Added: June 22, 2013 – Last updated: July 2, 2016


Authors: Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang

Title: Substance vs. Sideshows in the More Guns, Less Crime Debate

Subtitle: A Comment on Moody, Lott, and Mar

Journal: Econ Journal Watch

Volume: 10

Issue: 1

Year: January 2013

Pages: 32-39

ISSN: 1933-527X – Find a Library: WordCat

Language: English

Keywords: Modern History: 20th Century, 21st Century | American History: U.S. History | Prosecution: Laws, Statistics


Link: Econ Journal Watch (Free Access)



Abhay Aneja: ResearchGate

John J. Donohue III, Law School, Stanford UniversityWikipedia

Alexandria Zhang, Department of Economics, Johns Hopkins UniversityResearchGate

Abstract: »Our recent work affirms the basic conclusion of the 2005 National Research Council report that there is no credible statistical support for the claim that right-to-carry (RTC) gun laws reduce crime. This paper shows that whether one looks at the Lott and Mustard set of controls using county data or at our preferred set of controls on state data over the 1977-2006 period, the estimated effects of RTC laws are sensitive to the various models and data used, as well as to the choice to include or omit state trends. The strongest, albeit imperfect, statistical evidence suggests that RTC laws increase both gun-related and total aggravated assaults.« (Source: Econ Journal Watch)


  The major substantive finding of our work (p. 33)
  Correcting the record (p. 35)
  Conclusion (p. 36)
  References (p. 37)
  About the Authors (p. 38)

Wikipedia: History of the Americas: History of the United States | History of the United States (1964–80), History of the United States (1980–91), History of the United States (1991–present) | Research councils: National Research Council (United States) | Statistics: Crime statistics