Motivation for this letter: William Tucker"s article in the Weekly Standard discusses Lott"s CCW research. Tucker dismisses Lott"s claim that generally violent crime rates are lower in areas with CCW with an anecdote about his Brooklyn neighbors. Tucker suggests that if his neighbors had been armed that there would have been a shooting. He also praises Pennsylvania"s decision to exempt Philadelphia from its CCW law, because urban dwellers are more prone to violence than people from "rural" states such as Florida(?). He also discussed research published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Loftin, et al, that claimed that concealed-carry caused an increase in violent crime in certain urban areas. The letter as submitted: William Tucker"s recent article on concealed carry promotes a seriously incorrect assumption that the presence of firearms makes people prone to violence. He supports this claim not with scientific data, but with an anecdotal example. This is the sort of emotional illogic I expect from Handgun Control, Inc., not the Weekly Standard. His concern that arming his Brooklyn neighbors would result in bloodshed is unfounded: the statistical evidence shows that concealed-carry weapon (CCW) permit holders are less likely to commit a violent crime than the average citizen. For example, out of over 160,000 permits issued in Florida between 1987 and 1993, only 16 were revoked during that period as a result of a permit holder committing a firearm related crime. In Texas, out of 112,483 permits issued over the past year there have only been 2 incidents in which someone was shot by a permit holder: the first was found to be self-defense; the other has yet to go to trial. Only 7 have had permits revoked for criminal acts, including non-violent offenses. According to the Texas Uniform Crime Reports for 1995, there are 325 violent crimes committed for every 100,000 people. Assuming that all 7 offenses by CCW permit holders were violent crimes (which is unlikely), the average concealed-carry permit holder in Texas is still 46 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average Texas citizen. The Texas concealed carry bill was introduced by legislators from Houston, one of the largest cities in the US. The reason? Citizens were worried about violent crime and disliked being easy prey for illegally armed criminals. Citizens of high-crime areas such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia are more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and as such, will be more likley to need a concealed firearm for self-defense. Should we deny them the means to defend themselves on the grounds that they might misuse it? By Mr. Tucker"s logic we should similarly deny Internet access to the citizens of those cities because less than 0.01% of them will misuse that technology to distribute child pornography. Both Lott and Loftin use the overall violent crime rate to assess the success or failure of concealed carry legislation. This is a poor approach, because factors such as gang- and drug- related violent, curfew laws, stricter sentencing, unemployment rates, and others also affect the violent crime rate. Given the weak correlation between overall violent crime rate and concealed carry, it is no surprise that violence increased in some cities after a concealed carry law was passed. By prejudicial selection of data, Loftin"s study "proves" that CCW permit holders, despite the fact that they were not involved in the violent crimes themselves, are somehow to blame for the increased activity. CCW permit holders are not police officers tasked with fighting crime; the only benefit or detriment will be to the permit holder"s self, family and friends alone. If concealed carry is effective, then data should show that permit holders are less likely to commit violent crimes, and more likley to survive an attack. In states that have training requirements it is also reasonable to expect that permit holders will have fewer firearms accidents than the average citizen. If concealed carry is a failure, then permit holders will have a higher incidence of violence and accidents. The statistics from Florida, Texas, and other shall-issue states with both urban and rural areas clearly show that licensing citizens with no criminal history and/or proof of good character poses no threat to public safety. The letter as published: William Tucker"s recent article promotes a seriously incorrect assumption: that the presence of firearms makes people prone to violence. He supports this claim not with scientific data, but with an anecdotal example. The Texas concealed-carry bill was introduced by legislators from Houston, one of the largest cities in the country. The reason? Citizens were worried about violent crime and disliked being easy prey for illegally armed criminals. Citizens of high-crime areas such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia are more likely to be victims of violent crime, and as such will be more likely to need a concealed firearm for self-defense. Should we deny them the means to defend themselves on the grounds that they might misuse it? By Tucker"s logic we should similarly deny Internet access to the citizens of those cities because .01 percent of them will misuse that technology to distribute child pornography.