My loathing of private gun ownership, of the laxity of American gun regulations, and of the NRA is no secret, but when I call for the virtual abolition of private gun ownership in the US (hunting for necessity and target shooting are possible exceptions), I get pushback. “We need to defend ourselves against the bad guys,” say the dissenters. “Given the prevalence of weapons in the U.S.,” they add, “we’re safer if we’re allowed to have our guns.”

Well, we can see how often this kind of justifiable self-defense really occurs, for it’s one of the main justifications for “concealed carry” permits in the US—including a new law allowing concealed carry on Texas college campuses. But, according to several reports, justifiable self defense is extremely rare, whether or not the weapon is concealed. A New York Times op-ed today, “The concealed-carry fantasy,” gives statistics from a new report. The Times summarizes the data:

The more that sensational gun violence afflicts the nation, the more that the myth of the vigilant citizen packing a legally permitted concealed weapon, fully prepared to stop the next mass shooter in his tracks, is promoted.

This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research projectshowing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator.

The death toll includes 29 masskillings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides. Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor.

And yet:

. . . A Gallup poll this month found 56 percent of Americans said the nation would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons.

In other words, American’s assertion of concealed-carry as an assurance of safety is a fantasy: it’s security theater. The proportion of killings via concealed carry that involve justifiable self-defense is just 3.6%. The other 96.4% of killings were either murders, suicides, or mistakes. That means that over 96% of the time, concealed carry leads not to the aims used to justify it, but to tragedies. And remember, these are not illegal guns, but guns properly licensed for concealed carry. Overall, the policy leads to far more deaths of innocent people than of criminals.

The study cited by the Times is from The Violence Policy Center (free pdf), which includes not just concealed-carry deaths, but all deaths from handguns. Here’s part of its summary:

Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.

In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides. 3 And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year.4 This report analyzes, on both the national and state levels, the use of firearms in justifiable homicides. It also details, using the best data available on the national level, the total number of times guns are used for self-defense by the victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes and property crimes whether or not the use of the gun by the victim resulted in a fatality.

. . . The reality of self-defense gun use bears no resemblance to the exaggerated claims of the gun lobby and gun industry. The number of justifiable homicides that occur in our nation each year pale in comparison to criminal homicides, let alone gun suicides and fatal unintentional shootings. And contrary to the common stereotype promulgated by the gun lobby, those killed in justifiable homicide incidents don’t always fit the expected profile of an attack by a stranger: in 35.5 percent of the justifiable homicides that occurred in 2012 the persons shot were known to the shooter.

Now of course gun advocates will argue that guns used in homicides that are not “legally concealed” are stolen or obtained by other illegal means, but many of those guns were stolen from those who acquired them legally. No legal guns, no theft of legal guns for illegal acts. What I argue is that banning all guns will drastically stem the tide of criminal homicides in the U.S., both directly and indirectly. Here are the overall data on criminal homicides versus justifiable homicides between 2008 and 2012. Note the last row that gives their ratio, which is about forty to one:

Finally, I refer you to this site about concealed carry homicides: Concealed Carry Killers, which tracks deaths due to that policy. You can investigate for yourself; I’ll just present their conclusions:

Concealed Carry Killers is a resource maintained by the Violence Policy Center that includes hundreds of examples of non-self defense killings by private citizens with permits to carry concealed, loaded handguns in public. These incidents include homicides, suicides, mass shootings, murder-suicides, lethal attacks on law enforcement, and unintentional deaths. Only a tiny fraction of these cases are ever ruled to be in self-defense. Any homicide that is legally determined to be in self-defense is documented and removed from the Concealed Carry Killers database and the ongoing tallies.

It saddens and maddens me that we could eliminate so many killings of innocent people, prevent so many suicides, and largely halt mass murders if we’d only get rid of guns in the U.S.  And yet, because we already have so many guns, people tells us that there’s no way to go back, even if we didn’t have a Second Amendment used to justify mass ownership of handguns—an amendment designed to allow states to have militias. I will never own a gun, and I feel safer without one. We’re a civilized society, or so we like to think. There must be a way to stop the madness.

As I reported the other day, there’s a new law in Texas allowing anybody with the proper permit to carry concealed handguns on college campuses in the state, including both public and private schools. Unfortunately, it hasn’t seemed to elicit much protest from faculty (although there’s a movement afoot for students to open-carry dildos as a protest when the law takes effect next summer). I would have thought that many of my academic colleagues in Texas would have objected strenuously in the form of a public letter—not that it would have done anything, for the gun lobby and their supporters are too strong.

But one professor did take a stand: a bold one, for he resigned his job. According to KXAN in Austin, Daniel Hamermesh, a well-known professor of economics at UT Austin, has quit his job at the University because of the dangers of concealed carry on campus.

Hamermesh (photo at bottom) is an emeritus professor, but still teaches every year (something we University of Chicago emeriti are, sadly, prohibited from doing), so his resignation is meaningful for the university and students. As KXAN notes, “Hamermesh began at UT in 1993 and retired in 2014, teaching more than 8,000 students, mostly in large classes of Introductory Microeconomics. He says his current class has 475 students.”

The letter is below, but if you’re myopic the site gives a summary:

In a letter to UT President Greg Fenves, Daniel Hamermesh writes, “The risk that a disgruntled student might bring a gun into the classroom and start shooting at me has been substantially enhanced by the concealed carry law.”

