More Guns Less Crime

by John R. Lott Jr

  22. See notes 12 and 13 above.

  CHAPTER SIX

  1. Isaac Ehrlich, "Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," Journal of Political Economy 81 (1973): 548—51. Except for the political variables, my specification accords fairly closely with at least the spirit of Ehrlich's specification,

  286 / NOTES TO PAGES 117-122

  though some of my variables, like the demographic breakdowns, are much more detailed, and I have a few other measures that were not available to him.

  2. See also Robert E. McCormick and Robert Tollison, "Crime on the Court," Journal of Political Economy 92 (Apr. 1984): 223-35, for a novel article testing the endogeneity of the "arrest rate" in the context of basketball penalties.

  3. These last two variables are measured at the state level.

  4. Phil Cook suggested this addition to me. In a sense, this is similar to Ehrlich's specification, except that the current crime rate is broken down into its lagged value and the change between the current and previous periods. See Ehrlich, "Participation in Illegitimate Activities," p. 557.

  5. The natural logs of the rates for violent crime and property crime were used.

  6. These estimates are known as two-stage least squares.

  7. Ehrlich raises the concern that the types of two-stage, least-squares estimates discussed above might still be affected by spurious correlation if the measurement errors for the crime rate were serially correlated over time. To account for this, I reestimated the first-stage regressions predicting the arrest rate without the lagged crime rate, which made the estimated results for the nondiscretionary law dummy even more negative and more statistically significant than those already shown. See Ehrlich, "Participation in Illegitimate Activities," p. 552 n. 46.

  8. Still another approach would be to estimate what are known as Tobit regressions, but unfortunately no statistical package is available that allows me both to control for all the different county dummy variables and to use the Tobit procedure.

  CHAPTER SEVEN

  1. The Violence Policy Center grew out of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

  2. Douglas Weil, the research director for Handgun Control, Inc., has publicly disagreed with the claim that most gun-control advocates initially refused to comment on my study. In a letter to the Washington Times, Weil wrote,

  The Washington Times editorial ("Armed and Safer," Aug. 14) is misinformed and misguided. The Times falsely claims that gun-control proponents "initially refused to read" John Lott's and David Mustard's study of the impact of laws regarding the right to carry concealed guns, and that I attacked the researchers' motivations rather than challenge the study "on the merits." This charge is untrue.

  One look at the study would prove the Times wrong. On the title page of the study, several pro-gun-control researchers are credited for their comments "on the merits" of the study. Included in this list are David McDowall, a criminologist at the University of Maryland; Philip Cook, an economist at Duke University; and myself, research director for the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

  Upon reviewing the study, I found Mr. Lott's methodology to be seriously flawed. I told Mr. Lott that his study did not adequately control for the whole range of ways that state and local governments attempt to lower the crime rate. In Oregon, for example, the same legislation that made it easier to carry a concealed handgun included one of the toughest new handgun-purchase laws in the country—a 15-day waiting period and fingerprint-background check on all purchases. ...

  I gladly shared my critique of this study with Mr. Lott and will now reiterate it here; as someone fully credentialed to evaluate Mr. Lott's and Mr. Mustard's work, I would have recommended that the paper be rejected. (See Douglas Weil, "A Few Thoughts on the Study of Handgun Violence and Gun Control," Washington Times, Aug. 22, 1996, p. A16.)

  NOTES TO PAGES 122-123/287

  While it is true that I thanked Mr. Weil in my paper for a comment that he made, his single comment was nothing like what his letter to the Times claimed. Before he explained his concerns to the press, he and I had no discussions about whether I had controlled for "ways that state and local governments attempt to lower the crime rate," possibly because my study not only controls for arrest and conviction rates, prison sentences, the number of police officers and police payroll, but also waiting periods and criminal penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime.

