Page 1

Alexander Page

17 May 2007

More Guns: The Answer to Milwaukee’s Rising Crime Rates

Scott Higgins, an electrician and Waukesha boxing coach, pulled his SUV into a Citgo

Station on Capitol Drive in Milwaukee. Like any other March afternoon, Scott began to fill his

car with gasoline. Soon, however, Higgins’ trip to the gas station took a turn for the worst.

Three gunmen approached Scott, attempting to rob him. A senseless, heinous crime ensued. The

thieves shot Scott, fatally wounding him, all over a few dollars at a gas station. Scenes like this

one have become all too common in Milwaukee in recent years. In fact, since 2005, Milwaukee

has found itself “at the top of the heap with the biggest increase in crimes in cities of 250,000

people or more” (Resler), and “Milwaukee saw the largest jump in homicides—up 40 percent”

between 2004 and 2005 (Figure 1, 2) (Kingsbury). How can future incidents like the murder of

Scott Higgins be avoided? Consider for a moment this scenario: the gunmen approach Higgins,

waving their pistols. Scott, having been trained to carry a concealed firearm, quickly pulls his

Smith & Wesson revolver from his belt. Ordering the criminals to drop their weapons, Scott

takes aim. As a result, the thieves either drop their weapons or Scott fires first, wounding or

killing his attackers. Circumstances such as these play out in states across the nation, yet two

states, Wisconsin and Illinois, remain persistent in denying law-abiding citizens the right to carry

concealed weapons (“The State (by state) of Right-to-Carry”). With Milwaukee violent crime

rates soaring, how can citizens combat this ruthless enemy? Statistical analysis has demonstrated

that states adopting a concealed-carry law experience a drastic reduction in violent crime rates,

and in order to combat crime in Milwaukee, Wisconsin must adopt a right-to-carry law designed

to arm law-abiding citizens for self defense.

 Page 2

The situation in Milwaukee has reached dire levels, crime rates have spiked, and the city

has gained a reputation as a hotbed for criminals in America. According to Milwaukee crime

statistics, the city is worse than the national average in all areas of violent crime except for rape

and robbery (“Milwaukee Crime Statistics and Crime Data”). The city has become the subject of

numerous negative articles in TIME and other publications with national audiences. Articles

lead with sentences such as, “It's as if Milwaukee, Wis., had reverted to a state of lethal chaos”

(Kingsbury). The root of the problem: soaring crime rates. The total number of homicides

jumped from 88 in 2004 to a despicable 122 in 2005 (Zernike). In 2003, per 100,000 people,

18.5 murders occurred. This translates to almost a 1 in 5,000 chance of being murdered each

year for residents of the city of Milwaukee (“SOCDS Crime Data”). Through the first six

months of 2006, robbery rates rose 36 percent in comparison to those of 2005 (Diedrich). These

statistics and implications are mind numbing, but the problem ultimately stems from the state

government.

Despite 48 of 50 states passing a form of right-to-carry laws, a law permitting the carry of

a concealed weapon (Figure 3), Wisconsin has remained stubborn, ignoring the statistical

evidence. Joe Waldron, Executive Director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and

Bear Arms, has characterized the situation in this way: “Instead of enabling citizens to defend

themselves, he [Doyle] has perpetuated a low risk working environment for predatory violent

criminals and the Milwaukee murder rate proves it” (Burchfiel). Waldron refers to Governor Jim

Doyle’s action in regards to concealed-carry laws in Wisconsin. Under current Wisconsin law,

the right-to-carry is outlawed under all circumstances, even in one’s home (“The State (by state)

of Right-to-Carry”). Attempts to pass a concealed-carry law have been twice vetoed under the

Doyle Administration, most recently in January 2006. The Wisconsin Senate voted 23-10 to
 Page 3

override the Governor’s veto, but the state Assembly fell two votes short (“Right-to-Carry

2007”). What Governor Doyle has failed to realize, however, is that “right-to-carry laws would

translate into one more accidental gun death, 316 fewer murders, 939 fewer rapes and 14,702

fewer aggravated assaults each year” in Wisconsin (Buley). This unignorable statistic is only the

tip of the iceberg, and Doyle’s policy causes one to cringe at the current state, or lack thereof, of

the right-to-carry in Wisconsin.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of concealed-carry laws, and the

plethora of evidence suggesting that these laws reduce violent crime is undeniable. Perhaps

Florenz Plassmann and T. Nicolaus Tideman summarize the evidence most accurately: “Our

analysis suggests that it would be imprudent to make it generally more difficult for law abiding

citizens to carry concealed handguns as long as there exist large numbers of weapons that can

and will be used by criminals to commit crimes, because right-to-carry laws do help…reduce the

number of crimes” (Plassmann 796). Overall percentages vary slightly, however one common

thread binds them: concealed weapon laws reduce violent crime. “When state concealed

handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 7.65 percent, and rapes and

aggravated assaults fell by five and seven percent, respectively” (“Crime, Deterence, and Right-

to-Carry Concealed Handguns” 19) (Figure 4). By 1991, 23 states had adopted a form of right-

to-carry, and the national violent crime rate fell 38 percent. Eleven of the 12 states with the

lowest crime rates in the country had some form of a concealed carry law. Now with all but two

states with right-to-carry laws, crime rates are lower than anytime since 1976 (“Right-to-Carry

