Mustard, David B.

English

Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository

CULTURE AFFECTS OUR BELIEFS ABOUT FIREARMS,BUT DATA ARE ALSO IMPORTANTDAVID B. MUSTARDtINTRODUCTIONDan Kahan and Donald Braman's provocative analysis contendsthat because people's beliefs about firearms are primarily formed bycultural values, empirical data are unlikely to have much effect on thegun debate. Their proposed solution to this quandary is that scholarswho want to help resolve the gun controversy should identify preciselythe cultural visions that generate this dispute and formulate appropri-ate strategies for enabling those visions to be reconciled in law.In response to Kahan and Braman's challenge to empirical re-search, I argue that while culture influences beliefs, it is but one ofseveral such factors. Alongside culture (and presumably other factorsas well), empirical evidence has a powerful influence on beliefs aboutgun control. In the first Part of this Commentary I discuss how cul-tural beliefs can significantly affect individuals' beliefs about firearmsand discuss strategies for helping people overcome their cultural bi-ases to more honestly evaluate empirical evidence. The second Partprovides examples of how data have played an important role in af-fecting individuals' beliefs about firearms. I conclude by urging re-newed attention to empirical research to inform the gun control de-bate.I. THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN INFLUENCING BELIEFS ON GUNSAre individuals' beliefs about firearms strongly influenced by cul-ture? Do some citizens possess attitudes about firearms that will notbe affected regardless of how Much empirical evidence is set forth?Kahan and Braman's analysis suggests that the answer to both ques-tions is "Yes."1 I agree that culture can play a very important role int Assistant Professor of Economics, Teriy College of Business, University of Geor-gia.Dan M. Kahan & Donald Braman, More Statislics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural The7-oy of Gun-Risk Perceptions, 151 U. PA. L. REV. 1291, 1311-12 (2003) (arguing that "cul-(1387)1388 UNIVERSITY OFPIENNSYLVANIA IAW REVIEW [Vol. 151:1387defining people's beliefs about guns. In my writing and speakingabout firearms I was shocked to learn how many people on both sidesof the debate virtually ignore data that undermine their views. Thiscultural bias toward ignoring evidence could be extremely costly whenformulating public policy on firearms because so many lives may be atstake as a result of the policy. I will draw from my experiences lectur-ing about gun control to illustrate how to simultaneously penetrateindividuals' cultural biases and challenge them to more honestly con-sider evidence that may not be consistent with their cultural world-views.In my own lecturing on guns, I often ask people whether any dataor evidence could lead them to change their minds on the issue ofgun control. Often those who respond "no" are forced to reflect ontheir unwillingness to listen to evidence. To the extent that this re-sponse conflicts with their self-images as thoughtful persons, they areoften willing to renew a discussion of the issue with an openness to thedata. With those who respond to the question affirmatively, I followup with another question: "What type of evidence would lead you tochange your mind?" This often generates productive lines of inquiryinto what it would really take for listeners to change their minds. Oc-casionally the evidence that they would require to change their mindsalready exists in empirical studies. At one such talk, a student said shewas utterly repulsed by the idea of allowing law-abiding citizens tocarry concealed weapons, because she thought this would lead towholesale chaos and "wild west gunfights." When asked about thetype of evidence she would need to change her mind, she indicatedthat she would need overwhelming evidence that people with con-cealed-carry permits used their firearms responsibly. I described toher some of the published studies about the low incidence of crimi-nality among permit holders (parts of which I include in the nextPart). After the talk she said that she intended to examine this issuemore honestly to see if she could not be persuaded.A talk that I have titled Guns-Just the Facts, or Guns: A Policy-FreeDiscussion, illustrates another way that I have tried to encourage peo-ple to put aside their cultural biases and think about their willingnessto be open to empirical evidence. In the lecture's introduction, Itural orientations strongly affect individual attitudes on gun control," but that "nu-merous studies havC found that neither actual crime rates [nor] perceived crimerates .. correlate [] with public opinion toward gun control").2 David1 B. Mustard, Guns--just the Facts (unpublished lecture notes, on file withauthor).DATA AI ALSO IMPORTANTstate that during my presentation I will discuss issues about whichscholars broadly agree on the answers, and that I will not explicitlydiscuss