« Oral argument in Nordyke v. King | Main | Interesting Georgia case »
Debate on shall issue's effect on crime continues
A summary of a recent article, over at the Volokh Conspiracy. It's an answer to an earlier article arguing that shall-issue increases crime rates. I'm not statistician, but the gist of it is that the earlier article got its results only by considering crime rates in the first five years after enactment; if it had extended to six or more years, it would show crime rate reductions.
(For me, this is further proof of the inadequacies of statistical work in the gun law arena. I could understand a conclusion that shall-issue is followed by crime rate increases, or reductions, or no change. I cannot understand a conclusion that it is followed by crime rate increases followed by crime rate reductions. To be precise, I can understand that pattern, provided it is divorced from any concept of causation -- that is, the pattern is pure coincidence, perhaps the product of when the laws were enacted in relation to the predictable crime rate cycles).
11 Comments | Leave a comment
I've tried to do an analysis and found that there is no correlation, period. Best, I can figure is that 2-3% of the population has a permit to carry of that only 10% truly carry. Thus, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the population have guns at one time. Hardly enough to cause a deterent effect.
I would say to look at Robbery statistics though as they represent the highest stranger on stranger crime category. That is where the deterent effect would be most pronounced.
For Mike 123: According to the DOJ, there were about 860,000 LEOs, state and federal, in the US in 2004.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm).
Presumably, at any given time, some of those LEOs were off duty.
That year, the total population of the US was about 290,000,000.
(http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html)
If only .2 to .3 % of that population is carrying at any given time, that represents over 750,000 folks, using 2004 stats.
If that doesn't represent a deterrent effect, then would you argue that a large number of police is also ineffective?
Only 0.2% One chance in 500 that the person you select as your victim will put a bullet through you rather than comply. If that doesn't represent a reasonably likelihood of deterrence, then neither should statistically safer pursuits such as defusing unexploded ordnance, running with the bulls in Pamplona, sky diving or race car driving.
I thought the deterrent of concealed carry was based on the fact that criminals know citizens can get permits to carry but they don't know who is or who is not carrying at any given time. If so, then the actual number of people carrying at any time is not relevant, is it?
I cannot follow an argument that concealed carry increases crime without some explanation of how that occurs. The people with the permits are not committing crimes. We know that as a group they have the lowest crimes rate. So, is the issuance of permits to some people causing other people to commit crimes. What? This makes no sense.
I just finished Brian Boherty's book "Gun Control on Trial." He makes the point that scientific studies can not control for all of the possible vairiation and can not prove one way or the other. All I know is that in central florida just this week we had at least three good guys handle three bad guys with a gun and two bad guys are dead and one is lucky that they didn't get shot with a 44mag. the good guy held him for the cops.
Mike123,
With a 0.2 percent chance a robber running into someone who is armed it only takes about 26 (robberies) until the robbers’ accumulated rick is 5%. So after 26 robberies he has 5% chance of meeting someone who is armed.
Here are Phila. murder stats for the six years prior to the passage of Act 17 (shall issue) and the subsequent six years. The body count doesn't lie.
ps--we have less police officers, so that cannot be a factor in the decline except to has slowed it.
pre-Act 17 murders:
1990-503
1991-440
1992-425
1993-439
1994-404
1995-432
2643 total pre-Act 17 murders
*****
post-Act 17 murders
1996–420
1997–418
1998–338
1999–292
2000–319
2001–309
2096 total post-Act 17 murders
******
547 less murders comparing the six previous years to the six subsequent years since the enactment of Act 17
Here are the following years (general decline from years prior to passage continues):
2002 288
2003 348
2004 330
2005 377
2006 406
2007 392
2008 332
Note- I don't have pre-1990 figures, but as I recall they were in the 4-500 range/year.
Crime rate up when the first cohort of carry folks makes mistakes. Crime rate down when concealed carry population goes up, and the criminal population adjusts to it.
The small number of concealed carry folks will eventually cause a reduction in recidivism. Dead goblins don't breed, don't steal, don't need to buy or sell drugs.
In a perfect world, there would be no crime. In a slightly less perfect world the perp would be fatally shot just before he could commit a crime.
> Thus, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the population have guns at one time. Hardly enough to cause a deterent effect.
Only if you assume that both carrying and victim choice is random, and neither one is.
> I would say to look at Robbery statistics though as they represent the highest stranger on stranger crime category.
It's unclear why concealed carry would only affect stranger on stranger crime. Acquaintance provides opportunity, knowledge, and motive. (Knowing that someone has a lot of money doesn't tell me when they're carrying concealed.)
The classic misdirection is to do the statistical analysis of the *arrests*. They frequently cite Tx during the first few years as an example of CCW causing an increase in the crime rate.
However, When you do the same analysis on *convictions* a completely opposite picture develops. It appears that there was a considerable lag between when the Tx CCW laws were enacted and LEO knowledge of them. The result: a huge number of false arrests.
Much of the "lawlessness" after concealed carry laws are enacted are new concealed carry individuals running afoul of paperwork laws or cops arresting citizens in violation of the new laws. This happened in Texas 5-10 years ago when our license law was new. The brady bunch still uses this as an "example" of how concealed carry increases law breaking.