PDA

View Full Version : How Many Active LTCs Exist in The U.S.?


Left Coast Conservative
03-11-2012, 3:03 PM
I do not believe I have seen an authoritative source. Does anyone know of a count compiled from official sources? Here is a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aj9vRInszDFYdGpRMW1sWkQ5d0Z6RkdsYVQtQ2R2Y mc#gid=0) with as many official sources as I could find so far, but I know that this falls far short of the the true number.

I know that the web site Legally Armed keeps a CCW Statistics (http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm) page that lists many official sources, and as many unofficial ones as the author can find, and his total is 7,354,807 active LTC. My number is 3,865,881.

Does anyone know of a source for a total number, or can contribute official state sources that are not on my list?

SilverTauron
03-11-2012, 3:12 PM
I do not believe what you wish to achieve is possible.

In South Dakota there is no avenue or metric for tracking active CCW permits. Since they are issued by administrators with term limits, there is no avenue for any current state government office to count issued CCW permits beyond the ones issued and renewed during a certain 4 year period of time.

Some states also consider CCW information rightfully privileged data;an intelligent crook could use any permit statistics alongside demographic data to determine which are the best areas to commit profitable and/or violent crimes with the least risk of punishment.

wayneinFL
03-11-2012, 3:23 PM
899,235 in my state? Go Florida!

Seriously, though, the numbers when compiling states are a little high. Some people have permits issued by more than one state.

Left Coast Conservative
03-11-2012, 3:41 PM
899,235 in my state? Go Florida!

Seriously, though, the numbers when compiling states are a little high. Some people have permits issued by more than one state.

Yes, I know. I have two (AZ and FL) myself. But I am not trying to estimate the number of people who are licensed to carry, only the number of active licenses.

Left Coast Conservative
03-11-2012, 3:43 PM
I do not believe what you wish to achieve is possible.

In South Dakota there is no avenue or metric for tracking active CCW permits. Since they are issued by administrators with term limits, there is no avenue for any current state government office to count issued CCW permits beyond the ones issued and renewed during a certain 4 year period of time.

Some states also consider CCW information rightfully privileged data;an intelligent crook could use any permit statistics alongside demographic data to determine which are the best areas to commit profitable and/or violent crimes with the least risk of punishment.

I fear you are correct, but I was hoping that someone would have more information about where to look. Even some states that keep identity information private, still report on the number of applications approved, denied, licenses revoked, and the current number active.

But I have come to loathe the states that issue by country sheriff. Many of these do not keep statewide statistics, or at least I have not found them.

wildhawker
03-11-2012, 3:47 PM
Tell me about it.

NSSF has a report somewhere that uses reasonable, but not perfect, data.

SilverTauron
03-11-2012, 3:50 PM
I fear you are correct, but I was hoping that someone would have more information about where to look. Even some states that keep identity information private, still report on the number of applications approved, denied, licenses revoked, and the current number active.

But I have come to loathe the states that issue by country sheriff. Many of these do not keep statewide statistics, or at least I have not found them.


Finding the concealed carry stats for a place like New York or New Jersey may be difficult, given that anything to do with firearms is treated like Nuclear Arms Negotiations in that part of the nation.

At the risk of assuming the mantle of Mr. Glass Half-Empty, the definition of "active permits" is also subject to some interpretation. In places with "May Issue CCW If-Ya-Know-So-&-So" , a majority of active permits are held by Law Enforcement who are legally authorized to carry nationwide in most (NOT ALL) places by dint of working for the police. If your goal is to determine how many armed John Q Glocks are in the nation, excluding the retired & active Law Enforcement along with the politically connected will present another challenge to overcome.

Left Coast Conservative
03-11-2012, 4:07 PM
Finding the concealed carry stats for a place like New York or New Jersey may be difficult, given that anything to do with firearms is treated like Nuclear Arms Negotiations in that part of the nation.

At the risk of assuming the mantle of Mr. Glass Half-Empty, the definition of "active permits" is also subject to some interpretation. In places with "May Issue CCW If-Ya-Know-So-&-So" , a majority of active permits are held by Law Enforcement who are legally authorized to carry nationwide in most (NOT ALL) places by dint of working for the police. If your goal is to determine how many armed John Q Glocks are in the nation, excluding the retired & active Law Enforcement along with the politically connected will present another challenge to overcome.

Yes, when I got to New York and New Jersey I could not easily figure out which licenses, if any, allowed one to carry concealed, hence their absence. While my goal is to determine the number of John Q. Glocks in the country, I think a necessary first step would be to find out where to raw data is kept, and refine them from there.

It seems that in many places there are no numbers, at least publicly available. But perhaps there are some places I have overlooked?

Librarian
03-11-2012, 4:08 PM
I suspect there are large gaps in the data, as apparently you are confirming.

