|
Abstract
|
Available:
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/3461
Introduction
The American society was born in a revolutionary spirit based on strict individuality and the guarantee of liberty. These fundamental principles have endured civil insurrection, world war and immense social change. Democracy and fredom remain characteristically American. But, America is also characteristically violent. America is one of the most violent countries in the free world. Americans are, at an alarmingly increasing rate, victimized by violent crime.
The nation's most comprehensive national measure of crime is the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). According to the UCR publication, Crime in the United Stares - 1991, since 1987 the number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement authorities has increased twenty-nine percent. This equates to a twenty-four percent increase in the number of reported violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. In 1991, a murder was reported to the police every twenty-one minutes, a forcible rape every five minutes, a robbery every forty-six seconds, and an aggravated assault every twenty-nine seconds. Americans have good reason to fear violent crime.
Numerous strategies have been adopted to reduce the incidence of violent crime. Traditionally, the focus has been on the treatment of the offender. Crime suppression is typically reactionary, and comparatively little attention has been given to prevention. Even less attention has been given to equipping potential victims with the skills to defend themselves against an assailant. To reduce the likelihood and/or success of violent crime victimization most states have implemented programs allowing citizens to cany a weapon. Typically, the privilege to carry a concealed weapon in public is granted through the issuance of a license or permit. Specific, often stringent, criteria must be met by the applicant for the issuance of such a license. These programs should not be confused with traditional gun control strategies designed to either: 1) reduce the availability of firearms to violent or potentially violent individuals, and/or 2) reduce the likelihood that the gun, if obtained, will be used in violent crime. Conceal carry laws are designed to provide a legal means for an individual to carry a firearm for personal protection. These laws are based on the premise that an armed potential victim is less vulnerable than an unarmed potential victim. A criminal, therefore, is less likely to attack knowing the potential victim is armed. If, however, the criminal misjudges his potential victim and attacks the probability of success is reduced and the probability of injury to the criminal is increased. The armed citizen is therefore an occupational hazard to the criminal. Research Purpose The effectiveness of conceal carry laws on the incidence and pattern of violent crime is the central theme of this applied research project. The purpose of this research is explanatory.
Two hypotheses will be tested.
Hypothesis #1 State laws allowing a citizen to obtain a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm reduce the rate of violent crime.
Hypothesis #2 State laws allowing a citizen to obtain a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm reduce the percentage of violent crimes involving firearms. While there is considerable research on traditional gun control initiatives, the literature is somewhat lacking in research on the effect of firearm conceal carry laws on violent crime.
This project is intended to supplement this limited body of knowledge. In doing so, it is hoped, that public administrators and policy makers will be better equipped with empirically based research when considering firearm conceal carry laws. Three states have been chosen to participate in this project. These states, Florida, Pennsylvania and Oregon all have recently enacted similar firearm conceal carry laws allowing citizens to cany a firearm for personal protection. A comparison of these states' firearm conceal carry laws appears in Chapter Three. Violent crime rate data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program is used to evaluate the effect of these states conceal carry laws. Violent crime includes murder or non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The violent crime rates, by state and for each crime are represented in chart and graph formats. The study uses an interrupted time series comparison model, with the effective year of each states' law as the midpoint of the evaluation period.
The experimental design described above is strengthened by using a control. A regional partner has been selected for each participant state. These regional partners do not have firearm conceal carry laws. However, in most all other criteria they are very similar to participant states. The states chosen as control states are Texas (Florida), Illinois (Pennsylvania) and Arizona (Oregon). The violent crime rates and percent of reported firearm use in each control state are also represented in chart and graph formats. While no intervention point is available for control states, the evaluation period will be the same between matching state pairs. For example, the effective date of Florida's conceal carry law is October 1, 1987. The analysis period will be 1983 through 1991 with 1987 as the mid or intervention point. Similarly, this same evaluation period will be used to compare the violent crime rates in Florida's regional partner - Texas.
This project is a straight-forward experimental design involving observations on either side of an intervention. Data used for the analyses is collected under highly controlled procedures, the same in each state. And, a control mechanism has been designed to further validate the findings and test the hypotheses. A detailed discussion of the research and its findings is in the chapters that follow.
Conclusion
There is some evidence that conceal carry laws reduce, or at least retard, the incidence of some violent crimes. Proponents of such laws may see this research as a ray of support to their position. Politicians, under immense pressure to stem the rising tide of crime, may be tempted to propose such a strategy. But the responsible public administrator will find in this research a far more important message.
First, a firearm conceal carry law, or any singular narrowly focused law, cannot by itself significantly affect human behavior, especially deviant behavior. It is easy to suggest that for every social ill "there ought to be a law." But this fails to account for the complicated nature of our society. America is not homogeneous. Our heritage not only tolerates, but encourages individuality. Our individual behavior is influenced by our own socialization experience. Unfortunately, there are those in our society that fail to comply with the norms of our society, regardless of whether of not their behavior is against the law. To suggest that a single law can effectively address deviant behavior is irresponsible.
Second, crime is one of the most tenacious problems facing modem America. The pressure on our government to address this problem is and should be, intense. Political leaders are quick to respond to the demands of their constituencies to "get tough on crime". But, far too often the strategies adopted to address the problem of crime arise from the political arena without the benefit of empirical research. Legislatures that fail to understand the complicated nature of deviant behavior when adopting strategies to reduce it, do so at the peril of the electorate. To assign the responsibility of law and order to the general public is an abdication of government's responsibility. After all, it is the responsibility of government to insure public order and safety. Once the armed citizen is forced to use deadly force to protect himself then we have already failed at establishing law and order.
Finally, any law designed to affect human behavior is bound to have residual effects. Unfortunately, these effects may be far from what was intended. In fact, the residual effects may be worse than the original problem. Firearm conceal carry laws are designed to provide law-abiding citizens the means to protect themselves or their property. Certainly, the licensing criteria must be sufficiently stringent to insure the eligibility of only the most responsible citizens. One may assume therefore that an individual licensed to legally carrying a firearm to protect himself will act responsibly. But even the most responsible citizen will, from time to time, act irrationally. And during these times there is no assurance that a normally responsible citizen will act with restraint. Will, in an emotionally trying but non-threatening situation, a normally responsible law-abiding citizen act with sufficient restraint to not draw the weapon he is legally allowed to carry? Will the enactment of a conceal carry law encourage persons normally not predisposed to arm themselves to purchase and carry firearms? And if so, will this increase in weapons availability increase the potential for firearm use? Admittedly, these questions are beyond the scope of this research. In fact, they may be good questions for future research on this issue. But at the very least, these questions, and others like them, are not outside the scope of concern for the responsible public administrator.
88 pages
Applied Research Project submitted to the Department of Political Science Southwest Texas State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration Brian L. Withrow San Marcos, Texas May 1993
Language: en |