Shall issue CCW reduces violent crimes: new study

[hoffmang]

In the ongoing back and forth between the Lott and Mustard studies (more shall issue, less violent crime) and Ayres and Donohue (more shall issue more initial crime) there is a new study. The new study shows what looks to be significant gains in the Ayres and Donohue data where initially shall issue CCW increases crime a bit but in year 5 or 6 and thereafter, there are big gains from shall issue CCW in reduced crime. The study is here (http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf).

They "money" quote:

All crime categories except assault and auto theft show post-law benefits from the shall-issue laws. Murder, rape, robbery, and burglary show significant benefits across all states. The overall net benefit to the US is $450 million per year.17 At this rate, it will take approximately six years for the initial costs to be offset by the eventual long-run benefits. After that, the net benefits increase continuously. The breakeven point is the same as that implied by the Ayres and Donohue analysis.

-Gene

[Cali80]

be quite! don't tell the brady champaign..... shh!!!!

[CCWFacts]

I don't get it, why is there any initial increase in crimes? Permit holders commit almost no crimes, and any crimes committed by permit holders probably would have happened without permits (ie, permit holders who commit crimes are probably crazy / dangerous people who were going to offend at some point no matter what).

I wonder what the explanation is.

[Patriot]

I'll add this to the growing list of things to look over eventually.

Editor’s Note: Professors Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue have been invited to reply to this article. Their analysis will appear in the January 2009 issue of the journal.

Wonder what they'll say?

[yellowfin]

I don't get it, why is there any initial increase in crimes? Permit holders commit almost no crimes, and any crimes committed by permit holders probably would have happened without permits (ie, permit holders who commit crimes are probably crazy / dangerous people who were going to offend at some point no matter what).

I wonder what the explanation is.Probably post hoc ergo promtor hoc...just happened to be the same year, not because of.

[zinfull]

There is an increase because the bad guys have to do their shopping before everyone is armed. They get while the getting is good.

Jerry

[RomanDad]

I don't get it, why is there any initial increase in crimes? Permit holders commit almost no crimes, and any crimes committed by permit holders probably would have happened without permits (ie, permit holders who commit crimes are probably crazy / dangerous people who were going to offend at some point no matter what).

I wonder what the explanation is.

There APPEARS to be an increase of crime over five years using the Ayers/Donahue Methodology. Many other studies have looked at the issue and found the exact OPPOSITE result. ONLY Ayers and Donahue found this INCREASE....

So, despite the evidence to the contrary, what this study did was an analysis of the Ayers data ASSUMING their methodology was correct and discovered, that if you take the data out to SIX years, AND RETAIN their methodology, whether its flawed (which the other studies suggest) OR NOT, at year six even THEY can't argue that Crime increases given their own figures and methods.

[hoffmang]

Not much is more fun than skewering the other side with their own data and study.

-Gene

[Sam]

I read some of it, good to see that not every academic has a sippy cup of kool aid by their side. When school starts again I'll have a Soc Professor who specializes in criminology read the writing on the wall.

[gravedigger]

I don't get it, why is there any initial increase in crimes? Permit holders commit almost no crimes, and any crimes committed by permit holders probably would have happened without permits (ie, permit holders who commit crimes are probably crazy / dangerous people who were going to offend at some point no matter what).

I wonder what the explanation is.

I'll bet you that it is because they see no difference between a victim being shot by a criminal, and a criminal being shot by a citizen. They probably count dead criminals among the "body count" of "people who died by gunshot wound" to come up with an increase in violent crime. As they began to run out of criminals, the numbers dropped! LOL! So, I guess it takes about five years for an armed society to "take out the trash."

[nicki]

:TFH:The stats that count are how many people have ccw's and what is the societal problem with them versus the general population.

How many permits were revoked and why. How many of the revocations involved gun related crimes.

As a control, we should include police officers in the mix, after all, I am sure all law enforcement is above reproach, :TFH:

Also we should break ccw issued in may issue versus shall issue.
I bet we find more problems with CCW holders who are good ole boys.

I bet we can see that here in California just between the counties.

Nicki

[CCWFacts]

How many permits were revoked and why. How many of the revocations involved gun related crimes.

The numbers are published by most states I believe, and they are low low low. CCW holders are an extremely well-behaved group. And you can assume that the very small number of CCWers who do commit crimes are crazies who would have done it with or without a CCW. What it means is that almost anyone who is crazy enough to commit crimes, has problems early enough in life to have a criminal record. This matches my observations of the world. Of course there are always a few crazies who are somehow able to avoid that, but the evidence shows that that is rare. Personalities and behaviors are formed early in life.

As a control, we should include police officers in the mix, after all, I am sure all law enforcement is above reproach, :TFH:

Apparently cops commit more crimes than CCWers. I can think of some reasons for this. One is a feeling of power may give license to abuse power, and obviously cops do have power (arrests, searches, some use of force exemptions), whereas a CCW doesn't give any special power. As they say, "power corrupts". Another factor may be that cops are in situations like, say, doing a SWAT-style raid, where a mistake of judgment could lead to a criminal prosecution. Non-cops aren't in such situations.

Also we should break ccw issued in may issue versus shall issue.
I bet we find more problems with CCW holders who are good ole boys.

I would expect. From the anecdotes I've heard that's what it sounds like.

I bet we can see that here in California just between the counties.

But it's really hard to categorize the various counties here into clear groups.

