Is there any evidence that in states that allow concealed guns to be carried have lower crime because of these laws?
Yes. Basic economic theory suggests that if you increase the cost of voilent crime, criminals will substitute away to non-violent crime. In bordering counties one would expect them to commute to a neighboring state. The first person to really do this in depth was John Lott, you can read his book “More Guns, Less Crime”. There is still a lot of debate about the methods. However, I think that the empirical validation of pretty basic economic theory is a powerful argument. Unfortunately, proper experiments can’t be conducted, so there will always be controversy on this one.
Unfortunately, Lott has provided no empirical evidence whatsoever, and your economic theory doesn’t hold up either. You’d have to show that the cost of violent crime actually increases. You THINK it would follow, but you haven’t shown it.
Lott showed NO evidence that the number of guns actually increased, as such his ‘more guns’ is intenable. He also showed no evidence that the ‘less crime’ was in any causal relationship to the passing of shall issue laws. Temporal co-incidence does not imply any causal relationship whatsoever.
As such, all that “More Guns, Less Crime” is is a bunch of unproven claims published as a book because it would have been shredded in peer review. Even fellow opponents of gun regulation, like Kleck, a researcher often cited by the NRA, dismiss Lott’s conclusions. It is the typical attempt by a fringe researcher to get his hypotheses accepted by public acclaim when they don’t hold up to academic scrutiny.
Lott even admits in his book that there are plenty of factors that could have been responsible for a drop in crime rate. He admits he didn’t control for them. As such, he admits that his hypothesis is intenable based on the data he has, but published it anyway, because he knows there’s enough people who are very willing to believe it.
There is no debate about Lott’s methods. They’re unacademic. For it to have any credibility, it would have to be able to prove that the null hypothesis, that there is no effect, can indeed be dismissed. He couldn’t show that. The only people giving credibility to Lott are gun advocates who have neither the statistical background knowledge to seriously read his data and draw their own conclusions from it, nor the academic background to know what is consistent with academic standards of proof. There is no empircal validation whatsoever.
Likewise it is not enough to say “Well, allowing concealed guns to be carried would increase the cost”. You have to show that a)allowing concealed guns to be carried actually increases the likelihood of guns to be carried. It might sound trivial, but it is not, since many people carry guns even without a permit and merely legitimize that action after the laws are changed. b)you have to show that the increased likelihood is actually significant enough to produce an effect. E.g. after laws were passed in Florida, according to some sources 1% of the population got a permit. If we deduct those that got it to legitimize previous conduct and deduct those that got it ‘just in case’, the increase in guns in public is minuscule and does not increase the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen by any meaningful degree. c)You’d have to show that the increase in likelihood actually represents an increase in cost. To do that, you’d have to show that the threat to the criminal represented by those who carry a gun is significant. Given that the likelihood of encountering one is already low, and given that he has to be able to use his gun before the criminal can use his (and he actually has to hit the criminal rather than someone else, or at least be convincing enough to dissuade the criminal from his act), the claim that CCW laws represent a significant increase in cost of violent crime for criminals is doubtful at best, and frivolous at worst.
Sorry, you might consider that streching things, but THAT is the level of certainty that you need to speak of evidence. Anything else is just unfounded claims.
I agree with the OP that theory is not the same thing as evidence. Passing laws on theory not evidence is what got us into this mess in the first place.
No. You have to show that allowing concealed guns to be carried increases the likelihood that people think there are more concealed guns being carried.
Julie
OliverH, I’m sure there are a number of us who eagerly await for cites and/or academic refutation of Lott’s findings. Thank you.
I’m confused. What mess have we gotten ourselves into?
As to the OP I’m not convinced that concealed carry laws actually reduce crime. On that same note I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that it increases crime. Hysterical ravings of cities becoming “the wild west” didn’t turn out to be true.
Marc
Ok. To which academic journals do you have access?
Yup. I already gave you one cite: Lott himself. The fact that he continues to ignore that he can’t prove his point merely shows something about his intellectual honesty.
Since you obviously have nothing but insults to offer, I am probably wasting my time replying to your post. If you had actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would have realized that I was talking about basic academic standards of proof. It’s a commonly accepted standard, which Lott fails to meet. The burden of proof is on him, and your cite does not help him at all. It is in no way support for his position, but simply more of the same.
