[lbo-talk] violent crime up

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Thu Jun 15 06:11:17 PDT 2006


Jordan:

Nonetheless, Andie thinks I have a 'theory' --

[WS:] Well, perhaps you should. It would be extremely helpful in this conversation to clarify what is actually being argued. It would not have to be an empirically tested theory (which is hard to do if you are not a professional researcher specializing in this particular area), but hypotheses about different causal relations - which anyone with some training in scientific methodology can do.

Thus, we can specify the following hypotheses:

H0 (null): There is no causal relationship between gun ownership and homicide.

H1: Gun ownership causes a person to commit homicide.

H2: Gun ownership rates are positively associated with homicide rates. This hypothesis, while itself not a causal claim, implies several different causal relations between gun ownership and homicide rates.

H2a: Gun ownership causes people to commit homicide (same as H1.)

H2b: Both gun ownership rates and homicide rates are effects of another factor, but there is no direct causal relation between them (e.g. both are produced by the same macho/frontier culture, breakdown of social cohesion, alienation, fear etc. - but themselves are not causally related).

H2c: Gun ownership is an intervening factor in a relationship between another factor (cause) and homicide (e.g. socialization into violent culture/sub-culture causes higher propensity for homicide, but only if enabling factors are present; gun ownership is an enabling factor because it significantly reduces the transaction cost of killing, as doing the latter with cruder tools, like knives, clubs or axes, involves much harder work).

H2d: H2b and H2c combined, as they are not mutually exclusive.

As I see it, most people on this list argue either H2b, H2c, or H2d. You, however, stipulate that H1 (or H2a) is being argued, point to the absurdity of this claim (which indeed is a very crude form of causation, bordering on a caricature), and claim H0 (null hypothesis) as the only rational conclusion.

The problem with that reasoning is that rejection of H1 does NOT lead to the acceptance of H0 without also rejecting H2b, H2c, and H2d. I am pretty sure, however, that rejecting them would be rather difficult, as there is a lot of evidence supporting them.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list