Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 13–22 | Cite as

The social costs of gun ownership: a reply to Hayo, Neumeier, and Westphal

  • Philip J. CookEmail author
  • Jens Ludwig
Response
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

We respond to the new article by Hayo, Neumeier, and Westphal (HNW), which is a critique of our 2006 article. The principal contribution of that article was to use a greatly improved proxy for gun prevalence to estimate the effect of gun prevalence on homicide rates. While the best available, our proxy, the ratio of firearms suicides to total suicides in a jurisdiction (FSS), is subject to measurement error which limits its use to larger jurisdictions that have enough suicides to stabilize the ratio. In this response, we report estimates for four different specifications and two data sets, the 200-county data and the data for the 50 states. We develop the claim that measurement error in FSS helps explain the observed pattern of results. Adopting the assumption that FSS follows a binomial process with a number of trials equal to the number of suicides, we characterize the relationship between measurement error and size of the jurisdiction, and thereby justify our conclusion that restricting the estimation to large jurisdictions reduces measurement error in FSS and hence the attenuation bias in the key coefficient estimate. We conclude that for the county-level data, the measurement error in FSS is of greater concern than using a specification that is flexible with respect to population. HNW focus on the latter but at the cost of increasing the effects of the former. We then demonstrate that the state-level data provide a robust case that more guns lead to more homicides.

Keywords

Measurement error Crime Guns Homicide Panel regression 

JEL Classification

C23 C43 K42 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Lauren Speigel for outstanding assistance with the data analysis, to Dan Black and Seth Sanders for helpful conversations. Any errors and all opinions are of course our own.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

181_2018_1497_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
181_2018_1497_MOESM2_ESM.zip (104 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (ZIP 103 kb)

References

  1. Azrael D, Cook PJ, Miller M (2004) State and local prevalence of firearms ownership measurement, structure, and trends. J Quant Criminol 20(1):43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook PJ, Goss KA (2014) The gun debate: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook PJ, Ludwig J (2006a) The social costs of gun ownership. J Public Econ 90:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook PJ, Ludwig J (2006b) Aiming for evidence-based gun policy. J Policy Anal Manag 25(3):691–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donohue JJ, Levitt SD (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Q J Econ 116(2):379–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duggan Mark (2001) More guns, more crime. J Polit Econ 109(5):1086–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hayo B, Neumeier F, Westphal C (forthcoming) The social costs of gun ownership revisited. Empir EconGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim EH, Morse A, Zingales L (2006) What has mattered to economics since 1970. J Econ Perspect 20(4):189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kleck G (1997) Targeting guns: firearms and their control. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Kleck G (2004) Measures of gun ownership levels for macro-level crime and violence research. J Res Crime Delinq 41(1):3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levitt SD (1996) The effect of prison population size on crime rates: evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. Q J Econ 111(2):319–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levitt SD (1997) Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime. Am Econ Rev 87(3):270–290Google Scholar
  14. Loftin C, McDowall D, Fetzer MD (2008) A comparison of SHR and Vital Statistics Homicide estimates for US cities. J Contemp Crim Justice 24(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lott JR (2000) More guns, less crime, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludwig J, Cook PJ, Smith TW (1998) The gender gap in reporting household gun ownership. Am J Public Health 88(11):1715–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCrary J (2002) Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime: comment. Am Econ Rev 92(4):1236–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDowall D, Loftin C, Fetzer MD (2008) A comparison of SHR and vital statistics homicide estimates for U.S. cities. J Contemp Crim Justice 24(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raphael S, Winter-Ebmer R (2001) Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. J Law Econ 44(1):259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith TW, Son J (2015) Trends in gun ownership in the United States, 1972–2014 (General Social Survey Final Report). NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf. Downloaded 28 Oct 2017

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sanford School of Public PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.NBERCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.School of Social Service AdminstrationUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations