Concealed Carry of Firearms: For and Against

I didn’t grow up with guns, and I have an aversion to them in general. I’ve only shot a gun once in my life, I was never very good at Duck Hunt, and I’ve twice had a loaded gun pointed at me—but that’s another story.

So when Wisconsin passed a new law allowing concealed carry of firearms in public, it felt like just one more way this state was going down the tubes.

At last Tuesday’s Reach Out Wisconsin forum on concealed carry, I got the chance to talk to many people who had voted on the new law. There were around thirty people in attendance, approximately half “for” and half “against.” It was the most I’ve ever talked or thought about guns, so I was exposed to many new and thought-provoking ideas.

The forum didn’t change my basic stance on guns or concealed carry, but it helped me better understand and respect why this law was passed. I’ve tried to capture as much as I can here.

---

Rather than recount the whole evening for you, I’ve organized this post into sections. It sometimes reads like a conversation, but it actually contains pieces of many different conversations I had over the course of the evening. Although it’s probably impossible to avoid my own bias, I’ve done the best I can, trying to do justice to each person’s argument. I hope I’ve captured the spirit of what was said on all sides.

I’ve sometimes labeled the arguments “FOR” and “AGAINST,” meaning the speaker was for or against the concealed carry law. When picturing the speakers, try imagining a friend of yours. I learned at the forum that you can’t always peg a liberal, a conservative, or anyone in between by looking at them.

---

What’s the main argument for allowing concealed carry of firearms in public places?

This law will make ordinary citizens safer from gun-carrying criminals. If we can carry guns, too, then they’ll think twice before attacking or committing crimes in public places.

---

Has concealed carry been proven to decrease crime?

Inconclusive: there are statistics showing yes, and other statistics showing no. (A good summary article about the stats is called “Concealed carry laws: Plenty of data to back up both sides,” by Bruce Rushton of the Illinois State Journal-Register.) According to statistics favorable to concealed carry, such laws may reduce crime by as much as 5%.

Brad Smith, the Reach Out Wisconsin speaker in favor of concealed carry, pointed out that crime statistics are hard to compare from place to place. A law enforcement officer for 20 years, Brad said the complication is partly because different municipalities measure crime in different ways: some focus on crimes prevented and some on crimes committed.

Because the statistics are inconclusive, the issue of concealed carry becomes largely a philosophical argument.

---

Why concealed carry, rather than just sticking with the open carry law Wisconsin already has?

With a few exceptions such as schools and bars, Wisconsin citizens are generally allowed to carry firearms in public as long as the citizen is not a felon and as long as the gun is visible. A good summary of Wisconsin’s open carry law, as of 2009, can be found here. (Update: a new summary, as of 2019, can be found here.)

AGAINST: The concealed carry law is supposedly intended to prevent crime. But if that’s really what the law is about, then it seems like criminals will be even less likely to act when they can see the gun you’re carrying.

FOR: But by allowing concealed carry, the criminals don’t know whether I’m carrying or not. The very possibility that I, or you, might be carrying will deter them from attacking. With concealed carry, we can even deter crime without carrying firearms, because the criminals don’t know when we are and when we aren’t armed.

AGAINST: I prefer open to concealed carry because with open carry, I know where the guns are among my fellow law-abiding citizens. I can look around and see whether you’re carrying a gun. I feel more comfortable that way, for example with my kids. If I know where the guns are, then I can choose to keep my kids away from those areas. If you carry concealed, you’re taking that power of choice away from me.

FOR: Unfortunately, in today’s society to openly carry a firearm is seen as a bold, aggressive statement. Even if I’m comfortable with guns, many people like you are not. I’m just carrying a gun to feel safer; I don’t want to make any political statements or make other people feel uncomfortable. Carrying it concealed actually feels like I’m saving you from unnecessary worry—like I’m being more polite.

---

Guns in public: a more general discussion

This law is about concealed carry, but much of people’s reaction involves the broader issue of guns in public, whether open or concealed. There were many arguments for and against public carry—a good conversation in its own right.

AGAINST: Why we’re less safe by allowing guns in public

The more guns in public, the greater the risk that the guns will accidentally discharge.

The looser the gun laws, in general, the greater the risk of children playing unsafely with guns—whether in public or in the home.

The easier it is to bring guns into public places, the greater the risk that irresponsible people will do so. Although most people are responsible, there are also plenty of irresponsible non-criminals who I don’t trust with a gun—angry drunks, insecure showoffs, bullies, etc.

• One of the two times I (Katie) have had a loaded gun pointed at me was during college in a friend’s dorm room. In a drunken fog, this friend gleefully pulled out a gun and pointed it at various people around the room as a prank. To our shock, he confirmed that it was loaded. This incident made it clear to me that he wasn’t responsible enough to even own a gun, let alone carry it in public. But under Wisconsin law, not being a convicted felon, he would be free to do so.

• Under Arizona law, Jared Lee Loughner was legally carrying concealed firearms when he shot US Representative Gabrielle Giffords and several others in January. Some law enforcement officials involved in the investigation believe that the ease of obtaining a concealed carry permit was partly to blame for the incident.

The more guns in public, the easier it will be for criminals to acquire more guns. An average of 341,000 firearm thefts occur each year in the US. It seems like one of the best ways to arm more criminals is to arm more non-criminals whose guns might be stolen.

When confronted by an attacker with a gun, it may actually increase the danger to draw a gun in self-defense. If you’re being mugged, for example, it seems safest to simply hand over your belongings rather than complicating the situation and raising the attacker’s tension by drawing a gun.

Bottom line: I just don’t feel safe knowing that other citizens might be carrying guns in public places. It actually makes me feel less safe. I am more willing to accept the risk of being unarmed than the risks associated with more people being armed around me.

• Ashleigh Ross, a Reach Out Wisconsin speaker in opposition to the law, talked about how she grew up around guns and hunting, even asking for (and receiving) a BB gun when she was 12. Nevertheless, she doesn’t feel that civil society is the place for guns. Envisioning an ideal society, to her it’s one without guns, not one where everyone is armed. She doesn’t want to see guns proliferate outside of activities like hunting.

---

FOR: Why we are more safe by allowing guns in public

If only the police are allowed to carry guns, we begin to resemble a police state. Many countries around the world are police states where all the legal firearms are in the hands of the police. If the police or government then becomes corrupt, the citizens have no power to defend themselves.

• Carol grew up in Guatemala in the 1980s and has direct experience with this kind of brutality; she feels uneasy with too much power in the hands of the state.

Criminals will always have guns, whether they’re legal or not. Even though the police also have guns, the police aren’t always around to protect you.

• Brad Smith says, “9-1-1 is for checking crime scenes, not for preventing crime.” You call the police after the crime has been committed; during the crime, you may be left to fend for yourself. The Brittany Zimmerman tragedy is an example: Zimmerman, UW-Madison a college student, was stabbed to death in her apartment after calling 9-1-1 for help. When the police arrived, it was too late.

• An attendee named Judy described her terror as she heard the doors of her house rattle a few weeks ago. She realized someone was trying to break in, and that she may not be able to defend herself. Now she’s considering buying her first gun.

• Katie’s father (not in attendance) says, “I don’t like the idea of citizens carrying guns, but that horse has already left the barn.” The criminals already have guns.

I’m not a strong person; I know that most people who might attack me will be bigger, stronger, and meaner than I am. I feel safer with a gun, knowing that it’s an equalizer that can protect me.

Bottom line: Although I know a few people are irresponsible, it’s very important to me that the rest of us have the freedom to carry a gun. I trust most citizens to decide whether they’re ready to draw or fire a gun. I am more willing to accept the risk of a few irresponsible people carrying guns than the risks associated with being unable to defend myself if attacked.

• Brad described how at least once, in law enforcement, a criminal attempted to shoot at him but the gun misfired. Brad, weapon drawn, realized he could have shot back and killed the criminal, but made the instant decision not to fire. He believes this decision, like the decision of whether to own or carry a gun, is a very personal one.

---

Should gun rules differ depending on local area?

Some people have jobs or homes in dangerous areas where gun-toting criminals are a real threat. One example is a nurse who must make housecalls in an inner-city area. An argument for concealed carry is that these individuals may especially benefit from carrying guns, and it’s important to allow them that option.

Meanwhile, Paul Soglin, mayor of Madison, has tried to enact a city ordinance prohibiting concealed carry except in public places with signs indicating it’s allowed. This would make Madison an exception to the state law, which says that concealed carry is allowed except where posted otherwise.

AGAINST CONCEALED CARRY: I live in a safe neighborhood. Where I live, the risk of being shot by an attacker seems slim, whereas allowing concealed carry increases my risk of accidental shooting due to carelessness. I’d be happier with a concealed carry law if it was restricted to unsafe areas.

FOR CONCEALED CARRY: Having different rules for different cities makes it too confusing for the gun owner. If I’m driving through the state of Utah, I can look up the laws of the state to make sure that I don’t break them. But it would be too confusing if I have to look up the laws of every individual city along my route. It’s not fair to allow cities to pass specific laws that put the gun owner at risk of inadvertently committing a crime by carrying where he’s not supposed to.

---

Should people be allowed to carry just any kind of firearm in public?

AGAINST: I can see the argument for feeling safer with a handgun to protect yourself. But I can’t see that same argument for automatic or semiautomatic weapons, like Glocks. Those weapons are designed for killing multiple people, and shouldn’t be allowed in public.

FOR: I’ve heard that a person has an 80% chance of surviving being shot. That means that if you shoot someone who’s attacking you, they may survive long enough to continue their attack on you: to continue rushing you with a knife or gun. That’s especially the case if you’re shooting in the fear of the moment, with pumping adrenaline and trembling hands. I’ve heard that Glocks are a little easier to aim, and that it’s a little easier to get off several shots in quick succession, so that if you miss the first time you can still stop your attacker if he keeps coming. It also helps defend you against multiple attackers.

---

Given that concealed carry has passed, should the law require a certain amount of training?

YES: Training should be required for concealed carry (as well as possibly for open carry). This will help prevent people from being impulsive—gun carriers will stop and think about the consequences of drawing or shooting.

• Scott described a concealed carry training course that he took for other states—he has a Utah concealed carry card. Several states are reciprocal with Utah, meaning that if you have your Utah certification you’re allowed to carry concealed in those other states also. He said the training was very useful because it made him think about scenarios he wouldn’t have thought of. It emphasized the liability that falls on you if you draw or fire your gun in any but a few situations. You’re only allowed to fire your gun in defense of yourself or a loved one, and not in defense of property. If you’re being mugged, or if a bank is being robbed, firing your weapon is likely to mean jail time for you. (Scott is in favor of concealed carry, but I’m not sure where he stands on requiring training.)

NO: Currently, the law doesn’t require training for open carry of firearms. It should be the same for concealed carry, because there’s no difference in when and how you would use your gun.

NO: I do believe people considering concealed carry should receive training. But I also believe that such training should not be required by law. Carrying concealed is a big decision that should not be made lightly; often, multiple courses are necessary before a person is truly ready. But requiring a certain number of hours by law will mislead people to feel ready to carry concealed after receiving that minimum amount of training. I would rather people decide for themselves how much training they need. I trust individuals to make that decision, and don’t trust lawmakers to make it.

• This last comment was made by Jeff, a very experienced gun owner and an NRA instructor. He himself has received several courses on concealed carry, yet he said he still is not sure that he’s ready to carry a concealed firearm in public. I asked him, “Isn’t it better to require at least a minimum than to require no training at all?” No, he said. He falls into the camp of people who trust individuals more, and prefers fewer restrictions by law.

---

There’s no tidy conclusion to this conversation, because it’s an ongoing one. As I said, the forum didn’t cause me to change my view of the concealed carry law. My sister pointed out that although there are great arguments for and against, it often boils down to gut feeling about guns.

But as she also pointed out, the evening was an excellent learning opportunity—it didn’t change my view, but it did give my view a great deal more nuance.

The evening ended with people drifting away from their conversations, probably often feeling like there was more to say. There’s always more to say and think about. As often happens, the message here is not that one side is empirically right but that there are many thoughtful people with diverse perspectives, so it’s worth listening to each other.