But I'm curious - if you had a reasonably accurate figure, what would you do with it?

We already have data that suggests fairly persuasively that, as a group, LTC holders are somewhat less likely than non-holders to commit violent crimes. John Lott's data strongly suggests that increasing numbers of LTC does not correlate with an increase in violent crime.

Librarian
03-11-2012, 4:08 PM
I suspect there are large gaps in the data, as apparently you are confirming.

But I'm curious - if you had a reasonably accurate figure, what would you do with it?

We already have data that suggests fairly persuasively that, as a group, LTC holders are somewhat less likely than non-holders to commit violent crimes. John Lott's data strongly suggests that increasing numbers of LTC does not correlate with an increase in violent crime.

guntrust
03-12-2012, 5:52 AM
I vaguely remember hearing the figure "15 million" on NRANews.com

But those were CCW's not LTC's ;)

ccmc
03-12-2012, 5:56 AM
I vaguely remember hearing the figure "15 million" on NRANews.com

But those were CCW's not LTC's ;)

Not CWFLs?

mtptwo
03-12-2012, 1:54 PM
One of 32,666. I feel so proud.

bombadillo
03-12-2012, 2:00 PM
The real question of it would be how many non LTC people are carrying anyway. I know SOOOOOOO many old men who carry who say things like "I don't need permission to carry my own damn guns!"

Librarian
03-12-2012, 2:16 PM
On a related note, here's an article (http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/475451) from Christian Science Monitor, which mentions CCW quite a bit.

Lots not to like in the article, but much to like as well.

Left Coast Conservative
03-12-2012, 3:44 PM
I suspect there are large gaps in the data, as apparently you are confirming.

But I'm curious - if you had a reasonably accurate figure, what would you do with it?

We already have data that suggests fairly persuasively that, as a group, LTC holders are somewhat less likely than non-holders to commit violent crimes. John Lott's data strongly suggests that increasing numbers of LTC does not correlate with an increase in violent crime.

This started first as an intellectual exercise as a result of this reply I gave to this comment:


The ban was enacted for a reason. The NRA, of course, goes against reason.


in response to this story (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/High-court-rejects-appeal-to-reinstate-Seattle-3392392.php?fb_comment_id=fbc_403780289647711_8973 4262_403896676302739) about the Seattle gun ban being struck down. Here is what I replied:


Like most anti-gun people, you blame the NRA for all of your defeats. You, and most anti-civil rights people fail to see the real reason you loose politically: the huge hidden constituency, the 342,381 concealed pistol license holders in Washington, most of whom are not NRA members, but all of whom are paying attention to firearms rights issues.

Name even ONE anti-gun organization that has even half that many members NATION-wide, let alone concentrated in one state. You are losing for that reason.

Get used to it.


None of what I said is either original to me or generally new. These ideas have been floating around this forum on Calguns.net and in various other pro-rights sites for quite a while. But it struck me that the antis always blame the NRA. If not the the bad ol' NRA, we would have "common sense" gun laws. I have never heard or read anyone say:


The ban was enacted for a reason. The SAF, of course, goes against reason.


or


The ban was enacted for a reason. The ISRA, of course, goes against reason.


or



The ban was enacted for a reason. The CRPA, of course, goes against reason.


even though the SAF was a party to the Seattle gun ban lawsuit!

Antis also don't mention the number of people with LTC, the growing population of whom is an indication of the growth of firearms ownership, which they deny. Given that not one shall-issue state has reverted to may-issue or no-issue, it would seem that these are really popular laws, but is the NRA really responsible for everything that has gone wrong for the antis?

I think most people here believe the NRA, while important, is not the whole reason why things are going poorly for the antis: it is the entire population of gun owners, whose local efforts are channeled through local groups like the ISRA, and other national groups like the SAF. The number of LTC in existence, compiled from government statistics, would be a way to present (not prove, I don't think you can prove anything to the antis) this fact to the antis in a way that would be very hard to refute.

They would probably just ignore it, but doing that makes them seem that much more detached from reality.

Left Coast Conservative
03-12-2012, 3:47 PM
I vaguely remember hearing the figure "15 million" on NRANews.com

But those were CCW's not LTC's ;)

Could be. Since the data for many states is not published, we really cannot say. Legally Armed has 7.3 million, but they admit it is an estimate.

ETA: Even so, it would be hard to refute the 3.8 million figure from official sources.

Left Coast Conservative
03-12-2012, 3:51 PM
On a related note, here's an article (http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/475451) from Christian Science Monitor, which mentions CCW quite a bit.

Lots not to like in the article, but much to like as well.

Yes, I read that article as well, and thought it was pretty good as well. As carry becomes more normal, the novelty of writing about it in the media will probably wear off.