any laws or policy proposals. I then ask how many audiencemembers think that they have firmly held beliefs about gun policy.My interest is not in their particular viewpoints, but rather in how in-tensely they hold those viewpoints. Typically about 90% of the audi-ence indicate that they have very strong beliefs about gun laws. I pro-ceed to ask how many think that if they believe something stronglythey at least should have some basic understanding of the underlyingdata. Virtually everyone raises her hand in response. I then distributea questionnaire. Consider the following examples from among theseries of questions:How many accidental deaths as a result oj firearms are there per year in theUnited States?How many accidental deaths of children under five as a result of firearms arethere per year in the United States?How has the accidental death rate (deaths Per popnlatiou) as a result of firearmschanged since 1970? (i.e., increased or decreased by X percent)How many times Per year are guns used to commit crimes in the United States?How many times per year are guns used for self-defense in the United States?What is the ratio of crimes to self-defense uses?Even when using a charitable grading policy that grants credit toany answer within about 200%, rarely does anyone answer more thanabout one quarter of the questions correctly-regardless of wherethey stand on the gun issue. This experiment suggests that even whenindividuals are strongly committed to a certain belief and agree that itis important for ardently held convictions to be buttressed by evi-dence, most people have little understanding of the evidence neces-sary to develop an informed view of the costs and benefits of gun con-trol.In my presentation, I conclude by generalizing this point and stat-ing that if a person passionately believes something, be it about abor-tion, the environment, social policy, or firearms, sh2 needs to carefullyconsider the evidence in forming her convictions. Cultural worlviewsthat close one's mind to new sources of evidence certainly affect viewson gun control. In response to such views, it is especially important2003] 13891390. UNIVEIRSITY OFIPENNSYLVANIA IAWI RVJEW (Vol. 151:1387that educators develop pedagogical methods to encourage people torecognize their own cultural biases and lack of receptivity to data.II. Do DATA REALLY MATTER?Kahan and Braman contend that because the role of culture indetermining attitudes toward guns is so strong, "empirical analyses ofthe effect of gun control on violent crime are unlikely to have muchimpact. ' Although I agree with Kahan and Braman's contention thatcultural beliefs are important, I strongly disagree with their conclu-sion that data neither elucidate issues nor persuade people. Kahanand Braman's use of statistical analyses to show that statistical analysesdo not help explain peoples' beliefs about firearms is clearly ironic.Kahan and Braman overstate the role of cultural factors to the ex-clusion of other factors. For example, their chosen measures of cul-ture (hierarchy-egalitarianism and individualism-solidarism) explainonly between 1.5% and 7% of peoples' attitudes on firearms (basedon the difference in their reported R 's in the two sets of regres-sions).' Although statistically significant, these variables account forrelatively few of the variations in individuals' beliefs about firearms.Furthermore, the total R2's for all four regressions are fairly low, sug-gesting that other factors may also be important for explaining peo-ples' viewpoints on firearms. I believe data to be one of these otherfactors.Although some people may be unwilling to consider data in de-termining their beliefs, many peoples' viewpoints have undoubtedlybeen influenced by data. For instance, data have compelled me tosignificantly change my viewpoints on gun-related issues. When Istarted my research on guns in 1995, I passionately disliked firearmsand fully accepted the conventional wisdom that increasing the gun-ownership rate would necessarily raise violent crime and accidentaldeaths. My views on this subject were formed primarily by media ac-counts of firearms, which unknowingly to me systematically empha-sized the costs of firearms while virtually ignoring their benefits.' Ithought it obvious that passing laws that permitted law-abiding citizensto carry concealed weapons would create many problems. It is nowKahan & Braman, sulnro note 1, at 1292.Id. at 1306 tbl. I.5 JOHN R. l.O', JR., THE BIAS AGAINST GUNS: Wiy ALMOST EVERYII[ING YOU'VEHEARD ABOUT GUN CONTROl, IS WRONG 23-48 (2003) (discussing how the media fo-cuses on the negatives of guns).DA TA ARE ALSO IMPORTANTover six years since I became convinced otherwise and concluded thatshall-issue laws-laws that require permits to be granted unless theapplicant has a criminal record or a history of significant mental ill-ness-reduce violent crime and have no impact on accidental deaths.'My transformation is not unique; other scholars, such as Gary Kleck,have significantly changed their views about firearms as they learnedmore about the evidence.When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was abeliever in the "anti-gun" thesis, i.e. the idea th [at] gun availability has anet positive effect on the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts. Itseemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to beempirically tested. However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (andan enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, many ofthe most able specialists in this area shifted from the "anti-gun" positionto a more skeptical stance, in which it was negatively argued that the bestavailable evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position. This is not the same as saying we know the anti-gun posi-tion to be wrong, but rather that there is no strong case for it being cor-rect. The most prominent representatives of the skeptic position wouldbe James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the best scholarly review ofthe literature.... [Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even tileskeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence,imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gtinavailability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide,suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the [United States].One of the most startling conclusions leading to my transforma-tion was that concealed-weapons permit holders are extremely lawabiding. Rarely do they use their guns for inappropriate purposes." Iwas most surprised that evidence from many different states and timeperiods overwhelmingly rejects the claim that concealed-carry laws will6 SeeJohn R. Lott, Jr. & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Con-cealed Handguns, 26J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 64 (1997) ("Allowing citizens without criminalrecords or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns detersviolent crimes and appears to produce an extremely small and statistically insignificantchange in accidental deaths.").7 Gary Kleck, Submission to the National Academy of Sciences/National ResearchCouncil Panel on the Understanding and Prevention of Violence: Comments onPhilip Cook, The Technology of Personal Violence (Apr. 3, 1990) (on file with author).See JOHN R. LOrT, JR., MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME 219-22 (2d ed. 2000) (providingstudies that show concealed-handgun permit holders do not pose a risk to others); seealso Lott & Mustard, sun-a note 6, at 3 (noting that "221,443 licenses were issued be-tween October I, 1987, and April 30, 1994, but only 18 crimes involving firearms werecommitted by those with licenses").20031 13911392 UNIVERSITY OF IFNNSYLVANIA LA W REVIEW [Vol. 151:1387usher in a new era of the "wild west." For example, in MultnomahCounty, Oregon, only 1 of 11,140 permit holders illegally used a fire-arm against another person during a four-year period-an annual rateof only 0.2 incidents for every 10,000 holders."' The annual rate inFlorida over a seven-year period was even lower: 18 crimes involvingfirearms were committed by gun owners with licenses, out of 221,443total licenses, producing an annual rate of 0.1 incidents for every10,000 holders."'Many students, academics, and general citizens have told me howthe growing amount and quality of empirical evidence has encour-aged them to change their minds on this issue. Some of the most star-tling testimony along these lines is from law enforcement officers whohad vehemently opposed shall-issue laws and now acknowledge thatlicense holders are extremely law abiding and pose little threat."Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, twice lobbiedagainst the Texas proposed right-to-carry law, but after it finally passedhe remarked, "Um a convert.'02 The president and the executive di-rector of the Florida Chiefs of Police and the head of the FloridaSheriffs Association made extensive efforts to document problemsarising from their state's shall-issue law. However, they were surprisedby the virtual absence of problems." Speaking on behalf of the Ken-tucky Chiefs of Police Association, Lt. Col. Bill Dorsey stated, "'We ha-ven't seen any cases where a (concealed-carry) permit holder hascommitted an offense with a firearm."'' ' Many academics and policy-makers, including some of the above police officers, believed thatconcealed-carry holders would jeopardize society and actively tried todocument that danger. However, in the absence of evidence, and inspite of their best efforts, they were compelled to change their minds.They now believe that law-abiding citizens who have no mental health) Lott & Mustard, supra note 6, at 3 n.9.10 I. at 3.1 See David B. Mustard, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, 44 J.L. & ECON.635, 638 (2001) (documentling examples of such testimony).12 Scott Parks, Charges Against Texans with Gun Permits Rise: Backers, Foes of Con-cealed-Weapon Law Split