Understanding why gun control successes aren't necessarily observed

Prove that those victims were not victims. Which one was a lie and where is your proof?

 

You're not making sense. The data is not comparable. There is no consistency in definition. I've already illustrated that with how previously fake calls were included in the figures. You need to do two things. First, you need to show that the handgun ban increased crime. Second, you need to quantify that increase. This would interaction of a time series analysis into homicide rates, demonstrating a structural break. It would then need an econometric analysis capable of determining an elasticity measure which highlights the relationship between handgun prevalence and crime rates. We both know you can't do that

 

Comparable to what? Your argument? Fine. But these victims are victims nonetheless. People are people no matter where you do. So I'll refer you to Lott's data that shows more guns equal less crime.



The Effects of Concealed Carry, and the Research of
John Lott and Others -- A Look At Both Sides

Last revised: March 17, 2002. I am confident that every major research work on the topic of right-to-carry laws has been covered in this article. Still, I may revise the article further in the future, either by adding future works, or by doing more analysis. If you have a print version, you may wish to check at http://www.gunlies.com/gl/lott.htm to be sure you have the very latest update.

The purpose of this article is to give a thorough, honest, accurate overview of the debate (and consensus) among researchers concerning the effects of laws that license citizens to carry concealed firearms. Legislators and others considering the passage of license-to-carry provisions in Missouri and in other States will find an accurate understanding of the potential effects of such legislation to be both relevant and important. This paper summarizes 32 academic studies representing hundreds of pages of research.

An "Anti-Lott" view: "As for [John] Lott's frequently cited study that concluded crime rates fell 8 percent to 15 percent [sic] when changes in laws allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons, it was 'debunked as fatally flawed by literally hundreds of academics,' said [David] Bernstein [spokesman for Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign / Million Mom March]." -- from "Pro-gun women go by the numbers," August 29, 2000, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A "Pro-Lott" view: "[John] Lott's study is so far ahead of all previous studies that it makes them all worthless." -- David Kopel, who authored a smaller study on the same issue that found allowing legal concealed carry either has no significant effect on crime or noticeably lowers it.

What's all the controversy about?

In 1996, Professor John Lott of the University of Chicago (and later, Yale Law School), together with David Mustard, published a research paper claiming that concealed carry laws have led to a reduction in violent crime in those States that have passed them. Lott and Mustard, based on what has been called the largest and most comprehensive study ever undertaken on the subject of guns and crime, found that concealed carry laws, far from causing "blood in the streets," reduce murder, on average, by 8.5%, rape by 5%, and severe assault by 7%. The reason, Lott believes, is (quite simply) that criminals are hesitant to directly attack law-abiding victims who just may be armed. These findings were further explained in Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime.

Controversy has raged ever since.

Do concealed-carry laws actually have at least a small effect on preventing crime? Or is John Lott a gun-biased wacko, as he has been portrayed by at least one prominent gun control advocacy group? 1

Below is a summary of the research in this area. Please note the following, which should help you get a true picture:

It's not easy to get an idea of how many "credible people with opinions" favor one side of an argument or the other. Probably a better measure of consensus is to examine the views of those who have actually published research on a particular subject. The papers below are believed to represent all major research on the effects of concealed-carry laws.

The length of the list of reviewers (not papers) may be a bit biased on the Lott side, because I received some additional information directly from him, and none from his critics. However, I can't say for certain whether this is the case, since critics are probably more vocal (perhaps much more so) than those who find themselves in agreement with a researcher's findings.

Conservatively speaking, without any additional information from Lott, based solely on my research via the Internet, the count of consensus of reviewers (mostly but not necessarily academic researchers) runs 28 to 29 to 3. That is, 28 generally credible people (mostly academic researchers) agreed with John Lott: laws legalizing concealed carry do significantly reduce crime and/ or save lives. 29 others disagreed with his research, claiming that, in reality, the benefits are unproven, or concealed carry laws have little or no effect (positive or negative) on crime. 3 other reviewers disagreed strongly, claiming that concealed carry is clearly dangerous; it increases crime and / or costs lives. (The count of consensus including a bit of additional info from John Lott himself is 36 to 30 to 3).

While an opinion count such as this can give us some clues, it's obviously not as good as sifting through all of the actual research and arguments for yourself, assuming, of course, that you have the time and the research-interpreting skills to identify flawed arguments on both sides.

The sheer number of articles in each category of the articles listing is 13 to 15 to 1. This counts Lott's book and the earlier study it's based on together as 1 paper -- which is probably rather unfair since the book's 320 pages of fine print almost certainly exceeds the length and detail of all the articles that criticize it combined. The number of articles can also give us some clues, but it isn't necessarily going to reveal the full truth either, for two reasons:

First, a few of these articles and studies simply restate points made elsewhere in the debate.
Secondly, the sheer number of articles published on either side doesn't necessarily say anything about how solid their arguments are. As we will see, a few of these articles are far more questionable than Lott's.

