Concealed Carry (CCW) Laws Reduce Crime

The mechanism: Deterrence Deterrence is a phenomena well known economists, especially those who study crime. Economists study human behavior, and generally lean towards more conservative policies when related to crime. Economists, for example, have discovered supply and demand. People respond to incentives, such as price. When the cost of an action increases, people are less likely to commit such an action. It has been proven that increased arrest rates for a certain crime reduce the crime rate for the crime which has high arrest rates. When researching whether incapacitation or deterrence is a larger factor in the reduced crime due to arrest rates, Steven Levitt notes, “empirically, deterrence appears to be the more important factor, particularly for property crimes. ”[1] This theory is further supported by the excellent work of Gary Becker, who recently passed away. His work modelling crime demonstrated that the higher the cost is to criminals, incidence of crime would significantly decrease. Becker theorizes (as Levitt confirms) that if we increase punishment on, say, violent crime, nonviolent crime (like property crime) would increase. As Becker noted, “increases [of] the marginal cost of changing offenses by a change in either p or f (see Figures 2a and b). The optimal number of offenses would necessarily decrease, because the optimal values of both p and f would increase. In this case (and, as shortly seen, in several others), the optimal values of p and f move in the same, rather than in opposite, directions” [2]. Therefore, if the mechanism which would cause CCW to drive crime down (deterrence) is true, we should see an increase in nonviolent crime, but accompanied with substantial decreases in violent crime. This theory has also been used in the death penalty debate, and further proven that it exists in that field. A review of the evidence by the Heritage Foundation argues, “the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. … The strength of these findings has caused some legal scholars, originally opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, to rethink their case … capital punishment produces a strong deterrent effect that saves lives. ” [8] Increasing the cost to the criminal--in this case, arming them (where the criminal doesn't know who is armed) leads to a high cost. The possibility of injury and death of the criminal increases dramatically when victims are armed, this also means victims previously preyed on due to the fact they cannot physically defend themselves (women, elderly people) have now an even playin field. And as the possible victims are concealing the weapon, the victim has the potential for surprise. The existence of an armed populace, therefore, makes it more risky and difficult to commit crime. Economists (who do most of the work on CCW) generally agree on the deterrence hypothesis. However, some argue that there is a brutalization effect. Therefore, this mechanism is essentially considered almost a fact in this line of work, my opponent needs to demonstrate--empirically--that a brutalization effect outweighs the deterrent effect. The Empirics: CCW decreases crime We now understand that there is likely some deterrent effect, so the question is, what impact do lenient CCW laws have on violent crime rates? What does the empirical evidence suggests? By and large, the data supports the deterrence hypothesis: that lenient CCW laws decrease violent crime. The first study on the issue which many forget was done by Cramer and Kopel in 1995, published in the Tennessee Law review. Although the study is small compared to more recent research, the study relied upon various cross sectional as well as case studies regarding conceal carry. They found that in counties with high CCW rates, crime was significantly lower than in those with a lower CCW permit rate. Although they note a possibility of other factors, they rule them out, arguing “[i]f more CCWs are really a threat to public safety, and the number of CCWs outstanding in this third group of counties is so large, the other factors that determine murder and aggravated assault rates must be truly enormous to so completely overwhelm the effects of all those CCWs. ” Further, they did a 6 state violent crime comparison. Using the research of others in this section and summarizing it, they conclude, “[c]oncealed carry reform appears to reduce murder rates, at least in large, high-crime states. Concealed carry reform may reduce aggravated assault and robbery rates. Perhaps most significantly, there is simply no evidence that concealed carry reform will cause a net increase in the homicide rate, or in any other crime rate. ” [3] The next study, which is the most controversial study on the subject, is Lott and Mustard 1997. The research took into account every county of the United States. Using time series and cross sectional methods on county level data, they estimate that if the states which didn’t accept shall issue laws did accept them, there would be 1500 fewer murders, 4100 fewer rapes, and 60,000 fewer aggravated assaults. As the most comprehensive study at it’s time, it provides extremely strong evidence that CCW reduces violent crime, even if there is some substitution effect to nonviolent crimes. The aggregate effect is decreased crime, with the economy avoiding 6 billion in losses due to crime [4]. Over time, the fact that CCW decreased crime became more and more compelling, causing more and more states to have more lenient laws. Confirming the more guns less crime hypothesis, Plassman and Whitley find that each year a shall issue law is in effect, murder rates fall 1.5 to 2.3 percent. Further, they find that studies which claim CCW increased crime (slightly) misread their results, and that their crime models do not replicate reality past 1997. They claim when this is adjusted for, the results generally show that shall issue laws decrease the crime rate, confirming Lott and Mustard’s 1997 hypothesis [5]. A study in 2001 by David Mustard show that conceal carry may actually save the lives of police officers. Using state data, he found that states which enacted shall issue laws experienced a decrease in felonious police deaths, and a slight decrease in overall police deaths. After controlling for various variables, the results were statistically significant in 7 of the 9 model specifications. The trends before and after the laws were passed were significant in about half of the specifications [6]. More research by Lott in 1997 also confirms his original argument. He provides even more evidence, including visuals, to prove that pro-CCW laws decrease violent crime. His graph on overall violent crime demonstrates his point: . http://www.debate.org... (linked due to errors) Violent crime increases before the law for at least 4 years, and continued falling for at least years after. Homicide, robbery, assault, rape, and burglary all decreased after shall issue laws were passed [7]. . http://www.debate.org... (linked due to errors) Conclusion: I have identified a possible mechanism, and then demonstrated a reliable empirical basis for the mechanism to be accepted as correct. Concealed carry logically can either deter or increase crime, but the fact is, the deterrence effect is much larger than any possible brutalization effect. Further, there is not one case of a concealed carry permit holder attacking a police officer [6], proving that the brutalization effect is insignificant, at best. Concealed carry reduces violent crime. 1. . http://www.nber.org... 2. . http://www.nber.org... 3. . http://www.davekopel.com... 4. . http://www.law.uchicago.edu... 5. . http://johnrlott.tripod.com... 6. . http://people.terry.uga.edu... 7. . http://dvc.org.uk...8. . http://www.heritage.org...