Hamermesh retired in August 2014, but continued on as the Sue Killam Professor Emeritus, teaching every Fall through 2017. The professor says the law, which will allow students to carry concealed weapons on designated areas of campus, will make it much more difficult for UT to attract employees.

“The issue is not people like me, I’m small potatoes, the real issue is that for Texas, for people who are thinking about coming here, they have lots of alternatives. The ones we want to hire here do have alternatives,” said Hamermesh.

As for his immediate future at the university, Hamermesh says he will spend part of next Fall at the University of Sydney, “where, among other things, the risk seems lower.” He also expressed shock that he is the only current member of faculty who is disturbed by the new legislation.

He feels the gun laws at his new post in Sydney will ease his mind.

“Of course I feel much safer there, because there’s very little gun violence there that there is here,” said Hamermesh.

As I recall, for a long time the University of Texas has fought for the right to have gun-free campuses, but that has now failed. According to the Houston Chronicle, Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill permitting students, faculty, and staff to practice “concealed carry” (carrying handguns that are hidden) on all state campuses. (According to the excerpt below, this also holds for private universities). It will take effect on August 1 of next year.

Here’s the bill, and the relevant section is below:

Ah, the gunfights we can look forward to at Texas schools!

The really sick thing is the list of items the students are NOT allowed to have:

Student handbooks at Texas public schools show an interesting juxtaposition between the items that will stay banned from dorm rooms while guns will be legal. The majority of the prohibited objects are considered fire hazards.

Most kitchen appliances like crock pots, toasters or even blenders are expressly disallowed at some Texas colleges. The government will trust students with guns next year, but they won’t be able to handle candles or even incense (an icon of liberal college students?).

Texas A&M even goes as far as to single out toy Nerf guns for a ban, and the University of Houston outlaws water guns. The rule makes sense of course. Seeing someone running around on campus firing a toy a gun could definitely cause some issues.

Other banned items (there’s a gallery at the site): incense, homemade furniture, toasters, George Foreman grills, halogen lights, black lights, power tools, wireless routers, pets, and (at Texas A&M) slingshots. Many of these are seen as fire hazards, while guns are only life hazards. Slingshots not ok, concealed guns ok—seriously?

Meanwhile, Slate reports a humorous pushback by students at the University of Texas at Austin.

h/t: Robin

It seems that I’m conveying more distressing news than usual today. I think it’s just a bad news day, but I’m also peevish as I’m still afflicted with viral bronchitis, which, thank Ceiling Cat, is abating.  At least the following news doesn’t involve creationism or people being stoned, but it still shows how far our world (or rather, the U.S.) is from rationality.

When I was a postdoc at The University of California at Davis, I remember that in the nearby town of Winters stood a shop that sold both alcohol and guns. It was called “Guns ‘n’ Grog.” Only in America would you find something like that. BAD idea!

It persists.  According to Fox News, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is reviewing a proposal to allow alcohol sales at gun shows:

Texas could start allowing alcohol sales at gun shows provided they don’t allow live ammunition or let buyers take possession of their weapons at the events.

The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission announced the proposal Friday. It will hold a 30-day public comment period before any change is made.

The proposal also would require that firearms being shown for sale be disabled and not readily convertible for use.

Under current rules, if a gun show is held at a venue licensed to sell alcohol, drinks sales and consumption are suspended during the time it takes to set up, conduct and dismantle the gun show.

“We got a request from a gun club in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to amend the rules,” said agency spokeswoman Carolyn Beck.

I don’t think this is going to pass, even in gun-crazy Texas, for two reasons. First, as ABC News reports, there are at least some sane gun owners:

Bill Clouse, one of several hundred people who attended the High Caliber Gun & Knife Show in Houston, described himself as a “huge gun supporter” but said he doesn’t believe guns and alcohol are a good combination.

“I don’t think there will be a possibility for trouble. I just personally do not believe you should have alcohol and firearms in the same vicinity, whether you are hunting or at a gun show,” said Clouse, 34, a high school teacher.

Josh Jensen, another person at Saturday’s gun show, was also against the proposal, saying the idea is “just silly to me.”

But what I suspect will be the deciding factor is this: you wouldn’t be able to carry away your new gun under the new rules. As Fox News adds:

The Texas State Rifle Association is still reviewing the proposal, said Alice Tripp, the group’s legislative director. She called it “confusing” and questioned whether gun advocates would want to attend gun shows with such restrictions.

“Does that make any sense? Who would buy a gun at a gun show where you couldn’t take possession of it?” she asked.

Yeah! Because, in many places gun shows are exempt from the law that background checks are necessary before you can take possession of guns that you but.

Still, as we might expect in the US of A, there are some who simply want a drink with their gun. From ABC News:

Crystal Hartt, 47, a ranch owner from the Port Lavaca area who was at the Houston gun show, supported the idea, adding she considered being able to buy alcohol at a gun show the same as buying a beer at a baseball game or a rock concert.

“It’s another event. Why not sell a margarita to go with it?” she said.

“Another event,” indeed! An event with firearms galore? Why not allow people to get drunk? And although live ammunition is prohibited, I’m not sure if that would ban Texan’s rights to have open carry of long guns and concealed carry of handguns.

Below is a photo of one of these places in Schulenberg, Texas. According to the website, the other side of the sign says, “SHOOT EM UP – SLAM EM DOWN”.

I apologize on behalf of my country.

h/t: Chris