[RomanDad]

I'll bet you that it is because they see no difference between a victim being shot by a criminal, and a criminal being shot by a citizen. They probably count dead criminals among the "body count" of "people who died by gunshot wound" to come up with an increase in violent crime. As they began to run out of criminals, the numbers dropped! LOL! So, I guess it takes about five years for an armed society to "take out the trash."

No... That has nothing to do with it. Incidents where CCW holders actually FIRE the gun is a fraction of a fraction of a percent, and statistically insignificant to any shift in shootings or firearms homicides. Its not a factor in any way shape or form in the Ayers/Donahue analysis.

The Ayers/Donahue study includes a variable for the crack cocaine peak in the 1980s and re-analysis of the data in accordance with that variable. (The thought process being, that the crack cocaine epidemic was a catalyst for a LOT of the crime in the 80s, and when it peaked, crime went down as well, and thats all the Lott study was really seeing.... That the decrease in Crack, was responsible for crime dropping, rather than an increase in CCWs as Lott argued).

What this study did was show that if there is any significant finding in the Ayers study, it is that it takes a half decade for Shall Issue to cause an actual decrease in crime to appear, even if you control for the generally lower crime rates of the 90s.

[Librarian]

What this study did was show that if there is any significant finding in the Ayers study, it is that it takes a half decade for Shall Issue to cause an actual decrease in crime to appear, even if you control for the generally lower crime rates of the 90s.
I believe the authors said that stopping at just 5 years was a defect in Ayres/Donohue - extending to 6 started to show the decrease.Their results imply a short run
increase of $4.23 billion in crime costs from the dummies, with an accompanying
decrease of $1.25 billion per year from the trends. Thus, as Table 1 shows, the
costs (negative values) increase for the first three years then start to decline in year
four. Beginning in year six, the long run benefits (positive values) exceed the short
run costs and the benefits grow continuously from then on. Ayres and Donohue
stop their calculations at five years, ignoring the $1.25 billion per year reduction
in crime costs in all further years. Since no shall-issue laws have been repealed
and some states have had these laws on the books for decades (e.g., New Hamp-
shire has had a shall-issue law since 1923), extrapolating the results to ten years is
reasonable. (at page 5 in the file, 273 in the journal)

[RomanDad]

I believe the authors said that stopping at just 5 years was a defect in Ayres/Donohue - extending to 6 started to show the decrease.(at page 5 in the file, 273 in the journal)

Exactly.... You have to wait a half a decade, and then the rewards start coming in...

Still I think the Ayers/Donahue study is much more flawed than just this.... But what this study does is say "OK... LETS ASSUME the Ayers method is correct.... They're only correct for the first five years... .After that the data supports More Guns Less Crime." So either way, Ayers is WRONG.

Also, from my quick review of the statistics, it appears the rewards rapidly increase each consecutive year after the break-even year. Which seems to support a fairly typical economic model applying to the issue of crime.

[hoffmang]

I need to go look closely but the slight uptick in crime after CCW issuances that the Ayers study may or may not find may actually be the ongoing trend that helps move forward shall issue legislation. Said another way, it may be that uplifts in the crime rate may push along shall issue passage and the after effect is just the trend not yet being stopped by eg. "CCW holder shoots carjacker" articles taking a couple of years to show up and educate criminals.

-Gene

[yellowfin]

It sure can educate the criminals on a one on one basis pretty fast. I am yet to hear of a single rape case involving an armed victim...a point I've never heard any of the so called women's rights organizations mention.

[SchooBaka]

In the ongoing back and forth between the Lott and Mustard studies (more shall issue, less violent crime) and Ayres and Donohue (more shall issue more initial crime) there is a new study. The new study shows what looks to be significant gains in the Ayres and Donohue data where initially shall issue CCW increases crime a bit but in year 5 or 6 and thereafter, there are big gains from shall issue CCW in reduced crime. The study is here (http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/MoodyMarvellCommentSeptember2008.pdf).

They "money" quote:


-Gene
Does this refer the the Mayor of Salinas "Donohue" ?
I heard him on 1460am last week or so; someone called regarding the upsirge in violent crime suggesting shall issue ccw's. Of course Donohue said the last thing we need is more guns on the street. He did not distinguish between guns the criminals have vs. guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. :mad:

[gazzavc]

Sounds like the study that was done a while back that came up with such nuggets as :

"Dice with rounded corners have a greater chance of rolling anything" ...............

Life really is 6/4 against.

G

[Librarian]

Does this refer the the Mayor of Salinas "Donohue" ?
I heard him on 1460am last week or so; someone called regarding the upsirge in violent crime suggesting shall issue ccw's. Of course Donohue said the last thing we need is more guns on the street. He did not distinguish between guns the criminals have vs. guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. :mad:Good heavens, no! John J. Donohue III (http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/JDonohue.htm)

[BillCA]

be quite! don't tell the brady champaign..... shh!!!!

If the Brady bunch stay true to form, the first thing they'll try to claim is that it's a "discredited study". :rolleyes:

If they can't do that, they'll claim "serious questions have been raised" about the study by leading "researchers" that have not yet been addressed.

Interviewer: What about the most recent study that says concealed weapons are actually a benefit in the long term?
Brady Mouthpiece: Well Bob, there are some very serious questions that have been raised by other researchers that have not yet been addressed. But what we do know is that more guns on the street will result in more killings.

That's how they'll spin it for sound bytes.