September, 06 2017, 09:45am EDT
More Than 1,100 Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Concealed Carry Killers Since 2007, Latest VPC Research Shows
WASHINGTON
Innocent victims continue to die at the hands of private citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns according to ongoing research from the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for more than 1,100 deaths not involving self defense since 2007, VPC research shows. Details on these fatal incidents can be found on Concealed Carry Killers (concealedcarrykillers.org), an online resource that provides examples of non-self defense killings involving private citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns in public.
Overall, Concealed Carry Killers documents 904 fatal, non-self defense incidents since May 2007 in 40 states and the District of Columbia, resulting in the deaths of 1,108 people. Thirty-one of the incidents were fatal mass shootings as defined by federal law (three or more victims), resulting in the deaths of 147 victims. At least 19 law enforcement officers have died at the hands of concealed carry killers since May 2007.
VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "Concealed carry permit holders are supposed to be the 'good guys with guns,' but our research shows that far too often the opposite is true. Permit holders don't stop mass shootings, they commit them. They don't help protect law enforcement officers, they kill them."
Because there is no comprehensive recordkeeping of deaths involving concealed handgun permit holders and many states in fact bar the release of such information, the examples on Concealed Carry Killers are taken primarily from news reports along with the limited information collected by a few states. Hence, they likely represent a small fraction of actual events. Concealed Carry Killers does not include the small number of incidents that are eventually determined to involve self-defense or where no verdict is reached at trial. All such incidents are removed from the database's ongoing totals.
In the vast majority of the 904 incidents documented in Concealed Carry Killers (780, or 86 percent), the concealed carry permit holder either committed suicide (399), has already been convicted (305), perpetrated a murder-suicide (58), or was killed in the incident (18). Of the 93 cases still pending, the vast majority (81) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and eight incidents are still under investigation. An additional 31 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.
Concealed Carry Killers includes detailed narratives for the majority of the 904 incidents, including (if available) the age of the perpetrator and the victim(s), the weapon used, the relationship(s) of those involved in the killing, and motives for the killing when stated.
Below is a chart showing the status of all concealed carry killers since May 2007:
The findings of Concealed Carry Killers are consistent with the latest academic research, which shows that state laws allowing concealed handguns in public do not increase public safety -- in fact, they do the opposite. A 2017 study from Stanford University concludes that state concealed carry laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.
And a recent VPC study, Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use, shows it is extremely rare for private citizens to use guns in justifiable homicides. The study found that in 2014, there were only 224 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 7,670 criminal firearm homicides, based on data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program's Supplementary Homicide Report.
Additional information, including a state-by-state breakdown of fatal incidents involving concealed carry killers, is available at concealedcarrykillers.org. To review all deaths involving concealed carry killers, click on "Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers."
The Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org) is a national educational organization working to stop gun death and injury. Follow the Violence Policy Center on Facebook and @VPCinfo on Twitter.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) works to stop gun death and injury through research, education, advocacy, and collaboration. Founded in 1988 by Executive Director Josh Sugarmann, a native of Newtown, Connecticut, the VPC informs the public about the impact of gun violence on their daily lives, exposes the profit-driven marketing and lobbying activities of the firearms industry and gun lobby, offers unique technical expertise to policymakers, organizations, and advocates on the federal, state, and local levels, and works for policy changes that save lives. The VPC has a long and proven record of policy successes on the federal, state, and local levels, leading the National Rifle Association to acknowledge us as "the most effective ... anti-gun rabble-rouser in Washington."
LATEST NEWS
Netanyahu Insists Iran Assault Is 'Not an Endless War' as US Sends More Forces to Middle East
Benjamin Netanyahu infamously predicted that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 would "have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Mar 03, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted in a Fox News appearance late Monday that the intensifying assault on Iran "is not an endless war," even as Trump administration officials declined to provide a clear timeline for the ongoing military operations, deployed more forces to the region, and signaled a more intense bombing campaign is ahead.
As elements of Trump's MAGA base expressed outrage over the war, which is broadly unpopular with the American public, Netanyahu claimed in an appearance on "Hannity" that the US-Israeli onslaught "will create conditions of peace," remarks that came as the Middle East descended into regional war as Iran retaliated against the illegal attacks with strikes on sites in at least nine countries.
