Editing John Lott (section)

== Research on guns ==

===Concealed weapons and crime rate===

In a 1997 article written with David B. Mustard<ref name="LottMust97">John R. Lott Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns", 26 ''Journal of Legal Studies'' 1 (1997) [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf working paper PDF] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100616105437/http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf |date=2010-06-16 }}; [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jls/1997/26/1 journal article PDF] {{subscription required}}.</ref> and Lott's subsequent books ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'' and ''[[The Bias Against Guns]]'', Lott argued that allowing adults to carry [[concealed weapon]]s significantly reduces crime in America. In 2004, the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and concluded "that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of [[right-to-carry]] laws and crime rates."<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309091241/html/2.html NAS, ''Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review'' (2004)] Executive Summary, Major Conclusions, p. 2. Ch. 6 Right-to-Carry Laws, pp. 120–151, reviews research by Lott and others on this issue.</ref> The NAS report wrote of Lott's work, "The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last1=Farley |first1=Robert |last2=Robertson |first2=Lori |last3=Kiely |first3=Eugene |date=2012-12-20 |title=Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ |access-date=2021-01-02|website=FactCheck.org|language=en-US}}</ref> The criminologist [[James Q. Wilson]] was the only member on the 18-member NAS panel who dissented from this conclusion.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=269 |title=Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review |pages=269–270 |isbn=0-309-09124-1 |year=2004 |chapter=Appendix A Dissent |first=James Q. |last=Wilson |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121016133952/http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=269 |archive-date=October 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref name=":3" /> For similar reasons as highlighted by the NAS, as well as "multiple serious problems with data and methodology", a 2020 comprehensive review of existing research on concealed-carry by the [[RAND Corporation]] discounted Lott's studies.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws on Violent Crime |url=https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html|access-date=2021-01-02 |website=rand.org|language=en}}</ref>

Other reviews said that there were problems with Lott's model. A replication by Dan A. Black and [[Daniel Nagin]] found that minor adjustments to Lott and Mustard's model led to the disappearance of the findings.<ref name="Black">{{Cite journal|last=Black|first=Dan A.|author2=Daniel S. Nagin|date=January 1998|title=Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?|journal=Journal of Legal Studies|volume=27|issue=1|page=214|doi=10.1086/468019|s2cid=154626760}}</ref><ref name=":4">[http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm Ted Goertzel, "Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression", ''The Skeptical Inquirer''], Volume 26, No 1, January/February 2002, pp. 19–23. Expanded as:  [http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/econojunk.doc Ted Goertzel, "Econometric Modeling as Junk Science"]</ref> In the ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'', [[David Hemenway]] argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption.<ref name="Hemenway">{{Cite journal|last=Hemenway |first=David |date=December 31, 1998 |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |title=More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws / Making A Killing: The business of guns in America |volume=339 |issue=27 |pages=2029–2030 |doi=10.1056/NEJM199812313392719}}</ref> [[Ian Ayres]] and [[John J. Donohue III|John J. Donohue]] said that the model used by Lott contained significant coding errors and [[systemic bias]].<ref name="shootdown">{{Cite journal|last=Ayres |first=Ian |author2=John J. Donohue III |date=April 2003 |title=Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis |journal=Stanford Law Review |volume=55 |issue=4 |page=1193 |doi= 10.2139/ssrn.343781|s2cid=55757925 |url=http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1241 }}</ref> In the ''American Journal of Public Health'', [[Daniel Webster (academic)|Daniel Webster]] et al. also raised concerns about flaws in the study, such as misclassification of laws and endogeneity of predictor variables, which they said rendered the study's conclusions "insupportable".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Webster|first1=D W|last2=Vernick|first2=J S|last3=Ludwig|first3=J|last4=Lester|first4=K J|title=Flawed gun policy research could endanger public safety.|journal=American Journal of Public Health|date=June 1997|volume=87|issue=6|pages=918–921|doi=10.2105/AJPH.87.6.918|pmid=9224169|pmc=1380922}}</ref> Florida State University criminologist [[Gary Kleck]] considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in [[concealed carry in the United States|concealed carry]].<ref>{{Cite book| last=Kleck| first=Gary| title=Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control| location=New York| publisher=Aldine de Gruyter| year=1997}}</ref> A 1998 study by [[Jens Ludwig (economist)|Jens Ludwig]] that said it "more effectively control[ed] for unobserved variables that may vary over time" than the Lott and Mustard study concluded that "shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult homicide rates."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ludwig|first1=Jens|title=Concealed-gun-carrying laws and violent crime: evidence from state panel data|journal=International Review of Law and Economics|date=September 1998|volume=18|issue=3|pages=239–254|doi=10.1016/S0144-8188(98)00012-X|url=http://student-www.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/IJLE-ConcealedGunLaws-1998.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://student-www.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/IJLE-ConcealedGunLaws-1998.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|citeseerx=10.1.1.487.5452}}</ref> A 2001 study in the ''[[Journal of Political Economy]]'' by University of Chicago economist [[Mark Duggan (economist)|Mark Duggan]] did robustness checks of Lott and Mustard's study and found that the findings of the Lott and Mustard study were inaccurate.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Duggan|first=Mark|date=2001-10-01|title=More Guns, More Crime|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=109|issue=5|pages=1086–1114|doi=10.1086/322833|s2cid=33899679|issn=0022-3808}}</ref>

