John Lott. FYI (copy below):
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=36837
************************************************************
Change to concealed carry law will make NH safer
By JOHN R. LOTT Jr.
Guest Commentary

DEBATES OVER whether citizens should be allowed to carry
concealed handguns always seems to end up with fearful
stories about what might happen. We hear horror stories
about how permit holders might endanger the lives of others
and of shootouts in the streets. But within a year, all the
fuss dies away. No state that has adopted a right-to-carry
law has rescinded it, and for good reason.

New Hampshire, whose original right-to-carry law was adopted
in 1923, is an old hand at dealing with these fears. Yet,
in seeking to further liberalize its law, many of the old
concerns are being revisited. In February, the state Senate
passed a bill, 13-10, to let law-abiding citizens carry
concealed handguns without requiring them to get a license
or pay fees. The state House votes on the bill today.

While no longer requiring a license, the bill really does
not change who can legally carry a concealed handgun.
Federal law still forbids felons, anyone charged with
domestic violence, someone who has been dishonorably
discharged from the service or anyone who?s been
involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital from even
owning or possessing a gun.

The only important change will be how quickly law-abiding
citizens can obtain a gun for self defense. Right now it
takes up to 14 days to get a permit. People who are
threatened and who wouldn?t otherwise have carried because
they didn?t want to break the law by carrying without a
permit will be able to carry a gun without having to wait.

New Hampshire?s citizens do not have to look very far to see
what happens if you liberalize the requirements. Since 1903
Vermont has had the same rules being proposed for New
Hampshire.

While some have painted Vermont as a dangerous place,
violent crime is as low or lower than in New Hampshire.
Over the last ten years, both states have averaged two
murders per 100,000 people. Yet, Vermont?s robbery rate was
half of New Hampshire?s. Vermont?s rape rate is also lower.
Indeed, whether one looks at the last 10, 20, 30 or 40
years, the pattern has been quite similar. Calls to police
chiefs in Vermont from Burlington to Middlebury to Waterbury
also indicate no problems with their rules.

Vermont is not the only example. Alaska and virtually all
of Montana have rules similar to Vermont?s. After
originally passing a right-to-carry law in 1994, Alaska
eliminated permit requirements last July. As Fairbanks
Police Director Paul Harris put it this week: ?I can tell
you very simply, it has not created any problems.?
Since1991, Montanans have also been quite happy with their
rules, seeing violent crime rates fall faster than other
Rocky Mountain states.

One particular fear raised during New Hampshire?s
legislative hearings is that the law would make police
officers? jobs more dangerous. As Rep. John Tholl said,
?Driving up, if I see a gun between the seats, as an
officer, all I can do is protect myself, not inquire if this
is a qualified person.? This complaint is not new. This
argument has constantly been raised whenever right-to-carry
laws have been proposed. But instead of worrying about what
might happen, note that there exists not one single case
where a police officer has been killed by a permit holder at
a traffic stop. Virtually none of the right-to-carry states
even bothers to computerize permit holders? names so that
police are alerted to the possibility that the driver they
pull over has a permit. Nor has any permit holder ever
killed a police officer.

Research has shown that letting law-abiding citizens carry
concealed handguns makes police safer. Professor David
Mustard at the University of Georgia found that
right-to-carry laws reduce the rate that officers were
killed by about two percent per year for each year the laws
were in effect. Several studies find that as law-abiding
citizens are allowed to defend themselves, criminals are
much less likely to carry guns. Having fewer criminals
carrying guns makes the jobs of police less dangerous.

Unfortunately, too much of the debate has been played in the
media as a battle between individual rights and public
safety. This is not a question of individual rights versus
public safety. It is a case where more freedom increases
safety.

John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute, is the author of ?More Guns, Less
Crime? (University of Chicago Press, 2000).