Owing the Public an Explanation

by | Apr 24, 2015 | Gun Control, Issues, NC Politics, NCGA | 13 comments

Arthur R. (Art) Kamm, PhD has had a diverse career in cancer research, pharmaceutical product development, founder and CEO of a North Carolina corporation, and adjunct professor. Since leaving his corporate and academic pursuits he has turned to producing evidenced-based articles on various social/political issues. His work on gun violence has been disseminated by multiple advocacy groups and he has served as guest columnist for the Los Angeles-based Women Against Gun Violence. His work can be found at www.artonissues.com. Follow him on twitter @artonissues.

In the coming weeks, North Carolina lawmakers are set to consider several measures that would further expand the right to carry concealed handguns into multiple public venues. HB 562, Amend Firearm Laws, sponsored by Representatives Jacqueline Schaffer, Justin P. Burr, George Cleveland, and John Faircloth, would lift the ban on guns at the North Carolina State Fair. The measure would also change laws related to handguns on school properties, and allow DA’s with concealed carry permits to bring guns inside of courtrooms. Additionally SB 708, The Homeland Security Patriot Act, sponsored by Senators Jeff Tarte and Ronald J. Rabin, would establish a “homeland security unrestricted concealed handgun permit,” which would allow concealed carry permit holders with enhanced training to carry concealed weapons into venues where guns are clearly prohibited.

However, before even considering these new pieces of legislation, there is one undeniable, indisputable fact that should be of concern to North Carolina lawmakers. Regardless of the many purported, and largely unsubstantiated, claims of public benefit and permit holder rights, the concealed carry population itself increases the risk of serious injury and death to our citizens. The many hundreds of non-self-defense shootings attributed to permit holders across the country in recent years are overwhelmingly the willful act to end another’s life. Furthermore, the full extent of this risk is unknown as many states, including North Carolina, have restricted access to permit holder databases, thus bowing to the gun lobby’s efforts to obstruct research.

Since May of 2007, the Violence Policy Center, a Washington, D.C. based research organization, has identified 550 incidents in 36 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in 732 deaths attributed to concealed carry (CCW) permit holders in non-self-defense shootings (two within a week of each other here in NC just this past February). Included are at least 29 mass shootings (two in NC, one recently in Chapel Hill), 46 murder-suicides (two in NC, one recently in Wilmington), and the killing of 17 law enforcement officers. As the information is limited to what has been found in news media reports and subsequent legal proceedings, the organization holds that the actual number of fatal incidents is almost certainly far higher; as recently pointed out by the New York Times editorial board in a piece entitled “Concealed Carry’s Body Count,” the information does not include all 50 states.

Unless one wishes to take the stance that hundreds of news media reports across the country have it all wrong, the CCW population itself poses risk to the public.  However, substantiating the many claims of public benefits has remained elusive at best.

In October of last year, F. Paul Valone, the president of Grass Roots NC, a ‘gun rights’ advocacy group that is actively involved legislatively, published opinion that, due to “extensive training” and certifications, concealed carry at the NC State Fair would represent a resource to the public, not a hazard. What was omitted, and surprisingly as it is highlighted in red as a key accomplishment on the organization’s website, is that NC holds reciprocity with 37 states; i.e., they honor each other’s CCW permits. Certification requirements vary considerably between these states. For example, Virginia residents can obtain a CCW permit without having to demonstrate live fire proficiency with, or even handle, a firearm. North Carolina residents, and residents of some other states that honor the Virginia permit, have applied for it through the non-residents program, thus bypassing tougher requirements in their home states, such as firing a gun with an instructor. As yet another example, in Florida, investigative reporting uncovered a CCW instructor who has qualified thousands of permit holders, some older novices, following a two-hour seminar in his home and the firing of one blank round at a paper target in his garage. When NC lawmakers permitted concealed carry onto playgrounds, greenways, educational properties, establishments serving alcoholic beverages, and more, they opened the door to all holding recognized permits in this state, regardless of residence and firearms training documentation.  Being a certified instructor, Mr. Valone should explain his position that, based on ‘extensive training’, CCW at the state fair is a resource when in fact there is no way to ascertain the level of firearms training that a permit holder may or may not have.

