To the editor: Research shows crime goes down with concealed-carry

Editor's Note: The following letter to the editor of the Columbus Dispatch was published in response to a guest commentary written by Jack D'Aurora and published in that newspaper, in which the author chose not only to question his research, but to attack Lott personally.

In his recent op-ed, Jack D’Aurora cherry-picks a couple of old studies from 2003 and 2004 (“ Focus needs to be on reducing gun deaths,” April 21). He conveniently ignores the massive body of research conducted for well over a decade and a half. But even doing that, the worst that D’Aurora can claim is that concealed-carry laws do not increase crime.

Consider peer-reviewed studies by criminologists and economists that examined national data. Twenty of them found right-to-carry laws reduced violent crime; 11 indicated no discernible effect. But absolutely none found that concealed-carry laws increase murder, rape or robbery rates.

When the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois’ ban on concealed handguns in December 2012, Judge Richard Posner, writing for the majority, noted: “Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.”

D’Aurora’s column cited a 2003 non-peer-reviewed article by Ian Ayres and John Donohue, who claimed to have found a small temporary increase in crime, followed by a downward trend. Their conclusion was that concealed-carry really had no effect on crime rates.

Even that conclusion was later questioned in a 2008 peer-reviewed paper by Carl Moody and Thomas Marvell. If Ayres and Donohue “had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws (allowing concealed handguns to be carried in public) reduce crime.”

As to the National Research Council report in 2004, D’Aurora is correct that the council reached no conclusion one way or the other about concealed-handgun laws, but to put this in context, the panel failed to reach a conclusion on any type of gun law, including the ones that D’Aurora himself advocates.

Furthermore, the panel found more support for concealed-handgun laws than for these other proposals. The late James Q. Wilson, for decades regarded as America’s pre-eminent criminologist, dissented from the majority’s know-nothing conclusion. Wilson pointed out that “virtually every re-analysis done by the committee” confirmed that right-to-carry laws reduced crime.

As to my defamation case against Steven Levitt, who claimed that I had been “able to buy an issue (of a journal) and put in work that supported (me),” if D’Aurora had actually read the briefs in my case, he would know that I had contested the claims Levitt made about the “Mary Rosh” pseudonym, and in deposition I made it clear that everything he claimed was false. By the way, Levitt wrote an apology letter stating that the claims that he made about my research and that of others were wrong.

D’Aurora cherry-picks studies that are closest to his views and then ignores research when it doesn’t support the gun laws he supports.

JOHN R. LOTT JR.
President
Crime Prevention Research Center
Philadelphia

Unfortunately, the newspaper chose to edit Mr. Lott's letter in such a way that Lott felt detracted from the points he was making.

The final paragraph, as it was originally written:

Amazingly, D'Aurora cherry picks studies that are closest to his views and then ignores that same research when they don’t support the gun laws that he supports.

Lott's follow-up note, which he sent to the Dispatch and shared with Buckeye Firearms Association:

Dear Glenn:

The last paragraph was rewritten so that it differed from what I sent in. I don't mind you cutting out the word "Amazingly," but I thought that it was pretty important that D'Aurora was cherry picking results even within the very selective research papers that he was referencing, as it shows a level of arbitrariness on his part that is truly amazing. Removing those two words takes much of the sting out of that paragraph. While most people who will have read this will have already done so, if you can put them back in the online version, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.
John

The newspaper failed to honor Lott's request to correct the online version.