More Guns Less Crime John Jr (accelerated reader books .txt) 📖

that test. But I emphasized that looking at the before-and-after averages was not a very good way to test the impact of the right-to-carry laws (e.g., see p. 90), and I presented better, more complicated specifications which showed even larger benefits from these laws. Black and Nagin's test confirms the very criticisms that I was making of these initial simplifying assumptions.

Looking at the before-and-after averages merely provides a simplified starting point. If criminals respond to the risk of meeting a potential victim who is carrying a concealed handgun, the deterrent effect of a concealed-handgun law should be related to the number of concealed handguns being carried and that should rise gradually over time. It was precisely because of these concerns that I included a variable for the number of years since the law had been in effect. As consistently demonstrated in figure 1 in my original paper as well as the figures in this book (e.g., pp. 77—79), these estimated time trends confirm that crime rates were rising before the law went into effect and falling afterward, with the effect increasing as more years went by.

As already discussed in the book, I did not expect the impact to be the same across all states, for obviously all states cannot be expected to issue permits at the same rate (see the response to point 3 on pp. 131—32). Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I examined whether the drops in crime rates were greatest in urban, high-population areas.

On this issue David Friedman, a professor at the University of Santa Clara Law School, wrote that "The simplifying assumptions used in one

of the regressions reported in the Lott and Mustard paper (Table 3) are not true—something that should be obvious to anyone who has read Lott and Mustard's original article, which included a variety of other regressions designed to deal with the complications assumed away in that one. Black and Nagin simply applied tests of the specification to demonstrate that they were not true." 84 Similar points have also been raised in academic reviews of the book: "Another tactic was to criticize one part of the research by raising issues that Lott actually raised and addressed in another part of the study. Those criticisms that were not uninformed or misleading were generally irrelevant since taking them into account did not change his empirical results. Nonetheless, they were widely cited by an unquestioning press." 85

4Can changes in illegal drug use explain the results?

Even though Lott's fixed effects regressions will correct for some of the unobserved differences between the two groups of states [shall-issue and non-shall-issue states], we worry in particular that the crack induced crime jump in the mid-1980s in the states that did not pass shall issue laws may account for the apparent crime-reducing effects of the concealed-handgun laws. The omission of crack-related explanatory variables may have spuriously correlated lower crime with the passage of shall issue laws instead of correctly relating higher crime to the introduction of crack. The adoption of shall issue laws by six states in the 1980s may be associated with an unexpected crime rate increase in states that did not pass the laws rather than a concealed-gun-induced decrease in state that did. Two testable conclusions flow from our crack hypothesis: 1) Lott's results may not be robust to changes in specification that more fully capture differences in states that adopt or shun shall issue laws and 2) Lott's results may become weaker as additional years of data are added (because crack-related crime seems to have been declining sharply, giving the nonadopt-ing states a relatively better crime performance in the last five years). (Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws: A Case Study of Statistics, Standards of Proof, and Public Policy," American Law and Economics Review 1, nos. 1—2 [Fall 1999]: 464—65)

Their concern over cocaine- or crack-induced crime is surely a legitimate one, and it must be examined for the research to be convincing. Indeed, if the accessibility of cocaine or crack were primarily a problem in non-right-to-carry areas, they might experience a relative increase in crime, particularly for murder. Using the simplest approach—of using variables to account for national changes in crime between years—would not detect the differences in time trends then between shall-issue and non-

214. / CHAPTER NINE

shall-issue states. Still, the original tests in this book did address this problem in many different ways.

While it is difficult to directly measure the violence-inducing influence of cocaine or crack, I do attempt to measure directly the relative accessibility of cocaine in different markets. For example, the book and the original paper reported that including price data for cocaine (pp. 279—80, n. 8) did not alter the results. Using yearly county-level pricing data also has the advantage of detecting cost and not demand differences between counties, thus measuring the differences in availability across counties. 86 The simplest regressions did use only national year dummy variables, but other attempts were made to account for differences in time trends by including either individual state or county trends. Ayres and Donohue argue that the differences in time trends between states with right-to-carry laws and those without such laws are really due to the crack cocaine market. If the differences in trends that Ayres and Donohue describe actually exist, these state or county trends (particularly the county-level ones) should account for this. However, including these trends actually strengthens the results, which is the opposite of what Ayres and Donohue predict.

The spillover effects on neighboring counties strongly undermine their critique. Earlier we examined the crime rates for counties within either fifty or one hundred miles of each other on either side of a state border (the reported results are based on counties whose county centers are within fifty miles of each other). Neighboring counties without right-to-carry laws directly on the other side of the border experienced an increase in violent crime precisely when the counties