It has been held that permit holders protect the public. However, a recently issued report by the FBI cataloged 160 mass shootings between 2000 and 2013 that resulted in 1,043 casualties (486 killed, 557 wounded). In only one instance did a private citizen with a firearms permit participate in the resolution. Yet news media reports since 2007 have identified at least 29 mass shootings where a permit holder was the perpetrator, including one recently in Chapel Hill that claimed the lives of three Muslim students.

There is the claim that concealed carry and stand-your-ground (SYG) laws result in a reduction of crime. The August 2014 American Bar Association National Task Force report on SYG laws recommended that legislatures should not enact such laws because empirical evidence shows that states with statutory SYG laws have not decreased theft, burglary, or assault crimes. The report further concluded that SYG laws “are a solution searching for a problem,” and are associated with increased homicide rates and reinforce racial bias.

There is a fear that shooters target “gun-free zones.” According to Representative Burr in a recent WNCN article, “Places where guns are banned are some of the most violent places in America. And the places where guns are permitted are some of the safest.” While he offers no evidence in support of this claim, a study of 62 mass shootings shows that not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. The shooters were driven by other factors, e.g., workplace animosity, animosity towards school, etc. Additionally, it doesn’t make sense that many of these shooters would seek a safe place to attack when in over half of these events the shooters took their own life at or near the crime scene.

Regarding enhanced training permit holders, such laws have been enacted in other states, and even a cursory search reveals instances where such permit holders have had their firearms discharge in public settings, such as during a church service in Mississippi and a chemistry lab at Idaho State University where the permit holder, a professor, was injured. The Idaho legislature passed the law earlier that same year despite objections from university officials and records dating back to 1997 showing no other report of an accidental shooting on campus.

Further, it has not been established that concealed carry is a constitutionally protected right. This was clear in Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s writing for the majority in the oft-cited District of Columbia v. Heller decision, as well as cases such as Peterson v. Garcia, where the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit unanimously held that “the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.”

A primary function of government is to protect the life of its citizens. Last year, two separate committees, comprised of legal and academic scholars in the field of human rights, evaluated our country’s progress under two international treaties ratified by our government, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention to End all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). This author participated in the ICERD review in Geneva, Switzerland last August. Both committees stated concerns about the high number of gun-related deaths and injuries in our country, which disproportionately affect women, children, and racial/ethnic minorities, as well as the proliferation of SYG laws, which “are used to circumvent the limits of legitimate self-defense in violation of the State party’s duty to protect life.”

With the risk of concealed carry to the public having been established (if not underestimated), with no substantive offsetting public benefit having been agreed, with concealed carry not being a constitutionally protected right, and in light of the duty to protect their citizenry, lawmakers in North Carolina, and other states, owe the public an explanation. Our legislators need to make clear their rationale for even considering expanding concealed carry laws.

The public they were elected to serve deserves no less.

13 Comments

  1. Linda

    For what it’s worth, here’s the Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 30, of the North Carolina State Constitution:

    Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

  2. Lee Mortimer

    People, you’re going in much too long in your comments. Nobody is going to read all that. Make your points succinctly. Mine are that guns and cars cannot be logically compared. Cars fulfill a non-lethal function, but of course, have to be regulated for safety. As a purely lethal instrument, guns should be regulated, not only for safety, but also for whether they help society — as cars certainly do when operated properly. And the starting point for that is to look at what other societies have done with gun regulation and compare the results with the proliferation and easy access to guns in our country.

  3. Troy

    And I certainly understand your reticence since the conversation can rapidly devolve and go completely off topic.

    However, my underlying premise was this. Automobile collisions are by in large, unintentional events. 90% are usually related to operator error, but that is ordinary negligence. Rarely does the action or omission of action rise to the level of gross negligence even though criminal and/or civil sanction can be applied, based on the facts. That isn’t true with firearms related deaths. That constitutes a deliberate act. Rare is the instance where a firearm related fatality is purely ‘accidental’. In that regard, if you want to reduce firearms related fatalties, address the behavior, not the implement. The offense of DWI doesn’t address the implement, but the driver. It also ignores the construct the particular society itself. It’s popular to compare Europe the US and ask why on this and other issues. Despite that fact that many of us are of Northern European decent, that’s not true across the spectrum. We are a different nation, a different society. We are in our infancy while Europe and other cultures and many centuries older. Some would say a more refined society, but I prefer a more mature society.

