Concealed Handguns: Danger or Asset to Ohio?

12:10am Wednesday, February 01, 2006

By Howard Nemerov

The purpose of this study is to determine the relative criminality of concealed carry licensees versus the general population of Ohio. In order to do this, we will compare the number of concealed carry license suspensions and revocations to the arrest rates for the entire state population in 2004. This paper begins with a section displaying the raw data for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2004 reporting year, and follows with a second section discussing the data.

Click on the "Read More..." link below for more.

Table Data

Table 1: Ohio 2004 CCW Revocation/Suspension Rates
	CHL Licensees			General Public
	Sus/Rev * [1]	Pop. [2]	Percent of CHLs	Arrests [3]	Pop. ** [4]	Percent of Pop.	Ratio
FBI Crime Only	160	45,497	0.3517%	42,825	7,816,430	0.5479%	0.64
All Arrests	160	45,497	0.3517%	271,838	7,816,430	3.4778%	0.10
* Annualized assuming identical rate of suspension or revocation.** The population here is the estimated total living in jurisdictions covered by reporting agencies included in the FBI arrest data report.

Table 2: Cost Per Crime Incident
	Murder	Rape	Robbery	Agg. Assault	Burglary	Larceny	MV Theft
In 1993 Dollars [5]	2,940,000	87,000	8,000	24,000	1,400	370	3,700
2004 Cost [6]	3,843,137	113,725	10,458	31,373	1,830	484	4,837

Table 3: Cost Savings If General Population As Law Abiding as CCW Licensees
	Crimes [7]	Cost of Crimes	FBI Crime Ratio	All Arrests
Homicide	517	$1,986,901,961	$ 711,565,631	$1,785,987,157
Rape	4,646	$ 528,368,627	$ 189,223,708	$ 474,940,184
Robbery	17,543	$ 183,456,209	$ 65,700,843	$ 164,905,184
Aggravated Assault	16,457	$ 516,298,039	$ 184,900,890	$ 464,090,169
Burglary	96,954	$ 177,432,157	$ 65,543,460	$ 159,490,282
Larceny	283,013	$ 136,882,105	$ 49,021,342	$ 123,040,636
Motor Vehicle Theft	40,583	$ 196,283,791	$ 70,294,762	$ 176,435,645
Totals:		$3,725,622,889	$1,334,250,634	$3,348,889,258

Analysis of Table Data
There were 120 suspensions and revocations during the last three quarters of 2004, an average of 40 per quarter. This number was annualized to 160, in order to compare licensee data to Ohio 2004 arrest data for the entire year, as tabulated in Table 1 to determine relative rates of criminality between the two populations.

For the entire year of 2004, there were 42,825 arrests in Ohio for alleged commissions of the major FBI crime categories listed in Table 3. Assuming that all 160 concealed carry licensees committed crimes falling under these categories, we compute that licensees are 36% more law-abiding than the general population.

Next, we must place a price tag on crime: how much each incident costs the state of Ohio. In 1996, the Department of Justice came out with a report entitled Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look, where they calculated how much each type of crime victimization cost society in terms of medical, emotional, social, and work-related costs. Their cost estimates were based upon 1993 dollars, so Table 2 recalculates each crime category to reflect 2004 dollar values.

As shown in Table 3, the total bill for the state of Ohio––for only these seven crime categories––was over $3.7 billion just for the year 2004. Assuming the worst-case scenario, that all concealed carry licensees are felonious criminals, the state would have realized a savings of over $1.3 billion. This is equivalent to the funds necessary to run both Ohio’s Special Education programs and School Food Services for Fiscal Year 2006-2007.[8]

However, this is the worst-case scenario for concealed carry licensees, based upon available information. Reality lies somewhere else, as licensees may lose their license based upon many other criteria. For example, a license can be suspended “if the licensee is the subject of a protection order issued by a court.”[9] (This does not necessarily mean the licensee is guilty of making, or even considering, a threat or violent action.) There are new crime categories specific to concealed carry licensees, which can result in suspension or revocation, such as using a weapon while intoxicated.[10] A license will be revoked if the licensee knowingly carries a concealed handgun into unauthorized places.[11] There are misdemeanor offenses which may result in suspension or revocation that are not necessarily included in the FBI crime categories.[12] Many of these violations may end up being “victimless,” in that only the doer suffers consequences from their actions.

In order to better determine the true overall ratio of criminality, one can compare licensee suspension and revocation rates to the overall arrest rate of the general population. Calculating this, we find that the general population gets arrested nearly ten times as often as concealed carry licensees experience suspension or revocation––which might not include arrest––for any reason. Extrapolating this ratio across the FBI crime categories, we find that if the general population were as law-abiding as concealed carry licensees, Ohio would have realized a net savings of over $3.3 billion in 2004 alone. This is one-third of Ohio’s entire Fiscal Year 2006-2007 education budget.[13]

In fairness, without more detailed information, the actual cost savings most likely lies somewhere between the two estimates. But it should not be surprising that concealed carry licensees are more law-abiding than the general population: they must undergo proper firearms safety training, and they must be certified via a criminal history background check that they are sufficiently law-abiding to be entrusted with such responsibility.

Persons who apply for a license are required to undergo a criminal history background check to ensure that they are not prohibited by law from carrying a concealed handgun. For persons who have lived in Ohio for five years or more, the sheriff submits the applicant’s fingerprints electronically to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for an in-state criminal background check. Applicants who have lived in Ohio fewer than five years are required to undergo a national check through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[14]

Conclusion

Concealed carry licensees have made a considered choice to conduct themselves a certain way in public, and have invested the time, money, and effort to certify that their level of commitment has earned the public’s trust. They have voluntarily undergone background checks normally reserved for government jobs or actual criminal arrests, in order to certify that they rank among Ohio’s most law-abiding citizens prior to receiving their license. These data prove that Ohio’s trust has not been in vain.

Endnotes

-----------------------------------------------------------

[1] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General, State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 29. http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/docs/04_cc_annual_r...

[2] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General, State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 29.

[3] Table 69, Arrests by State, 2004, Crime in the United States 2004, Federal Bureau of Investigation, page 342. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf

[4] Ibid.

[5] Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. Miller, Cohen, Wiersema. National Institute of Justice Research Report, US Department of Justice, January, 1996, Table 2, page 9. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/victcost.pdf

[6] Consumer Price Index (CPI) Conversion Factors 1800 to estimated 2015 to Convert to Dollars of 2004, Robert C. Sahr, Oregon State University, copyright 2005. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2004.pdf

[7] Table 5: Crime in the United States by Volume State, 2004, Crime in the United States 2004, Federal Bureau of Investigation, page 93.

[8] LSC Redbook for the Department of Education, House Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, Ohio Department of Education, page 27. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/legislator/misc/LSC_Redbook-ODE.pdf

[9] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General, State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 3.

[10] Bill Analysis H.B. 274, Michael J. O’Neill, Legislative Service Commission, State of Conditions for suspension, page 11. http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses124/h0274-i.pdf

[11] Ibid, Conditions for revocation, pages 11-12.

[12] Ibid, “When license must be issued” criteria noted on page 7 and discussed on pages 11-12.

[13] LSC Redbook for the Department of Education, House Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, Ohio Department of Education, page 27.

[14] 2004 Ohio Concealed Handgun Law Report, Jim Petro, Attorney General, State of Ohio, February 24, 2005, page 3.