Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

The social costs of gun ownership revisited

  • Bernd HayoEmail author
  • Florian Neumeier
  • Christian Westphal
REPLICATION STUDIES
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

Cook and Ludwig (J Public Econ 90:379–391, 2006) use data on homicide rates and gun prevalence proxies from US counties over the period 1980–1999 and, in their panel data analysis, find a positive and statistically significant association between both variables. We reexamine their analysis and show that their findings are driven by spurious correlations arising from the use of a common denominator (ratio fallacy) to deflate both dependent and independent variables. When we attempt to replicate their results accounting for these issues, we no longer find any evidence that gun ownership is linked to homicides.

Keywords

Gun ownership Social costs Ratio fallacy Spurious correlation Log ratio 

JEL Classification

H21 I18 K42 

References

  1. Cook PJ, Ludwig J (2004) The social costs of gun ownership. NBER working paper no. 10736Google Scholar
  2. Cook PJ, Ludwig J (2006) The social costs of gun ownership. J Public Econ 90:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook PJ, Ludwig J, Samaha AM (2008) Gun control after Heller: threats and sideshows from a social welfare perspective. UCLA Law Rev 56:1041–1094Google Scholar
  4. Duggan M (2001) More guns, more crime. J Polit Econ 109:1086–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fox JA, McDowall D (2008) Brief of professors of criminal justice as amici curiae in support of petitioners. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013
  6. Granger C, Newbold P (1974) Spurious regressions in econometrics. J Econom 2:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kronmal R (1993) Spurious correlation and the fallacy of the ratio standard revisited. J R Stat Soc Ser A 156:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lang M (2013) Firearm background checks and suicide. Econ J 123:1085–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leigh A, Neill C (2010) Do gun buybacks save lives? Evidence from panel data. Am Law Econ Rev 12:462–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pearson K (1896) Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. On a form of spurious correlation which may arise when indices are used in the measurement of organs. Proc R Soc Lond 60:489–498Google Scholar
  11. Stock JH, Watson MW (2008) Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. Econometrica 76:155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. U.S. Court of Appeals (2012) Moore v. Madigan. 702 F.3d 933, 7th Circuit. U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Hayo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Florian Neumeier
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christian Westphal
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Ifo Institute MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations