Crime Rates Post-Conceal and Carry

All the talk about conceal and carry sent me off to do some digging of my own. To me the most pressing question needing to be answered was…

“What happens to violent crime rates after conceal and carry laws are passed?”

Here’s what I found;

The Lott-Mustard Study.

With the publication of the Lott-Mustard study, “Crime, Deterrence and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” [43] advocates of shall-issue licensing systems have significant criminological support for the claim that shall-issue systems save lives, prevent rapes and robberies, and confer benefits that extend well beyond those garnered by the people who are issued the permits.

Analyzing crime data from all 3,054 counties in the United States throughout the period 1977-92, Lott and Mustard found that when shall-issue licensing laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 7.65 percent, rapes fell by 5.2 percent, robberies fell by 2.2 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent. In 1992 there were 18,469 murders, 79,272 rapes, 538,368 robberies, and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties that did not have shall-issue licensing systems. Had those counties had such laws, Lott and Mustard found, there would have been 1,414 fewer murders, 4,177 fewer rapes, 11,898 fewer robberies, and 60,363 fewer aggravated assaults.

On the other hand, property crime rates increased 2.7 percent–after the passage of shall-issue laws–so there would have been 247,165 more property crimes. Lott and Mustard conclude that criminals respond to the threat of being shot by victims by substituting less risky, nonconfrontational crimes.

Most, if not all, will be familiar with this…

The argument or justification made by those who seek to secure the right to carry firearms through shall-issue licensing laws, as opposed to a privilege granted at the discretion of the police, sheriff, court, or other state authority, is based on a simple principle: the right of self-defense. That is, the right to repel a criminal assault that threatens imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. [38]

Every state recognizes the right of its citizens to use lethal force in self-defense. Self-defense, so defined, is not lawlessness; it is in accord with the law. It is, in fact, the same law that the police rely on when they use lethal force. That right belongs to each person, not merely those who are deemed to have some special or extraordinary need as determined by the police or some other governmental authority.

But did you know…?

Approximately 87 percent of violent crimes occur outside the home. [39] Even assuming that the victim can “see it coming” and has the time and ability to call the police, the police can get to the scene within five minutes only about 28 percent of the time.

Without conceal & carry laws, we have the right to defend, but no means to do so…

… our Declaration of Independence asserts that governments are instituted to secure the right to life. The right to life of necessity implies the right to maintain or continue one’s life by defending it against violent criminal assault. Yet the right to defend one’s life is meaningless, or a hollow promise, unless that right also encompasses the right to the means necessary for the effective exercise of that right.

Thus, for example, the fundamental right of free speech would be relatively meaningless if it only encompassed the right to speak one’s mind wherever one happened to be standing or to shout one’s opinions in a public park to those within listening distance. The right has been rendered meaningful, full-bodied, and effective by protection of the freedom of the press, that is, by protection of the instrumentality by which one in fact exercises the individual right within society.

Since the right to life implies a right to the means to protect that life, the individual’s right to his own life necessarily implies a right to keep and bear arms suitable for self-defense. In this place and time, that means a handgun, small enough to be carried at almost all times. The presumption, therefore, of a government that respects its citizens’ right to life and self-defense must be that they are permitted to carry arms to protect themselves.

Full article can be found on-line at

Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun – by Jeffrey R. Snyder

Digging deeper, a couple more points worth sharing…

The results were obtained after taking into account and factoring out the effect of other variables that could account for the reduction in violent crime, such as changes in population, income levels, racial and age breakdown, changes in arrest rates, conviction rates, increased sentencing penalties, and changes in other gun control laws. For example, one of the other conclusions an analysis of the data provided was that waiting periods appear to have no effect on the violent crime rate.

Using a method pioneered by the National Institute of Justice for estimating the economic losses associated with crime–losses from fear, pain, and suffering; lost productivity; property losses; out-of-pocket expenses such as medical bills; and lost quality of life–Lott and Mustard calculate that, had those counties without shall-issue licensing systems had such laws, they would have realized a savings of $6.2 billion, in 1992 dollars, while the cost of the increase in property crimes would have been $417 million, resulting in a net savings of $5.74 billion.

