More Guns, Less Crime

Edit links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
More Guns, Less Crime
John R. Lott
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SubjectGun control
GenreNon-fiction
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
Publication date
June 1, 1998 (1st ed.)

Jun 15, 2000 (2nd ed.)

May 24, 2010 (3rd ed.)
Media typePaperback (3rd ed.)
Pages472 (3rd ed.)
LC Class
KF3941 .L68 1998
Preceded byStraight Shooting 
Followed byThe Bias Against Guns 

More Guns, Less Crime is a book by

shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 29 years from 1977 to 2005. Each edition of the book was refereed by the University of Chicago Press. As of 2019, the book is no longer published by the University of Chicago Press. The book examines city, county and state level data from the entire United States and measures the impact of 13 different types of gun control laws on crime rates. 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] and by Lott and his co-author John Whitley in The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.[2]

Main topics

Below are summaries of the main topics discussed in More Guns, Less Crime.

Shall issue laws

Lott examines the effects of shall issue laws on violent crime across the United States.

His conclusion is that shall issue laws, which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decrease violent crime. He explains that this result makes sense because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases.

Training requirements

Lott examines the effects of training requirements on crime rate and accident rate. He finds that training requirements have very little effect on both crime rates and accident rates.

Waiting periods

Lott examines the effects of waiting periods. These include limiting the time before purchasing a gun, and limiting the time before obtaining a concealed carry permit.

Brady Law

Lott examines the effects of the

Brady law
.

"Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" Laws

The third edition of the book is the first study to examine

Castle Doctrine
laws.

Other countries

The focus of the book is overwhelmingly on the US, but Lott does mention briefly gun ownership and crime rates in other countries, such as

Great Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica
, noting that murder rates rose after guns were banned. He also notes that many countries, such as Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand, and Israel, have high gun ownership rates and low crime rates, while many other countries have both low gun ownership rates and either high or low crime rates.

Reception

NRC Report

Partially in response to Lott's book, a sixteen-member panel of the

United States National Research Council
was convened to address the issue of whether right-to-carry laws influenced crime rate. They also looked at many other gun control measures, including the soon-to-expire 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, gun buy-backs, and bans on handgun possession or carry. In 2004 they issued the report "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" which examined Lott's statistical methods in detail, including computation of the statistical uncertainties involved, and wrote

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. Indeed, the committee was unable to find any of the laws that it examined had any effect on crime or suicide rates. In the case of right-to-carry laws, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.[3]

The council determined that Lott's data-sets can be subject to manipulation given a number of factors, so that different studies produce different results. "While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change."[3]

The issue of right-to-carry laws was the only law that drew a dissent from the committee's otherwise universal findings that it could not reach a conclusion. In a very unusual dissent for National Research Council reports, criminologist James Q. Wilson wrote that

The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent. The indirect evidence, as found in papers by Black and Nagin and Ayres and Donohue [cited in Chapter 6], is controversial. Indeed, the Ayres and Donohue paper shows that there was a "statistically significant downward shift in the trend" of the murder rate (Chapter 6, page 135). This suggests to me that for people interested in RTC laws, the best evidence we have is that they impose no costs but may confer benefits. ... In sum, I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.[4]

Support

A conference organized by the Center for Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School and held at American Enterprise Institute was published in a special issue of The Journal of Law and Economics.[5] Academics of all interests in the debate were invited to participate and provide refereed empirical research.[6] As follows are some papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions.[7]

Other refereed empirical academic studies besides the original paper with David Mustard 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.[15]
  • Stephen G. Bronars, University of Texas, and John R. Lott, Jr., "Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns", American Economic Review, May 1998.[16]
  • John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births," Economic Inquiry, April 2007.[17]
  • John R. Lott, Jr and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, "A Note on the Use of County-Level UCR Data," Journal of Quantitative Criminology, October 2001.[18]
  • Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming "More Guns, Less Crime"', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[19]
  • 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.[20]
  • Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws", Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[21]
  • Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws," Econ Journal Watch, September 2008 [22]
  • Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, " On the Choice of Control Variables in the Crime Equation," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, October 2010[23]
  • Carlisle E. Moody, Thomas B. Marvell, Paul R Zimmerman, and Fasil Alemante, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws," Review of Economics & Finance, 2014[24]
  • Donald J. Lacombe and Amanda Ross, "Revisiting the Question 'More Guns, Less Crime?' New Estimates Using Spatial Econometric Techniques," Social Science Research Network, 2014.[25]
  • Mark Gius, "An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates," Applied Economics Letters, 2014.[26]

