Dispatch Ignores Evidence in Concealed Carry Debate

By Gerard Valentino

In a move that surprised no one, the Columbus Dispatch commended Governor Taft for threatening to veto HB347 which fixes many of the onerous provision in Ohio’s current concealed-carry law.

From the story:

Because of two ill-considered provisions, Gov. Bob Taft wisely has threatened to veto the bill intended to "fix" Ohio’s concealed carry law.

The first would further restrict public access to the names of Ohioans who carry concealed handguns. The second would allow people to transport their weapons in their vehicles just about any way they choose.

As usual, the Dispatch Editorial Board left out several key issues in the debate over HB347. For example, no other state requires concealed handgun license holders to carry guns in plain sight while in a car. No other state puts such a silly requirement on license holders because it is ineffective and unnecessary.

Quite frankly it eliminates the one clear benefit of concealed carry which is that criminals don’t know who is armed. Additionally, the requirement makes it difficult for women to carry a gun while in a car. The term plain sight is also not well defined in the law, meaning honest citizens can be arrested when they have reason to believe they are in full compliance.

The Dispatch also failed to mention that when a law enforcement officer runs a license plate through LEADS they are alerted if a driver has a CHL. Even the Dispatch’s Editorial Board has the mental capacity to realize that means law enforcement has advanced warning there might be a gun in the car.

Regardless, the Dispatch has once again failed to give a single example of when having a gun in plain sight served a public need. They also failed to give a single instance where a license holder in Ohio, or any other state, shot a police officer during a traffic stop.

Where the Dispatch has conjecture and emotional arguments against legal concealed carry, proponents have years of safe legal concealed carry nationwide as proof that it works.

Many other states also keep the list of license holders private and once again the Dispatch opines that secrecy leads to mismanagement of the process.

Again from the story:

The first would further restrict public access to the names of Ohioans who carry concealed handguns. The second would allow people to transport their weapons in their vehicles just about any way they choose.

No good can come of further closing the records. Under current law, only journalists have access to the list, but if the law is amended, a permit holder has only to claim that he has reason to fear a criminal attack to keep his name off the list available to journalists.

The provision that allows people to deny journalist access to their private information is good public policy because it lets stalker victims and people that have had death threats keep their antagonists from finding them. Once again, however, the Dispatch fails to make an argument on how keeping license holders’ information private has even been shown to be a threat to public safety. They failed to do so because there isn’t any proof that the system doesn’t work.

Unless, of course, conjecture based on poor research, bad logic and no statistical data is considered proof.

Clearly the Dispatch Editorial Board lacks the basic skill to properly research that concealed carry is successful nationwide. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of concealed carry and anyone with even rudimentary skills can find it.

So, either the Dispatch editorial board lacks rudimentary research skills or chooses to ignore what they find.

You can be the judge on which is true in this case - either way, they are wrong, and have always been wrong, about concealed carry.