    I do agree. Sensationalism attaches itself to those acts that shock the conscience. It likewise brings that subsequent knee jerk outcry and response. A play on emotion and not fact. Addressing the mental health issue is not a panacea. But it is a step in the right direction that has been largely ignored.

    I likewise concur about the concealed carry conundrum; it isn’t a right. Firearms ownership is however. North Carolina honors the Virginia permit because Virginia honors ours. Frankly, I don’t see how Virginia can issue a concealed carry permit to someone who does not fall under their territorial jurisdiction and control; in other words, a resident of that state. A Federal concealed carry permit would take care of this issue by making the law uniform. But that takes away from ‘States’ rights’ and we all know how that plays in this debate.

  4. Art Kamm

    Regarding cars changing since Truman, that’s the point. What is impressive is that today’s fatalities have dropped to the level seen in 1949 when (and I’m doing this from memory) traffic on our roads was far less that what it is today (as I recall perhaps around 2%). We worked at improving motor vehicle safety to reduce fatalities, e.g., seat belts, air bags, anti-lock braking systems, etc and it continues – and it has been highly successful.

    I’ve done a bit of work on the gun v motor vehicle issue. When data are normalized to control for factors such as size of the population and economy, we can examine the rate of firearm homicides and traffic-related deaths in America versus peer countries. In cases where comparisons can be made, there is typically a marked difference. Some examples follow. In America the per capita adjusted rate of traffic-related fatalities is 2.73 times that of Germany, but our rate of firearm homicide is 7.71 times that of Germany. The rate of traffic-related fatalities in America is 1.6 times that of Australia, but our rate of firearm homicide is 11.71 times that of Australia. America’s per capita adjusted rate of traffic-related fatalities is 1.78 times that of Spain, but the rate of firearm homicide in America is 14.66 times that of Spain. That “state of mind’ certainly appears to be occurring more frequently with firearms than automobiles in our country. The reason is in the intended use of the products – one is for transportation and the deaths are largely accidental (and we have worked to improve that); the other’s intended use is to end life and the deaths are overwhelmingly not accidental, but intentional acts – and firearms are quite efficient in ending life based on the high rate of suicide completion with guns. No matter how the data are examined, comparisons to motor vehicles, gross numbers of fatalities, adjusted homicide rates, child fatalities, racial/ethnic minorities (my work last summer at the UN), we experience a grossly disproportionate loss of life to a firearms in this country. Both human rights committees in Geneva held last year (and I agree), our government is failing in its fundamental duty to protect life.

    Regarding having to hit the target 70% of the time to obtain a CCW permit, you are referencing the North Carolina permit. Reciprocity changes all of that as explained in the article. There is no mandatory live fire requirement to obtain the permit in VA, and yet we honor that permit in this state. NC residents can and have applied for that permit, honored here, through the VA non-residents program thus by-passing the NC live fire proficiency requirement. And there are other examples as well. Fact is, we have permit holders in this state, both residents and not, who are carrying without any documentation of live fire proficiency. Perhaps there are some exceptions(?), but obtaining a driver’s license includes demonstrating proficiency behind the wheel in a road test in the presence of a law enforcement officer (certainly in this state which also includes learners permits where training occurs in the presence of supervision).

    Regarding the mental health issues, I believe just the rate comparisons between traffic-related and firearm homicides make clear the inadequacy of that approach versus the scope of the problem. Yes, we should be taking steps to keep firearms out of the hands of those with a documented history of violence (health-related or not), but it isn’t the solution to the problem. The mental health issues have largely arisen from mass shooting incidents, such as Aurora CO, Tucson AZ, Sandy Hook Elementary, and others that draw much media and public attention – but such incidents account for a small fraction of the lives lost to gunfire in this country.