The Israeli prime minister's comments recalled his infamous prediction in 2002, ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, that "if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Netanyahu's remarks to Trump loyalist Sean Hannity echoed those of US Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told reporters and the public earlier Monday that "this is not Iraq," dismissing criticism of the administration for plunging the US into another disastrous Middle East war.
"This is not endless," Hegseth said. The Pentagon chief later bristled at a question about President Donald Trump's suggested timeline of "four weeks or less," calling it a "typical NBC sort of got-you type question."
"President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take four weeks, two weeks, six weeks," Hegseth said. "It could move up, it could move back. We're going to execute at his command."
During the same press conference, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US would be sending more forces to the region, declining to offer specifics so as not to "tip the enemy off." Caine also said the US expects to "take additional losses."
"This work is just beginning and will continue," Caine said.
Trump, for his part, said the timeline for the war is "whatever it takes" for the US and Israel to achieve their stated objectives, which have ranged from knocking out Iran's nuclear energy program to full-scale regime change.
"Right from the beginning we projected four to five weeks, but we have the capability to go far longer than that," Trump said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, warned that "the hardest hits are yet to come from the US military" and said that "the next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now." Rubio also indicated that Trump decided to join Israel in attacking Iran because the planned Israeli attack was likely to spark retaliation against US forces in the region, a justification that critics described as "insane."
The Iranian Red Crescent said Tuesday that Iran's death toll from the assault is now close to 800 and counting. The US has confirmed six deaths from an Iranian strike on a military installation in Kuwait.
"That we would just follow an ally into a war of choice that puts hundreds of Americans' lives, if not thousands of Americans' lives, at risk should be bone-chilling to Americans," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said late Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Leads Push for UN to Declare US-Israeli Assault on Iran 'War of Aggression'
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this."
Mar 02, 2026
A leading human rights group on Monday urged the United Nations General Assembly to declare the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran—which has already killed more than 500 people in just three days, including many children—a "war of aggression."
In a letter sent to the permanent missions of all UN member states in New York City, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) "called on governments to formally request an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly to declare the assault a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and to demand the immediate cessation of all hostilities."
"The [UN] Security Council is unable to make that determination because the United States, as a permanent member and a party to the conflict, will veto any resolution," DAWN explained. "The General Assembly should act in its place."
DAWN's call came as the death toll from three days of US-Israeli bombardment of cities, towns, and sites throughout Iran rose to at least 555, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Multiple massacres—including a bombing of a girls' school in Minab that officials said killed at least 180 people, many of them students—have been reported.
"The United States has initiated a war of aggression, which UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 defines as 'a crime against international peace' and which the Nuremberg Tribunal—established by the United States itself—called 'the supreme international crime,'" the group noted.
DAWN continued:
The US and Israeli decision to go to war violates the foundations of jus ad bellum, the body of international law governing when a state may lawfully use force against another. Under UN Charter Article 2(4), all member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. There are only two explicit exceptions: self-defense under Article 51, or authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. Neither applies here. Article 51 permits self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs," and Iran had not attacked the United States. Even under the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, the war is unlawful.
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "This war is patently illegal, and it must be stopped."
DAWN's call came on the same day that US First Lady Melania Trump chaired a UN Security Council meeting about the role of education in "advancing tolerance and world peace."
Just to be clear, sending his wife Melania to preside over the United Nations Security Council is a display of contempt for the UN by Trump.During his first term, Trump similarly sent his daughter Ivanka to multiple United Nations General Assembly sessions.
[image or embed]
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath.bsky.social) March 2, 2026 at 1:02 PM
"We've become the laughingstock of the entire world," lamented the social media group Occupy Democrats. "This is an unprecedented appearance by an American first dady and yet another sign that [President] Donald Trump prizes loyalty and proximity to himself over competence."
"In fact, this is the first time that the spouse of ANY world leader has been allowed to take the president's seat on the Security Council," Occupy Democrats added. "It sends a clear signal to the world that the United States is now little more than a nepotistic, tin-pot dictatorship."
DAWN also sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to pass a pair of war powers resolutions that would bar US forces from waging an unconstitutional war on Iran. H.Con.Res.38 and S.J.Res.59—introduced last year respectively by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—would direct Trump to withdraw US forces from unconstitutional attacks on Iran.
"The question before Congress is not whether to authorize this war retroactively," the letter states. "Given that... this war has been illegal under US domestic law from the moment it began... the question before you is whether to end it now, and Congress has the power to do so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rubio Suggests Trump Joined Israel's Planned Attack on Iran Instead of Stopping It
"This is the most insane and absurd definition of an 'imminent threat' I have ever heard in my life," said one journalist.
Mar 02, 2026
"What the fuck happened to America First?" US Sen. Ruben Gallego asked on social media Monday in response to a video of Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempting to justify President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war on Iran.
As the death toll climbed above 550 in Iran, with at least six US service members killed, Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill that "there absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not gonna sit there and absorb a blow before we responded."
According to Rubio, the US Department of Defense assessed that "if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked... by someone else—Israel attacked them, they hit us first, and we waited for them to hit us—we would suffer more casualties and more deaths. We went proactively, in a defensive way, to prevent them from inflicting higher damage. Had we not done so, there would've been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was gonna happen, and we didn't act preemptively to prevent more casualties and more loss of life."
In a follow-up post, Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran, added: "So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First."
The senator wasn't alone in ripping Rubio's remarks. Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.) said that "Secretary Rubio says the quiet part out loud: This is an unnecessary war of choice. Israel forced our hand—there was no imminent threat to the United States. And instead of talking Israel out of going to war, President Trump went along with it and put US lives at risk."
Stanford University political science professor Michael McFaul said: "Such strange logic. We had to go to war because Israel was going to attack Iran? So Bibi gets a say as to whether the US goes to war but the US Senate and the American people do not?"
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan declared: "This is the most insane and absurd definition of an 'imminent threat' I have ever heard in my life. Our ally and proxy, Israel, that we arm and fund, was about to illegally attack Iran so we joined in the attack because that illegal attack would have led to an attack on us."
Progressive organizer and attorney Aaron Regunberg also weighed in on social media: "Quite literally—and I've used that word too freely in the past, but in this case I mean literally—Rubio is saying they've made America into Netanyahu's bitch. We go where Bibi points, regardless of the American blood it will cost. Trump is an absolute cuck. Pathetic."
While critics of Trump's "Operation Epic Fury" have slammed it as illegal and clearly motivated by regime change, Rubio claimed that the Trump administration would welcome a new government in Iran, but the war—which has taken out top Iranians, including the supreme leader, Ayatollan Ali Hosseini Khamenei—is about preventing the Middle Eastern nation from developing a nuclear weapon.
A year ago, a US intelligence report said that "we continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." Despite that conclusion, the Trump administration bombed the country's nuclear facilities a few months later—and, as CNN's Aaron Blake pointed out last week, Trump has repeatedly said that his June airstrikes "obliterated" Iran's program.
There are now mounting calls for the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives to end Trump's assault on Iran by passing a war powers resolution. Despite the US Constitution giving Congress clear authority to declare war, several presidents have taken military action without any such declaration.
Discussing the administration's interaction with Congress about Iran, Rubio said Monday that "we notified the Gang of Eight," which is made up of the Senate and House leaders for both major parties, as well as the chairs and ranking members of each chamber's intelligence panel. Before taking on his current role, the secretary was the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"There's no law that requires us to do that. The law says we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities. We've done that," Rubio said, referring to a requirement in the War Powers Act of 1973. "But we can't notify 535 members of Congress."
"If they want to take a war powers vote, they can do that. They've done that. They’ve done that a bunch of times," he added. "There's no law that requires the president to have done anything with regards to this... No presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional—not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents."
Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) responded: "Dear Secretary Rubio: There is a law. It's called the frickin' Constitution of the United States."
Separately on Monday, the State Department urged Americans to leave a list of Middle Eastern countries.
Lieu responded: "Dear Secretary Rubio: You told Americans to depart now via commercial means when you know many airports/airspace are closed. YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE US GOVERNMENT EVACUATION FLIGHTS FOR THE STRANDED AMERICANS IN DANGER. Maybe you should have thought of a frickin' plan first."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular



