Clayton Cramer has this video outlining his study on the effects of private transfer bans on murder rates:
I think it would probably make sense to control with states that didn’t pass private transfer bans. If murder rates are declining generally (as they were in the mid to late 1990s), or rising generally (as they were in the late 1960s), it would mask the true effect. I think it would be more accurate to say that, for instance, California’s murder rate increased faster than states that didn’t pass such a ban. Maryland and Pennsylvania are both listed as success stories, but during those periods in question, murder was falling generally.
Comparisons of murder rates by state differences can be tricky. And it has been used before to make badly reasoned claims that more guns = more crimes, going all the way back to that hack Zimring in the 1960s.
But I have seen some very interesting things looking at the murder rates of the states, because some comparisons are pretty shocking and also devastating to the gun-control hypothesis.
For example: no one is probably surprised that states like Utah or Vermont have tremendously lower murder rates than California. Or that the murder rate of Texas is close to California. But how many people would expect that poverty and drug plagued Kentucky has a much lower murder rate than California and close to that of New York?
It’s been taken down already?
Looks that way. Sorry about that.
Updated with improved audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cDWaFaYf4w
The reason I didn’t do comparisons to national murder rate changes is that is aimed at low information voters, who will see that comparison as suspect.
“private transfer ban” may as vary: what’s banned in CA may not be banned in MD (although they’re working on that now).