Concealed Carry Laws and Crime

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by js_africanus *
**

There are some relevant links provided by economist David Friedman here. **

I could equally well point to Tim Lambert’s website at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html

Not the least, he also addresses Friedman at

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node26.html

[Alessan]

Mild hijack - I’ve never understood the whole “concealed carry” thing. If you’ve already got a pistol, what difference does it make if you stick you holster inside your waistband or outside it?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by ITR champion *
**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.

**

Unwilling suggests they’re being disingenuous. More likely, they didn’t find it relevant.

**
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. **

Perhaps I’ve been wooshed, and I’m no expert in statistics, but what the hell does that matter?

Murder rates have nothing directly to do with concealed carry. They’re murder rates per capita for any weapon in any given situation, right?

Unless you can link murders to the carrying of concealed weapon, what bearing does that have at all?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Alessan *
**Mild hijack - I’ve never understood the whole “concealed carry” thing. If you’ve already got a pistol, what difference does it make if you stick you holster inside your waistband or outside it? **

Well, the issue in discussion isn’t open carry vs concealed carry laws. There’s been a trend to pass concealed carry laws in recent times, but open carry laws have stayed the same as far as I know (those that allowed it long ago still do, those that never did still don’t).

[John_Harrison]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**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.’
**

Ah, the Miller study from Harvard. sigh Where to begin?

This study found that “the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership–Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas–had more than 21,000 homicides, nearly three times as many as the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership–Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey.”

Problems with this (Originally posted by dischord at TFL):
This is the same state rankings they used earlier in the year for a similar “study” on children in the Journal of Trauma. There are numerous problems.

1. The biggest is that they use “Cook’s Index” (CI)

CI is a formula for guessing gun ownership based on the average of two ratios: firearm homicides (FH) to all homicides (H) and firearm suicides (SH) to all suicides.

CI = (FH/H + SH/H)/2. The higher CI, the more guns are assumed to be in an area.

However, CI has been identified as an inferior way to estimate gun prevalence by the lead author of the above-mentioned Harvard study, Miller himself, along with the namesake of the the index, Philip Cook – even Cook admits it isn’t so great. See their article at http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/f...k/SAN01-25.pdf.

CI wrongly assumes a linear relationship – either many guns with many deaths or few guns with few deaths – when the reality is that these fall in a plane:

** many guns, many deaths
** many guns, few deaths
** few guns, many deaths
** few guns, few deaths
see this chart for an illustration.

For the type of study they are doing, this creates circular reasoning. Many deaths = high gun ownership, and then they measure for deaths.

To further illustrate the absurdity of Cook’s index, if it is valid, then Texas – TEXAS!!! – lost a significant number of guns from 1994 to 1999.

Texas’ 1994 Cook’s Index was 0.72 – (1,652/2,337 +1,568/2,113)/2
Texas’ 1999 Cook’s Index was 0.59 – (1,224/2,005 + 794/1,391)/2

2. They ignore their own data collected elsewhere which shows different rankings of the states for gun prevalence.

To read the chart below:
First & Second Columns = their state rankings using CI.
Third Column = their state rankings using just suicides (FS/S)
Fourth Column = their state rankings using a 48-state survey
(ignore the stuff about CDC for this thread)

Note that North Dakota falls from 6th to 44th. That’s right, using CI, South Dakota is a low gun state

Note also that using their survey numbers, the highest gun states are low murder states, contradicting their findings

44 = South Dakota
45 = Vermont
46 = Montana
47 = Idaho
48 = Wyoming

[BF]

Thanks for those references OliverH, I hope to get around to checking them out soon. As for deaths by firearm, etc., it has already been acknowledged that there was a serious upward spike during the late '70’s to the early '90’s, and a serious reduction since. Maybe it has more to do with socio-economic issues vice firearm availability?

[CaptMurdock]

John Harrison: You quoted five out the eleven (by my count) studies that OliverH had cited, then proceeded to refute (admirably, I might add) only "the Miller study from Harvard.

Does that mean that the other ten studies are also flawed? Please enlighten.

[BF]

*Originally posted by Alessan *
**Mild hijack - I’ve never understood the whole “concealed carry” thing. If you’ve already got a pistol, what difference does it make if you stick you holster inside your waistband or outside it? **

IIRC, some states say that open carry of a firearm could promote unnecessary alarm to the general public. I forget what the term is called, but basically if you walk into your local McD’s with an exposed sidearm you could create a panic (if you’re not in a police uniform). Oh, and interestingly enough, the bulk of the studies you cite OliverH are available at least in abstract on the internet. Noting the coincidence that most are listed on pro-gun control sites.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by John Harrison *
**Ah, the Miller study from Harvard. sigh Where to begin?
**

You would be well-advised not to try to obfuscate. It is painfully obvious when you even QUOTE a half-dozen cites by SEVERAL groups provided that addressing one is not going to do much good. Not the least, the point you cite doesn’t make the study any less accurate as Lott’s, for whom numerous similar points were criticised.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**I could equally well point to Tim Lambert’s website at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html

Not the least, he also addresses Friedman at

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node26.html **

Tim Lambert is a registered member here. We ran him off some time ago. His website has never impressed me; it consists of his arguments in a complete vacuum, including none of the responses of his critics. This leaves the reader with the false impression that his opinions went unchallenged.

[BF]

Thanks for that Max, I thought that name was familiar, just couldn’t place it.

