Hmmm
10 Responses to “Hmmm”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 20th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I think it’s humorous that he complains about the various other reasons being propped up by only paper-thin evidence, if any at all, and then he gives his example with only paper-thin evidence. But I’ll bite. If right-to-carry is really a significant factor in the equation, then I expect the decline in rape to be most noticeable in those states in which right-to-carry laws were liberalized. And I’d expect this to happen at the time when these laws went in.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that those stats don’t hold up.
Looking at four states in the same area, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois, the highest rape rate is in Michigan, a “shall issue” state. The lowest rate is in Wisconsin, a non-carry state, and after years of increasing, it peaked in 1992 and has mostly declined since. Indiana, a shall-issue state, increased to a 1992 peak, and then decreased at a somewhat greater rate than Wisconsin, though its rape rate as of 2000 was still one-third higher than Wisconsin’s. Michigan, a shall-issue state, peaked in 1992, and declined by 2000. Illinois bucks the trend, peaking in 1991, and declining to 2000.
From peak to 2000, the rape rate in all four states declined, irrespective of carry laws. Michigan’s rate fell 36.8% over that time; Indiana -31.8%; Illinois -17.8%; Wisconsin -17.5%. But look! The rates fell more sharply in states with “shall issue!” Well, yes, but note that Wisconsin’s 1992 peak was still lower than where Michigan and Indiana were in 2000, the last year for which I can find stats. Similarly, Illinois’ 1991 peak was 20% lower than Michigan’s 2000 rate. It seems the declines in Michigan and Indiana were steeper because they had farther to fall.
So the interesting question to me is, what’s magical about 1991/1992, that cause rape in all four states to decline? Indeed, the nationwide rate peaked in 1992, and declined by nearly 25% by 2000. The decline in rape seemed to be part of a larger nationwide trend.
The fact of the matter is, crime is a complex system, and you’re not going to pin increases or decreases on any one thing. Right-to-carry may have some small impact, but I’d expect this to be relatively small compared to other indicators. I expect that population density and local economy would be by far the best predictors of rape rate.
(It should be noted that my source seems to calculate the rate differently than BJS, but gives a better year-by-year breakout.)
June 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Yeah, the linked post was interesting until it took a turn for the non sequitur. Given that the nationwide decrease starts in the 70’s and he says his proposed cause starts in just one state in 1987, his argument fails on its face even without reference to the facts.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Could be wrong, but I thought that was his point, including the bit about CCW.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
tgirsch, BH:
Rebutted over at my place.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Note: for the non-native speaker, and the subtle humor impaired, I’ve also wrote up this post in HSUL (hypothetical snark-up language) here.
Subtle humor in the form of snide remarks is used frequently at the Standard Mischief blog, and although I can’t do this for every single post, hopefully this will count as fulfilling the “reasonable accommodation requirement” towards ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).
June 20th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Right, but there’s a more fundamental problem with your analysis than that: none of the crime fluctuations you examined could possibly be attributable to concealed carry laws, as concealed carry laws were relatively constant in all four states during the period in question. Illinois and Wisconsin were no-issue states in 1992, and they are now, as well. Indiana was shall-issue in 1992, and it is now, too. The only change was with Michigan, which went shall-issue in 2001, too late to impact the crime stats you examined.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Xrlq:
Agreed. My analysis wasn’t intended to associate any adverse affects to carry laws; it was just intended to establish that gun laws don’t seem to have any impact at all (or, at best, a negligible impact) on the decline. This says nothing about whether or not carry laws are good or bad; it simply says they don’t seem terribly relevant here.
Uncle:
See X’s analysis. Carry laws would have been almost totally irrelevant during much of that time frame.
SM:
I’ll check your place. Hopefully your rebuttal attempt is far better than your initial “argument.” đŸ™‚ (See, you’re not the only one who can snark.)
June 21st, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Oh, and the problem was not that I missed the snark, but that I recognized it. If you had actually meant that the right-to-carry stats were “totally unrelated news,” I’d have agreed with you. đŸ™‚
June 21st, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Understood, but given that you’ve chosen a period in which gun laws remained constant, your analysis doesn’t even show that. A gunnie would argue that Indiana’s numbers are consistently lower because of its permissive gun laws. An anti-gunner would argue that they are consistently higher, for the same reason. Neither view would predict a significant rise or fall over time, however, as whatever impact a given gun law has on Indiana’s crime rate, it will have had the same effect in 1992 as in 1993, and 1994, and 1995…. The only data that has the potential to prove or disprove an impact of gun laws on crime is a period of time in which the law changed significantly, e.g., comparing Michigan’s crime rate from 1996 to 2004, paying special attention to what happened in the middle of 2001.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:28 pm
tgirsch Says: Oh, and the problem was not that I missed the snark, but…
Again, I was trying to inject a bit of humor. I noticed you and BH totaly missed my point. Uncle nailed it. (check the third comment)
I’ve been working on my written English skills, that’s partly what the blog is for. Not everyone groks my writing style, but at least more than one person does.
Again, the ADA joke was 100% attempt at humor 0% personal attack. I left off the smiley. đŸ™‚