Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Right to Carry Laws increase violent crime by 13-15%

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Right to Carry Laws increase violent crime by 13-15%

    https://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/163/

    Abstract
    The 2004 report of the National Research Council (NRC) on Firearms and Violence recognized that violent crime was higher in the post-passage period (relative to national crime patterns) for states adopting right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws, but because of model dependence the panel was unable to identify the true causal effect of these laws from the then-existing panel data evidence. This study uses 14 additional years of panel data (through 2014) capturing an additional 11 RTC adoptions and new statistical techniques to see if more convincing and robust conclusions can emerge.

    Our preferred panel data regression specification (the “DAW model”) and the Brennan Center (BC) model, as well as other statistical models by Lott and Mustard (LM) and Moody and Marvell (MM) that had previously been offered as evidence of crime-reducing RTC laws, now consistently generate estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime and/or murder when run on the most complete data.

    We then use the synthetic control approach of Alberto Abadie and Javier Gardeazabal (2003) to generate state-specific estimates of the impact of RTC laws on crime. Our major finding is that under all four specifications (DAW, BC, LM, and MM), RTC laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15% percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law. Unlike the panel data setting, these results are not sensitive to the covariates included as predictors. The magnitude of the estimated increase in violent crime from RTC laws is substantial in that, using a consensus estimate for the elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of .15, the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.
    The whole article is free to download at the link above. So, how many are gonna read the whole 102 pages before accepting or rejecting his findings?

  • #2
    No one,as the summary proves that the article is founded on biased assumptions and extrapolations .

    One can not say that 10 years after the adoption of the RTC laws violent crime is 15 % higher than it would have been without the RTC laws .

    If in 2004 (without RTC ) violent crime was 100, and in 2014 (with RTC ) violent crime was 115, this does not prove that without RTC violent crime would be 100 in 2014 .

    You have 2 known and 2 unknown facts and to make a corelation between these 4 is a big fault,which is elementary . Making such elementary fault proves bias ,which is also proved by the use of the Brennan Center model .

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      https://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/163/



      The whole article is free to download at the link above. So, how many are gonna read the whole 102 pages before accepting or rejecting his findings?


      I won't read the article as the blurb you have included says that the panel was unable to determine the true causal effect of these laws. That means that they are unable to say that right to carry has "caused" the increase in crime. This contradicts the claim in the title.

      I find this odd because if right to carry had actually played a role in the increase in crime it would be easy to determine as most states with right to carry laws require the person carrying the gun to obtain a license. As a result, they can all be identified and their role in the crimes should be clear.

      Given that even anti-gun Illinois has revoked hardly any concealed carry licenses it would appear that there is ample evidence that people who are taking advantage of concealed carry are not violating laws by engaging in violent crime.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #4
        Maybe the states enacted the right-to-carry laws because violent crime rates were going up and people wanted to be able to protect themselves?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          I won't read the article as the blurb you have included says that the panel was unable to determine the true causal effect of these laws. That means that they are unable to say that right to carry has "caused" the increase in crime. This contradicts the claim in the title.

          I find this odd because if right to carry had actually played a role in the increase in crime it would be easy to determine as most states with right to carry laws require the person carrying the gun to obtain a license. As a result, they can all be identified and their role in the crimes should be clear.

          Given that even anti-gun Illinois has revoked hardly any concealed carry licenses it would appear that there is ample evidence that people who are taking advantage of concealed carry are not violating laws by engaging in violent crime.
          The part from the abstract that is most important is the third paragraph:

          Our major finding is that under all four specifications (DAW, BC, LM, and MM), RTC laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15% percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law. Unlike the panel data setting, these results are not sensitive to the covariates included as predictors. The magnitude of the estimated increase in violent crime from RTC laws is substantial in that, using a consensus estimate for the elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of .15, the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.
          Emphasis mine.

          You're right, the title is flawed. It's a product of small spaces and limited time - I'm currently in airport security enjoying TSA attention.

          A better would be that "study of ten years of data says violent crime would be 13-15% lower without 'right to carry' laws." Part of their model is accounting for other variables, but they found a significant link between RTC and higher violent crime rates. It's not that RTC caused the crime, it's that the increase is directly linked to the RTC and would have been lower without RTC.