  Mr. Weil's sole comment to me came after two previous telephone calls over a month and a half in which Mr. Weil had said that he was too busy to give me any comments. His sole comment on August 1 was that he was upset that I had cited a study by a professor, Gary Kleck, with whom Weil disagreed. I attempted to meet this unusual but minor criticism by rewriting the relevant sentence on the first page in a further attempt to dispassionately state the alternative hypotheses.

  Mr. Weil's claims are particularly difficult to understand in light of a conversation that I had with him on August 5. After hearing him discuss my paper on the news, I called him to say how surprised I was to hear about his telling the press that the paper was "fundamentally flawed" when the only comment that he had given me was on the reference to Kleck. Mr. Weil then immediately demanded to know whether it was true that I had thanked him for giving comments on the paper. He had heard from people in the news media who had seen a draft with his name listed among those thanked. (On August 1,1 had added his name to the list of people who had given comments, and when the news of the paper suddenly broke on August 2 with the story in USA Today, it was this new version that had been faxed to the news media.) He wanted to know if I was trying to "embarrass" him with others in the gun-control community, and he insisted that had not given me any comments. I said that I had only done it to be nice, and I mentioned the concern that he raised about the reference to Kleck. Weil then demanded that I "immediately remove [his] name" from the paper.

  3. This was not my only experience with Ms. Glick. On August 8, 1996, six days after the events of August 2 described above, I appeared with her on MSNBC. After I tried to make an introductory statement setting out my findings, Ms. Glick attacked me for having my study funded by "gun manufacturers." She claimed that I was a "shill" for the gun manufactures and that it was important that I be properly identified as not being an objective academic. She also claimed that there were many serious problems with the paper. Referring to the study, she asserted that it was a fraud.

  I responded by saying that these were very serious charges and that if she had some evidence, she should say what it was. I told her that I didn't think she had any such evidence, and that if she didn't, we should talk about the issues involved in the study.

  At this point the moderator broke in and said to Ms. Glick that he agreed that these were very serious charges, and he asked her what evidence she had for her statements. Glick responded by saying that she had lots of evidence and that it was quite obvious to her that this study had been done to benefit gun manufacturers.

  The moderator then asked her to comment further on her claim that there were serious problems with the study, and she stated that one only had to go to page 2 before finding a problem. Her concern was that I had used data for Florida that was a year and a half old. The moderator then asked her why this was a problem, since I couldn't be expected to use data that was, say, as recent as last week. Ms. Glick responded by saying that a lot of things could have changed since the most recent data were available. I then mentioned that I had obtained more recent data since the study had been written and that the pattern of people not using permitted guns improperly had held true from October 1987 to December 31, 1995.

  A more recent exchange that I had with the Violence Policy Center's President, Josh Sugarmann, on MSNBC on February 24, 1997, involved the same accusations.

  288 / NOTES TO PAGES 123-124

  4. Douglas Weil, from the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, wrote the following to the Washington Times: "Given t
hat Mr. Lott has published 70 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it is curious that he has chosen a law review for his research on concealed-gun-carrying laws" (Washington Times, Aug. 22, 1996, p. A16).

  5. Scott Harris, "To Build a Better America, Pack Heat," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 9, 1997, p. Bl. In many ways, my study was indeed fortunate for the coverage that it received. It appears that no other study documenting the ability of guns to deter crime has received the same level of coverage. MediaWatch, a conservative organization tracking the content of television news programs, reviewed every gun-control story on four evening shows (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS's Evening News, CNN's The World Today, and NBC's Nightly News) and three morning broadcasts (ABC's Good Morning America, CBS's This Morning, and NBC's Today) from July 1,1995 through June 30,1997. MediaWatch categorized news stories in the following way: "Analysts counted the number of pro- and anti-gun-control statements by reporters in each story. Pieces with a disparity of greater than 1.5 to 1 were categorized as either for or against gun control. Stories closer than the ratio were deemed neutral. Among statements recorded as pro-gun control: violent crime occurs because of guns, not criminals, and gun control prevents crime. Categorized as arguments against gun control: gun control would not reduce crime; that criminals, not guns are the problem; Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms; right-to-carry concealed weapons laws caused a drop in crime." MediaWatch concluded that "in 244 gun policy stories, those favoring gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 157 to 10, or a ratio of almost 16 to 1 (77 were neutral). Talking heads were slightly more balanced: gun-control advocates outnumbered gun-rights spokesmen 165 to 110 (40 were neutral)." The news coverage of my study apparently accounted for 4 of the 10 "anti-gun control" news reports. (Networks Use First Amendment Rights to Promote Opponents of Second Amendment Rights: Gun Rights Forces Outgunned on TV, MediaWatch, July 1997.)