[John_Harrison]

*Originally posted by CaptMurdock *
**John Harrison: You quoted five out the eleven (by my count) studies that OliverH had cited, then proceeded to refute (admirably, I might add) only "the Miller study from Harvard.

Does that mean that the other ten studies are also flawed? Please enlighten. **

Sorry. I was cut short by a domestic pooch emergency . More to come.

[John_Harrison]

Okey doke.

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.”“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.’

and

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.’

and

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.’

All these apply to my first post above. Same data sets from Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael and David Hemenway.

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.’

This is interesting, but I can’t seem to find the full text without paying for it. Any help? (same authors, though, so it’s not too difficult to figure out what their conclusion will be)

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.”

Another example of correlation does not prove causation.

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.”

Umm… OK. This study claims that some homicides should be classified as accidents, therefore accidental death rates are under reported. The numbers they are talking about (190 added to the 770 or so deaths a year) are so small as to be almost statistically insignificant compared to total gun ownership.

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.’

Cripes, what was the point of posting this one?

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.’

US suicide rate (1993) 12.06
Japan rate (1994) 16.72

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.’

Did someone advocate that youths should carry more weapons??

[ITR_champion]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**Perhaps I’ve been wooshed, and I’m no expert in statistics, but what the hell does that matter?

Murder rates have nothing directly to do with concealed carry. They’re murder rates per capita for any weapon in any given situation, right?

Unless you can link murders to the carrying of concealed weapon, what bearing does that have at all? **

There have been many attempts, both on this board and in nationwide publications, to claim that states with concealed-carry laws have lower overall murder rates. My statistics refute that claim. I have proved that murder rates are higher in states with concealed-carry laws. I have not proved that concealed-carry laws cause higher murder rates, because mere correlation is not proof. I never claimed that I had done so. I don’t have the time or data available to write a full-scale academic study on the topic.

For those who would wish to see a simple analysis of Lott’s statistics from a pro-gun source, try this link

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by MGibson *
**I’m confused. What mess have we gotten ourselves into? **

We have a bunch of stupid gun-control laws that haven’t reduced crime and just make life unpleasant for gun owners.

[js_africanus]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**Unfortunately, Lott has provided no empirical evidence 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. **

Wrong and wrong, as I’ve pointed out already. You’re the mudslinger. Grow up.

Alessan, another issue is that concealed carry protects those who aren’t carrying. If you don’t know which potential target is carrying a gun, then that extends some measure of protection to the public in general. However, if by virtue of open carry you can see who is armed with a gun, then those sans gun are open to assault more freely. So the concealed carry creates a positive externality: the ninety pound woman with a gun can defend herself from a rapist, and the women without guns are less likely to be assaulted because of the uncertaintity.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by ITR champion *
**There have been many attempts, both on this board and in nationwide publications, to claim that states with concealed-carry laws have lower overall murder rates. My statistics refute that claim. I have proved that murder rates are higher in states with concealed-carry laws. I have not proved that concealed-carry laws cause higher murder rates, because mere correlation is not proof. I never claimed that I had done so. I don’t have the time or data available to write a full-scale academic study on the topic.

For those who would wish to see a simple analysis of Lott’s statistics from a pro-gun source, try this link **

I see. Well, I think it’s sort of silly to evaluate on that number alone. I mean, if some guy kills his wife for being unfaithful with a spork, what bearing does that have on concealed carry?

If we were counting the number of reported muggings, rapes, etc., it would have more relevance.

[SenorBeef]

Uh, that is to say… killed her with a spork. I don’t think it’d be possible to be unfaithful with a spork.

[Doc_Nickel]

Glad you cleared that up.

[DSeid]

BF had asked for

cites and/or academic refutation of Lott’s findings. Thank you.

Here you go: Kennedy, Research Fraud and Public Policy, Science 2003 300: 393

… Here is John Lott: ex-University of Chicago Law School, now at the American Enterprise Institute. His book More Guns, Less Crime claims that on 98% of the occasions in which citizens use guns defensively, the mere production of a weapon causes the criminal to desist. These data were allegedly based on some 2000 interviews conducted by Lott himself. But when pushed for the survey data, Lott gave a hauntingly familiar explanation: His hard drive had been destroyed in a computer crash. Apparently the dogs in this controversy eat everyone’s homework.
Wait. It gets even funnier. As the debate over gun laws spilled over from the scholarly journals to the Internet, Lott was defended passionately by a persistent ally named Mary Rosh. She attacked Lott’s academic critics, including John Donohue of Stanford Law School, claiming in one posting that Lott had been the “best professor I ever had.” Alas for Lott and his case, Mary Rosh now turns out to be–John Lott! The American Enterprise Institute has not yet followed the example Emory set with Bellesiles, though it might think about it.
Meanwhile, though, legislators in a number of states are still considering liberalizing concealed-weapon laws, and Lott’s book plays a continuing role in the debate. That moves this story from high comedy to a troubling challenge in social policy that isn’t funny at all. Death by shooting is a national public health problem. Sound social science, not cooked data, is what we need to work out the tough problems like the relationship between gun ownership and violent crime.

Data that goes against Lott’s “findings” has been quoted already in this thread and others … performed by scientists who do not “lose” their data or make up avatars to defend them.

Oliver,

I’ve been here, done this. It boils down to the fact that the CDC and medical epidemiologists are part of a conspiricy to take away the right of God-fearing law-abiding Americans to leave their guns laying around loaded.

I think an affair with a spork is possible but not likely comfortable.

So what do y’all think of Bush’s current position on the ban of so-called assault weapons? (Speaking of strange bedfellows.)