Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:09 pm
Time: 10:09 pm
Results for right-to-carry laws
3 results foundAuthor: Aneja, Abhay Title: The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy Summary: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public - so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2003 15 of the 16 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the NRC panel concluded that the NRC panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder, while the 15-member majority responded that the scientific evidence did not support that conclusion. We evaluate the NRC evidence and show that, unfortunately, the regression estimates presented in the report appear to be incorrect. We improve and expand on the report's county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2006. While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC's majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report's judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 4'270 percent. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. Our paper highlights further important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC's cautious conclusion about right-to-carry legislation's impact by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis. Details: Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 2, 2011 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599 Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599 Shelf Number: 120681 Keywords: Crime ControlGun ControlGunsRight-to-Carry LawsWeaspons |
Author: Aneja, Abhay Title: The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy Summary: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the panel, though, concluded that the NRC's panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder. We evaluate the NRC evidence, and improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2006. We also present evidence using both a more plausible version of the Lott and Mustard specification, as well as our own preferred specification (which, unlike the Lott and Mustard model used in the NRC report, does control for rates of incarceration and police). While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report’s judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 44 – 75 percent. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support. Our paper highlights some important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. Although we agree with the NRC’s cautious conclusion regarding the effects of RTC laws, we buttress this conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977-2006 period with and without state trends and using three different specifications is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and/or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 18294: Accessed September 5, 2012 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18294 Shelf Number: 126259 Keywords: Crime ControlGun ControlGunsRight-to-Carry LawsWeaspons |
Author: Webster, Daniel W. Title: Firearms on College Campuses: Research Evidence and Policy Implications Summary: Restrictions on legal gun owners carrying firearms in public places have been removed or greatly weakened in most states over the past three decades. Colleges and universities, however, have been locations that have commonly been allowed to prohibit otherwise legal gun carriers from bringing guns onto campuses. This exception, however, has recently begun to change. Eight states now have laws that, generally, allow individuals who can legally carry guns elsewhere to bring guns onto college campuses. In 24 states, colleges and universities have the authority to allow or forbid civilians from having firearms on their campuses. A number of additional states considered new laws relevant to carrying firearms on college campuses during their 2015-2016 legislative sessions. This report reviews the evidence surrounding the relationship between civilian gun carrying and violent crime and mass shootings and factors that are unique to public safety on college campuses. Policies removing restrictions on civilian gun carrying are based on claims or assumptions about civilian gun use, the impact of state Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws, and the nature of mass shootings that are not supported by or are contrary to the best available research. The incidence of civilian self-defensive gun use (SDGU) is difficult to discern as available data are based on self-report, and distinguishing aggressor from victim in interpersonal altercations can be highly subjective. Nonetheless, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that SDGU is relatively rare (about 102,000 self-reported incidents per year affecting 0.9% of all violent crime victimizations) and is no more effective in reducing victims’ risk of injury than other victim responses to attempted violent crimes. Research led by John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, suggesting that RTC laws prevent violent crime has important flaws that biased his findings. The most recent and rigorous research on RTC laws that corrects for these flaws consistently finds that RTC laws are associated with more violent crime. These findings may seem counterintuitive because concealed-carry permit holders have, as a group, low rates of criminal offending and must pass a background check to ensure that they do not have any condition, such as a felony conviction, that prohibits firearm ownership. But, in states with low standards for legal gun ownership, legal gun owners account for the majority of persons incarcerated for committing violent crimes with firearms. As mass shootings and casualties from those shootings have risen sharply over the past decade, one rationale for allowing more civilians to carry firearms, both on and off college campuses, is to avert rampage shootings or stop rampage shooters before additional victims are shot. Central to these arguments are the notions that “gun-free” zones attract individuals set on mass murder and that armed civilians frequently thwart or interrupt such shootings. New research on mass shootings involving six or more victims murdered that occurred in the United States from 1966 to through June 2016 contradicts these claims. Only 12% of these shootings took place, in whole or in part, in a truly gun-free zone (no armed security or police or armed civilians) and 5% in a gun-restricting zone (civilian gun possession prohibited). A separate study of mass shootings involving four or more fatalities, that included domestic incidents during 2009-2015, found that only 13% occurred in a gun-free or gun-restricting zone. Successful civilian uses of guns to stop a mass shooting were incredibly rare and about as common as armed civilians being shot while attempting to respond to mass shooting incidents. Furthermore, the data show no evidence that RTC laws – which, it is argued, lead to more armed citizens ready to defend against a mass shooting – reduce mass shootings or the number of people shot in those incidents. This report also reviews research relevant to the unique context of college campuses, especially student demographics and characteristics, and the implications for increased access to firearms among college students. Late adolescence and early adulthood is marked by increases in a variety of risky behaviors including violence, binge drinking, and drug abuse. Binge drinking, a common behavior among college students, especially elevates risks for involvement in violent altercations. Risky decision-making in adolescence and early adulthood is due, in part, to on-going brain development during that stage of life that can compromise emotional and behavioral regulation, impulse control, and judgment – all of which are essential for avoiding the circumstances in which firearm access leads to tragedy. Age-specific homicide offending peaks around the age when youth reach the minimum legal age for purchasing, possessing, and carrying handguns (19-21 years). Suicidal behavior that leads to death or hospital treatment peaks at age 16, but remains high through age 25, covering the age span of most college students. Mental illnesses, such as depression, that commonly emerge during adolescence and young adulthood, coupled with restricted impulse control and the stressors that many college students experience, increases the risk of suicidal behavior among college students. Research demonstrates that access to firearms substantially increases suicide risks, especially among adolescents and young adults, as firearms are the most common method of lethal self-harm. Proposals to allow guns on college campuses must consider the fact that serious assaults and suicide attempts – which are more likely to be lethal when firearms are present – are far more common than are the rampage shooting incidents that the policies are purported to prevent. Inserting more firearms into those assaults and suicide attempts by allowing more people to have firearms on campuses is likely to lead to more deaths and serious injuries. A recent study identified 85 incidents of shootings or undesirable discharges of firearms on college campuses in the U.S. from January 2013 through June 2016. Only two of these 85 incidents (2.4%) involved a shooter on a rampage. The most common incidents were interpersonal disputes that escalated into gun violence (45%), premeditated acts of violence against an individual (12%), suicides or murder/suicides (12%), and unintentional shootings or discharges (9%). Campus police much more commonly respond to a variety of violent and non-violent incidents than to rampage shootings. If those campus officers must assume that any given student is armed, this may compromise their ability to effectively respond to, and de-escalate, these incidents. In summary, available data indicate that policies that allow individuals to bring firearms onto college campuses are unlikely to lead to fewer mass shootings or fewer casualties from those shootings. Mass shootings are a growing concern, but are still very rare events. Increasing gun availability in campus environments could make far more common acts of aggression, recklessness, or self-harm more deadly and, thus, have a deleterious impact on the safety of students, faculty, and staff. Details: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2016. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 26, 2016 at: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/GunsOnCampus.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/GunsOnCampus.pdf Shelf Number: 140841 Keywords: Campus Crime Campus Safety Campus Security Colleges and Universities Gun Policy Right-to-Carry Laws |