on Meanihg of Data, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, Dec. 23, 1997, atAL.Al. Steve Patterson, Concealed-Weapons Law Opponents Still Searchig for Am,munition,FLORIDA TIMES-UNION, May 9, 1988, at A I (reporting that opponents of Florida's con-cealed-weapons law were still looking for detrimental effects directly associated with it).1I Terry Flynn, Gun-Toting Ketuckians Hold Their Fire, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, June16, 1997, at Al. Kentucky State Police Trooper Jan Wuchner is also quoted as sayingthat he has "'heard nothing arotnd the state related to crime with a gun committed bypermit holders. There has been nothing like that that I've been informed of.'" Id.DATA ARE ALSO IMPORTANT1histories, who pay fees and give authorities personal information,rarely use their weapons for inappropriate purposes.A second criticism of Kahan and Braman is that although theycorrectly highlight some disagreements in the empirical literature,they omit to mention the consensus that is building about the esti-mates of the impact of the laws-that these laws certainly do not in-crease crime and likely lower violent crime slightly. The data have al-ready significantly altered the debate. Prior to the recent explosion ofgun research, many, including me, presumed that shall-issue lawswould increase crime. However, even those who Kahan and Bramancite as being most critical of the Lott-Mustard findings provide little, ifany, strong evidence that shall-issue laws increase crime. For example,Mark Duggan reported thirty regressions of the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime."' Only one of the thirty coefficient esti-mates is positive and statistically significant (robbery in one specifica-tion)." In contrast, fourteen of the thirty coefficient estimates arenegative and statistically significant, and most of the rest are negativeand statistically insignificant. 7 Consequently, even this article that hasbeen cited for calling into question the original Lott-Mustard resultscontains more evidence that these laws actually reduced rather thanincreased crime. Similarly, Black and Nagin obtain a positive and sig-nificant coefficient in one specification for assaults, but only while us-ing the problematic quadratic estimation procedure.' However, thissame table reports thirteen negative and statistically significant coeffi-cient estimates, and the remaining estimates are disproportionatelynegative and statistically insignificant. 'These findings are particularly notable in the broader gun litera-ture because right-to-carry laws are the first type of gun law to consis-tently produce an empirically verifiable reduction in criminal activity.The empirical work in refereed scholarly journals presents a muchstronger case for the efficacy of shall-issue laws in reducing crime than15 Mark Duggan, More Guns, More Crime, 109 J. POL. ECON. 1086, 1110 tbl.12(2001).16 Id.7 Id. Although only twelve are designated as statistically significant in the table,rape and assault in specification (2) are also statistically significant given the reportedestimates of the coefficients and standard errors.Is Dan A. Black & Daniel S. Nagin, Do Right-to-C ny Laws Deter Violent Crime?, 27J.LEGAL STUD. 209, 218 (1998).19 Id.20031 13931394 UNIVEIRSITY OFPENNSYLVANIA IAWIEVIEW [Vol. 151:1387any other gun control law.) From a public policy perspective, if onebelieves there is insufficient evidence to endorse concealed-carry laws,then to be logically consistent one must also oppose the implementa-tion of waiting periods, safe-storage laws, and other gun laws evenmore adamantly.CONCLUSIONAs Kahan and Braman correctly contend, some people hold pas-sionate beliefs about guns, are largely influenced by cultural world-views, and are unwilling to be persuaded by the data. However, cul-tural values, as Kahan and Braman define them, explain only about5% of peoples' beliefs about firearms. Just because some people maynot be persuaded does not mean that nobody is persuaded by data orthat we should stop estimating the impacts of gun laws. Many academ-ics, policymakers, and citizens have changed their minds about gunswhen presented with the evidence. Furthermore, the academic litera-ture, although unable to point to exact estimates of the impacts ofgun laws, has placed bounds on their impacts. Therefore, makingprogress on the firearms debate will require renewed attention tohigh quality empirical research combined with the development ofpedagogical and communication methods that help people realize theimplications of their unwillingness to consider evidence.2 ( For an examination of the impact of other gun control laws on crime, see LOT',supra note 8, at 197-202.

Culture Affects Our Beliefs about Firearms, but Data Are Also Important

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3217&amp;context=penn_law_review

Culture Affects Our Beliefs about Firearms, but Data Are Also Important

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository