Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 06-05-2003, 12:37 AM

This is from Lexis-Nexis:

Brookings Studies on Burglary, Carrying Concealed Weapons Provide Evidence that Handgun Presence May Increase Crime, Gun Violence

Copyright 2003 U.S. Newswire, Inc.
U.S. Newswire

May 9, 2003 Friday

SECTION: National Desk

LENGTH: 661 words

HEADLINE: Brookings Studies on Burglary, Carrying Concealed Weapons Provide Evidence that Handgun Presence May Increase Crime, Gun Violence

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 9

BODY:
Two key studies in "Evaluating Gun Policy," a collection of research on guns, crimes and violence recently released from the Brookings Institution, find that keeping guns at home or concealed in public may lead to increases in death, injury and crime.

One study, "Do Guns Deter Burglars," found that a 10 percent increase in a county's gun ownership rate is associated with a three percent to seven percent increase in the likelihood that a home will be burglarized.

One possible reason why the burglary risk increases with gun ownership is that guns are valuable loot: they are easily concealable and readily sold or fenced. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 14 percent of burglaries in which a gun was stolen, it was the only item stolen.

The study was conducted by Philip J. Cook Ph.D., ITT/Sanford professor of public policy at Duke University, and Jens Ludwig, Ph.D., associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University.

"Keeping a gun at home is unlikely to provide a net benefit to the rest of the community in the form of burglary deterrence," Cook concluded. "If anything, residences in a neighborhood with high gun prevalence may be at greater risk of being burglarized."

The second study, "The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws," disputes a widely disseminated 1997 study by economists John Lott and David Mustard. Lott and Mustard argued that states could reduce crime substantially by enacting "shall-issue" laws that require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun-carrying permits upon request to citizens who meet minimum requirements. Lott and Mustard's study has been widely used by gun advocates as justification for passing such laws, which are now in effect in the majority of states. Currently gun advocates in Ohio are using this and other controversial research by John Lott to justify passing a concealed weapons law there.

Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue, Ph.D., J.D., building on joint work with Yale Law School Professor Ian Ayres, Ph.D., J.D., re-analyzes Lott's data and concludes that it is "deeply flawed" and "misguided" because of its failure to adequately consider secondary factors that affect crime rates. Donohue notes that there is evidence that shall-issue laws may in fact increase crime in states with such laws.

The release of Donohue's study coincides with other serious questions being raised about Lott's work. Lott's 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime" -- a favorite tome of the gun lobby -- recently came under fire after some academics questioned Lott's methodology; Lott can't produce evidence of a phone survey, for example, because of a "computer crash." Lott also acknowledged creating a fictitious persona ("Mary Rosh") to praise his own work in online forums. (See http://www.whoismaryrosh.com.)

In "Evaluating Gun Policy," editors Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook assembled studies (divided into 11 chapters) conducted by a group of experts who analyzed gun policies outside of the context of the heated political debate. Hailing from several disciplines -- including economics, public policy, criminology, law, medicine and public health -- the contributors consider the effects of gun ownership on violence, regulation of gun ownership, restrictions on gun carrying, efforts to facilitate research on gun policy, and the policy process itself.

JENS LUDWIG is associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University and formerly the Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.

PHILIP J. COOK is the ITT/Sanford Professor of Public Policy at Duke University. Cook and Ludwig co-authored Gun Violence: The Real Costs (Oxford University Press, 2000).

For more information on the studies, or for interviews with the editors or authors, call 312-474-1740.
http://www.usnewswire.com

CONTACT: Scott Vogel or Mark Karlin, 312-474-1740

LOAD-DATE: May 10, 2003

I'll keep looking for studies. So far I haven't seen any academic sources for either side's argument. I guess since I'm at a university (and soon to be working on my Criminology Ph.D.) I should put my money were my mouth is!

I don't know how to use too many of the National Criminology Databases but this will be good practice for me. My undergrad work is in sociology and we use entirely different sources and search engines. Anyway, I'll try to find both sides of the picture--but I'm in finals week so hang in there.