This gets interesting so read this part carefully…

More important, the study estimates that the issuance of each additional concealed-carry permit reduces victim losses by up to $5,000, with the result that “concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists, providing a higher return than increased law enforcement or incarceration, other private security devices, or social programs like early educational intervention.” [44]

Digging deeper, a couple more points worth sharing…

The results were obtained after taking into account and factoring out the effect of other variables that could account for the reduction in violent crime, such as changes in population, income levels, racial and age breakdown, changes in arrest rates, conviction rates, increased sentencing penalties, and changes in other gun control laws. For example, one of the other conclusions an analysis of the data provided was that waiting periods appear to have no effect on the violent crime rate.

Using a method pioneered by the National Institute of Justice for estimating the economic losses associated with crime–losses from fear, pain, and suffering; lost productivity; property losses; out-of-pocket expenses such as medical bills; and lost quality of life–Lott and Mustard calculate that, had those counties without shall-issue licensing systems had such laws, they would have realized a savings of $6.2 billion, in 1992 dollars, while the cost of the increase in property crimes would have been $417 million, resulting in a net savings of $5.74 billion.

This gets interesting so read this part carefully…

More important, the study estimates that the issuance of each additional concealed-carry permit reduces victim losses by up to $5,000, with the result that “concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far analyzed by economists, providing a higher return than increased law enforcement or incarceration, other private security devices, or social programs like early educational intervention.” [44]

Very good stuff James, thanks!

Very good stuff James, thanks!

Arguements AGAINST the study’s findings…

Black and Nagin also argue that, when they performed additional analyses to test the Lott-Mustard study’s “intertemporal assumption,” they also find no significant evidence that the shall-issue laws have any impact on crime rates. Rates were declining for homicide, rape, and assault in certain states prior to adoption of the laws and continued to decline after their passage.

Black and Nagin’s point, in part, is that, since the Lott-Mustard study does not or cannot capture and isolate the factors causing the downward trend in violent crime rates that began before the licensing laws were enacted, it cannot specify to what extent the downward trend after enactment is caused by licensing laws.

Arguements AGAINST the study’s findings…

Black and Nagin also argue that, when they performed additional analyses to test the Lott-Mustard study’s “intertemporal assumption,” they also find no significant evidence that the shall-issue laws have any impact on crime rates. Rates were declining for homicide, rape, and assault in certain states prior to adoption of the laws and continued to decline after their passage.

Black and Nagin’s point, in part, is that, since the Lott-Mustard study does not or cannot capture and isolate the factors causing the downward trend in violent crime rates that began before the licensing laws were enacted, it cannot specify to what extent the downward trend after enactment is caused by licensing laws.

Thanks James.
That was a lot of great information.
Clarence

Thanks James.
That was a lot of great information.
Clarence

Final analysis… inconclusive?

So, Do Shall-Issue Licensing Laws Have Social Utility? The lay person who lacks the necessary econometric tools has no independent way of resolving the conflicting claims regarding the validity of the Lott-Mustard study and must wait for further publications and a scholarly consensus to develop on this issue, in hopes that one day we will all know the truth about what happened in the period 1977-1992. (Since 1992, of course, more states have enacted such laws, and doubtless a repeat analysis will eventually be done with expanded data.) At present then, lay persons cannot say whether shall-issue concealed-carry laws in fact deter violent crime. It is too early to tell whether Lott and Mustard’s findings will emerge intact from the intense scrutiny now being brought to bear on them or whether the critics’ position, that shall-issue licensing laws have no demonstrable effect on crime rates, will prevail.

Final analysis… inconclusive?

So, Do Shall-Issue Licensing Laws Have Social Utility? The lay person who lacks the necessary econometric tools has no independent way of resolving the conflicting claims regarding the validity of the Lott-Mustard study and must wait for further publications and a scholarly consensus to develop on this issue, in hopes that one day we will all know the truth about what happened in the period 1977-1992. (Since 1992, of course, more states have enacted such laws, and doubtless a repeat analysis will eventually be done with expanded data.) At present then, lay persons cannot say whether shall-issue concealed-carry laws in fact deter violent crime. It is too early to tell whether Lott and Mustard’s findings will emerge intact from the intense scrutiny now being brought to bear on them or whether the critics’ position, that shall-issue licensing laws have no demonstrable effect on crime rates, will prevail.

“Nonetheless, it is remarkable that while critics of concealed-carry laws argue that they will result in more deaths, more accidents, and greater mayhem, the social scientists criticizing the Lott-Mustard study are arguing only that the concealed-carry laws have no measurable or provable effect on crime–that is, neither a positive effect nor an adverse effect. That, as Lott himself has noted, is a major turning point in the debate over the social utility of firearms.”

