undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvacri9y ago0 comments

The reduction in homicides since 1990 is due to the j-curve in incarceration rates, not the various forms of carry (that for the most part across the US, didn't start in the early 90s).

Washington state also went concealed carry in 1961, and it's crime rate rose and fell with the rest of the country over time. Seriously, it's not an armed population, but an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

JanezStupar9y ago· 1 in thread

> an incarcerated one that reduces crime. It is, after all, the point of incarceration.

Do you have any sources on that? The causality is not obvious.

ZoeZoeBee9y ago

Here's a pretty good paper titled "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 90s: Four Factors That Explain the Decline and Six Factors That do Not" it's written by Steven Levitt the author of Freakonomics.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUndersta...

>Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion.

Other factors often cited as important factors driving the decline do not appear to have played an important role: the strong economy, changing demographics, innovative policing strategies, gun laws and increased use of capital punishment. In stark contrast, the crime experience between 1973 and 1991 is not well explained by the factors identified in this paper. The real puzzle in my opinion, therefore, is not why crime fell in the 1990s, but why it did not start falling sooner.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse