Email WhatsApp Gun control is back in the news after the recent Oregon college shooting with President Obama considering executive action on gun background checks. The premise of the left is that there are too many guns out there and more guns means more mass shootings. At first blush this makes sense. More guns, more shootings.
See also Part 1 and Part 2. In the aftermath of the Oregon college shooting that left 10 people dead and nine more injured, conservative politicians and pundits offered their familiar prescription for halting mass shootings: Ted Nugent, an NRA board member, went event further, saying that just about every member of our populace should carry a concealed weapon.
This push for no-hassle concealed carry is almost unanimously shared by Republican presidential candidates.
Trump, for instance, recently touted his support of national RTC reciprocity. Gun rights advocates frequently highlight the fact that from the early s to today, violent crime nationwide has fallen precipitouslywith gun homicides declining 49 perecent.
This dip in all types of violent crime happens to correspond with a dramatic surge in the number of states issuing concealed carry permits. Those same advocates, usually citing studies conducted by pro-gun researcher John Lottcontend it is the rising number of good guys with guns on the streets that is responsible for the lower crime rate.
But this line of argument runs counter to the facts. InLott published the book More Guns, Less Crime, which argues that states with RTC laws experienced significantly lower crime rates than those without such policies.
In30 states had shall-issue RTC laws the least stringent form of permitswhile seven states prohibited concealed carry altogether. One particularly decisive critique, a study published in the Stanford Law Reviewused a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis.
With those adjustments, the paper found that the alleged reductions in crime rates evaporated. In the paper, he argues that dissenting studies examining RTC laws overlooked that those laws often differ in how easy it is to obtain a permit, a difference that greatly influences the numbers of concealed carry permits issued by each state.
Rather than focus on the passage of RTC laws, Lott contends that researchers should instead examine the change in the number of permits. Increased concealed carry permit rates have no impact on crime rates.
But his focus on the number of permits instead of the passage of RTC laws does make sense. The study analyzes a decade of data from every county in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas, the only states with at least a decade of reported data on permit holders and arrest rates after the implementation of their RTC laws an explanation of their methodology that, unlike what Lott misleadingly suggests in a rebuttalis very clearly delineated.
Using several statistical models, Phillips found no significant relationship between changes in concealed carry rates and changes in any crime rate. In other words, the study found no evidence that increasing the number of permit holders decreases or increases crime.
One way to sidestep those thickets is to examine the two ways permit holders — and by extension RTC laws — could be reducing crime: Recent empirical evidence and studies show that neither of these pathways can be responsible for the reduction in crime. The first mechanism through which permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through direct deterrence, which occurs when an armed civilian uses a gun in self-defense, thereby stopping a crime.
The NRA and gun advocates frequently tout surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck indicating that there are around 2.
However, widespread defensive gun use is a myth. The survey results used to extrapolate millions of DGUs suffer from a severe false positive problem and present crime prevention numbers that are mathematically impossible.
In fact, as we have detailed in previous articles, not only is defensive gun use no more effective at preventing injury than taking no action at all during a crime, but the best empirical evidence to date from the Gun Violence Archive could also only find 1, verified DGUs in This means that With so few DGUs, it is not possible for permit holders and concealed carry laws to be reducing crime through direct deterrence.
The second way permit holders and concealed carry laws could be reducing crime is through indirect deterrence — when criminals are deterred by the mere threat of confronting an armed civilian.
This requires that criminals are actually sensitive to the prevalence of guns in their environment, and are particularly aware of changes made to state legislation that could potentially influence the quantity of concealed carriers.
Until recently, no studies had challenged these assumptions. Fortunato of the University of California examined the feasibility of indirect deterrence by conducting a survey asking 1, citizens to estimate how many people out of 1, carry a gun in their state.
At worst, these policies open the door for more violent, potentially deadly, escalations of altercations — altercations that may have ended peacefully if not for the presence of a firearm.
But there is no substantive evidence to support this claim.
Indeed, if criminals do have an internal gun radar of any sort, it is of gun ownership in an area, not the prevalence of concealed carrying. And instead of a being a deterrent, a study by Dr."More guns, less crime" - surely you've heard this mantra before? There's even an entire book devoted to it.
As Emily Badger noted awhile back, it has become a staple of our national gun control. Aug 31, · "More guns, less crime" has been an incredibly potent idea in local policy debates over gun laws. But is there evidence that it's true? The District, which is .
“The burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. Since the publication of More Guns, Less Crime, at least three major reviews of Lott’s work have debunked his findings.
One particularly decisive critique, a study published in the Stanford Law Review, used a superior statistical models and extended the time frame under analysis. Nov 16, · "More guns, less crime" has been an incredibly potent idea in local policy debates over gun laws.
But is there evidence that it's true? The District, which is . An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades.