Op-Ed Destroys Arguments Against Constitutional Carry

AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File

A lot of op-eds floating in various publications these days are decidedly anti-gun. There's no shortage of folks ready to write them and tell us all about how we're terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad people simply because we value our right to keep and bear arms.


It gets really bad when you start talking about constitutional carry.

Despite being the law in a majority of states, every time it comes up, the usual suspects begin their wailing and gnashing of teeth, ready to tell us all about how it will lead to more murders because guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is bad.

Some have even taken to calling it "criminal carry" despite the fact that criminals carry just fine in all the states that don't have the law. Clearly, the lack of constitutional carry isn't hurting them all that much.

And we see that in op-eds from time to time.

But in North Carolina, one publication ran an op-ed that basically destroys the arguments against constitutional carry entirely.

Thanks to the anti-freedom people and organizations, most of us grow up seeing firearms as a tool for chaos, not a means to peace. But here’s the truth: Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens create safer communities. But you don’t have to take my word for it — the data prove it.

In a recent paper from the Firearms Research Center at the University of Wyoming, senior fellow K. Alexander Adams assesses the research surrounding “Constitutional Carry,” a law under consideration in North Carolina that 29 other US states have adopted. In short, this legislation allows qualified citizens to carry a firearm without a weapons permit.

“The relationship between constitutional-carry laws and homicide is negative, which is the opposite of what gun-control activists have predicted,” wrote Adams. In fact, “Constitutional-carry laws were associated with about 6% lower homicide rates. The doomsday scenarios of constitutional-carry opponents are not supported by social science.”

Adam referenced a study published by the Center for Justice Research earlier this year that affirmed his national research.

“Beginning June 13, 2022, Ohio became the 23rd state to allow its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. In the year following, crime involving guns dropped across Ohio’s eight largest cities as a whole and in six of the eight individually.”

Adams also name checks the John Locke Foundation, quoting from a column published in Carolina Journal, “When analyzing violent crime rates of constitutional carry states (with enough data) in years since enactment, the states either reflected the national trend in violent crime or showed a relative decrease in their violent crime rates.”


In other words, there's absolutely no evidence that constitutional carry makes things worse, and at least some that shows it helps reduce violent crime.

That's important because if the worst-case scenario is no difference, then we should default to the position that gives more freedom to people. We are the land of the free, after all, aren't we?

The truth of the matter is that when guns are restricted to just a select few, criminals are safe in assuming that their target is disarmed. They get it wrong sometimes, of course, but for the most part, they don't. They know their prey can't reasonably fight back because they're forced to confine themselves to rules that the criminals aren't constrained by. They have the advantage.

Constitutional carry, however, changes that dynamic. Now, the bad guys have to wonder who is carrying. They have to try and decide if the reward is worth the risk. In a lot of cases, such as those with little potential reward, the answer is that it's just not worth it. That includes a lot of armed robberies of individuals, as an example.

And the author is correct in every way about the statistics. Violent crime drops.

Every argument against constitutional carry hinges on the idea that it makes our lives more dangerous, and the statistics just don't support that claim.

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but causation should cause correlation. When that doesn't happen, the causation is anything but.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member