More Guns Less Crime John Jr (accelerated reader books .txt) 📖
- Author: John Jr
Book online «More Guns Less Crime John Jr (accelerated reader books .txt) 📖». Author John Jr
Figures 9.10—9.13 present the range of estimates associated with these different combinations of variables and specifications, both in terms of their extreme bounds and their median value. What immediately stands out when one examines all these estimates is how extremely consistent the violent-crime results are. For example, take figure 9.10. A one-percentage-point change in people with permits lowers violent-crime rates by 4.5—7.2 percent. Indeed, all the estimates (over two thousand of them) for overall violent crime, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault indicate that increases in permits reduce crime. All the combinations of the other ten sets of control variables imply that a one-percentage-point increase in the population holding permits reduces murder rates by 2-3.9 percent annually. Compared to the state-level data, the benefits from right-to-carry laws are much smaller for robbery and much larger for aggravated assaults.
Figure 9.11 uses the simple before-and-after trends to examine the impact of the right-to-carry laws, and the results for the violent-crime rates
it
I 1
§§
$2.
•§*
II
1!
15
Property
EPILOGUE/ 187
Larceny
tl
Robbery
Violent crime
Rape
Aggravated
Crime categories
Figure 9.10. Sensitivity of the relationship between the percentage of the population with permits and annual changes in crime rates: data for all counties
1
£ -0.005
a>-0
2 -0.015"
a
8
■g -0.03
I
8. -0.035-■
09
5
Larceny
Auto theft
Violent crime
Robbery
♦Largest relative increase in crime (smallest relative drop)
■ Median effect
ALargest relative drop in crime (smallest relative increase)
Burglary
Aggravated
Rape
Crime categories
Figure 9.11. Sensitivity of the relationship between right-to-carry laws and annual changes in crime rates: data for all counties
are generally consistent with those shown in figure 9.10. Again, all the violent-crime-rate regressions show the same direction of impact from the concealed-handgun law. The median estimated declines in violent-crime rates are quite similar to those initially reported in table 9. 1. For each additional year that the right-to-carry laws are in effect, violent
6 4 2 •'
Property crime
Larceny
r
Robbery
Burglary
Violent
w n crime for
crime'forcounties
Rape
Violent
counties
with more
with more *»>
than 2 °. 000
100,000 PeoP' 6 people
Aggravated assault
♦Largest relative increase in crime (smallest relative drop)
■ Median effect
▲Largest relative drop in crime (smallest relative increase)
Figure 9.12. Sensitivity of the relationship between the percentage of the population with permits and annual changes in crime rates: data for counties with either more than 20,000 people or more than 100,000 people (all individual crime categories—that is, all categories except "violent crime"—are for counties with more than 20,000 people)
1
•g>-0.01
I 002 1
■§ -0.03-
8. -0.035-
1
c
< -0.04-
Larceny
Property crime
Auto theft
Burglary
Violent Violent
crime for crime for
counties counties
with more with more
than than
100,000 20,000
Robbery
people
people
Rape
Aggravated assault Crime categories
♦Largest relative increase in crime (smallest relative drop)
effect ▲Largest relative drop in crime (smallest relative increase)
Figure 9.13. Sensitivity of the relationship between right-to-carry laws and annual changes in crime rates: data for counties with either more than 20,000 people or more than 100,000 people (all individual crime categories—that is, all categories except "violent crime"—are for counties with more than 20,000 people)
crimes decline by 2.4 percent, murders by 1.6 percent, rapes and aggravated assaults by over 3 percent, and robberies by 2.7 percent.
With the notable exception of burglaries, which consistently decline, figures 9.10 and 9.11 provide mixed evidence for whether xight-to-carry laws increase or decrease other property crimes. Even when one focuses on estimates of one type, such as those using the percentage of the population with permits, the county- and state-level data yield inconsistent results. Yet while the net effect of right-to-carry laws on larceny and auto theft is not clear, one conclusion can be drawn: the passage of right-to-carry laws has a consistently larger deterrent effect against violent crimes than property crimes and may even be associated with increases in property crimes.
Figures 9.12 and 9.13 limit the sample to the more populous counties and continue reaching very similar results. For counties with more than 20,000 people, the estimate ranges are always of the same sign and have magnitudes similar to those results which examined all the counties. Both figures also looked at the sensitivity of the overall violent-crime rate for counties over 100,000. The range of estimates was again very similar, though they implied a slightly larger benefit than for the more populous counties. For example, figure 9.12 shows that in counties with more than 20,000 people violent crime declines by between 5.4 and 7.4 percentage points for each additional 1 percent of the population with permits, while the analogous drop for counties with more than 100,000 people is between 5.8 and 8.7 percentage points.
A total of 13,312 regressions for the various violent-crime categories are reported in this section. The evidence clearly indicates that right-to-carry laws are always associated with reductions in violent crime, and 89 percent of the results are statistically significant at least at the 1
Comments (0)