More Guns in Citizens' Hands Can Worsen Crime, Study Says

The Los Angeles Times ^ | 1/23/03 | Aparna Kumar

[Gothmog]

WASHINGTON -- State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, according to a study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution.

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict an influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who in 1997 concluded that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

[Dick Bachert]

Frank,

Equally grateful for the kind words -- and the bump!

Stay warm and safe.

Dick

[wjcsux]

I believe the gun ownership requirement has been in effect for 10 years. Catron County is rural. I have only heard of one murder in that time. The Sheriff's Dept. thought it was drug related, I believe.

[Washingtonian]

This paper is garbage. Look at the most generally results that break down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis. Graph out the coefficients and you clearly see that violent crime is falling immediately after the law. This is the most general specification, much more general than the "hybrid" model. It is also pretty clear what is happening with the intercept shift and straight line in the hybrid model. The data is nonlinear. Crime rates are falling at an increasing rate after the law is in effect. Fitting a straight line to that with an intercept shift overpredicts the crime rate in the early years. So much for their claim about a small initial increase. If you doubt me, draw a verticle line and then a quarter of a circle that starts at that line. Now fit a straight line through the middle of that curved line and you will see that it is above the curve line in the beginning. This is the same thing that is happening here.

[Washingtonian]

This paper is garbage. Look at the most generally results that break down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis. Graph out the coefficients and you clearly see that violent crime is falling immediately after the law. This is the most general specification, much more general than the "hybrid" model. It is also pretty clear what is happening with the intercept shift and straight line in the hybrid model. The data is nonlinear. Crime rates are falling at an increasing rate after the law is in effect. Fitting a straight line to that with an intercept shift overpredicts the crime rate in the early years. So much for their claim about a small initial increase. If you doubt me, draw a verticle line and then a quarter of a circle that starts at that line. Now fit a straight line through the middle of that curved line and you will see that it is above the curve line in the beginning. This is the same thing that is happening here.

[Taxman]

Warm and safe works!

[supercat]

Precisely. The testimonial of a Social Security recipient or a handicapped person as to their freedom of movement issues positively effected by CCW should be weighed into any equation. These "scientific studies" are highly suspect at best.

Right. Consider two scenarios:

• Scenario #1: Someone in a bad neighborhood can't go out in the evenings or at night, for risk of being robbed or worse. That person stays at home and still has a 5% chance yearly of being robbed or worse.
• Scenario #2: The person has a gun, and the training to use it reasonably effectively. They go out in the evenings, whether to errands, movies, or whatever, and their risk of being successfully robbed or worse is 5% yearly.

In both cases, the victim's likelihood of tangible victimhood is about the same; the gun didn't improve it. On the other had, I would argue that the gun may still have vastly improved the person's life.

[Bob Mc]

"Why would the victim let the perp get that close before emptying it into him?"

EXACTLY! NEVER, EVER LET THE BAD GUY GET WITHIN ARM REACH OF YOUR WEAPON!

[judgeandjury]

More Guns in Citizens' Hands Can Worsen Crime, Study Says

Ahh, the magic conditional word "can". It basically means that there is a chance of something happening, no matter how slight of a chance there is that it will happen. Clapping my hands while I'm walking along a busy street "can" cause somebody to crash their car, if they happen to turn their head to look at where the clapping sound is coming from, and by doing so, fail to notice that the car in front of them has stopped. The chances of this happening is very slim, but there is still a chance that it could happen.

[Double Tap]

I have always thought it was a bad idea, a mistake, to base a right on whether it was a net plus for society. Someone, someday, will twist the stats to show that it is instead a net negative for society. So what do you do, take away the right? Gun-control nuts have been successfully doing this for years.

It is a right because it is natural to want to be able to defend yourself in the best way possible. It is stated in the Bill of Rights because it is an inalienable, natural right.

[Swordmaker]

You don't need to pay to see the study. It's available for free at the NBER.

Traditionalist, YOU, as a student may have access for free, but we peons do not. Here is what we see at your "free" link:

---------------------------

SSRN Online Order Form

Title	Collection	Author	Price
Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis	NBER	Ayres / Donohue	$5.00

Information for NBER subscribers and others expecting no-cost downloads.

Please complete this order form to download this paper.
We will send you an email message confirming your order and payment.
Items in red are required fields. Please ensure that all required fields are filled in.

Billing Address

First Name
Last Name
Address (line 1)
Address (line 2)
City
State
Zip Code
Country
Phone
Email

Credit card information

Credit Card Number

Expiration Date
Month Year

Copyright © 2001 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved

[Constitutional Patriot]

"Brookings Institute". No more need be said.

How true. And touted by the LA Times. Why do they even bother?

[Swordmaker]

May I suggest you also click on the link they provided to us 'second class' downloaders about "others expecting no-cost downloads"?

I find that I COULD get it for free if my computer were located in "...a developing country or in an emerging economy..."

This shows the Politically Correct (and Liberal) nature of the NBER.

[Ches]

LOL!

I always thought it depended on the definition of "is". Now I find out it all depends on the definition of "can".

[btcusn]

Yes, you posted the link twice, but it's not free, they want 5 dollars to view it.
Jack

[Do Be]

More guns in citizens's hands can worsen crime.

Common sense will show clearly that the above statement is true.

Pretend for a moment that you are a criminal(skip this part if you are a criminal).

Reflect for a moment how wonderful the life of crime is. Short hours. No nine to five rut. You get to steal money and the things money buys instead of the drudgery of having to earn it.

Crime is good. What could make it better? A completely unarmed populace.

What could make it worse? More guns in citizens's hands.

[tpaine]

AndyTheBear:
So the Donohue study boils down to "you can't be absolutely sure about everything Lott did".


It boils down to a lot more: Lott's results are highly sensitive to minor changes in specification, and they don't hold out of sample. Hence they are highly suspect.
-Tradi-

Such a truism can be asserted about any statistical results, imo. Hence, Donohues results are also 'highy suspect'.
Thus, we have a silly circular argument.
-tpaine-
_________________________________

This is true, but at least Lott had some common sense!
-AtB-

I disagree. Donohue uses Lott's methodology (as well as some variations of it), so if Donohue doesn't have common sense, neither does Lott.
77 -tradi-

Then, as you said earlier, we must use our common sense & principles to make conclusions as to which 'methology' would decrease crime, an armed citizenry, or an unarmed one.
What does your 'sense' tell you? That this is a moot point?

[Washingtonian]

Why don't you look at Lott's reply:

http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=372361

Lott and company's response does a good job of going through the severe problems with the Ayres and Donohue paper.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

You are right on with the dilition theory. What Lott did was to index each state for a time period after the CCW bill was passed into law. This is a more accurate reading of the impact of CCW on each rather than a dilution be averaging accross time which a large study over a longtime will show. An average is just an average of the highs and lows.

For example Dr. Deming, the guru of Japan's resurgance after WWII, said if you have three groups who are averaged you will always have one group above the average and one performing below the average, but all doing well or not well when compared to the top 25%.

Dr Deming is wrong to manage to the average or the diluted mean average. You must manage to these who excell.

[traditionalist]

Such a truism can be asserted about any statistical results, imo.

No, that is not true. There are many statistical results in the social sciences that are robust and have continued to hold out of sample. The underpreformance of IPOs is one that comes to mind immediately. There are many others.

Hence, Donohues results are also 'highy suspect'.

Yes. Thus, we have a silly circular argument.

Not at all. It meanse that the overall effect on crime of CCW is too small to be discerned by conventional econometric analysis.

[traditionalist]

Sorry, I didn't realize that as an MIT student I get a special deal.