2007”). After adopting a concealed-carry law, Pennsylvania saw a 10 percent reduction in

murder rate, while Arizona and Oregon experienced an eight and 20 percent drop, respectively

(“Crime, Deterence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns” 19, 57). These initial reductions
 Page 4

paint a dramatic picture. Moreover, after six years, murder rates fell on average nine percent,

rape 11 percent, and robbery 7 percent (“Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited…”).

Other studies have found that violent crime rates “tumbled more precipitously the longer the

laws were on the books, murder was down 15%, rape 9%” (Ratnesar) (Figure 5, 6). These

statistics provide undeniable evidence, but the effect may prove even more profound if applied to

Milwaukee.

Milwaukee, the hotbed for crime in Wisconsin and also the most urbanized area, presents

the potential for better than average reduction in violent crime rates if a right-to-carry law was to

be passed. “For most violent crimes, concealed weapons laws have a much greater deterrent

effect in high crime counties,” and, “passing a concealed handgun law lowers murder rate in

counties…above the mean population by 12 percent, 7.4 times more than for the mean

population city” (“Crime, Deterence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.” 28, 31).

Likewise, “the largest drops in violent crime from legalized concealed handguns occurred in the

most urban counties with the greatest population and the highest crime rates” (More Guns, Less

Crime 19). For example, recall that Milwaukee experienced 122 murders in 2005. Had a

concealed-carry law been effective that year, the number of homicides would have fallen by

nearly 15 over the totals from 2004, and the number of murders would have continued to fall

precipitously thereafter. In light of this evidence, Milwaukee presents a prime candidate for

reduction of crimes due to a right-to-carry law.

Recently, multiple victim public shootings have assumed the spotlight, and concealed-

carry laws have been proven to reduce these violent crimes as well. The common theme among

mass public shootings throughout recent years is that they “overwhelmingly take place in gun

free zones [Columbine High School and Virginia Tech University]” (John R. Lott Interview with
 Page 5

Dennis Miller), and the police arrive after the crimes occur. In addition, studies have shown that

criminals expect to die and ultimately, law enforcement has no effect. Seventy-five percent of

mass killers die at the scene, usually from a self inflicted gunshot. With these facts in mind,

concealed-carry laws provide a viable option to allow victims to defend themselves. Guns have

proved to deter criminals, and they present the safest course of action when confronting a

criminal. In areas with right-to-carry laws, multiple victim public shootings dropped 60 percent,

and the number of casualties, those injured or killed, fell 75 percent (John R. Lott Interview with

Dennis Miller). Since 1977, 30 percent of public school shootings have been stopped by citizens

with guns before the police arrived (John R. Lott Interview with Sean Hannity). The statistics

show that right-to-carry laws deter not only single homicides, but to an even greater degree,

multiple victim public shootings as well.

The empirical evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime is breathtaking,

but why do these laws have such a profound effect? To pose an answer to this question, one must

step into the shoes of a criminal. “People are opportunistic. A burglar is unlikely to rob a house

with a sign in the window reading, ‘This house is protected by Smith & Wesson’” (Buley). John

Lott provides a similar response: “Criminals are motivated by self-preservations…in interviews

with felony prisoners in ten state correctional systems, 56 percent claimed they would not attack

a potential victim who was known to be armed” (More Guns, Less Crime 5-6). Herein lies the

secret to the effectiveness of right-to-carry laws. Criminals think rationally: the more difficult a

crime, the less likely it is to be committed (More Guns, Less Crime 19). If the possibility of

resistance exists, a criminal is more effectively deterred (Moody 799). Approaching the question

from a negative perspective, that is, assuming that stricter gun laws exist, one must consider this

question: “Who is more likely to obey these laws: law-abiding citizens or criminals?” (John R.
 Page 6

Lott Interview with Sean Hannity). The fact remains that criminals are criminals, and more

firearm restrictions disarm law abiding citizens not criminals. Less weapons in the hands of

lawful citizens equates to less deterrence of criminals and, therefore, a spike in crime rates.

Concealed-carry laws effectively reduce crime as a direct byproduct of criminals fearing

resistance from a concealed weapon, and to disarm law-abiding citizens would prove fatal in the

fight against violence.

In recent years, crime rates in Milwaukee have climbed to absurd levels, and to combat

this startling trend, Wisconsin must adopt a right-to-carry law to arm law-abiding citizens. With

Milwaukee’s reputation on the line, Wisconsin cannot afford to ignore the statistical evidence

any longer. On average, murder rates fall nearly eight percent per county when concealed-carry

laws are established, and the reduction in violent crime has been proven to decline precipitously.

