Wednesday, January 8, 2014

CCW = Safer Streets?

That seems to be the conclusion of a new study, according to the abstract:
Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states.
It costs $40 to download a full copy, which is a little too rich for my blood. (Update: Thanks to a reader, I've seen a copy. I can't stress this enough: Save Your Money!)

My instinct is that CCW doesn't as much deter crime as redirect it. Crimes against people would be less attractive to criminals if there is a risk of coming down with a sudden case of bullet wounds.* Your average criminal is pretty much a lazy (and stupid) sociopath who can't or won't hold down a job. They'll turn to shoplifting and boosting parked cars, where there is a lessened chance of getting shot for their efforts.
_________________________________________
* It's probably why there have been reports that home invasions and burglaries of occupied homes are far more common in the UK than they are in the US.

(H/T)

7 comments:

  1. Your theory matches some of John Lott's earlier work, including interviews with prisoners. When CCW hits an area, they either take up new crimes which lessen the risk of meeting an armed citizen, or else they move to areas that don't allow CCW. They don't stop being criminals--they just redirect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not sure one can draw too many conclusions from the article. Based on my read it's pretty poorly done (statistically speaking). $40 for ~ 2 pages of content is absurd.

    Check your email.

    ReplyDelete
  3. bmq215, thanks for doing that.

    (I think that you got ripped off. A buck-fifty would have been a fair price for that.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. No problem. Luckily I'm in a situation where I didn't have to pay a thing for it. The whole idea of charging ridiculous amounts for academic articles smacks of elitism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just wondering if suicide and murder/suicide totals were removed from the study.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How did they account for the arrow of causality? My first instinct would be to suppose that high murder rates would inspire people to vote for tighter gun restrictions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CenterPuke, they use the "murder rates" in the "Supplementary Homicide Reports" from the DOJ. I'm not certain, but from digging around a bit it seems like this includes murder-suicides but not suicide alone. I'm unsure whether the former includes the suicidee in the count.

    Joe, they didn't. Instead they simply ended with "The most violent states may also have the
    toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted
    in this area." Pretty lame study, all things considered.

    ReplyDelete

House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.

In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.

All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.

(Please don't feed the trolls.)

中國詞不評論,冒抹除的風險。僅英語。

COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.