Opposition

Some academic studies that have rejected Lott's conclusions include the following. Virtually all of these studies contend that there seems to be little or no effect on crime from the passage of license-to-carry laws. One by Ayres and Donohue, published in 2003, finds a temporary increase in aggravated assaults. The authors of the book Freakonomics report "troubling allegation that Lott actually invented some of the survey data that supports his theory"[27] and that other scholars couldn’t replicate his results (a court later dismissed Lott's defamation claim against the authors[28]).

Editions

There have been three editions of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, all published by University of Chicago Press. As of 2019, this book is no longer published by the University of Chicago Press:

See also

References

  1. SSRN 10129
    .
  2. ^
    S2CID 55111823. Pdf.
  3. ^
    ISBN 0309091241
    (online book).
  4. ISBN 0309091241
    (online book).
  5. JSTOR 10.1086/jle.2001.44.issue-S2
    .
  6. ^ Levitt, Steven D. (July 26, 2007). "Letter from Steven D. Levitt to John B. McCall". Clarifying comments on the JLE conference issue.
  7. JSTOR 1229603. Pdf.
  8. SSRN 286081
    .
  9. S2CID 55111823. Pdf.
  10. S2CID 16157781. Pdf.
  11. SSRN 281240
    .
  12. ^
    S2CID 9250327
    .
  13. SSRN 272143. Pdf. Archived 2012-12-22 at the Wayback Machine
  14. S2CID 154492747
    .
  15. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01711.x. Pdf.
  16. SSRN 56862
    .
  17. S2CID 154819324
    .
  18. SSRN 320102
    .
  19. JSTOR 1229604. Pdf.
  20. S2CID 154327876
    .
  21. ^ Moody, Carlisle E.; Marvell, Thomas B. (September 2008). "The debate on shall-issue laws". Econ Journal Watch. 5 (3). Atlas Network: 269–293. Pdf.
  22. S2CID 154492747
    .
  23. S2CID 154492747
    .
  24. ^ Marvell, Thomas B. "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws". Econ Journal Watch. 5 (3): 269–293.
  25. S2CID 150777772
  26. S2CID 154746184
    .
  27. ^ Freakonomics, p.84
  28. ^ "Professor Wasn't Defamed by 'Freakonomics' Author". February 13, 2009.
  29. The Skeptical Inquirer. 26 (1). Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: 19–23. Available online at Rutgers University–Camden.
  30. JSTOR 1229603. Pdf. Archived 2013-01-12 at the Wayback Machine
  31. PMID 9224169
    .
  32. doi:10.1016/S0144-8188(98)00012-X
    .
  33. S2CID 154626760
    .
  34. JSTOR 116969
    .
  35. S2CID 33899679
    .
  36. S2CID 145224076
    .
  37. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00002.x
    .
  38. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00003.x
    .
  39. S2CID 145348706
    .
  40. S2CID 145066987
    .
  41. PMID 15128143
    .
  42. S2CID 146585671
    .
  43. PMID 15805435
    .
  44. S2CID 123056682
    .
  45. PMID 18618416
    .
  46. ^ Ayres, Ian; Donohue III, John J. (May 2009). "More guns, less crime fails again: the latest evidence from 1977–2006". Econ Journal Watch. 6 (2). Atlas Network: 218–238. Pdf.
  47. S2CID 144072789
    .
  48. doi:10.1093/aler/ahr009
    .
  49. hdl:10419/214553
    .
  50. PMID 24054955
    .
  51. S2CID 145082706
    .
  52. S2CID 43138806. Archived
    (PDF) from the original on 2018-06-02.
  53. S2CID 1575410
    .

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=More_Guns,_Less_Crime&oldid=1215745674"