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