Once more, for those like you who take a little longer: Correlation does not imply a causative relationship. Simply because two things happen simultaneously has no impact as to whether one has caused the other. The fact that a sack of rice toppled over in India has precious little meaning on an earthquake happening in San Francisco, even IF it happened at precisely the same time.
There is nothing to refute, since Lott fails to support his conclusions. It is up to Lott to show that his conclusions are warranted by the data he has. So far, he hasn’t done so.
Strictly speaking, that’s true. But if nothing happens, the two will likelihoods will merge over time.
None, unless they’re available via the internet.
Which mess is that? Regardless, the laws were passed at different times in different states providing a bit of a “natural experiment”. One can now look at that data and and try to tease out the effects that the passage of those laws had. As I mentioned before, one would expect that if the probability of being confronted by a victim with a gun increases, then it would be fair to characterize that as an increase in the cost of doing the violent crime. The sort of behavior changes predicted by theory are seen in the statistics. Violent crimes decrease and property crimes increase, counties bordering states which pass shall-issue laws see a jump in violent crime rates, inter alia.
This is not a situation of data mining or inferring causation from correlation. We have an axiomatically built theory based on reasonable first principles being confirmed by the empirical data of a “natural experiment”. Is this as good as a lab experiment? No. Is this good enough for public policy? It’s a pretty good start.
As for OliverH’s claims, they are simply libelous and should be edited out. Lott’s book is an outgrowth of a paper he did with David Mustard. You can see Lott’s CV here. You will notice that Lott has done quite a bit of work on the economics of crime/law. The relevant papers are [ul]
[li]“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” co-authored with David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, no. 1, January 1997: 1-68, single authored summary reprinted in the Valparasio University Law Review, Vol. 31, no. 2 Spring 1997: 355-364.[/li][li]“The Concealed Handgun Debate,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, no. 1, January 1998: 221-243.[/li][li]“Deterrence, Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws, and the Geographic Displacement of Crime,” co-authored with Stephen G. Bronars, American Economic Review, May 1998: 475-479.[/li][li]“Do Concealed Handgun Laws Save Lives?” American Journal of Public Health:, Vol. 88, no. 6, June 1988: 980-982.[/ul][/li]
There are some relevant links provided by economist David Friedman here.
We just picked up Colorado and Minnesota, most states(about 36) now allow its citizens to defend themselves. Seems most states who have evaluated it, are convinced that crime is lower when their citizens can stop crime themselves without police.
I can also tell you for sure that among those who carry, the crime rate against them approaches zero.
You can tell us for sure, eh? Would I be out of line if I asked you how you can tell us for sure?
Here’s what I can tell you for sure. The list of which states of concealed-carry laws and which ones don’t is provided here:
http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/all+united+states/
For some reason, that pro-gun site is unwilling to also gives us the data on murder rates by state. Luckily, death penalty opponents are willing to provide that:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169&scid=12
Look up the numbers, and we get the following facts: In states without concealed carry laws, there were, on average, 4.3 murders per 100,00 people in 2001.
In states with such laws, the average is 6.1 murders per 100,000.
The national average: 5.6 out of 100,000.
In other words, states with concealed carry laws have more than forty percent more murders than states without. This becomes even more amazing when you consider the fact urban areas usually have higher crime rates than suburban/rural areas. Yet Massachusetts, an urban state, has just 2.3 murders per 100,000. New York, an urban state often cited by gun control opponents as an example of how strict gun control laws cause higher crime, actually does better than the national average. So does Rhode Island.
ITR champion,
I wouldn’t be “amazed” until I saw statistics showing how the murder rates had trended before and after passing concealed carry laws for each state. I don’t know what these trends are but I don’t think that you can tell too much from looking at 2001.
Actually, every single state out there allows it’s citizens to defend themselves. Unless you are using the term “defend themselves” to mean “carry a concealed weapon,” in which case your rhetoric is showing. You may want to get that checked out by a doctor.
Moot. Go to the library and check out Lott’s book. You will be able to see where the bar for statistical sophistication is set – at the minumum.
Except that you haven’t shown that the probability of being confronted with a gun increases.
Sorry, but if you built public policy on such ‘evidence’, you’d be seriously screwing up society.
The only thing that’s libelous is your mudslinging. It is telling that you rather resort to censorship than refute what I said.
A paper literally SHREDDED in reviews.
Yeah, Friedman, who has little to offer but apologist hogwash and mudslinging.
Here’s a hint: Sound data isn’t published on websites, as much as you would like that. It isn’t published in single-author books either. It is published in peer reviewed academic journals. And Lott’s efforts to publish his hypotheses on guns in such journals have been dismissed consistently.
They are -for people with subscriptions. Publishing these costs money. Quite a lot of it, since readership are considerably smaller than for ‘Time’, ‘Newsweek’ or the ‘Weekly World News’. As such, freebies are limited to abstracts in most cases. Nevertheless, you might go to a public or better university library.
As for the criticism of the Lott/Mustard study, there’s
Am J Public Health 1997 Jun;87(6):918-21
by Webster DW, Vernick JS, Ludwig J, Lester KJ (mostly dismissed by gun advocates merely on the basis of the authorship, or on Lott’s claims to have refuted the objections therein.)
As for general assessment of data in this context, there’s
Med Confl Surviv 2002 Oct-Dec;18(4):367-79
Cukier W.
“More guns, more deaths.”
Am J Public Health 2002 Dec;92(12):1988-93
Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D.
“Rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across US regions and states, 1988-1997.”
Cite from the abstract: ‘CONCLUSIONS: Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.’
That’s just as strong as Lott’s evidence gets, too. However, these authors admit they cannot prove causation. Lott claims he can.
Also interesting:
J Am Coll Health 2002 Sep;51(2):57-65
Miller M, Hemenway D, Wechsler H.
“Guns and gun threats at college.”
From the abstract ‘Students are more likely to have a firearm at college and to be threatened with a gun while at college if they are male, live off campus, binge drink, engage in risky and aggressive behavior after drinking, and attend institutions in regions of the United States where household firearm prevalence is high. Having a firearm for protection is also strongly associated with being threatened with a gun while at college. Students who reported having firearms at college disproportionately reported that they engaged in behaviors that put themselves and others at risk for injury.’
Also:
Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Feb;41(2):281-3
Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Drake CM.
“Increased risk of intimate partner homicide among California women who purchase handguns.”
and regarding general risks beyond homicide:
Inj Prev 2002 Sep;8(3):252-6
Barber C, Hemenway D, Hochstadt J, Azrael D.
“Underestimates of unintentional firearm fatalities: comparing Supplementary Homicide Report data with the National Vital Statistics System.”
J Urban Health 2002 Mar;79(1):26-38
Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D.
“Firearm availability and suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women.”
From the abstract ‘CONCLUSION: Between 1988 and 1997, the suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm death rates among women were disproportionately higher in states where guns were more prevalent. The elevated rates of violent death in states with more guns was not entirely explained by a state’s poverty or urbanization and was driven primarily by lethal firearm violence, not by lethal nonfirearm violence.’
in connection with
J Trauma 2002 Feb;52(2):267-74; discussion 274-5
Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D.
“Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 year olds.”
‘CONCLUSION: A disproportionately high number of 5-14 year olds died from suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths in states and regions where guns were more prevalent.’
Also
J Public Health Policy 2001;22(2):182-97
Sorenson SB, Berk RA.
“Handgun sales, beer sales, and youth homicide, California, 1972-1993.”
‘Even when taking potential confounders in the base population into account, beer sales and handgun sales generally are associated positively one year later with homicide, particularly among young men. Reducing beer sales may reduce homicides. And, although they represent a small fraction of existing firearms, regulating the number of handguns sold may reduce the number of homicides.’
Also:
J Trauma 2000 Dec;49(6):985-8
Hemenway D, Miller M.
“Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries.”
‘CONCLUSION: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.’
and
Am J Prev Med 1998 Feb;14(2):122-9
Lowry R, Powell KE, Kann L, Collins JL, Kolbe LJ.
“Weapon-carrying, physical fighting, and fight-related injury among U.S. adolescents.”
‘CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents, weapon-carrying is associated with increased involvement in physical fighting and a greater likelihood of injury among those who do fight. Efforts to reduce fight-related injuries among youth should stress avoidance of weapon-carrying.’
and many more, but my own access is currently quite limited…