  6. One of the unfortunate consequences of such attacks is the anger that they generate among the audience. For example, after Congressman Schumer's letter to the Wall Street Journal, I received dozens of angry telephone calls denouncing me for publishing my Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on concealed-handgun laws without first publicly stating that the research had been paid for by gun manufacturers. Other letters from the Violence Policy Center making these funding claims produced similar results.

  Understandably, given the seriousness of the charges, this matter has been brought up by legislators in every state in which I have testified before the state legislature. Other politicians have also taken up these charges. Minnesota State Rep. Wes Skoglund (DFL— Minneapolis) provided one of the milder statements of these charges in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (Mar. 29, 1997, p. A13): "Betterman [a Minnesota state representative] uses a much-publicized study by John Lott Jr., of the University of Chicago, to back up her claims about the benefits of her radical gun-carry law.... But what no one has told you about Lott's study is that it has been found to be inaccurate and flawed. And Betterman didn't tell you that the study was funded by the Olin Foundation, which was created by the founder of Winchester Arms."

  7. I telephoned Ms. Rand to ask her what evidence she had for her claim that the study was "the product of gun-industry funding" and reminded her that the public relations office at the University of Chicago had already explained the funding issue to her boss, Josh Sugarmann, but Ms. Rand hung up on me within about a minute.

  8. Alex Rodriquez, "Gun Debate Flares; Study: Concealed Weapons Deter Crime" Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 9, 1996, p. 2. Kotowski made his remark at a press conference organized by the Violence Policy Center, whose president, Josh Sugarmann, had been clearly told by the press office at the University of Chicago on August 6 that these charges were not true (as the letter by William E. Simon shown later will explain). Catherine Behan in the press office spent an hour trying to explain to him how funding works at Universities.

  NOTES TO PAGES 124-129/289

  9. Chicago Tribune, Aug. 15, 1996.

  10. "Study: Concealed Guns Deterring Violent Crime," Austin American Statesman, Aug. 9, 1996, p. A12.

  11. The brief correction ran in the Austin American Statesman, Aug. 10, 1996.

  12. As Mr. Simon mentions, one journalist who looked into these charges was Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune. One part of his article that is particularly relevant follows:

  Another problem is that the [Olin] foundation didn't (1) choose Lott as a fellow, (2) give him money, or (3) approve his topic. It made a grant to the law school's law and economics program (one of many grants it makes to top universities around the country). A committee at the law school then awarded the fellowship to Lott, one of many applicants in a highly competitive process.

  Even the committee had nothing to do with his choice of topics. The fellowship was to allow Lott—a prolific scholar who has published some 75 academic articles—to do research on whatever subject he chose. ...

  To accept their conspiracy theory, you have to believe the following: A company that derives a small share of its earnings from sporting ammunition somehow prevailed on an independent family foundation to funnel money to a scholar who was willing to risk his academic reputation (and, since he does not yet have tenure, his future employment) by fudging data to serve the interests of the firearms lobby—and one of the premier research universities in the world cooperated in the fraud. (See Stephen Chapman, "A Gun Study and a Conspiracy Theory," Chicago Tribune, Aug. 15, 1996, p. 31.)

  13. A Gannett Newswire story quoted a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence who made similar statements: "But Katcher said the study ... was funded by the Olin Foundation, which has strong ties to the gun industry. The study has 'been proven by a series of well-known, well-respected researchers to be inaccurate, false, junk science,' she said." (Dennis Camire, "Legislation before Congress Would Allow Concealed Weapons Nationwide," Gannett News Service, June 6, 1997.)