After the reading I’ve done tonight I’m unable to find citeable materials that “prove” conceal and carry results in a drop in violent crime. I am comforted by the above. NONE of the typical rhetoric thrown around by anti-conceal and carry type are even considered as valid in any of the reading I’ve done. At best those against conceal and carry struggle to disprove the creation of social utility derived from the passing of conceal and carry laws as well as their inability to show any increase in accidental shooting deaths. The shooting of innocents just doesn’t happen to any degree even considered noteworth in the materials I’ve read tonight.

“Nonetheless, it is remarkable that while critics of concealed-carry laws argue that they will result in more deaths, more accidents, and greater mayhem, the social scientists criticizing the Lott-Mustard study are arguing only that the concealed-carry laws have no measurable or provable effect on crime–that is, neither a positive effect nor an adverse effect. That, as Lott himself has noted, is a major turning point in the debate over the social utility of firearms.”

After the reading I’ve done tonight I’m unable to find citeable materials that “prove” conceal and carry results in a drop in violent crime. I am comforted by the above. NONE of the typical rhetoric thrown around by anti-conceal and carry type are even considered as valid in any of the reading I’ve done. At best those against conceal and carry struggle to disprove the creation of social utility derived from the passing of conceal and carry laws as well as their inability to show any increase in accidental shooting deaths. The shooting of innocents just doesn’t happen to any degree even considered noteworth in the materials I’ve read tonight.

You are very good at finding facts James and that’s good. However, I could care less about the above if I couldn’t defend myself and ended up dead.

I’m going to go on record as saying I’ll give up my CCP when Governor Doyle takes the guns away from his body guards…all three of them. Or the State of WI pays for three armed body guards for all of it’s residents.

It’s only fair.

You are very good at finding facts James and that’s good. However, I could care less about the above if I couldn’t defend myself and ended up dead.

I’m going to go on record as saying I’ll give up my CCP when Governor Doyle takes the guns away from his body guards…all three of them. Or the State of WI pays for three armed body guards for all of it’s residents.

It’s only fair.

Great points James. Great information too. For the record, I agree with Brian. A couple other things happened today which are noteworthy:

The guy who killed my classmate Billy Walsh at Nye’s Pled guilty of murder today. He is the first CC permitee to kill someone in other than self defense.

An 8 year old in Maryland shot a classmate in the arm when he brought a pistol to school. Dad has been arrested, and charged for Being a felon in possesion of a handgun!

What does it mean? That is up for debate.

Great points James. Great information too. For the record, I agree with Brian. A couple other things happened today which are noteworthy:

The guy who killed my classmate Billy Walsh at Nye’s Pled guilty of murder today. He is the first CC permitee to kill someone in other than self defense.

An 8 year old in Maryland shot a classmate in the arm when he brought a pistol to school. Dad has been arrested, and charged for Being a felon in possesion of a handgun!

What does it mean? That is up for debate.

Brian, I guess I do care about having sound evidence for or against some thing that can devastate or destroy a life in the blink of an eye, and on both ends of the barrel. My interest with conceal and carry has little or nothing to do with the feeling I need to protect myself while I’m highly interested in the personal descisions made to carry.

I have a hypothetical question to ask… if there was resounding evidence to support the contention that conceal and carry INCREASED the likelyhood that you or your family would be victims of violent crime, would you stop carrying?

Brian, I guess I do care about having sound evidence for or against some thing that can devastate or destroy a life in the blink of an eye, and on both ends of the barrel. My interest with conceal and carry has little or nothing to do with the feeling I need to protect myself while I’m highly interested in the personal descisions made to carry.

I have a hypothetical question to ask… if there was resounding evidence to support the contention that conceal and carry INCREASED the likelyhood that you or your family would be victims of violent crime, would you stop carrying?

I have an unconfirmed report that the veto was overridden today in WI by the Senate. Now it’s on to the Assembly were if passed will then become law.

I’m checking a few other sources for accuracy of this.

I have an unconfirmed report that the veto was overridden today in WI by the Senate. Now it’s on to the Assembly were if passed will then become law.

I’m checking a few other sources for accuracy of this.

I like utilizing my free speech. I use that right here every single day.

I like my freedom of religon. I thank God for that as well.

I choose to pratice my right to keep and bear arms. I enjoy it each and every day.

You can kill a lot if people with all three of the above depending on how you use them.

I like utilizing my free speech. I use that right here every single day.