Overall, I show 20 authors contributing to the debate on the Lott side, 20 authors on the no-effect side, and 2 authors on the concealed-carry-is-dangerous side. One of these is the Brady Campaign. The other is Hashem Dezhbaksh. His co-researcher apparently feels there’s little or no effect (and that’s also what I perceive from reading their joint paper); however, Dezhbaksh seems to feel that concealed carry laws are detrimental overall. He obviously feels that they increase robberies with only a slight apparent decrease in murders (and that this is a bad thing); so I have placed him in the "concealed carry is detrimental" category.

There are at least 12 other academic studies (Lott says 13) that have confirmed the basic findings of John R. Lott and David Mustard -- that concealed carry laws seem to bring at least some positive benefits to society. These benefits include reductions in murder, rape, and severe assault. There is conflicting information on whether these potential benefits also include a reduction in robbery (which was a basis for critics to question the Lott/ Mustard results). However, since most robberies tend to occur as convenience store holdups with few customers present, rather than as street crime, there may be no compelling reason why they should.
One of the normal standards for quality is peer review. Lott's research has certainly received that; almost certainly more so than any other paper in the field. Although some researchers don't release their actual research data, and a few explicitly refuse to do so (including at least a few of those whose research tends to drive pro gun-control public policy), John Lott seems to have promptly released the actual data behind his published research to academic researchers at 42 different universities. In terms of the scope of their studies, Lott and Mustard examined data from all 3,054 counties in the United States, from 1977 to 1994.
Lott has issued responses to almost all of the criticisms raised by others. These are best viewed in the latest edition of his book. A certain amount of the "anti-Lott" information being put forth publicly simply ignores defenses of his research that Lott has already made.2

At least two researchers (Plassman & Tideman) used somewhat different methods from Lott and Mustard to look at homicide rates – and found an even stronger effect on murders than Lott & Mustard did. They generally concluded that the average State that passed a concealed carry law might expect an 11% reduction in the homicide rate.
The information below could be improved by a much deeper analysis. Nonetheless, it contains information on all substantive studies of which I am aware (and a couple that probably aren't substantive). Overall, it does give one an excellent general idea of what the debate is all about, and of what scholars are thinking concerning whether laws allowing concealed carry may actually reduce crime. For more analysis, I recommend John Lott's book (2nd edition) and the papers referenced below that criticize the research his book is based on.
The bottom line is this: concealed carry may reduce crime and save lives; scholars are not in agreement as to whether it does. However, virtually every academic researcher in the field (even those who are avowedly in favor of increased gun control) appears to agree that there is no known statistically significant evidence that concealed carry legislation on the whole produces any significant detrimental effect on homicides, rape or robbery.

Obviously, results will vary according to cities, States, situations and quality of legislation -- but there is no obvious indication at all that a well-crafted piece of legislation in any reasonably typical State should bring any significant cause for concern. If any significant detrimental effect on violent crime had clearly existed in the massive nationwide body of data analyzed by Lott and Mustard, surely some of the dozens of researchers to go back through and review their work would have found it. But virtually all academic researchers -- even avowedly pro-gun-control ones -- failed to find any such effect at all.

The very few who claimed they did find a detrimental effect either found effects so small they weren't sure they existed, or potential benefits as well, or their studies don't stand up to anywhere near the level of scrutiny leveled at the research by Lott and Mustard.

After weeks of searching, I was only able to find one academic paper that uses sophisticated statistical analysis and makes a clear claim that concealed carry laws actually increase crime. 13 studies found a reduction. I did also find 2 or 3 studies where the researchers thought concealed carry might increase some crimes. The 1995 Wiersema Loftin McDowall study was one; however, this study also notes a slight benefit for homicides.

On the negative side also is an apparently non-academic-level paper from Handgun Control / Brady Campaign. While I've referenced this paper below, it does not appear to meet even the most elementary standards for a serious academic study, let alone approach the sophistication of the study by John Lott and David Mustard. This "study" is the only one published semi-anonymously -- that is, without the actual name or names of any specific researchers. It was not peer-reviewed; there is no appearance that any statistical analysis was done at all, and there is no hint that they controlled for any other possible factors (although Lott and others who find benefits are apparently required to control for every other possible factor that might explain their results.) In addition, there is some question (from Lott) about whether the Brady people even had the dates correct on the data they used.

To make matters worse, the publishing organization has a direct financial interest in the "results," since they are by definition a gun control advocacy organization, and they raise all of their funding on that basis.

