Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

Virginia's bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found.

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law's first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found.

A total of 145 reported crimes with guns occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11, or eight fewer than the 153 incidents in fiscal 2009-10. State police track all murders, non-negligent manslaughters, aggravated assaults, forcible sex crimes and robberies in more than two dozen categories, including "bars/nightclubs" and "restaurants."

"The numbers basically just confirm what we've said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, which strongly lobbied for the law's change that made Virginia one of 43 states to allow concealed guns in restaurants that serve alcohol. "It's sort of a big yawn. So from my point of view, none of this is surprising."

"Keep in mind," Van Cleave added, "what the other side was saying — that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on."

State Sen. A. Donald McEachin, D-Henrico, who was a strong opponent of the law, said it's not clear what conclusions can be drawn from just a year's worth of data.

"Most folks obey the law, and that's a good thing," said McEachin, who remains staunchly opposed. "But I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that just like drinking and driving doesn't mix, guns and drinking don't mix."

David Rittgers, an attorney and decorated former Army special forces officer who is now a legal policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the growing number of states that are adopting concealed-carry measures like Virginia's have seen no appreciable rise — and in some cases a decline — in violent crime.

"The worst that you can say about these laws is that they are statistically value neutral" in terms of impacting the crime rate, Rittgers said.

Rittgers said states that have enacted such concealed-carry legislation — "even when they've done some relatively restrictive provisions upfront" — have relaxed those over time "because of the lack of violent incidents that might be connected with persons carrying concealed (weapons) with a permit."

* * * * *

At The Times-Dispatch's request, state police pulled from their computerized database all major crimes at bars and restaurants reported by local law-enforcement agencies across Virginia for two successive fiscal years. The Times-Dispatch then contacted more than a dozen police departments in Virginia for more detailed information on all aggravated assaults, homicides and sexual assaults involving firearms at those businesses.

Reported robberies were not analyzed because they tend to involve premeditated crimes by perpetrators openly displaying guns, and many of the affected businesses are chain restaurants that don't serve alcohol.

Only two fatal shootings occurred during the last fiscal year — one outside a Petersburg nightclub and the other at a Radford restaurant — but neither involved concealed-gun permit holders. And only two of the 18 aggravated assaults reported could be linked definitively to concealed-carry holders.

Several other cases appear to have involved hidden guns, but the suspects either didn't have a concealed permit, or they fled the scene before they could be identified and arrested.

One of the few unambiguous cases of a concealed-gun permit holder breaking the law occurred on July 28, 2010 — 27 days after the law became active — at a deli in York County. In that case, a patron who had been drinking heavily with a gun concealed in his pocket allegedly sexually harassed a female waitress and, at one point, placed his hand over his hidden gun so the waitress could see its outline.

After making a comment the waitress construed as a threat, the man left but was stopped a short time later by police. They recovered a .380-caliber pistol from his pants pocket and charged him with driving under the influence, brandishing a firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.

He was charged with the latter offense — even though he had a permit to carry the gun — because he had been drinking in the deli while in possession of a concealed firearm. The law forbids concealed-gun permit holders to drink alcohol while they are inside bars and restaurants with guns hidden from view. Patrons who legally carry firearms openly into bars and restaurants can drink freely.

Authorities confiscated the man's concealed-gun permit, but the brandishing and concealed weapon charges were eventually withdrawn by prosecutors. He was convicted of driving while drunk.

In another case closer to home, a Hopewell man with a concealed-carry permit was arrested in June after police said he brandished a gun in the parking lot of a chain restaurant after a verbal dispute escalated into a fight among several patrons. No shots were fired, but punches were thrown.

Although the man pulled a concealed weapon during the fight, the new law didn't really apply because the restaurant where the incident occurred doesn't serve alcohol. The man was convicted last month of brandishing the gun — which he appealed — and a malicious-wounding charge was certified to a Hopewell grand jury.

Aside from the two homicides, the only assault that resulted in a person being shot occurred in February outside a Virginia Beach restaurant and bar. The shooting followed an altercation inside the restaurant. Several unknown men were asked to leave, and the victim was shot and wounded as he walked toward a male in an adjacent parking lot, police said.

But because the suspect was never identified and arrested, police don't know whether the shooter was carrying a concealed gun or whether he had a permit to carry it.



* * * * *



Tom Lisk, a lobbyist who represents the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, still believes it's a bad idea to mix alcohol and firearms, and he says the crime numbers essentially affirm his initial position on the issue.

"We acknowledged during the legislative debate that the vast majority of individuals that hold concealed-weapons permits are indeed law-abiding citizens, and most would not cause any problem," Lisk said. "But at the same time, we also advocated that they in fact were human beings, and some small number would probably be the source of some problem because you're mixing alcohol and firearms.

"And I think that's pretty much borne out by what we've seen," added Lisk, citing the York case as an example. "This was a law-abiding citizen that got a permit, but yet he went in and broke the law by drinking while carrying a concealed firearm."

Lisk also cited another incident publicized last year that involved a concealed-permit holder who accidentally shot himself in the thigh at a Lynchburg restaurant. The gun discharged after the man apparently reached into his pocket to pay the bartender for a beer. He was convicted of recklessly handing a firearm, ordered to pay a $500 fine and lost his concealed-carry permit for a year. His gun was confiscated.

While the new law has not led to rampant crime or "random bloodshed in restaurants," Lisk said, "certainly we've seen a few incidences of permit holders using bad judgment — drinking and then, in unfortunate circumstances … shooting themselves or accosting a waitress. So I think in that respect our concerns have been validated."

McEachin echoed that view.

"I promise you that the waitress that had the gun brandished at her by someone who was drunk and sexually aggressive — to her that was a serious offense," he said. "And when someone gives themselves a self-inflicted wound, that just underscores the fact that guns and drinking don't mix. I don't know if there's anything disproven by those numbers."

Rittgers said once concealed-carry laws come into effect, the fears associated with such measures generally are not realized and fade. "None of those predictions, frankly, have come to pass," he said.

A certain amount of unreasonable fear is associated with guns generally because they are used by criminals in committing crimes, Rittgers said. But concealed-carry holders, who Rittgers said tend be more law-abiding that the general citizenry, "are willing to go through the background checks and the training that is often required" for the permit.

Van Cleave believes he and other supporters of the law deserve an apology — especially those who "screamed the end of the world was coming with this."

"At some point," Van Cleave said, "it would be nice to have some of them admit that they were wrong, that they didn't see any of the horrible things that they thought were going to happen."


http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/...e-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/


Well, there you go. More guns, less crime.


_

 

Incidents decreased from 153 to 145, hardly a change that any conclusions can be drawn from. How many firearms crimes were there in 2009, 2008? A 5% deviation might be the norm.

Virginia had 347 gun murders in 2009 (last data from the USDOJ). In Canada in 2009 there were only 179 gun murders even though we have 4 times that State's population. Canada has fewer guns by more than half.

 

Virginia murder rate by year:

2006 399
2007 406
2008 370
2009 347

So the murder rate for the State dropped 6% between 2008 and 2009 and dropped 8% between 2007 and 2008. So it looks like crime was already on its way down in Virginia.

 

theres no evidence more people have started carrying concealed firearms or more people have started carrying concealed firearms into these establishments as a result of this law. Also this from the article:

So now waitresses have something else to worry about other than drunks, drunks with guns. Shouldnt law abiding citizens have the right to peform their job without being threatened by a firearm? Only a lunatic would argue otherwise.

 

I love the statistical acrobatics that these guys have to do to try to prove that guns prevent crime while ignoring the big elephant in the room which is that the US has the highest gun ownership in the world and the highest gun murder rate of any developed country.

 

Only a lunatic would confuse being allowed to carry a firearm with threatening people with a firearm.

I suppose you would ban males from entering bars as well? After all, shouldnt law abiding citizens have the right to peform their job without being raped? Ban penises!

 

Nice try at deflection, however there is no confusion on my part, perhpas a lack of comprehension on your part of my post. I will dumb it down for you, the point is that there is zero evidence of a positive effect from this law and plenty of evidence of a negative effect from the owners of the licensed establishments themselves. The OP is wrong in his understanding of the article he posted which clearly shows that relaxing gun laws in this manner is a mistake.

 

Huh? I'm with you on this one. Waitresses shouldn't have to be threatened on the job by people waving guns around, therefore guns should be banned where they work...I also don't think they should be raped on the job, therefore cocks should be banned there as well. It all makes perfect sense. I'm glad you brought up that little bit of obvious logic.

 

Deliberate stupidity such as you are exhibiting here doesnt make an argument, in fact it clearly illustrates your lack of one.

 

Just following your logic, pally. Are you now reversing your position and saying that waitresses should be threatened by people waving guns in their faces? Or do you maintain your previous position but just don't mind them being raped?

 

what on earth are you babbling about? Lol. Youve lost the plot mate, no one is talking about rape. Have you been drinking?

 

All I'm saying is that law abiding citizens should have the right to peform their job without the threat of being raped. Therefore, penises should not be allowed in restaurants and bars. This is the exact same logic that you applied to firearms. Have you forgotten already? Are you shooting heroin or something? Smoking crack perhaps?

 

The issue is less what happened one year compared to the prvious year but what happened in that year compared with what some were predicting.

 

Are you allegeing that workers in licensed establishments are being raped on the job or that a mans penis can be equated with an handgun which can shoot a person dead in a fraction of a second? How are these workers getting allegedly threatened with penises, are these men whipping them out like a gun and making death threats? Your logic is completely absurd, any of your fellow actually sane gun enthusiasts viewing your posts here must be cringing. Lol.

 

This issue is this statement by the OP:

There's nothing to indicate more guns equates to less crime, in fact the opposite seems to be the case.

 

Then why didn't gun violence go up in Virginia's bars and restaurants?

 

Sorry, but the hysterics said that the new guns laws would result in slaughter. The results were a bit less crime. Your statement that the opposite seems true is based on your political faith and not on any fact.

 

Regardless of how the statistics actually pan out, there will be one place where flash mobbers and home invaders will see what a riot gun, a .44 magnum, and a 223 can do to out-of-control animals.

 

Oh dear, I seem to have completely confused you...

Yeah, you are completely confused.

My logic? No, my boy, I'm merely following your logic and illustrating how absurd it is. I see that you agree that the logic is absurd but aren't capable of putting the two together. I'm sure it will dawn on you in time. Don't give up.

 

You are missing the point. Liberal critics said violent crime would rise a great deal.
That never happened. THEY WERE DEAD WRONG.

_

 

You are missing your own point, which as a reminder was this:

 

There was less crime. That is a fact.

There was also no wild west atmosphere as promised by the Left.


_

 

Here's a little history Doug, enlightenment you will surely disagree with.

Gun control myths
Thomas Sowell
November 26, 2002

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.

Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.

If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available."

England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.

Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year."

The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.

It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.

While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.

In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.

In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.

 

The best example of statistical acrobatics on the whole thread, so far.

Just a reminder of the Big Elephant:
Highest gun ownership in the world: US
4th highest murder rate in the world: US
Highest murder rate of any developed country: US

 

Crime was already decreasing, for at least the previous 3 years. That is a fact.