  14. John R. Lott, Jr., "Should the Wealthy Be Able to 'Buy Justice'?" Journal of Political Economy 95 (Dec. 1987): 1307.

  15. "Notebook," The New Republic, Apr. 14, 1997, p. 10.

  16. After much effort, Randy was eventually able to get Cynthia Henry Thielen, a Hawaiian State Representative, to participate in the radio program.

  17. Richard Morin, "Unconventional Wisdom: New Facts and Hot Stats from the Social Sciences," Washington Post, Mar. 23, 1997, p. C5.

  18. It is surely not uncommon for academics to write letters to their local newspapers or to national or international publications, and indeed such letters were also written (see, for example, The Economist, Dec. 7,1996, p. 8). But to track down the letters of everyday citizens to local newspapers and send replies is unusual.

  19. The Springfield State Journal-Register, Nov. 26,1996. Steven Teret, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research wrote dozens of letters to newspapers across the country. They usually began with statements like the following: "Recently in a letter to the editor dated October 19, Kurt Amebury cited the work of two University of Chicago professors" (Orlando Sentinel, Nov. 16, 1996, p. A18); "Recently the Dispatch published a letter to the editor citing the work of two researchers" (Columbus Dispatch, Nov. 16, 1996, p. All); "The State Journal-Register Oct. 28 published two letters citing research by the University of Chicago's John Lott" (Springfield State Journal-Register, Nov. 13, 1996, p. 6); or "A recent letter to the editor ..." (Buffalo News, Nov. 17, 1996, p. H3). In late November, I asked Stephen Teret how many newspapers he had sent letters to. He would not give me an exact count, but he said "dozens" and then listed the names of some major newspapers to which they had

  290 / NOTES TO PAGES 131-149

  written. It is curious that none of the effort put into responding to my paper by the Center has gone into writing a comment for submission to the Journal ofLegal Studies, where my original paper was published. Nor has the Center prepared a response for any other scholarly journal.

  20. My opinion piece appeared in the Omaha World-Herald, Mar. 9, 1997,
p. B9.

  21. Virginia Code Annotated, § 18.2-3088 (1988).

  22. This discussion relies on conversations with Clayton Cramer.

  23. This point is similar to the "broken-window" argument made by Wilson and {Celling; see James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, "Making Neighborhoods Safe ," Atlantic Monthly, Feb. 1989.

  24. Some robberies also involve rape. While I am not taking a stand on whether rape or robbery is the primary motivation for the attack, there might be cases where robbery was the primary motive.

  25. Information obtained from Kathy O'Connell at the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

  26. For example, see Douglas Weil, "A Few Thoughts on the Study of Handgun Violence and Gun Control," Washington Times, Aug. 22, 1996, p. A16.

  27. The durability of these initial false claims about Florida's crime rates can be seen in more recent popular publications. For example, William Tucker, writing in the Weekly Standard, claims that "Florida crime rates remained level from 1988 to 1990, then took a big dive. As with all social phenomena, though, it is difficult to isolate cause and effect." See William Tucker, "Maybe You Should Carry a Handgun," Weekly Standard, Dec. 16,1996, p. 30.

  28. In an attempt to facilitate Black's and Nagin's research, I provided them not only with all the data that they used but also computer files containing the regressions, in order to facilitate the replication of each of my regressions. It was thus very easy for them to try all possible permutations of my regressions, doing such things as excluding one state at a time or excluding data based on other criteria.

  29. Dan Black and Dan Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Carnegie-Mellon University working paper, Dec. 18, 1996, p. 5.

  30. In addition, because the regressions use individual county dummy variables, so that they are really measuring changes in crime rates relative to each county's mean, one need not be concerned with the possibility that the average crime rates for the years that are farthest beyond the adoption of the concealed-handgun laws are being pulled down by relatively low crime rates in some states.