The Right to Carry Has Not Increased Crime: Improving an Old Debate Through Better Data on Permit Growth Over Time

W. English
{"title":"The Right to Carry Has Not Increased Crime: Improving an Old Debate Through Better Data on Permit Growth Over Time","authors":"W. English","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3887151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last 30 years, a majority of US states adopted Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws at the same time that crime rates dramatically decreased. A large literature has examined whether RTC laws contributed to or slowed this decline in crime, with most studies concluding that they have no significant effect on crime. However, this research has been plagued by methodological challenges, many of which are exacerbated by the common approach of modeling the effect of RTC laws using a binary dummy variable to indicate a one-time change in policy. Recently, Donohue, Aneja and Weber (2019a) have employed a novel synthetic control approach which they suggest indicates that RTC laws significantly increase violent crime. However, we show that this analysis is highly sensitive to modeling choices, and Donohue et al. chose a specification that has been criticized by Kaul et al. (2017) as mistaken because it prevents covariates from exercising any influence on the development of predicted crime rates. Correcting this to properly incorporate covariates dramatically changes the estimated effect in many states; and comprehensive synthetic control analysis reveals no significant effect on crime. Given the methodological challenges inherent in binary approaches to modeling the effects of RTC laws, we gather data on the growth of carry permits in states over time, which allows us to investigate the phenomenon of interest - the actual ability to carry - in a manner that is theoretically more valid and econometrically more powerful. Employing two different methods for estimating missing data - modeling the growth of permits as a logistical growth process and imputing missing data using the Amelia II package - we find that the growth in carry permits has no effect on violent crime rates, homicide rates, firearm homicide rates, or non-firearm homicide rates. This study provides further, strong evidence that the dramatic growth in the ability to carry firearms for self-defense in recent decades has not exacerbated crime rates.","PeriodicalId":256324,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Empirical Studies (Law & Politics) (Topic)","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Empirical Studies (Law & Politics) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3887151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, a majority of US states adopted Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws at the same time that crime rates dramatically decreased. A large literature has examined whether RTC laws contributed to or slowed this decline in crime, with most studies concluding that they have no significant effect on crime. However, this research has been plagued by methodological challenges, many of which are exacerbated by the common approach of modeling the effect of RTC laws using a binary dummy variable to indicate a one-time change in policy. Recently, Donohue, Aneja and Weber (2019a) have employed a novel synthetic control approach which they suggest indicates that RTC laws significantly increase violent crime. However, we show that this analysis is highly sensitive to modeling choices, and Donohue et al. chose a specification that has been criticized by Kaul et al. (2017) as mistaken because it prevents covariates from exercising any influence on the development of predicted crime rates. Correcting this to properly incorporate covariates dramatically changes the estimated effect in many states; and comprehensive synthetic control analysis reveals no significant effect on crime. Given the methodological challenges inherent in binary approaches to modeling the effects of RTC laws, we gather data on the growth of carry permits in states over time, which allows us to investigate the phenomenon of interest - the actual ability to carry - in a manner that is theoretically more valid and econometrically more powerful. Employing two different methods for estimating missing data - modeling the growth of permits as a logistical growth process and imputing missing data using the Amelia II package - we find that the growth in carry permits has no effect on violent crime rates, homicide rates, firearm homicide rates, or non-firearm homicide rates. This study provides further, strong evidence that the dramatic growth in the ability to carry firearms for self-defense in recent decades has not exacerbated crime rates.
持枪权并没有增加犯罪:通过更好的许可证增长数据改善一个老的争论
在过去的30年里,美国大多数州都通过了持枪权(RTC)法律,与此同时犯罪率急剧下降。大量文献研究了RTC法律是否有助于或减缓了犯罪率的下降,大多数研究得出的结论是,它们对犯罪率没有显著影响。然而,这项研究一直受到方法挑战的困扰,其中许多挑战因使用二元虚拟变量来指示政策的一次性变化来模拟RTC法律影响的常见方法而加剧。最近,Donohue, Aneja和Weber (2019a)采用了一种新的综合控制方法,他们认为RTC法显着增加了暴力犯罪。然而,我们表明这种分析对建模选择高度敏感,Donohue等人选择了一个被Kaul等人(2017)批评为错误的规范,因为它阻止协变量对预测犯罪率的发展产生任何影响。纠正这一点,适当地纳入协变量,极大地改变了许多州的估计效果;综合综合控制分析表明,对犯罪无显著影响。考虑到对RTC法律影响进行建模的二元方法所固有的方法论挑战,我们收集了各州随时间推移的携带许可证增长数据,这使我们能够以一种理论上更有效、在计量经济学上更强大的方式调查感兴趣的现象——实际携带能力。采用两种不同的方法来估计缺失的数据——将许可证的增长建模为物流增长过程,并使用阿米莉亚II包来推算缺失的数据——我们发现,携带许可证的增长对暴力犯罪率、凶杀率、枪支凶杀率或非枪支凶杀率没有影响。这项研究进一步提供了强有力的证据,证明近几十年来持枪自卫能力的急剧增长并没有加剧犯罪率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信