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.

[Gothmog]

The Brookings Institute is in Washington DC, hence the ID

[harpseal]

Once more a bunch of lies based on made up data. They key information in any dtudy of violent crime rates is the data and what the mathematical analysis states. Since Lott's data has stood up to peer review and this "study" seems to contradict both Lott and Kleck we really need to get at the data to totally debunk it.

[traditionalist]

One is trained in the professional use of statistics, and the other is trained in the professional use of bullsh**.

Not that I support gun control, but Donohue is quite adept at statistical analysis. He's published a lot of good work in top economics journals.

The study in question is also at the NBER.

[Quilla]

Your meter is working properly! See the actual statistics rather than hypothetical musings:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm
GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA (Crime Rate Plummets)

[traditionalist]

Here's a copy of the study at the NBER.

I skimmed it. All it shows is that Lott's results are not robust to changes in specificataion and addition of new data (lot's dataset ended in 1992, this one in 1999). The only valid conclusion one can draw from Donohue's results is that concealed-carry laws don't affect crime rates very much one either way. The author is a lot more circumspect in his statements in the research paper than in the article.

[goodnesswins]

Yeah, I know (re: Brookings Inst. in DC) but I get irritated with "Washington" not being shown as Washington, DC! when it is. Just one of my little pet peeves since I'm from Washington, THE STATE!

[Fiddlstix]

Thanks for the Link. I remember that thread. It's a great one J

[Oberon]

I skimmed it. All it shows is that Lott's results are not robust to changes in specificataion and addition of new data (lot's dataset ended in 1992, this one in 1999).

It may be that the rates of violent crime, after dropping at the initial passing of CCW, stabilized for several years at the new, lower level. This would tend to appear to dilute the crime-lowering effect of CCW, if such exists.

[traditionalist]

All it means is that his paper was presented at the Brookings Institute and is on file there as a working paper. It is also on file at the NBER. Many papers that end up getting published in top journals start out as working papers at these two institutions.

[traditionalist]

It's mainly correlated ommitted variable bias, IMHO. There are so things that affect crime rates that are unobservable and correlated with the presence of concealed-carry laws that any rigorous statistical analysis of this question is close to being meaningless.

[steve-b]

law-abiding citizens may become "emboldened to do bad things, some of them violent"

Earth to Donohue: Popping a cap into some thug who is trying to rob, rape, or kill you is not, I repeat, NOT, a "bad thing".

[SauronOfMordor]

But Donohue argues that such comparisons are generally skewed, since the states that have adopted such laws tend to be rural and relatively isolated from the types of violent crime -- such as offenses related to crack cocaine -- that disproportionately affect more urbanized states

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have liberalized concealed carry in recent years. Notice that he does not dare to cite statistics from those three states

[dirtboy]

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have liberalized concealed carry in recent years. Notice that he does not dare to cite statistics from those three states

Is this accurate, traditionalist? I don't care to pay five bucks to get the stupid study. If it is true, it's the smoking gun (har, har) of bias in the study, because those states have both rural and urban populations.

[StriperSniper]

an attacker may wrest control of a handgun away from a victim, who may be less experienced in handling firearms,

I would think that the one who owns the firearm would tend to be more experienced than a thug who came unprepared.

[DugwayDuke]

"But Donohue argues that such comparisons are generally skewed, since the states that have adopted such laws tend to be rural and relatively isolated from the types of violent crime -- such as offenses related to crack cocaine -- that disproportionately affect more urbanized states, many of which have not enacted similar laws."

You could have pointed out the obvious, it's rather doubtful that crack dealers apply for Concealed Carry Permits. Therefore, this factoid is utterly and completely irrelevent.

[traditionalist]

Is this accurate, traditionalist? I don't care to pay five bucks to get the stupid study. If it is true, it's the smoking gun (har, har) of bias in the study, because those states have both rural and urban populations.

No. He breaks down the results by state, and Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are included. The results for these states are not qualitatively different from the whole sample.

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

[Gophack]

State laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it

Bullsh*t

[traditionalist]

The fact is relevent because if you were not aware of it, it could induce as spurious relationship between crime and concealed carry laws. States without concealed carry (CC) more likely to have a log drug-related crime. Hence if you examined the relationship between CC and crime without controling for crack addiction, you would that CC tends reduce crime even though it may not. This is called correlated omitted variable bias.

[gnarledmaw]

Because of the different approaches to defense inherent in a personality type. These different approaches generally break down along political lines.

A conservative has things to do, family to defend, no time or patience for this kind of screwing around.
"Stick 'em, U..."
"Bang!"
"Argggh! Gurggle, gurgle, eh..."
Go back about your gardening or whatever.

A liberal has nothing better to do and has a deep desire to experience, vicariously if not directly, the sickest behaviors of man. To camouflage their insanity the claim that their indulgence is an effort to save what ever is left of the attackers humanity and build his self-esteem. They tarry too long around the dark flame of criminality, "feeling their pain", being "understanding", and seeking the "emanations" and "penumbras" of evil until its too late.
"What are you doing?"
"Well, now that I have the gun, Im burgling you."
"But...I feel your pain."
"Yes, you do...BANG!"
"Arrrgh! Gurggle, gurggle, eh..."
Burglar goes about his burgling.

[Taxman]

LIEbrals LIE! That is all we need to know. And this LIEbral is lying through his teeth.

The Brookings Institute is a LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist think tank whose express purpose in life is to subvert our FRee Republic. Every single paper or "study" Brookings produces is a lie.

Unfortunately, the Brookings Institute has powerful allies in the LIEbral/Socialist/Marxist press, and this terribly flawed study will get a lot of play.

The good news is that Dr. Lott will get funded to rebut this study. The bad news is that you will not read about it in many "mainstream" papers or hear/see his rebuttal on many radio/TV stations.