          In other words, their model says that if a state had restricted RTC 10 years ago, they'd have 15% less violent crime today (and that prison populations would need to expand greatly to account for the increase in violent crime linked to RTC).

          I've got a long flight so I'll be taking a look at their data myself.

          Comment


          • #6
            Think there might be a little bias in that study? Those getting paid for the study are anti-gun. Worthless BS again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              Maybe the states enacted the right-to-carry laws because violent crime rates were going up and people wanted to be able to protect themselves?
              That is a variable they'd have to account for to be valid. I'm assuming they did because of their results stating a direct relationship where HTC led to an otherwise avoidable increase in violent crime.

              But again, gotta read it to really know for sure. Can't dismiss or accept on gut feeling.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                No one,as the summary proves that the article is founded on biased assumptions and extrapolations .

                One can not say that 10 years after the adoption of the RTC laws violent crime is 15 % higher than it would have been without the RTC laws .

                If in 2004 (without RTC ) violent crime was 100, and in 2014 (with RTC ) violent crime was 115, this does not prove that without RTC violent crime would be 100 in 2014 .

                You have 2 known and 2 unknown facts and to make a corelation between these 4 is a big fault,which is elementary . Making such elementary fault proves bias ,which is also proved by the use of the Brennan Center model .
                Your assumptions are incorrect.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                  Think there might be a little bias in that study? Those getting paid for the study are anti-gun. Worthless BS again.
                  That's a logical fallacy.

                  But yes, the research and modeling could be deeply flawed. It also could be absolutely correct. But won't know till one takes a look.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Correct? RTC has little if anything to do with crime rates or the hiring of police.

                    It's a ridiculous paper and the law professor is biased. He doesn't even know how to intrepid the US Constitution, some law professor he is. Stanford law School, give me a break.

                    More importantly his logic is flawed. He uses deductive reasoning, RTC is bad so therefore it most have increased crime, thus increasing the number of police. That's what he is saying, total nonsense.

                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    That's a logical fallacy.

                    But yes, the research and modeling could be deeply flawed. It also could be absolutely correct. But won't know till one takes a look.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                      It's a ridiculous paper and the law professor is biased. He doesn't even know how to intrepid the US Constitution, some law professor he is. Stanford law School, give me a break.

                      More importantly his logic is flawed. He uses deductive reasoning, RTC is bad so therefore it most have increased crime, thus increasing the number of police. That's what he is saying, total nonsense.
                      Where does he say that?

                      But again, saying his results are wrong because of his school or politics is a fallacy. A 1+1 doesn't stop squalling 2 just because a Marxo-Fascist says it does.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Really? No bias? Please.

                        You read the paper, can you quote where he addresses the number of lives that are saved by RTC?

                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        Where does he say that?

                        But again, saying his results are wrong because of his school or politics is a fallacy. A 1+1 doesn't stop squalling 2 just because a Marxo-Fascist says it does.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
                          Really? No bias? Please.

                          You read the paper, can you quote where he addresses the number of lives that are saved by RTC?
                          I didn't say no bias. That would be a straw man fallacy.

                          As to the lives, I'm unsure why that would be included, discernible, or relevant. The paper is on violent crime rates. It can't say what it doesn't look at, and the results might not be so cleanly provided even if they could predict "lives saved".

                          The study is about statistical analysis that RTC leads to higher violent crime rates.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            One could make a case just as well that violent crime is up because the drug trade (industry) has also armed itself to increase its "trade". Fifty years ago Street Gangs in major cities were armed with knives and cheap hand guns. Now their firepower is greater than many local police departments. The Street Gangs have also spread to medium sized towns and rural areas.

                            I agree that the study is flawed because they only looked at one factor in increased violent crime.

                            Pruitt
                            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              First of all it isn't a study, it is an opinion piece written by someone who thinks he is above everyone else.

                              Show me specifically how the RTC has caused crime, how RTC has increased the number of police, you can't and neither can Mr Brilliant Law Professor. A well written paper that says the moon is made of cheese doesn't make it so, but their are those that will believe anything that fits their agenda.

                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              I didn't say no bias. That would be a straw man fallacy.

                              As to the lives, I'm unsure why that would be included, discernible, or relevant. The paper is on violent crime rates. It can't say what it doesn't look at, and the results might not be so cleanly provided even if they could predict "lives saved".

                              The study is about statistical analysis that RTC leads to higher violent crime rates.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X