References (25)



The Impact of Right-To-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy

Abhay Aneja

Stanford University; University of California, Berkeley - Haas School of Business

John J. Donohue III

Stanford Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Alexandria Zhang

Johns Hopkins University

June 29, 2010

5th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper

For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2''003 15 of the 16 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. One member of the NRC panel concluded that the NRC panel data regressions supported the conclusion that RTC laws decreased murder, while the 15-member majority responded that the scientific evidence did not support that conclusion. We evaluate the NRC evidence and show that, unfortunately, the regression estimates presented in the report appear to be incorrect. We improve and expand on the report’s county data analysis by analyzing an additional six years of county data as well as state panel data for the period 1977-2006. While we have considerable sympathy with the NRC’s majority view about the difficulty of drawing conclusions from simple panel data models, we disagree with the NRC report’s judgment that cluster adjustments to correct for serial correlation are not needed. Our randomization tests show that without such adjustments the Type 1 error soars to 4''270 percent. In addition, the conclusion of the dissenting panel member that RTC laws reduce murder has no statistical support.

Our paper highlights further important questions to consider when using panel data methods to resolve questions of law and policy effectiveness. We buttress the NRC’s cautious conclusion about right-to-carry legislation’s impact by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime. It will be worth exploring whether other methodological approaches and or additional years of data will confirm the results of this panel-data analysis.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 51

Keywords: Crime control, econometric methodology, right-to-carry legislation, model sensitivity

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: July 1, 2010 ; Last revised: January 13, 2011

Suggested Citation

Aneja, Abhay and Donohue, John J. and Zhang, Alexandria, The Impact of Right-To-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy (June 29, 2010). 5th Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1632599 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1632599

Contact Information

Abhay Aneja
Stanford University ( email )
Stanford, CA 94305
United States
University of California, Berkeley - Haas School of Business ( email )
545 Student Services Building, #1900
2220 Piedmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94720
United States
John J. Donohue III (Contact Author)
Stanford Law School ( email )
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
650-575-7166 (Phone)

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States
Alexandria Zhang
Johns Hopkins University ( email )
Baltimore, MD 21218
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 12,416
Downloads: 1,261
Download Rank: 10,712
References:  25

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.250 seconds