CHICAGO JoHN M. OLIN LAW EcoNoMics WORKINg Paper no. 73 (2D SERIES) ul tiple victim Public shootings, bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement 加加R.lot,l: and william n! Landes THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO This paper is available on-line at the Chicago Working Paper Series index http://www.law.uchicago.edu/publicatIons/working/index.html This paper is also available from the Social Science Research Network at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637
This paper is available on-line at the Chicago Working Paper Series index at: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Publications/Working/index.html This paper is also available from the Social Science Research Network at: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=161637 CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 73 (2D SERIES) Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Multiple victim Public Shootings, Bombings and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws Contrasting Private and Public Law enforcement John e lott jr and william m landes/ L. Introduction Few events obtain the same instant national and even worldwide news coverage as when several people are shot and killed in a public place. The worst examples in the United States come readily to mind Colin Ferguson killed 6 people during his rampage on the Long Island(NY) Railroad in December 1993: 22 people were killed during the October 1991 shooting in Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas; 5 persons died at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California in January 1989; and 21 persons were killed at the San Ysidro, California McDonald's in July, 1984. Shootings by disgruntled post office employees, has led to the phrase going postal"entering our language. And with the recent public school shootings, a sense of urgency has also been added to the discussion The most common suggestion for reducing the incidence of public shootings(the term we use to denote shootings in public places where two or more individuals are killed or injured) calls for greater regulation of guns. For example, recent public shootings in Tasmania, Australia and Dunblane, Scotland have lead to strict gun I Lott is John m. olin fellow in law and economics and landes is Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law Economics at the U Mitch Polinsky and niversity of Chicago Law School. We would like to thank edward glaeser participants in seminars at the Arizona State University, Auburn University, University of Chicago, Claremont Graduate School, University of Houston, University of Illinois, University of Kansas, University of Miami, New York University, University of Oklahoma, Rice University, University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Dallas, William and Mary University, and Yeshiva University School of Law as well as participants at the Economics of Law Enforcement Conference at harvard law school association of American Law Schools Meetings, American Economic Association Meetings Midwestern Economic Association Meetings, Southern Economic Association Meetings, and Western Economic Association Meetings
Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes1 I. Introduction Few events obtain the same instant national and even worldwide news coverage as when several people are shot and killed in a public place. The worst examples in the United States come readily to mind: Colin Ferguson killed 6 people during his rampage on the Long Island (NY) Railroad in December 1993; 22 people were killed during the October 1991 shooting in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas; 5 persons died at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California in January 1989; and 21 persons were killed at the San Ysidro, California McDonald’s in July, 1984. Shootings by disgruntled post office employees, has led to the phrase “going postal” entering our language. And with the recent public school shootings, a sense of urgency has also been added to the discussion. The most common suggestion for reducing the incidence of public shootings (the term we use to denote shootings in public places where two or more individuals are killed or injured) calls for greater regulation of guns. For example, recent public shootings in Tasmania, Australia and Dunblane, Scotland have lead to strict gun 1 Lott is John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics and Landes is Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law & Economics at the University of Chicago Law School. We would like to thank Edward Glaeser, Mitch Polinsky and participants in seminars at the Arizona State University, Auburn University, University of Chicago, Claremont Graduate School, University of Houston, University of Illinois, University of Kansas, University of Miami, New York University, University of Oklahoma, Rice University, University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Dallas, William and Mary University, and Yeshiva University School of Law as well as participants at the Economics of Law Enforcement Conference at Harvard Law School, Association of American Law Schools Meetings, American Economic Association Meetings, Midwestern Economic Association Meetings, Southern Economic Association Meetings, and Western Economic Association Meetings