06-05-2003, 12:37 AM	#67 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	This is from Lexis-Nexis: Brookings Studies on Burglary, Carrying Concealed Weapons Provide Evidence that Handgun Presence May Increase Crime, Gun Violence Copyright 2003 U.S. Newswire, Inc. U.S. Newswire May 9, 2003 Friday SECTION: National Desk LENGTH: 661 words HEADLINE: Brookings Studies on Burglary, Carrying Concealed Weapons Provide Evidence that Handgun Presence May Increase Crime, Gun Violence DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 9 BODY: Two key studies in "Evaluating Gun Policy," a collection of research on guns, crimes and violence recently released from the Brookings Institution, find that keeping guns at home or concealed in public may lead to increases in death, injury and crime. One study, "Do Guns Deter Burglars," found that a 10 percent increase in a county's gun ownership rate is associated with a three percent to seven percent increase in the likelihood that a home will be burglarized. One possible reason why the burglary risk increases with gun ownership is that guns are valuable loot: they are easily concealable and readily sold or fenced. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 14 percent of burglaries in which a gun was stolen, it was the only item stolen. The study was conducted by Philip J. Cook Ph.D., ITT/Sanford professor of public policy at Duke University, and Jens Ludwig, Ph.D., associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University. "Keeping a gun at home is unlikely to provide a net benefit to the rest of the community in the form of burglary deterrence," Cook concluded. "If anything, residences in a neighborhood with high gun prevalence may be at greater risk of being burglarized." The second study, "The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws," disputes a widely disseminated 1997 study by economists John Lott and David Mustard. Lott and Mustard argued that states could reduce crime substantially by enacting "shall-issue" laws that require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun-carrying permits upon request to citizens who meet minimum requirements. Lott and Mustard's study has been widely used by gun advocates as justification for passing such laws, which are now in effect in the majority of states. Currently gun advocates in Ohio are using this and other controversial research by John Lott to justify passing a concealed weapons law there. Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue, Ph.D., J.D., building on joint work with Yale Law School Professor Ian Ayres, Ph.D., J.D., re-analyzes Lott's data and concludes that it is "deeply flawed" and "misguided" because of its failure to adequately consider secondary factors that affect crime rates. Donohue notes that there is evidence that shall-issue laws may in fact increase crime in states with such laws. The release of Donohue's study coincides with other serious questions being raised about Lott's work. Lott's 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime" -- a favorite tome of the gun lobby -- recently came under fire after some academics questioned Lott's methodology; Lott can't produce evidence of a phone survey, for example, because of a "computer crash." Lott also acknowledged creating a fictitious persona ("Mary Rosh") to praise his own work in online forums. (See http://www.whoismaryrosh.com.) In "Evaluating Gun Policy," editors Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook assembled studies (divided into 11 chapters) conducted by a group of experts who analyzed gun policies outside of the context of the heated political debate. Hailing from several disciplines -- including economics, public policy, criminology, law, medicine and public health -- the contributors consider the effects of gun ownership on violence, regulation of gun ownership, restrictions on gun carrying, efforts to facilitate research on gun policy, and the policy process itself. JENS LUDWIG is associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University and formerly the Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research. PHILIP J. COOK is the ITT/Sanford Professor of Public Policy at Duke University. Cook and Ludwig co-authored Gun Violence: The Real Costs (Oxford University Press, 2000). For more information on the studies, or for interviews with the editors or authors, call 312-474-1740. http://www.usnewswire.com CONTACT: Scott Vogel or Mark Karlin, 312-474-1740 LOAD-DATE: May 10, 2003 I'll keep looking for studies. So far I haven't seen any academic sources for either side's argument. I guess since I'm at a university (and soon to be working on my Criminology Ph.D.) I should put my money were my mouth is! I don't know how to use too many of the National Criminology Databases but this will be good practice for me. My undergrad work is in sociology and we use entirely different sources and search engines. Anyway, I'll try to find both sides of the picture--but I'm in finals week so hang in there.