I like my freedom of religon. I thank God for that as well.

I choose to pratice my right to keep and bear arms. I enjoy it each and every day.

You can kill a lot if people with all three of the above depending on how you use them.

Back up the bus!

I really didn’t start this to discuss if the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. Or even if owning handguns should be legal. They are legal. Conceal and carry is already legal in MN. If you’re here for that argument, you’re too late. Or if you think that was my intention, please re-read and stop sending me PM’s for clarification.

I respect and believe in the individual’s right to “bear arms.” I’ve even come out on the side of pro-conceal and carry during recent discussions.

The topic started with… “the question that needs to be answered for me was how conceal and carry effected crime rates.”

I thought that if there was evidence to prove conceal and carry made people safer the descision would be easier for me to get my head around and understand.

I likely should have just asked why people had made the personal descision to carry and what the motivations were. I didn’t because I thought it very likely that I would get superficial responses. With training, and barring any limitations such as criminal history, we all have the “right.” So why do some choose to carry, why do others choose not to carry?

And please don’t give me that “some of us are shepards, some of us our sheep” baloney. That would be superficial crap-labeling in my book.

I was hoping some of the info I looked into on-line might give me some insight into my own descision to NOT carry and maybe even understand why it makes me feel so damn creepy and NOT SAFE when I’m around people that do carry, even though most if not all are friends to whom I would entrust my life in other situations?

Has anyone else ever found themselves in a restaurant seated next to a friend and had them lean forward for salt only to see an semi-auto on their hip? How did it make you feel?

Oddly enough, in a different setting like out in the country hunting or shooting targets, guns don’t bother me in the least. I actually enjoy shooting them and I have a completely different emotional response.

Back up the bus!

I really didn’t start this to discuss if the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. Or even if owning handguns should be legal. They are legal. Conceal and carry is already legal in MN. If you’re here for that argument, you’re too late. Or if you think that was my intention, please re-read and stop sending me PM’s for clarification.

I respect and believe in the individual’s right to “bear arms.” I’ve even come out on the side of pro-conceal and carry during recent discussions.

The topic started with… “the question that needs to be answered for me was how conceal and carry effected crime rates.”

I thought that if there was evidence to prove conceal and carry made people safer the descision would be easier for me to get my head around and understand.

I likely should have just asked why people had made the personal descision to carry and what the motivations were. I didn’t because I thought it very likely that I would get superficial responses. With training, and barring any limitations such as criminal history, we all have the “right.” So why do some choose to carry, why do others choose not to carry?

And please don’t give me that “some of us are shepards, some of us our sheep” baloney. That would be superficial crap-labeling in my book.

I was hoping some of the info I looked into on-line might give me some insight into my own descision to NOT carry and maybe even understand why it makes me feel so damn creepy and NOT SAFE when I’m around people that do carry, even though most if not all are friends to whom I would entrust my life in other situations?

Has anyone else ever found themselves in a restaurant seated next to a friend and had them lean forward for salt only to see an semi-auto on their hip? How did it make you feel?

Oddly enough, in a different setting like out in the country hunting or shooting targets, guns don’t bother me in the least. I actually enjoy shooting them and I have a completely different emotional response.

I am going to have to side with James… a little. I too have felt a little creepy with the conceal carry thing. And this was before the law was passed with friends of mine who are cops and carry when they are not on duty. The first time this happened was in a truck on our way to go fishing, when he stops and pulls his 9mm out of his holster because it is rubbing his side.

This is a guy I have known for most of my life, is a trusted friend, I spend countless hours with in the hunting field, and has gone through the training to be a police officer.
Do I have any reason to be concerned with him carrying a weapon? None whatsoever.

Is it a little freaky to see him pull his gun out? Yes.

Is it right for me to feel this way about a law abiding citizen? I don’t know.

Has my views on the subject changed since this happened? A little.

Well enough ranting. I guess my point in this whole thing, is that everyone is not comfortable with guns on a person, but think about this. If myself and James (who both are very comfortable around guns) can feel this way, think how the person who does not have any comfort lever with guns because they have not been around them, no firearms safety, media bias against guns, etc, can feel.

This is not meant to become an argument. I feel that a persons 2nd ammendment right and the right to carry is very special and do not want it to go away, but I want everyone to stop and think how this is being looked at my the “other side” with a different emotional view.

Just my $.02. If you feel differently, please let me know. And to James, Thanks for the post. Gets us all thinking!