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper 2 prohibitions in those countries. And after a 1997 shooting at the top of the Empire State Building in which one person was killed, the Mayor of New York called for national gun licensing laws. Other laws restricting access to guns, such as waiting periods, are often justified as producing a cooling off period to prevent shooting Yet, the response to these shootings has not been uniform. In and other states, multiple shooting incidents may have helped the way for passage of concealed handgun laws permitting law- abiding citizens to carry handguns. Terrorist shootings in Israel have lead to wider licensing of citizens to carry concealed handguns. (In this paper, we use the term"shall issue law""right-to-carry"to denote a state law that sets up objective criteria for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Not surprisingly, those opposed to concealed handgun laws point to the loss of life and injuries that result from these shootings Their argument is straightforward: If you introduce a gun into a violent encounter. it increases the chance that someone will die. "2 Since a large number of murders may arise from fits of rage that are quickly regretted, keeping guns out of people's reach (even temporarily) might prevent deaths in many instances. Shootings in public places may be the most visible manifestation of individuals who might have refrained from such acts but for having access to guns. For example, in the recent rash of school shootings in 1997 and 1998, the perpetrators obtained their guns from relatives or neighbors. Had no guns been accessible the acts may not have been committec 2 Philip Cook quoted in Editorial, Cincinnati Enquirer, Jan. 23, 1996,A8 Others share this belief. "It's common sense, "says Doug Weil, research director at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington. The more guns people are carrying, the more likely it is that ordinary confrontations will escalate into violent confrontations"(William Tucker Maybe You Should Carry A Handgun, " The Weekly Standard, Dec 16, 1996, See p. Cook. "The role of firearms in violent Crime, in m.e. Wolfgang and N.A. Werner, eds, Criminal Violence, Sage Publishers Newbury, N. (1982) and Franklin Zimring " The Medium is the message Firearm Caliber as a Determinant of Death from Assault, Journal legal Studies, 1(1972) for these arguments
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper 2 prohibitions in those countries. And after a 1997 shooting at the top of the Empire State Building in which one person was killed, the Mayor of New York called for national gun licensing laws. Other laws restricting access to guns, such as waiting periods, are often justified as producing a cooling off period to prevent shooting sprees. Yet, the response to these shootings has not been uniform. In Texas and other states, multiple shooting incidents may have helped pave the way for passage of concealed handgun laws permitting lawabiding citizens to carry handguns. Terrorist shootings in Israel have lead to wider licensing of citizens to carry concealed handguns. (In this paper, we use the term “shall issue law” or “right-to-carry” to denote a state law that sets up objective criteria for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun.) Not surprisingly, those opposed to concealed handgun laws point to the loss of life and injuries that result from these shootings. Their argument is straightforward: “If you introduce a gun into a violent encounter, it increases the chance that someone will die.”2 Since a large number of murders may arise from fits of rage that are quickly regretted, keeping guns out of people’s reach (even temporarily) might prevent deaths in many instances.3 Shootings in public places may be the most visible manifestation of individuals who might have refrained from such acts but for having access to guns. For example, in the recent rash of school shootings in 1997 and 1998, the perpetrators obtained their guns from relatives or neighbors. Had no guns been accessible, the acts may not have been committed. 2 Philip Cook quoted in Editorial, Cincinnati Enquirer, Jan. 23, 1996, A8. Others share this belief. "It's common sense," says Doug Weil, research director at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in Washington. "The more guns people are carrying, the more likely it is that ordinary confrontations will escalate into violent confrontations" (William Tucker, “Maybe You Should Carry A Handgun,” The Weekly Standard, Dec. 16, 1996, p. 30). 3 See P. J. Cook, “The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime,” in M.E. Wolfgang and N.A. Werner, eds., Criminal Violence, Sage Publishers: Newbury, N.J.(1982) and Franklin Zimring, “The Medium is the Message: Firearm Caliber as a Determinant of Death from Assault,” Journal Legal Studies, 1 (1972) for these arguments
Multiple victim Public Shootings In contrast, proponents of concealed handgun laws point to the potential use of guns for defensive purposes. They argue that the prospect of encountering a victim who is armed may deter a criminal from an attack in the first place. National polls indicate that people use guns defensively against criminal attacks somewhere between 760,000 and 3.5 million times per year.4 Data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 to 1987 indicate that the risk of serious injury from a criminal attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun (Southwick, 1996).5 The most comprehensive study of lay ws permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons indicates that these laws reduce murder rates by about 10 percent, with similar declines in other violent crimes lott 1998b but see elated comments by Bartley et. al., 1998: Black and Nagin, 1998: Bronars and lott. 1998 Plassman and tideman. 1998 Lott and Mustard, 1997; and Lott, 1998a). And contrary to a popular misconception, the use of concealed handguns by permit holders are virtually never involved in the commission of crime, let alone murder Lott, 1998b).6 Just as advocates of greater regulation of guns point to shooting sprees that kill or maim many individuals as evidence supporting their position, opponents point to anecdotal evidence supporting more permissive handgun laws. During the Luby's Cafeteria shooting one of the restaurant's patrons, an expert marksman, had left her handgun in her car to comply with the Texas state law existing at the time. In an incident in 1997, a gunman in a Florida restaurant was prevented from shooting people by the quick 4 Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of self-Defense with a gun . "86 Journal of criminal law and 5 There are problems with the National Crime Victimization Survey both in terms of its nonrepresentative sample(for example, it weights too heavily urban and minority populations)and its failure to adjust for many people not admitting to a law enforcement agency that they used a gun, even defensively Unfortunately, this survey provides the only available evidence how the probability of significant injury varies with level and type of resistance 6 We add that no data are available on whether handguns lawfully bought by d in crimes by another party at
3 Multiple Victim Public Shootings In contrast, proponents of concealed handgun laws point to the potential use of guns for defensive purposes. They argue that the prospect of encountering a victim who is armed may deter a criminal from an attack in the first place. National polls indicate that people use guns defensively against criminal attacks somewhere between 760,000 and 3.5 million times per year.4 Data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey from 1979 to 1987 indicate that the risk of serious injury from a criminal attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun (Southwick, 1996).5 The most comprehensive study of laws permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons indicates that these laws reduce murder rates by about 10 percent, with similar declines in other violent crimes (Lott 1998b but see related comments by Bartley et. al., 1998; Black and Nagin, 1998; Bronars and Lott, 1998; Plassman and Tideman, 1998; Lott and Mustard, 1997; and Lott, 1998a). And contrary to a popular misconception, the use of concealed handguns by permit holders are virtually never involved in the commission of crime, let alone murder (Lott, 1998b).6 Just as advocates of greater regulation of guns point to shooting sprees that kill or maim many individuals as evidence supporting their position, opponents point to anecdotal evidence supporting more permissive handgun laws. During the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting one of the restaurant’s patrons, an expert marksman, had left her handgun in her car to comply with the Texas state law existing at the time. In an incident in 1997, a gunman in a Florida restaurant was prevented from shooting people by the quick 4 Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” 86 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86 (Fall 1995). 5 There are problems with the National Crime Victimization Survey both in terms of its nonrepresentative sample (for example, it weights too heavily urban and minority populations) and its failure to adjust for many people not admitting to a law enforcement agency that they used a gun, even defensively. Unfortunately, this survey provides the only available evidence how the probability of significant injury varies with level and type of resistance. 6 We add that no data are available on whether handguns lawfully bought by permit holders are used in crimes by another party at a later date
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper reactions of two people with concealed handguns. (See Lott (1998b) for a more complete list of such cases. )Internationally, similar examples can be found. On March 13, 1997, a Jordanian soldier shot seven young Israeli girls to death while they were visiting Jordans so-called"Island of Peace "According to newspaper reports, the israelis had " complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents Referring to the July 1984 massacre at a San Ysidro, California, McDonalds restaurant, Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum wrote that: what occurred at a [crowded venue in Jerusalem some weeks before the California McDonalds massacre three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng ged to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that hi group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them. g Obviously allowing Israeli citizens to carry concealed han has not eliminated terrorist attacks Indeed terrorists may well responded to the difficulty of successfully shooting civilians in places by substituting bombings, which allow potential victims little chance to respond Anecdotal evidence cannot resolve the question whether allowing persons to carry concealed handguns will save or cost lives In this study, we provide a systematic empirical analysis of the effects of different gun laws on multiple victim public shootings. We focus 7 Allison Thompson, Robber Gets Outgunned on Westside, "Florida Times Union( Jacksonville, FL), September 24, 1997, p. B1 8 Rebecca Trounson, "Anxiety, Anger Surround Return of Young Survivors, Las Angeles Times, March 14, 1997, p. Al 9 Baltimore Sun, Oct. 26, 1991. As referenced in an article by Don Kates and Dan Polsby. "Of Genocide and Disarmament "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(Fall 1995): 252
