Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:45:59.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Counting Guns

What Social Science Historians Know and Could Learn about Gun Ownership, Gun Culture, and Gun Violence in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Gordon Wood ,
Robert Churchill ,
Edward Cook ,
James Lindgren ,
Wilbur Miller ,
Eric Monkkonen  and
Randolph Roth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the fall 2001 Social Science History Association convention in Chicago, the Crime and Justice network sponsored a forum on the history of gun ownership, gun use, and gun violence in the United States. Our purpose was to consider how social science historians might contribute nowand in the future to the public debate over gun control and gun rights. To date, we have had little impact on that debate. It has been dominated by mainstream social scientists and historians, especially scholars such as Gary Kleck, John Lott, and Michael Bellesiles, whose work, despite profound flaws, is politically congenial to either opponents or proponents of gun control. Kleck and Mark Gertz (1995), for instance, argue on the basis of their widely cited survey that gun owners prevent numerous crimes each year in theUnited States by using firearms to defend themselves and their property. If their survey respondents are to be believed, American gun owners shot 100,000 criminals in 1994 in selfdefense–a preposterous number (Cook and Ludwig 1996: 57–58; Cook and Moore 1999: 280–81). Lott (2000) claims on the basis of his statistical analysis of recent crime rates that laws allowing private individuals to carry concealed firearms deter murders, rapes, and robberies, because criminals are afraid to attack potentially armed victims. However, he biases his results by confining his analysis to the years between 1977 and 1992, when violent crime rates had peaked and varied little from year to year (ibid.: 44–45). He reports only regression models that support his thesis and neglects to mention that each of those models finds a positive relationship between violent crime and real income, and an inverse relationship between violent crime and unemployment (ibid.: 52–53)–implausible relationships that suggest the presence of multicollinearity, measurement error, or misspecification. Lott then misrepresents his results by claiming falsely that statistical methods can distinguish in a quasi-experimental way the impact of gun laws from the impact of other social, economic, and cultural forces (ibid.: 26, 34–35; Guterl 1996). Had Lott extended his study to the 1930s, the correlation between gun laws and declining homicide rates that dominates his statistical analysis would have disappeared. An unbiased study would include some consideration of alternative explanations and an acknowledgment of the explanatory limits of statistical methods.

Type
Debates from the Annual Meeting
Information
Social Science History , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , Winter 2002 , pp. 699 - 708
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2002 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bellesiles, M. A. (2000) Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Black, D., and Nagin, D. (1998) “Do ‘right-to-carry’ laws deter violent crime?” Journal of Legal Studies 27: 209–20.Google Scholar
Churchill, R. (2001) “Gun ownership in early America as reflected in manuscript militia returns.” Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Cook, P. J., and Ludwig, J. (1996) Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
Cook, P. J., and Moore, M. H. (1999) “Guns, gun control, and homicide: A review of research and public policy,” in Smith, M. D. and Zahn, M. A. (eds.) Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 277–96.Google Scholar
Guterl, F. (1996) “Gunslinging in America.” Discover, May 1996: 85–89.Google Scholar
“Historians and Guns” (2002) William and Mary Quarterly 58: 203–68.Google Scholar
Jones, A. H. (1977) American Colonial Wealth: Documents and Methods. 3 vols. New York: Arno.Google Scholar
Jones, A. H. (1980) Wealth of a Nation to Be: The American Colonies on the Eve of the Revolution: New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Kleck, G., and Gertz, M. (1995) “Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun.”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86: 150–87.Google Scholar
Lindgren, J., and Heather, J. L. (2002) “Counting guns in early America.” William and Mary Law Review 43: 1777–1842.Google Scholar
Lott, J. R. Jr. (2000) More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lott, J. R. Jr., and Mustard, D. B. (1997) “Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns.” Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1–68.Google Scholar
Main, G. L. (1982) Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Main, G. L. (2002) “Many things forgotten: The use of probate records in Arming America.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser. 59: 211–16.Google Scholar
McDowell, D., Loftin, C., and Wiersema, B. (1995)“Easing concealed firearms laws: Effects on homicide in three states.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83: 378–94.Google Scholar
Monkkonen, E. (2001) Murder in New York City. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Roth, R. (2002) “Guns, gun culture, and homicide: The relationship between firearms, the uses of firearms, and interpersonal violence.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser. 59: 223–40.Google Scholar