LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksLets continue this: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012
Guru
Do more guns equal more crime? Prove it.
Lets continue this: Gun Related Deaths In America 2012
When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.
Analyst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_CrimeOriginally Posted by Archer0915
More Guns, Less Crime is a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994. The book expands on an earlier study published in 1997 by Lott and his co-author David Mustard in The Journal of Legal Studies.[1] Lott also examines the effects of gun control laws, including the Brady Law.
Support
A conference organized at the American Enterprise Institute by John Lott resulted in a special issue[2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:
Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[3]
Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]
Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]
Other academic studies that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.
William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[6]
Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[7]
Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[8]
Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[9]
And Reiv says Lott has no one of importance supporting his hypothesis???
Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa. .........
Lott is rejected because of his econometric approach. His paper with Mustard, for example, adopts an inappropriate dummy variable approach that ensures severe empirical bias. Eliminate that bias and we find substantial changes in estimations.
The problem for the pro-gunners is that the evidence has been given time after time and they have been shown to be utterly incapable of valid critique. On the last thread, for example, two of them attacked a paper by referring to countRies rather than the papers focus on counties. Very shoddy.
one of the most recent publications is Gius (2009, The effect of gun ownership rates on homicide rates: a state-level analysis, Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 16, pp 1687-1690). This notes that "gun ownership rates have a statistically significant and positive effect on the homicide rates", confirming results from numerous sources such as Cook, Ludwig, Duggan and the papers finding significant positive effects from gun control measures
Analyst
It would seem that both sides have their rooting section. So what ever side you want to be on you have supporters with excelent credentials. I for one, believe that the more armed house holds we have the safer our neighborhoods are. But this comes from someone that has handled weapons for 59 years and been with others that have done the same. Like I have said, anyone coming into my home uninvited get a rather nasty shock, it would be the last thing they would get also. And, Yes, Reiv, I do have a concealed weapons permit and I value it highly. I carry when I'm going someplace that's not the best in the world or I know there might be a situation. It's there for only one reason and that's when either my life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger. Was I investagated by the F.B.I. in order to get it. Of course, everone who has a CWP has to be. And you know something, Reiv, there have been many times fewer crimes commited by citizens with CWP's than by police officers. And here's another fact, there are many more times those with CWP than there are police officers.
If proven ( is there really any doubt?) , that becomes America's obituary .
Nope. You want to see it that way. This is about objective literature review methods. You may not enjoy the results but there's nothing I can do about that. I haven't got it in me to lie for your benefit
Analyst
Nor I to lie for yours. Like I siad, we both have our sorces and it just depends which ones you want to believe. I'll believe mine until prove different.
This is a nonsensical reply. I adopt literature review methods. Do I just discount Lott? Nope. I refer directly to the problems with his empirical approach. The problem is that, given your bias, you assume everyone else is similarly skewed. That isn't the case.
Guru
Well everything I read shows more guns = more homicide while the overall crime rate is lower.
A higher murder rate is not a higher crime rate.
When we can see a better future for our nations children we can focus on the non issue; issues.
Refer me to one empirical study, other than Lott's discredited paper, that supports the 'more guns=less crime' hypothesis. Its just factual to note that most papers support the 'more guns=more' hypothesis. The only issue is which crimes increase (and which are unaffected)
Bookmarks