Likewise, multiple-victim public shootings plummet an astounding 60 percent. In addition,

Milwaukee represents a prime candidate for successfully reducing violent crime because the city

has a high crime rate and is highly urbanized. The theory behind the right to carry a concealed

weapon is simple. Criminals will not target potential victims known to carry a concealed

weapon. Where the possibility of resistance exists, the likelihood of a crime being committed

decreases immensely. In contrast, in locations where concealed-carry laws do not exist, such as

Milwaukee and Virginia Tech University, crime blossoms uninhibitedly. Studies have shown that

“the largest reductions in violent crime will be obtained when all states adopt these laws”

(Bronars 479), and despite 48 of 50 states adopting a form of right-to-carry, Wisconsin continues

suffer at the hands of criminals. Nationally, 450,000 crimes are committed with guns each year,

yet guns are used to prevent crimes 2,000,000 times a year (John R. Lott Interview with Sean

Hannity). Statistics aside, “the net effect of allowing concealed handguns is clearly to save
 Page 7

lives” (“Crime, Deterence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns” 19). Criminals will always

have guns, and to combat this threat, the masses must be armed for self-defense.
 Page 8

Figure 1 ("Violent Crime Rising Sharply in Some Cities").

Figure 2 (Arbanas)
 Page 9

Figure 3 ("Right-to-Carry 2007")

 Page 10

Figure 4 ("Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers...")

Figure 6 ("Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed

Figure 5 ("MoreHandguns.")
Guns, Less Crime: A Response...").
 Page 11

Works Cited

Arbanas, David. "How the Number of 2005 Offenses Differ with 2006." 15 May 2007.

<http://www2.jsonline.com/multimedia/graphic.asp?graphic=http://graphics.jsonline.com

/graphics/news/img/dec06/crimeg1201.gif>.

Bronars, Stephen G. and John R. Lott Jr. “Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right

to Carry Concealed Handguns.” American Economic Review. 88 (1998): 475-479.

 Page 12

Buley, Taylor W.. "Keeping lawful citizens unarmed won't reduce number of criminals."

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 13 December 2006. 15 May 2007.

<http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=541870>.

Burchfiel, Nathan. "Gun Control Linked to Milwaukee Crime Spike, Group Says."

CNSNews.com. 06 December 2006. 15 May 2007.

<http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200612/NAT2006120

6b.html>.

Diedrich, John. "Violent crimes leap in city." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 30 November 2006.

15 May 2007. <http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=537198>.

Kingsbury, Kathleen. "Middle America's Crime Wave." TIME. 03 December 2006. 15 May 2007.

<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1565527,00.html>.

Lott, John R. Jr., and David B. Mustard. “Crime, Deterence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed

Handguns.” University of Chicago Journal of Legal Studies. 26 (1997): 1-68.

Lott, John R. Interview with Dennis Miller. Dennis Miller Radio Show. 17 April 2007.

Lott, John R. Interview with Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity Radio Show. 18 April 2007.

Lott, John R., "More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue" (September 1,

1999). Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 247.

Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Lott, John R., "Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime Revisited: Clustering, Measurement

Error, and State-by-State Break downs" (February 4, 2004).

"Milwaukee Crime Statistics and Crime Data." AreaConnect. 15 May 2007.

<http://milwaukee.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm>.
 Page 13

Moody, Carlisle E. “Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors

and Robustness.” University of Chicago Journal of Law and Economics. 44 (2001): 799-

813.

Plassmann, Florenz and T. Nicolaus Tideman. “Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns

Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say.” University of Chicago

Journal of Law and Economics. 44 (2001): 771-797.

Ratnesar, Romesh. "Should You Carry a Gun?." TIME. 06 July 1998. 15 May 2007

<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988658,00.html>.

Resler. "Milwaukee Crime; Statistics are Disturbing." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 14 June 2006.

15 May 2007.

<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20060614/ai_n16479962>.

"Right-to-Carry 2007." NRA-ILA: Fact Sheets. 16 January 2007. National Rifle Association. 15

May 2007. <http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18>.

“SOCDS Crime Data Output for Milwaukee, WI.” 18 August 2006. State of the Cities Data

Systems. 15 May 2007.

"Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers Are Law-Abiding." NRA-ILA: Articles. 21 August 2000.

National Rifle Association. 15 May 2007.

<http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=6&issue=003>.

"The State (by State) of Right-To-Carry." NRA-ILA: Articles. 28 July 2006. National Rifle

Association. 15 May 2007.

<http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=198&issue=003>.

Zernike, Kate. "Violent Crime Rising Sharply in Some Cities." New York Times. 12 February

2006. 15 May 2007.

 Page 14

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/national/12homicide.html?ex=1297400400&en=c

db21abf99ff0c1b&ei=5088>.

(MLA Format)