    I usually don’t reply to comments on articles I have published because the discussion tends to get away from the point of the article. This point of this one involves the continued expansion of concealed carry into multiple public venues. The question posed is that in knowing the established risks to the public, the unsubstantiated claims of public (and individual) benefit, and with CCW not being a constitutionally protected right, on what basis is our legislature expanding public expose to concealed handguns.

  5. Art Kamm

    I have been following the above conversation between Whitby and Disgusted and wish to elaborate on some of the points. First, despite ownership and product use being heavily weighted to automobiles, total gunfire deaths now outnumber total motor vehicle fatalities in 17 states and the District of Columbia. http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars15.pdf http://thehill.com/regulation/238134-gun-deaths-outnumbered-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-17-states-report-says. The overall number of gun-related deaths and motor vewhicle-related fatalities are now in close proximity to one another on a national level. Additionally, traffic deaths in the US have recently dropped to the lowest level since the Truman administration (1949) – this being largely attributed to technological advances in both motor vehicles and roads, as well as cracking down on drunken driving. Yet technological interventions to improve the safety of firearms have been resisted by gun rights advocates http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/03/proponents-smart-guns-nra-obstacle/13551659/

    Regarding testing and training for motor vehicle and CCW permits, it has been reported in recent years that NC is experiencing an increase in applications for the Virginia non-resident permit. This permit, honored in NC, can be obtained by completing an online safety questionnaire with the rest being transacted through the mail http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/online-classes-make-it-easy-for-non-virginia-gun-owners-to-get-permits/ The requirements for obtaining a motor vehicle license in NC are far more stringent.

    Regarding the ability to defend oneself, in recent years death by gunfire has surpassed traffic deaths as the leading cause of death on the job amongst law enforcement. In a DOJ analysis, in 73% of the cases where officers lost their lives to gunfire, they could not defend themselves due to the element of surprise – this despite being armed, wearing protective gear, and extensive training. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-21/police-officer-ambush-deaths/52147034/1. I’m not the first to point this out, but if carrying a gun is supposed to be a deterrent to assault, what’s the purpose of carrying concealed? All that would seem to do is to increase the opportunity for a violent stand-off that in turn increases risk to the permit holder.

    During my days in cancer research, I was witness to the wars with Big Tobacco and this is, in the words of Yogi Berra, deja vu all over again. Despite overwhelming evidence of public harm, there were the consistent denials, reliance on minor studies, refuting more substantive studies, and the pressuring of lawmakers to prevent intervention. In the end Tobacco lost big with lawsuits and multiple regulatory interventions. The difference between tobacco and guns is that nothing can really be done to improve the health risks of tobacco. However, steps can be taken to reduce the risk to gun violence. I would think that in the long-run, gun rights advocates would better position themselves n the long run by seeking reasonable interventions rather than taking a hardline stand opposing any intervention at all.

    • Troy

      That is true. But cars have changed drastically since the Truman Administration with regard to construction, materials, safety devices and requirements, and other factors external to the singular premise “Gun deaths outnumber motor vehicle deaths.” And that number is misleading as well as the statement. The word ‘deaths’ include all forms of death resulting from firearms use; homicidal, suicidal, accidental. Of course, a death is a death, but the state of mind behind the act is determinate of the kind of act; not just the fact that a firearm was used.

      With regard to obtaining a license in North Carolina. If you are 18, you simply have to show up at the driver’s license office, take the written test, sign test, and eye test, then pass the road test and you have a license. Now, those rules differ for younger ages and the issuance of a license is likewise prefaced on several other factors other than driving alone. To obtain the concealed carry permit, you have to take the class, you have to pass the test, you have to prove competency that you can shoot the weapon and successfully hit the target at least 70% of the time. No, it isn’t that hard but it isn’t that easy either. Also, you can buy a car if you have the money and that’s pretty much all you need. That isn’t true with a firearm. And yes, I’m saying that as a fact when both are purchased from a dealer and not an individual.

