Do More Guns Mean Less Crime?

How right you are that we would be better off with fewer guns (“Gun Policy That Misfires,” Sept. 25 editorial). And how unfortunate it is that Orange County Sheriff-elect Mike Carona has set out to push for more guns on the basis of John Lott’s theory that more concealed guns would mean less crime.

Why would Carona be so quick to latch on to a study that experts in the field of criminology have so thoroughly rejected, saying it is “fundamentally flawed”; with “absolutely no credible evidence to support the idea that permissive concealed carry laws reduce violent crime”; and “It would be a mistake to formulate policy based on Lott’s study.”

Is this just another example of the GOP organization in Orange County bowing to the National Rifle Assn. and its pet concealed carry weapons permit?

Even criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University said, “[More] likely the declines in crime, coinciding with relaxation of carry laws, were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott . . . analysis.”

A perfect example of one such factor might be in Santa Ana, where gang-related murders dropped 46% in one year as the Street Terrorist Offender Program went into effect.

Lott did his work at the University of Chicago, a city where there are great problems with firearms. If his theories were of value, you would expect Chicago would implement his concealed weapons permit recommendations. It has not. Neither should they be in Orange County.

J. MILLER

Tustin

* After reading your editorial comments about Carona’s proposed concealed weapons policy, it is clear that the only misfires are in the brain-cell synapse of your anti-gun editorial staff.

I am not surprised that your paper would support this type of bigotry since your editorial staff has shown its elitist thinking for several years. But I am disappointed that the truth is lacking in the editorial.

In every state, city and community where permits to carry concealed weapons have increased, there has been a corresponding decrease in crime. In high permit areas, criminals do not know who is armed and will not attack citizens precisely because they do not know who is carrying a concealed weapon. Your editorial conveniently omits this fact.

The fear of crime remains high because your writers sensationalize obscure criminal events as commonplace and mislead your readers.

Moreover, there is virtually no evidence that “authorizing more concealed firearms is bound to increase injuries and deaths, either through accidents or deliberate shootings that occur in a moment of passion.” Your editorial again omits facts that fly in the face of this statement.

The only policy that is unacceptable is the continued falsehoods and omissions perpetrated by your staff.

CRAIG HOWARD

Gardena

* On Sept. 25, a Times editorial was critical of Carona’s proposed policy regarding the issuance of gun permits within Orange County.

The Times likened this policy to perpetuating the gunslingers of the Old West. In this case it’s The Times that misfired.

The editorial is misguided in demonizing Carona, whom we elected, before he even takes office. I submit that the permit policy is absolutely acceptable because it recognizes that reserve police officers and reserve sheriff’s deputies have a need to retain their service pistols when they are out of uniform and off duty in the same manner that a full-time law enforcement officer may elect to do. You just never know when you’re going to run into someone that you sent away to Pelican Bay.

JOHN G. HILL

Huntington Beach

* Re “Standoff Over Hidden Guns,” Sept. 22:

Your article constantly misrepresents the University of Chicago study that shows increases in concealed weapon permits do not lead to more gun crime, but in fact, actually reduce violent crime as “controversial” and “flawed.”

The author of the study, John Lott, offered his complete database to any organization that wanted to review it. Of the 24 universities that did, only two replied with criticism or rebuttals (including your quoted source, John Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy).

Both have distinct anti-gun agendas. The balance of the 24 (22 or 92%) confirmed Lott’s conclusions. The truth is that the results are hardly controversial. The only controversy comes from anti-gun groups that don’t want to believe the facts. It would deny their legitimacy.

Regarding the “standoff” or “strained relations” between the police chiefs and the sheriff-elect, you seem to be creating controversy out of what should not be an issue.

State law gives the city chiefs of police authority to issue concealed weapons permits. By agreement, the chiefs of Orange County have relinquished their responsibility to the sheriff. If they don’t like the new policy, they may take back control of the permit issue to the city level. Sheriff-elect Mike Carona says he will respect that choice; after all, it is the state law. It was their responsibility to begin with.

Perhaps if the chiefs of police had the courage to act on the facts of the University of Chicago study rather than capitulate to the politically correct status quo, we all might enjoy the benefits of lower violent crime that 31 other states and over half of the U.S. population enjoy.

MICHAEL E. SMITH

Placentia