe Mr. Morris can rest easy in his belief that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right.

Def Mech

One interesting thing about the gun control debate is the number of honest scientists, who start out with the hypothesis that guns somehow cause crime, who actually look at and report the data. Among those mentioned in the above captioned post, we find Professor Hans Toch, Professor Brandon Centerwall, and James D. Wright.

Even Marvin E. Wolfgang, an unreconstructed hater of guns, tips his hat to the methodology of Kleck and Gertz, while admitting that he does not like the results of their research (The two offer definitive proof that guns are used much more in lawful defense than criminal attack.) Kleck, by the way, is himself a Democrat.
The Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Small Arms Survey (out of Switzerland) can not be considered advocates of an individual right to self-defense against crime and tyranny. Even these groups admit that there is no scientifically provable connection between gun ownership and violence. In fact, there often seems to be an inverse relationship. Fewer guns may mean more crime.

Thanks to Ronald Wilson of Canada for his insightful comment on the post regarding the Colorado Demcrat Platform for the 2008 election. His words about the Canadian debacle should serve as a warning to us all.

Def Mech