Despite multiple refutations, the "More Guns, Less Crime" debate continues. This persistence is fueled by ideology, powerful economic interests like the NRA, and the original author's refusal to concede. It shows that in academia, as the saying goes, "progress comes one death at a time."
Research shows almost no evidence that the death penalty deters homicide. Instead, it functions as a political tool, allowing politicians to easily signal a "tough on crime" stance to voters and generate an enthusiastic response, particularly during re-election campaigns, without solving serious crime problems.
Contrary to popular belief, publication in a top academic journal doesn't guarantee a study is correct. The social sciences lack the precise experimental validation of hard sciences, allowing incorrect theories to have "long legs and survive" due to a lack of rigorous, focused scrutiny from peers.
A major unintended consequence of right-to-carry laws is an increase in gun theft. When more people carry guns on their person or in their cars, the weapons become more vulnerable to being stolen. This channels an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 additional guns directly into criminal hands each year.
The authors’ original, controversial abortion-crime paper included predictions for the next two decades. When a follow-up paper showed these predictions were borne out by the data, the academic community, which had previously engaged in a "firestorm" of debate, mostly ignored the powerful new evidence.
Host Steve Levitt recounts advice from Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker: "I love it when people attack me. It means they're paying attention. What I hate is being ignored." For an academic, controversy is a sign of relevance and impact; professional silence signifies failure.
John Donohue argues the "More Guns, Less Crime" theory was flawed because it didn't control for the crack cocaine epidemic. States with laxer gun laws saw less crime increase not due to the laws, but because they weren't the urban centers hit hard by crack, creating a spurious correlation.