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper 4 reactions of two people with concealed handguns.7 (See Lott (1998b) for a more complete list of such cases.) Internationally, similar examples can be found. On March 13, 1997, a Jordanian soldier shot seven young Israeli girls to death while they were visiting Jordan’s so-called “Island of Peace.” According to newspaper reports, the Israelis had “complied with Jordanian requests to leave their weapons behind when they entered the border enclave. Otherwise, they might have been able to stop the shooting, several parents said.”8 Referring to the July 1984 massacre at a San Ysidro, California, McDonald’s restaurant, Israeli criminologist Abraham Tennenbaum wrote that: what occurred at a [crowded venue in] Jerusalem some weeks before the California McDonald's massacre: three terrorists who attempted to machine-gun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machine-gun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.9 Obviously allowing Israeli citizens to carry concealed handguns has not eliminated terrorist attacks. Indeed, terrorists may well have responded to the difficulty of successfully shooting civilians in public places by substituting bombings, which allow potential victims little chance to respond. Anecdotal evidence cannot resolve the question whether allowing persons to carry concealed handguns will save or cost lives. In this study, we provide a systematic empirical analysis of the effects of different gun laws on multiple victim public shootings. We focus 7 Allison Thompson, Robber Gets Outgunned on Westside,” Florida TimesUnion ( Jacksonville, FL),September 24, 1997, p. B1. 8 Rebecca Trounson, “Anxiety, Anger Surround Return of Young Survivors,” Los Angeles Times, March 14, 1997, p. A1 9 Baltimore Sun, Oct. 26, 1991. As referenced in an article by Don Kates and Dan Polsby. “Of Genocide and Disarmament,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86 (Fall 1995): 252
Multiple victim Public Shootings primarily on nondiscretionary (or"shall issue")concealed handgun laws although we also look at evidence on the role of waiting periods and additional penalties imposed on individuals who use guns in the commission of a crime We analyze multiple victim public shootings(hereafter, multiple shootings or killings)in the United States in the period 1977 to 1995. 10 The main advantage of restricting our study to U.s. data is hat we can compare states with and without shall issue laws at different points in time(other things constant)and, therefore, can estimate the effects of a change in the law within a state during the sample period. In contrast, time series data for a single country faces the problem that many different events may occur at around the same time which makes it difficult to disentangle the impact of a change in the law from other factors. And an international study across different countries faces problems in finding comparable data on gun laws, crime rates, and gun ownership Our study ends in 1995 because many of the variables we use are not available after than date A few words about why we study multiple shootings. Aside from the public attention these acts receive, multiple shootings allow us to test the applicability of economics to an area believed to be far outside the domain of economics. Perpetrators of these acts are often thought to be psychotic or irrational and hence not responsive to costs and benefits. Thus, legal sanctions or, as in this case, the prospect of encountering an armed individual during a shooting spree would have no deterrent effect on these individuals. Indeed the act itself is cited as powerful evidence of irrational or psychotic behavior since a sane person would never kill helpless victims in a While the recent rash of public school shootings during the 1997-98 school took place after the period of our study, these incidents raise questions about the unintentional consequences of laws. The five public school shootings took place after a 1995 federal law banned guns (including permitted concealed handguns) within a thousand feet of a school. The possibility exists that attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, may have produced perverse effects. It is interesting to note that during the 1977 to 1995 period, 15 shootings took place in schools in states without right-to-carry laws and only one took place in a state with this type of law. There were 19 deaths and 97 injuries in states without the law, while there was one death and two njuries in states with the law