      Indeed, law enforcement officers die as a result of the felonious use of those weapons. The persons who use them in such a manner have a specific purpose and intent in mind; maim or kill that officer, hence the surreptitious nature of the assault. But that kind of attack also speaks to the state of mind of the actor; something totally ignored in this conversation and it should have been one of the predominant factors discussed.

      ‘State of Mind’ is of singular importance. Combined with the other facts of the case, the state of mind of the perpetrator is crucial in the determination of the act being a crime. In the mid-90’s, North Carolina along with many other states began switching to community based treatments for those with mental illnesses. That was supposed to be better for the patient, the community, and society as a whole. And I’m not arguing that part since if it helps the person, then fine. However, there is no screening process to prevent these people from obtaining weapons; lawfully or unlawfully. The fact you have psychological or emotional control issues isn’t included in a database accessible to anyone that sells firearms or issues concealed carry permits. You are required to self-report to purchase a firearm or obtain a concealed carry permit. Some sheriffs require a record check from the local mental health department, but not every sheriff and that is a valid means only if you happened to go through mental health to obtain treatment. I wonder how many purchase weapons that would be denied them if they otherwise told the truth? So that state of mind of the person is something that rarely comes to the fore of this debate.

      Where I differentiate in this debate is, cars and firearms are dangerous, depending on how each is used. There are millions of each under individual control. Both are inanimate objects. Both arguably depending on your particular point of view to a greater or lesser extent, were made to assist and be of benefit to man. Both will eventually dissolve into iron oxide if they are left alone without human interaction. Both will maim or kill. But it’s that state of mind that matters. It’s the persons’ condition mentally, emotionally, that more often than not turns thought into deed. The numbers being stated in the statistical analysis don’t tell us the emotional state or mental condition of the actor; but they could. The addition of a database and the mandatory reporting by health professionals could help bring firearms violence under better control, more so that additional gun laws. Does that mean that all people with a psychological or emotional disorder are dangerous? No, it doesn’t. But it removes that variable from the equation. Yes, I stand to be proven wrong, but I can point to all the firearms laws that have been passed in the all jurisdictions and then ask what has gone wrong, since with more laws on the books to make us safer, the reality seems to be inverse to the intent.

      I’m not a member of the NRA. I’m not a member of any gun control organization. Both misrepresent facts in order to garner support. In the telling of any tale, what isn’t said is just as and sometimes more important than what is. That is why I discount statistics from media outlets and 401(c)(3) organizations that have a specific or singular purpose in their existence and name. I am a retired police officer however. I do own firearms.

      You may very well be proven right about compromise Dr. Kamm. But let me say this in conclusion. Right now, only one side of this issue is being asked to compromise. Every time the topic of gun control makes the news cycle, gun sales soar. Gun control advocates are one of the best sales generators to the firearms industry in this nation. If someone is intent on hurting or killing someone, a firearm isn’t necessary. It makes it convenient certainly, but it isn’t necessary. I need only point to Boston and the trial that just finished there to illustrate that point and to Colorado where a trial is just now starting to quantify my remarks about psychological screening. To focus solely on the object and not the person is ignoring the fact that the person moreso than the firearm is responsible.

    • Arthur Dent

      Every argument you make, every citation you suggest, are excellent “reasons” for North Carolina – and for the United States – to be careful about concealed carry laws and about laws that make unfettered purchase of guns a simple thing that anyone can do. Unfortunately, reason is not behind the increase in gun ownership and in the desire to carry concealed weapons. Fear is the primary motivator, along with egotistical notions of knowing that “they” (the concealed carrier) will always shoot straight and always hit only criminals. As you have said, what they will do instead is kill people they know (murder-suicides, fellow workers, ex-girlfriends or wives, children, relatives), kill themselves, or kill law enforcement personnel trying to keep their self-centered crusades from causing more harm.

      There is a fetishism, a magical totemistic belief system, to their notion that owning numerous guns makes them safer and more powerful than all of the imaginary criminals who are coming to get them. Guns take the place of decent focal points in their lives, like caring for the family, their community, their fellow workers. If they have one more gun and can carry it everywhere, they think, they have donned an amulet against “evil, one that will help them when what they fear most comes for them.

      It is easy enough to understand the guns that my father owned; he went hunting as an adolescent in the wilderness of southeastern Washington state in the early part of last century. When he didn’t need them anymore, he turned them in for destruction. It is easy to understand guns held by law officers, particularly as the number of guns in the communities they serve goes up exponentially. But it is not easy to understand why a john doe citizen needs an arsenal and needs to carry some portion of that arsenal with them. It gives them a vast advantage to decide the fate of anyone they do not agree with or like, particularly if those people dare disagree with them on matters of gun ownership, religion, civil rights, or politics. The NRA, Fox News, right wing talk radio, and thousands of irrationally frightened citizens huddling in their houses with their arsenals make this country unsafe for the millions of us who still choose to pursue lives without guns.

  6. Robert Whitby

    Yes Mr. Disgusted every permit holder goes thru as much or more training in the safe handling of a firearm then any driver training. If you had a CCW you would know that. Please read my above post

    • Robert Whitby

      Also I feel I have a better idea for the insurance. Let those who don’t approve of concealed carry insure everyone in case of injury. Because of not being able to defend ones self.

  7. Lee Mortimer

    We need to move away from — not toward — more guns and easier access to guns. It should be quite apparent from other advanced, developed nations with reasonable gun control, that there is considerably less violent crime and death resulting from violence. Some gun advocates have tried to cite faulty data to claim that violent crime is actually higher in western Europe, and particularly the United Kingdom, than in the U.S. This data has been shown to be misleading because crimes that might be classified as “serious” or “violent” in many of those countries are often classified as less serious or even petty crime in the U.S. Thus, the real overall murder rate in the U.S. is five times higher than in the U.K., and deaths from firearms is 32 times higher. If our state legislature pushes through loosened gun restrictions, it won’t be the public demanding more permissive gun laws. It will be thanks to undeserved, veto-proof majorities from gerrymandering.

    • Robert Whitby

      I wonder why everyone is jumping for more restrictions on Guns? And are doing nothing to curb the tide of Road Rage on our high ways? Automobiles always have been and always will be the number one cause of death and injury in this country. It absolutely baffles me no one says a word about that. Anyone that can pay the fee for a license answer a few questions and point the automobile in a given direction is allowed to propel a 3000lbs missile putting hundreds and thousands at risk with there irresponsible reckless driving. No body says a word they just want to pick on something they don’t care for, a gun. They are not going to say anything about a car that might cause them to lose or be restricted from something they want. If you really care about safety start with the number one problem the automobile. If you just want to have your spoiled immature selfish way then stick to complaining about guns.

  8. Nortley

    They answer only to the gun lobby and instituted their gerrymandering to protect themselves against us mere mortals.

  9. jafo4today

    Arthur R. (Art) Kamm has an impressive resume, but has he ever had to pull security? Also, “It has been held that permit holders protect the public. However, a recently issued report by the FBI cataloged 160 mass shootings between 2000 and 2013 that resulted in 1,043 casualties (486 killed, 557 wounded). In only one instance did a private citizen with a firearms permit participate in the resolution” This lacks location data. Where they in Gun free zone’s or not.
    This dosen’t support the claim. While there is some basic psychology here, the fact that the target is soft is a huge determination when someone targets something. “There is a fear that shooters target “gun-free zones.” According to Representative Burr in a recent WNCN article, “Places where guns are banned are some of the most violent places in America. And the places where guns are permitted are some of the safest.” While he offers no evidence in support of this claim, a study of 62 mass shootings shows that not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. The shooters were driven by other factors, e.g., workplace animosity, animosity towards school, etc. Additionally, it doesn’t make sense that many of these shooters would seek a safe place to attack when in over half of these events the shooters took their own life at or near the crime scene.”
    I’m kind of surprised that the people of choice continue to remove/limit a Constitutional amendment.
    “A primary function of government is to protect the life of its citizens.” and yet all the rage in current news is police violence. The very people selected by society’s executive branches and how are you protected?
    They are serving the public by allowing them to exercise their Constitutional Rights and protect themselves.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!