More Guns Less Crime by John Jr (best free e book reader .txt) 📕

the drop in robberies from one percent of the population having permits is about two percentage points smaller when the fee is raised from $10 to $50.

Updating the Evidence on Who Benefits fromPermits

While the preceding results relied on state-level data, we know from previous work (already presented in this book) that different parts of states obtained greatly varying benefits from issuing permits. This finding is confirmed with the new, updated data. But I will here discuss a somewhat different specification, linking the changes in crime more closely to the issuing of more permits. The percentage of the population with permits is interacted with the percentage of the adult population in a county that is over sixty-four years of age, the population density per square mile, the percentage that is black, the percentage that is female, and per-capita personal income. The earlier interactions in chapter 4, reported with county population, are skipped over here because they again produce results that are extremely similar to the regressions with an interaction for population density. 20

The results reported in figures 9.6—9.9 are all quite statistically significant and imply the same pattern reported earlier when using the data through 1992. The benefits of right-to-carry laws are not uniform across counties. Counties with a high portion of elderly people, blacks, and females—the most vulnerable victims—all benefit disproportionately more from concealed-handgun laws. So do those living in counties that are densely populated.

Certain crime patterns do emerge. For example, in counties with many elderly people (23 percent of the population over age sixty-four) right-to-carry laws have a large deterrent effect against aggravated assaults and robberies but seem to have a relatively small effect on rapes. In contrast, counties with few elderly individuals (7 percent of their population over sixty-four years of age) have only about a third of the drop in violent crime that counties with many elderly people have. Heavily black areas benefit the most through reductions in robberies and rapes, while areas where women make up a larger share of the population and those living in the wealthiest areas obtain the largest benefits from drops in aggravated assaults and rapes. The benefit for blacks is very large. Increasing the percentage of the black population in a county from half the mean (4.4 percent) to two standard deviations above the mean (37 per-

Violent _ _ .. .. BS ,.-.—.

crimeMurderRape Robberyassauil

B1/2 Mean population that is over 64 years old (0.071535)

i Mean population that is over 64 jyearsold(0.14307)

iMean population that is over 64 years old plus one standard J deviation (0.1842)

J Mean population that is over 64 j years old plus two standard deviations (0.2254)

Violent-crime categories

Figure 9.6. How does the change in crime from nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws occur in counties with relatively more people over age sixty-four?

lj li fl

n it

it

£8

U

u

0 -0.5

-1 -1.5

-2 -2.5

-3 -3.5

-4 -4.5

Violent crime

Murder

BULAggravated Rape Robbery a8Sauit

11/2 Mean population density per square mile (82)

J Mean population density per 3 square mile (163.9)

1 Mean population density per square mile plus one standard deviation (703)

i Mean population density per ] square mile plus two standard deviations (1242)

Violent-crime categories

Figure 9.7. How does the change in crime from nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws occur in the most densely populated counties?

cent) increases the reduction in violent crime from right-to-carry laws from about one percentage point to over seven percentage points.

Unlike the earlier data presented in chapter 4, which represented crime through 1992, not all the states adopting right-to-carry laws during 1993—1996 moved from a discretionary to a nondiscretionary law Some states had previously prohibited the carrying of concealed handguns. This is important because one of the reasons that I examined the interactions of population or population density with right-to-carry laws was that state government officials had told me that under a discretionary system lower-population counties had already tended to be more liberal

(sB3xe ireqm ui Suiaij asoqj pire s^DBjq) suilpia auiiio aq o* Xp^ij jsoui a.re oqA asoqi ptre (Ajiapp aqi pui> U3uioa) AjpDisAqd J3^3M XpAij^pi 3i^ oqA asoqi jizqi s8uipuu laqiiza Aui uiiuuod s:qns3i pa^pdn asaqx

•SAiq AjiziiopaiDsipiioii oi sunSpireq p3p33UOD 8uiuireq uiojj paSireqD jisqi saji^s ireqj szxvi auiiiD-juajoiA ui doip 3Ai?epj J388iq XipgDiisims ^ p^q SAiq AxeuonaiDsipuou oi XxeuouaiD -sip uiojj 8ui8ueq3 saigas ui sauunco sncqndod aioui aqj reqi puu j ':pi2j uj paidopis si»a uiaisAs AxeuonaiDsipuou 12 jrajjB auiiio juajoiA ui sdojp IsaSxej aqj snqj pue sjiuiiad 8uinssi ui araaiDui isaSxej aqj 33U3U3dx3 oi p3i33dx3 snqj 3J3a sanunco uoniqndod-iaqSijj # siiuiJ3d SuiiireiS ui

^auiODui BjidBD-iad A^urtoD qjiA Xiba sabj un2puBq-p3[B33UOD AiBuoiaaiDsipuou uiojj 3UIIJD ui aSuBqD aqa saop Aofj '6'6 3Jn ^H

(W€'9l$) suorbjabp pjepuB)6 n om) snjd eiuooui eudeo-jsd ubsw Q

(Z8Z'Ct$) U0JJBIA9P pjBpUB^ n

euo enjd ouiooui eydeo-jed ueow U

eiuoou] eudeo-jad ubs^H

(S09'S$)|

oiuoou! eiideo-jed ueeft Zll *

pS,^

^DB|q si jBqi uonBjrtdod s ( A^urto3 b jo axfejuaDiad aqi qjiA Xjba sab| un2puBq-pa|B3DUOD XiBuopaiDsipuou uiojj 3UIU3 ui aSuBqD aqi saop Aopj g^ airtSij

sejjoBoieo euijj>iuo|0|A

(Z'ZC) 8UORB|A9p PJBPU8)6 OM)

snjd jpsjq si jBifl uogBindod ubow Q

(CZ) uoRBiAep pjBpueje euo sn|d )psiq s jeifl uogeindod ueew |J

(88) >p8|q 8] jeifl uoRBindod ueeyy

>pB|q si ibuj uoiVBindod useifl Z/l I

p*E&/*WW edm »p« W

£8T /anooiua

tend to benefit the most from the passage of right-to-carry laws. Taken together, these results indicate that legislators should be sensitive not only to the costs of running the permitting program, but also to how the rules affect the number and types of