5 Multiple Victim Public Shootings primarily on nondiscretionary (or “shall issue”) concealed handgun laws although we also look at evidence on the role of waiting periods and additional penalties imposed on individuals who use guns in the commission of a crime. We analyze multiple victim public shootings (hereafter, multiple shootings or killings) in the United States in the period 1977 to 1995.10 The main advantage of restricting our study to U.S. data is that we can compare states with and without shall issue laws at different points in time (other things constant) and, therefore, can estimate the effects of a change in the law within a state during the sample period. In contrast, time series data for a single country faces the problem that many different events may occur at around the same time which makes it difficult to disentangle the impact of a change in the law from other factors. And an international study across different countries faces problems in finding comparable data on gun laws, crime rates, and gun ownership. Our study ends in 1995 because many of the variables we use are not available after than date. A few words about why we study multiple shootings. Aside from the public attention these acts receive, multiple shootings allow us to test the applicability of economics to an area believed to be far outside the domain of economics. Perpetrators of these acts are often thought to be psychotic or irrational and hence not responsive to costs and benefits. Thus, legal sanctions or, as in this case, the prospect of encountering an armed individual during a shooting spree would have no deterrent effect on these individuals. Indeed, the act itself is cited as powerful evidence of irrational or psychotic behavior since a sane person would never kill helpless victims in a 10 While the recent rash of public school shootings during the 1997-98 school took place after the period of our study, these incidents raise questions about the unintentional consequences of laws. The five public school shootings took place after a 1995 federal law banned guns (including permitted concealed handguns) within a thousand feet of a school. The possibility exists that attempts to outlaw guns from schools, no matter how well meaning, may have produced perverse effects. It is interesting to note that during the 1977 to 1995 period, 15 shootings took place in schools in states without right-to-carry laws and only one took place in a state with this type of law. There were 19 deaths and 97 injuries in states without the law, while there was one death and two injuries in states with the law
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper 6 ublic place. The claim is then made that a law permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons couldnt possibly deter shooting sprees in public places(though it might reduce the number of people killed or wounded). And since these laws might well increase the availability of guns to potential perpetrators, the combination of criminal irrationality and greater availability of guns might lead to an increase in the number of incidents of multiple shootings In contrast, the economic model of crime predicts that a shall issue law will raise the potential perpetrator's cost of acting (e.g, he might be wounded or killed if he acts)and lower his expected benefit (e.g, he will do less damage if he encounters armed resistance Although not all offenders will alter their behavior in response to a shall issue law. some individuals will be deterred from ng out a shooting spree because the resulting changes in costs and benefits will be sufficiently large to make their net gain from acting negative How large the deterrent effect is depends on how many potential offenders are close enough to the margin so that the passage of a shall issue law changes the net benefit from positive to negative Economics predicts, therefore, that shall issue laws will reduce the number of mass shootings(subject to the "greater availability of guns qualification noted above)though the magnitude of this response is uncertain a study of multiple shootings also allows us to comp whether a shall issue law will produce a bigger deterrent effect on multiple shootings than on ordinary murders and other crimes. This may appear surprising in light of the claimed irrationality of individuals who go on shooting sprees. But another consideration points in the opposite direction. Suppose a shall issue law deters crime primarily by raising the probability that a perpetrator will encounter a potential victim who is armed. In a single victim crime, this probability is likely to be very low. Hence the deterrent effect of the law-though negative--might be relatively small. Now consider a shooting spree in a public place. The likelihood that one or more potential victims or bystanders are armed would be very large even though the probability that any particular individual is armed is very
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper 6 public place. The claim is then made that a law permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons couldn’t possibly deter shooting sprees in public places (though it might reduce the number of people killed or wounded). And since these laws might well increase the availability of guns to potential perpetrators, the combination of criminal irrationality and greater availability of guns might lead to an increase in the number of incidents of multiple shootings. In contrast, the economic model of crime predicts that a shall issue law will raise the potential perpetrator’s cost of acting (e.g., he might be wounded or killed if he acts) and lower his expected benefit (e.g., he will do less damage if he encounters armed resistance). Although not all offenders will alter their behavior in response to a shall issue law, some individuals will be deterred from carrying out a shooting spree because the resulting changes in costs and benefits will be sufficiently large to make their net gain from acting negative. How large the deterrent effect is depends on how many potential offenders are close enough to the margin so that the passage of a shall issue law changes the net benefit from positive to negative. Economics predicts, therefore, that shall issue laws will reduce the number of mass shootings (subject to the “greater availability of guns” qualification noted above) though the magnitude of this response is uncertain. A study of multiple shootings also allows us to compare whether a shall issue law will produce a bigger deterrent effect on multiple shootings than on ordinary murders and other crimes. This may appear surprising in light of the claimed irrationality of individuals who go on shooting sprees. But another consideration points in the opposite direction. Suppose a shall issue law deters crime primarily by raising the probability that a perpetrator will encounter a potential victim who is armed. In a single victim crime, this probability is likely to be very low. Hence the deterrent effect of the law—though negative—might be relatively small. Now consider a shooting spree in a public place. The likelihood that one or more potential victims or bystanders are armed would be very large even though the probability that any particular individual is armed is very
Multiple victim Public Shootings low. 11 In principle, this suggests a testable hypothesis: a shall issue law will have a bigger deterrent effect on shooting sprees in public places than on more conventional crimes. Finally because the presence of citizens with concealed handguns may be able to stop attacks before the police are able to arrive, our data also allows us to provide the first evidence that we know of concerning whether the severity of those crimes that still take place can be mitigated Il. Multiple Vict im Public Shootings: A First Look We define a multiple shooting as one in which two or more people are killed or wounded in a public place. "Public place"refers to a shooting that occurred in a church, business, bar, street, government building, public transit, place of employment, park, health care facility, mall or restaurant. We collected data on these shootings from articles reporting multiple shootings during the 1977 to 1995 period in the Lexis/Nexis computerized database. Our sample does not include all multiple shootings in the database We exclude the following: those that were the byproduct of another crime e g, a robbery or drug deal); shootings that involved gang activity (e. g, drive by shootings); professional hits or shootings related to organized crime; and serial killings or killings that took place over the span of more than one day. 2 Although there is no right line between different types of multiple shootings, there are several reasons for limiting our sample as we do 1. One of us has already studied the effects of shall issue laws on murder rates in general. Hence by adding shootings from robberies, II To illustrate, let the probability (p) that a single individual is carrying a concealed handgun equal. 10. Assume further that there are 10 individuals in a public place. Then the probability that at least one of them is armed is about. 65 (=1-(.9) 12 In a recent paper(see T. Petee, K. Padgett and T. York, Debunking the Stereotype: An Examination of Mass Murder in Public Places, 1 Homicide Studies 317(1997)the authors find felony related mass murders account for 36 percent and gang motivated 5.8 percent of mass murder incidents over the 1965 to 1995 period. That study defines mass murders as the killing three or more persons(so it has much fewer incidents than our sample)
7 Multiple Victim Public Shootings low.11 In principle, this suggests a testable hypothesis: a shall issue law will have a bigger deterrent effect on shooting sprees in public places than on more conventional crimes. Finally, because the presence of citizens with concealed handguns may be able to stop attacks before the police are able to arrive, our data also allows us to provide the first evidence that we know of concerning whether the severity of those crimes that still take place can be mitigated. II. Multiple Victim Public Shootings: A First Look We define a multiple shooting as one in which two or more people are killed or wounded in a public place. “Public place” refers to a shooting that occurred in a church, business, bar, street, government building, public transit, place of employment, park, health care facility, mall or restaurant. We collected data on these shootings from articles reporting multiple shootings during the 1977 to 1995 period in the Lexis/Nexis computerized database. Our sample does not include all multiple shootings in the database. We exclude the following: those that were the byproduct of another crime (e.g., a robbery or drug deal); shootings that involved gang activity (e.g., drive by shootings); professional hits or shootings related to organized crime; and serial killings or killings that took place over the span of more than one day.12 Although there is no bright line between different types of multiple shootings, there are several reasons for limiting our sample as we do. 1. One of us has already studied the effects of shall issue laws on murder rates in general. Hence by adding shootings from robberies, 11 To illustrate, let the probability (p) that a single individual is carrying a concealed handgun equal .10. Assume further that there are 10 individuals in a public place. Then the probability that at least one of them is armed is about .65 (= 1 – (.9)10). 12 In a recent paper (see T. Petee, K. Padgett and T. York, Debunking the Stereotype: An Examination of Mass Murder in Public Places, 1 Homicide Studies 317 (1997)) the authors find felony related mass murders account for 36 percent and gang motivated 5.8 percent of mass murder incidents over the 1965 to 1995 period. That study defines mass murders as the killing three or more persons (so it has much fewer incidents than our sample)
Chicago law and economics Working paper gang activity and so forth to our sample we risk duplicating earlier work 2. Shall issue laws permit law-abiding citizens to carry guns so these laws should have little impact on killings related to gang activity, drug deals and organized crime. Individuals involved in these activities are already engaged in unlawful activities that often require them to carry guns. In short, these persons carry guns independent of whether the law permits them to do so. Hence a"shall issue should have little effect on their behavior 3. Restricting our study to shootings in public places allows us to concentrate on places where economic theory suggests that shall issue laws will have their greatest effect. 13 We expect this because more citizens will be carrying concealed handguns in public places after a law allowing them to carry a gun has been passed. and a shall issue law should also be a more effective deterrent if the potential perpetrator either knows or is uncertain whether the intended victim is armed. Conversely the law should have no effect if the offender knows in advance that the victim is not armed. But such knowledge is unlikely for public places. So unless there are explicit restrictions on carrying guns in certain places(e. g, near schools), a shall issue law should increase the likelihood that a potential victim or bystander is armed. 14 4. One can also question our definition of multiple shootings as requiring two or more killings or injuries. Later in the paper we look 13 Alschuler(1997, P. 369)claims that concealed handguns should only deter crimes involving strangers. Our response is that concealed handguns can deter crimes involving acquaintances as well as strangers, though deterrence involving acquaintances might be more easily thought of as similar to open carrying of guns. The big effect of concealed handguns is that they may allot people to be able to now defend themselves outside of their home or busines e he passage of the concealed handgun laws may deter crimes against uaintances simply to the extent to which it increases gun ownership. 14 Most states allow private businesses to decide whether permit holders are allowed to carry concealed handguns on their premises. State rules may also ary with regard to other places such as government buildings, churches, and
Chicago Law and Economics Working Paper 8 gang activity and so forth to our sample we risk duplicating earlier work. 2. Shall issue laws permit law-abiding citizens to carry guns so these laws should have little impact on killings related to gang activity, drug deals and organized crime. Individuals involved in these activities are already engaged in unlawful activities that often require them to carry guns. In short, these persons carry guns independent of whether the law permits them to do so. Hence a “shall issue” should have little effect on their behavior. 3. Restricting our study to shootings in public places allows us to concentrate on places where economic theory suggests that shall issue laws will have their greatest effect.13 We expect this because more citizens will be carrying concealed handguns in public places after a law allowing them to carry a gun has been passed. And a shall issue law should also be a more effective deterrent if the potential perpetrator either knows or is uncertain whether the intended victim is armed. Conversely the law should have no effect if the offender knows in advance that the victim is not armed. But such knowledge is unlikely for public places. So unless there are explicit restrictions on carrying guns in certain places (e.g., near schools), a shall issue law should increase the likelihood that a potential victim or bystander is armed.14 4. One can also question our definition of multiple shootings as requiring two or more killings or injuries. Later in the paper we look 13 Alschuler (1997, p. 369) claims that concealed handguns should only deter crimes involving strangers. Our response is that concealed handguns can deter crimes involving acquaintances as well as strangers, though deterrence involving acquaintances might be more easily thought of as similar to open carrying of guns. The big effect of concealed handguns is that they may allow people to be able to now defend themselves outside of their home or business. The passage of the concealed handgun laws may deter crimes against acquaintances simply to the extent to which it increases gun ownership. 14 Most states allow private businesses to decide whether permit holders are allowed to carry concealed handguns on their premises. State rules may also vary with regard to other places such as government buildings, churches, and bars
Multiple victim Public Shootings at alternative definitions requiring greater number of deaths and Tables 1 and 2 present data on multiple shootings for the United states as a whole. and for states with and without shall issue laws We find that states without shall issue laws had more deaths and injuries from multiple shootings per year(both in absolute numbers and on a per capita basis) during the 1977 to 1995 period Note also that the number of states without shall issue laws declined from 43 to 29 and the percentage of the U.S. population in these states fell from 91.5 to 68 percent in this period. Yet states without shall issue laws still account for the overwhelming majority(often over 90 percent) of deaths and injuries. The different rates of shootings, murders, or injuries are very consistent over time and do not arise from a few unusual years Tables 3 and 4 look more closely at the 14 states that adopted shall issue laws between 1977 and 1995.15(No state has ever repealed this law. Table 3 shows a sharp drop in multiple murders and injuries per 100,000 persons after the passage of a shall issue law Murders fell by 89 percent and injuries by 82 percent. Table 4 indicates that this drop occurred largely during the first full yean. the a state enacted its law (year"" in the first column). Overall, the decline is so large that we observe zero multiple killings in three of the eight years after the passage of a law, an event that did not occur 15 The fourteen states that enacted"shall issue"or"right-to-carry"laws in th 1977 to 1995 period (dates in parentheses)are as follows: Alaska (1994 Arizona (1994), Florida(1987), Georgia(1989), Idaho(1990), Maine (1985). Tennessee(1994), Virginia (1988), West Virginia (1989), and Wyoming (1994). The following eight states had"shall issue"laws over the entire period Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Washington. Data on states having laws prior to 1993 are from Clayton E. Cramer and David B Kopel, Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, 62 Tennessee Law Review, 679(1995) We used a Nexis search to determine the state and date for states passing laws between 1993 and 1995. These two sources were also used in Lott and mustard (1997). Because of objections raised to the dates for"shall issue" laws in Maine and Virginia(see the discussion in Lott and Mustard), the regression analysis presented in part III examines the sensitivity of our findings to alternative dates for Maine and Virginia
9 Multiple Victim Public Shootings at alternative definitions requiring greater number of deaths and injuries. Tables 1 and 2 present data on multiple shootings for the United States as a whole, and for states with and without shall issue laws. We find that states without shall issue laws had more deaths and injuries from multiple shootings per year (both in absolute numbers and on a per capita basis) during the 1977 to 1995 period. Note also that the number of states without shall issue laws declined from 43 to 29 and the percentage of the U.S. population in these states fell from 91.5 to 68 percent in this period. Yet states without shall issue laws still account for the overwhelming majority (often over 90 percent) of deaths and injuries. The different rates of shootings, murders, or injuries are very consistent over time and do not arise from a few unusual years. Tables 3 and 4 look more closely at the 14 states that adopted shall issue laws between 1977 and 1995.15 (No state has ever repealed this law.) Table 3 shows a sharp drop in multiple murders and injuries per 100,000 persons after the passage of a shall issue law. Murders fell by 89 percent and injuries by 82 percent. Table 4 indicates that this drop occurred largely during the first full year after a state enacted its law (year “1” in the first column). Overall, the decline is so large that we observe zero multiple killings in three of the eight years after the passage of a law, an event that did not occur 15 The fourteen states that enacted “shall issue” or “right-to-carry” laws in the 1977 to 1995 period (dates in parentheses) are as follows: Alaska (1994), Arizona (1994), Florida (1987), Georgia (1989), Idaho (1990), Maine (1985), Mississippi (1990), Montana (1991), Oregon (1990), Pennsylvania (1989), Tennessee (1994), Virginia (1988), West Virginia (1989), and Wyoming (1994). The following eight states had “shall issue” laws over the entire period: Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Washington. Data on states having laws prior to 1993 are from Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel, Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, 62 Tennessee Law Review, 679 (1995). We used a Nexis search to determine the state and date for states passing laws between 1993 and 1995. These two sources were also used in Lott and Mustard (1997). Because of objections raised to the dates for “shall issue” laws in Maine and Virginia (see the discussion in Lott and Mustard), the regression analysis presented in part III examines the sensitivity of our findings to alternative dates for Maine and Virginia
