expvideo
Member
Just because you can rationalize it in your head or can't think of a good reason to keep something doesn't mean it should be illegal. This isn't England.
so you suggest that he go to a gunshow only to get blown off by people...hmmm, interesting.
"The Effect of Gun Shows on Gun-Related Deaths: Evidence from California and Texas"
by Mark Duggan, Randi Hjalmarsson and Brian A. Jacob
Current Draft: September 2008
Abstract
Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that
because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier
for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would
exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of
ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since
potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In
this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to
examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial
increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does
not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths.
Conclusion
VII. Conclusion
Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. every year. Gun control advocates argue
that the “gun show loophole” that exists in many states makes it easier for potential criminals to
obtain a gun. Gun shows may also affect suicide rates by increasing the ease with which
individuals who are contemplating suicide can obtain a more lethal device. On the other hand,
opponents of gun show regulations argue that gun shows are innocuous because potential
criminals and other individuals can acquire guns easily through other channels.
In this paper, we have investigated the effect of gun shows using eleven years of data on
the date and location of every gun show in the states of California and Texas, the nation’s two
most populous states. We have combined this with information on the date, location, and cause
of every death occurring in these same two states during our eleven-year study period. We focus
our attention on homicides and suicides, with firearms accounting for 61 percent of the combined
106,205 deaths from these two causes in California and Texas during the 1994 to 2004 period.
Our identification strategy tests whether the number of homicides or suicides changes in
the weeks immediately following a gun show. We investigate separate models for the two states
given that they sit at opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to their regulation of gun shows,
with California arguably the strictest and Texas among the least stringent. To the extent that
regulations such as those in place in California reduce any deleterious effects of gun shows, one
might expect to detect a larger effect in a relatively unregulated state such as Texas.
Our results, however, provide no evidence to suggest that gun shows lead to a substantial
increase in the number of homicides or suicides in either California or Texas. If anything, we
find evidence of a modest decline in the number of homicides following the average gun show in
Texas, though our aggregate implied effects amount to just one percent of all homicides in the
state of Texas. Taken together, our results suggest that gun shows do not increase the number of
homicides or suicides and that the absence of gun show regulations does not increase the number
of gun-related deaths as proponents of these regulations suggest.
There are, however, two important caveats to our analyses. First, we are considering only
the effect in the geographic area immediately surrounding gun shows. To the extent that firearms
purchased at gun shows are transported more than 25 miles away from the show, our
identification strategy will not capture this effect. Additionally, we consider the effect only in the
four weeks immediately following a gun show. However, guns are durable, and thus to the extent
that effects occur much later, our analysis will not capture this.
NOTE:
We would like to thank Andrew Cantor, Brittani Head, Josh Hyman, Rebecca Kahane, JD LaRock, Emily Owens,
Petko Peev, and Paul Vernier for their excellent research assistance. We also thank David Hemenway, Ilyana
Kuziemko, Jens Ludwig, and participants of the MPRC’s Crime and Population Workshop and the NBER’s Crime
Working Group Conference for helpful suggestions. All remaining errors are our own. Duggan can be contacted at:
University of Maryland, Department of Economics, 3105 Tydings Hall, College Park, MD 20742; email:
[email protected]. Hjalmarsson can be contacted at: Maryland School of Public Policy, University of
Maryland, 2101 Van Munching Hall, College Park, MD 20742; email: [email protected]. Jacob can be contacted
at: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, 5236 Weill Hall, 735 South State Street, Ann
Arbor, MI 48109; email: [email protected].
for my class I've been chosen to represent a Democratic state. And that state is none other than.... *drum roll* California ! This'll be interesting I really love their gun laws and the bills these guys come up with
newbie4help said:Honestly, I don't see why any of us should care sense 90% of us have a CHL, so we could buy unregulated anyway since we've already been checked out by the feds.
Minimally, those who pass background checks should be able to buy firearms in any state of this ONE (?) COUNTRY instead of having to send it through the mail to a dealer in your own state, incuring an extra fee for buying a handgun.
In California,all legal sales are through an FFL already=no gunshow loophole.there,your report is done...viola!
Honestly, I don't see why any of us should care sense 90% of us have a CHL, so we could buy unregulated anyway since we've already been checked out by the feds.
In California,all legal sales are through an FFL already=no gunshow loophole.there,your report is done...viola!