More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.

• Author: Shughart, William F., II
• Position: Review

By John R. Lott, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pp. x, 225. $23.00.

People who call themselves economists without committing a fraud on the profession regard the first law of demand as the first principle of economizing behavior. Confronted with an obvious empirical application of it, neoclassical economists, at least those whom have managed to avoid falling into the everything-is-possible game theory trap, instinctively want to gather data and estimate the magnitude of the theory's prediction. Is the inverse relationship between the price of something and the amount of it individuals choose to consume statistically significant when other relevant factors are held constant? And, if so, how large is the ceteris paribus own-price effect? Although the size and significance of the empirical results might be the subject of considerable econometric debate, no economist worthy of the label would obstinately question the direction of the relationship. When the price of something goes up, less of it will be consumed. The only issue worthy of scholarly controversy is, how much less?

Early last year, John Lott and David Mustard (1997) published a lengthy study, concluding from extensive empirical evidence that criminals respond in ways predicted by models of rational behavior to changes in the cost of committing crimes. Specifically, they examined the impact of so-called non-discretionary (or "shall-issue") gun laws allowing private citizens to carry weapons concealed about their persons. Prior to the enactment of these laws, by now on the books in 31 states altogether (most of which have adopted them since 1985), local law enforcement officials exercised considerable discretion in decisions to issue concealed handgun permits. Shall-issue laws essentially eliminate that discretion, requiring concealed-weapons permits to be granted to all applicants who pay the required fee and meet other minimal qualifications, including age restrictions, absence of a criminal record, and no history of mental illness.

Lott and Mustard, reasoning that making it easier for private citizens to arm themselves would increase criminals' expected costs of confronting their prey (who might or might not be carrying concealed weapons), hypothesized that shall-issue laws would produce reductions in crime rates, especially violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery, where retaliation by a possibly armed victim poses the greatest threat to the perpetrator...