NCJ Number
171773
Journal
Valparaiso University Law Review Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1997) Pages: 365-374
Date Published
1997
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This study critiques the findings of Lott and Mustard in a study that found in States with laws that promote the carrying of concealed handguns, the rates of violent victimizations have been significantly reduced.
Abstract
Although the author of this critique acknowledges that he is not qualified to offer technical criticism of Lott and Mustard's econometric work, he offers a lawyer's reaction to the study. Lott and Mustard base their findings on a regression analysis of large aggregate data sets, notably the FBI's collection of crime statistics by county. Although regressions on such large data sets are the "bread-and-butter" of econometricians, these regressions have become less fashionable among political scientists and sociologists than they were a decade or two ago. The problems of multicollinearity and omitted variables often prove insurmountable despite the best efforts of statisticians to overcome them. Whatever the reason, the regression that generates Lott and Mustard's stunning crime-reduction figures yields other results that lead analysts to believe that "something is wrong." Contrary to ordinary expectations, in Lott and Mustard's study the proportion of a county's population that is black, male, and just a bit older is negatively correlated with the property-crime rate; moreover, the proportion of the population that is black, male, and between ages 10 and 19 is less significantly correlated with the murder rate than is the proportion that is black, female, and over 65 years old. At the same time, the proportions of these two high-risk groups (teenage black males and elderly black females) are less powerful predictors of the homicide rate than the proportion of black women between the ages of 40 and 49. Further, Lott and Mustard offer data on the character of victims in homicide cases; the proportion of stranger killings increases following the enactment of right-to-carry laws, and the proportion of intrafamily killings declines. The most common street crime is robbery; it is surprising that Lott and Mustard report only a weak deterrent effect for robbery. The empirical studies of right-to-carry laws that preceded Lott and Mustard's study may be flawed, but if these studies have any value, they suggest that right-to-carry laws and high gun ownership levels either have no significant effect on crime or else increase it. At this point, there is no reason for an intelligent consumer of social science research to accept the Lott and Mustard findings. 37 footnotes