To look a bit further, the Brady Campaign paper makes absolutely no mention of homicides. Why not? My own simple analysis of States that passed concealed carry legislation (probably much like theirs, but using the Centers for Disease Control data) showed virtually no noticeable effect on overall homicides after passage of a right-to-carry law. Statistically, what I saw (a 0.4% "increase" in homicides) would have been absolutely insignificant, especially given the huge number of other factors that weren't controlled for.3 It appears that being open and forthcoming about homicides does not support the agenda of the paper's publishers.

I have therefore not counted this paper among the academic-quality papers.

It is not true, however, that the several hours I spent crunching numbers really demonstrates anything one way or the other. What is actually needed to get at the truth is a large, careful study, using advanced statistical techniques with a massive data set, controlling for the many factors that I made no effort to control for. This, in fact, is just what Lott and Mustard did.

Finally, (returning to the Brady Campaign paper), it's rather hard to take seriously a "study" by any organization that continues to make the claim that "9 children a day are killed by firearms," when 48% of these "children" are old enough to vote, live independently, sign legal contracts, and serve in the armed forces -- and fewer than 8% of their "children" are actually aged 12 and below.4 (Furthermore, a significant number of these -- perhaps close to a third -- are murdered by adult relatives. It's rather difficult to see how "child access prevention" laws are going to help these.)

In the wake of years of criticism for this practice, Brady Campaign / Million Mom March does seem to be changing their presentation at least partly to refer to "children and youth" instead, but in order to actually drop the obvious use of misleading statements, they would need to change every representation of these statistics to "teens and children" -- because that's what they're talking about: teenagers up to age 20, plus a few children.

The only academic study that claimed to directly demonstrate any definite adverse effects for concealed carry was the paper by researchers Hashem Dezhbaksh & Paul Rubin.

They claimed detrimental effects from concealed carry not in homicides, nor in rapes, but only in the number of robberies. My initial view, after doing some research on what we know about concealed-carry permit holders, was that this was a highly suspect result. William Sturdevant found, for example, in a 53-page study of Texas Concealed Handgun License holders, that:

"... the average Texan is 1.3 times (rate of 5.2 v. 4.0) more likely to be arrested for murder; 42 times... more likely to be arrested for rape; 48 times... more likely to be arrested for robbery; 2.2 times... more likely to be arrested for aggravated assault; and 7.6 times... more likely to be arrested for other assaults than the average CHL holder." (emphasis mine)5
The explanation for the obviously enormous gulf between robbery and rape against murder and assault is quite simple: when somebody uses a gun in Texas, lawfully or not, they get arrested. If a permit holder kills or wounds an attacker, he or she gets arrested. Therefore the assault and murder arrest rates would appear to include quite a high percentage of incidents of permit holders using their weapons lawfully in self-defense. It would be far more accurate to base a study on conviction rates, but there is not yet enough of this information for it to be statistically significant. However, even with the odds stacked against them statistically, permit holders still come out a lot better than the general public.5 The assertion that permit holders, overall, are "quite a law-abiding bunch" is obviously true.

In reality, though, Dezhbaksh and Rubin aren't arguing that permit holders commit a lot of robberies – only, if I understand them correctly, that license-to-carry laws also give robbers a bit more opportunity to carry weapons. However, Dezhbaksh and Rubin also find a small decrease in murders.

They further attempt to predict effects of concealed carry legislation for specific states. For Missouri, they would predict no effect on homicides, small to moderate decreases in the most violent kinds of other crimes (rape and serious assaults), and small to smallish increases in robbery, burglary, and auto theft. This, incidentally, is not very much different from what Lott finds; only Dezhbaksh & Rubin maintain that the effects are much smaller.

I personally find the decreases in murder, rape and serious assault (crimes in which victims always get hurt) to be more important than increases in robbery, burglary & auto theft. But to be conservative, one might put Dezhbaksh & Rubin in the "little or no effect" category. This is apparently where Rubin puts himself. And in spite of these findings, Dezhbaksh seems to still feel that "concealed carry is detrimental" -- so I have put him in that category.

Conclusion: The entire weight of scholarly consensus is that right-to-carry laws, on balance, do no harm -- and such laws may save lives and reduce violent crime.

Out of a total of 41 academic researchers and reviewers who wrote papers on the issue, only one or two (Dezhbaksh and, to be generous, Rubin) maintain that they've found specific evidence of any significant detrimental effect from concealed carry laws. This detrimental effect for robberies, offset by a small decrease in homicides, is contradicted by others, and especially by Carlisle Moody. Of the remaining 39 researchers, 20 believe concealed-carry laws reduce crime, and 19 don't.

In summary, then, the results of the known research seem quite clear.

If concealed carry were to cause a limited increase in any one category of violent crime, the overall effect might still be considered positive, if such laws caused a sufficient decrease in other categories. However, there's no credible, substantial evidence to suggest that concealed carry laws do any significant harm in any category of violent crime -- or in accidental gun deaths either. According to about half of academic researchers, such laws have positive effects on society.

License-to-carry laws may reduce the overall number of homicides, rapes, and serious assaults. In addition, evidence from Utah suggests that since citizens voluntarily receive additional firearms safety training in order to get permits, such laws that also contain safety training provisions may reduce the number of accidental firearms deaths as well.

 

You've already been informed of the empirical bias associated with Lott. For the fun factor have a look at wikipedia over his 'no-one else has seen it' data. However, for serious analysis, compare Lott's analysis with Rubin and Dezhbakhsh (2003, The effect of concealed handgun laws on crime: beyond the dummy variables, International Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 23, pp 199-217). Eliminating the empirical bias created by use of the dummy variable, they show that Lott's results are no longer supported. Whilst zero effects are most likely, they also show that increases in crime rates can also occur.

 

Your opinion. Others who are far smarter than you or I disagree.

 

Which of course, means nothing.

 

No, empirical fact. The authors took Lott's data and demonstrated that it was reliant on a flawed econometric method. Removing that flaw lead to statistical insignificance, but with some localised increases in crime.

 

It looks like Lott's research and evidence is empirical.................

em·pir·i·cal
emˈpirikəl/Submit
adjective
1.
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/648703/posts

At least two researchers (Plassman & Tideman) used somewhat different methods from Lott and Mustard to look at homicide rates – and found an even stronger effect on murders than Lott & Mustard did. They generally concluded that the average State that passed a concealed carry law might expect an 11% reduction in the homicide rate.
After weeks of searching, I was only able to find one academic paper that uses sophisticated statistical analysis and makes a clear claim that concealed carry laws actually increase crime. 13 studies found a reduction. I did also find 2 or 3 studies where the researchers thought concealed carry might increase some crimes. The 1995 Wiersema Loftin McDowall study was one; however, this study also notes a slight benefit for homicides.

I've seen nothing from you that refutes Lott. Your source attacks Lott yet seems to have no peer review cited.

 

It has been destroyed by the paper referenced. If you'd like to question that evidence then please refer to the problem. Sounds like you you're blindly goggling and that will ensure irrelevance

 

You don't even understand the paper you post. "Could", "May", "Suggests", are not words of proof.

 

Which has no support per peer review. It is hackery standing out on an island.

 

What do you mean? I think you're stating nonsense, but I don't think its up to me to determine such tut

 

peer re·view
noun
1.
evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.
verb
1.
subject (someone or something) to a peer review.

 

That would be splendid! Please reference a peer reviewed article. God bless you!

 

At least two researchers (Plassman & Tideman) used somewhat different methods from Lott and Mustard to look at homicide rates – and found an even stronger effect on murders than Lott & Mustard did. They generally concluded that the average State that passed a concealed carry law might expect an 11% reduction in the homicide rate.

After weeks of searching, I was only able to find one academic paper that uses sophisticated statistical analysis and makes a clear claim that concealed carry laws actually increase crime. 13 studies found a reduction. I did also find 2 or 3 studies where the researchers thought concealed carry might increase some crimes. The 1995 Wiersema Loftin McDowall study was one; however, this study also notes a slight benefit for homicides

 

You've already been destroyed. The dummy variables method was rubbish. Your empty comment doesn't really interest me, particularly a misrepresentation of the obvious (old hatted staff!)

 

Sure buddy. Everything and everyone is wrong except you and those who agree with you. Ideologues are like that. Try reading the studies first. You're too transparent.

 

Well yeah, that's part of why I despise that law.

 

Strange reply! I've merely referred to an evidence-based approach. That necessarily entails adoption of objective literature review methods. The analysis rejecting Lott's approach is well known, so there isn't really an excuse for not knowing it

 

You mean it was criticized by the study you cited yet no one could be found that agreed with it. Try harder.

 

Nope. The paper simply removed the empirical flaw. The dummy variable approach simply cannot be used to derive robust conclusions

 

The paper you cited has no support from peers. Lott's does.

 

The paper is published in a peer reviewed journal. If you want genuine pro-gun research please refer to Kleck. Those using Lott are simply being shepherded by secondary sources. It is quite ludicrous to think that a dummy variable approach can be used to test the hypothesis. Such approaches are only good for simple control variables (e.g. gender)

 

Post your proof.

 

Already done via the referenced paper. As I said, it is quite silly to think a dummy variable can capture these effects. The authors succinctly describe the extreme assumptions required for it to appropriate:

"The method is predicated on two assumptions: (1) all behavioral (response) parameters of this equation (slope coefficients) are fixed—unaffected by the law and (2) the effect of the law on crime is identical across counties."