Other academics praised Lott's methodology, including [[Florida State University]] economist [[Bruce L. Benson|Bruce Benson]],<ref name="Benson">{{Cite journal|last=Benson|first=Bruce L.|date=September 1999|title=Review of ''More Guns, Less Crime''|journal=Public Choice|volume=100|issue=3–4|pages=309–313|doi=10.1023/A:1018689310638|s2cid=150500420}}</ref> [[Cardozo School of Law]] professor [[John O. McGinnis]],<ref name="McGinnis">{{Cite journal|last=McGinnis|first=John O.|date=July 20, 1998|title=Trigger Happiness|journal=[[National Review]]|volume=50|issue=13|page=49}}</ref> [[College of William and Mary]] professor [[Carlisle Moody]],<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Moody|first1=Carlisle E.|date=October 2001|title=Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness|journal=The Journal of Law and Economics|volume=44|issue=s2|pages=799–813|doi=10.1086/323313|s2cid=154918586}}</ref> [[University of Mississippi]] professor William F. Shughart,<ref name="Shughart">{{Cite journal|last1=Shughart|first1=William F.|last2=Lott|first2=John R.|date=April 1, 1999|title=More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws: Review|journal=Southern Economic Journal|volume=65|issue=4|pages=978–981|doi=10.2307/1061296|jstor=1061296}}</ref> and SUNY economist Florenz Plassmann and University of Adelaide economist John Whitley.<ref name="Plassmann and Whitley">"[http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf Plassmann and Whitley Stanford Law Review (2003)]" Confirming More Guns, Less Crime, by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, 2003, p. 1361</ref>

Referring to the research done on the topic, ''[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]'' wrote in 2003 that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."<ref name="CHE">{{Cite journal|last=Glenn |first=David |date=May 9, 2003 |title='More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue |journal=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |volume=49 |issue=35 |page=A18 |url= http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i35/35a01801.htm |access-date=2007-05-27}}</ref> As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out, "Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."<ref name="shootdown" /> A 2008 article in ''[[Econ Journal Watch]]'' surveyed peer-reviewed empirical academic studies, and found that 10 supported the proposition that right-to-carry reduces crime, 8 supported no significant effect and none supported an increase.<ref>[http://econjwatch.org/file_download/234/2008-09-moodymarvell-com.pdf Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws"], ''Econ Journal Watch'' Vol. 5, Iss. 3 (2008).</ref> The article was rebutted by [[Ian Ayres]] and [[John J. Donohue III|John J. Donohue]] in the same journal in 2009.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://econjwatch.org/articles/yet-another-refutation-of-the-more-guns-less-crime-hypothesis-with-some-help-from-moody-and-marvell|title=Yet Another Refutation of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis—With Some Help From Moody and Marvell · Econ Journal Watch: Law and economics, criminal justice policy, guns and crime|website=econjwatch.org|date=January 2009 |language=en|access-date=2017-09-13}}</ref>

In 2013, Lott founded the nonprofit organization Crime Prevention Research Center to study the relationship between gun laws and crime. As of July 2015, he was also the organization's president.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-lott-guns-crime-data | title=When the Gun Lobby Tries to Justify Firearms Everywhere, It Turns to This Guy | work=Mother Jones | date=28 July 2015 | access-date=6 February 2016 | author=Lurie, Julia}}</ref> The board of directors for the organization includes guitarist [[Ted Nugent]], conservative talkshow host [[Lars Larson]] and former sheriff [[David Clarke (sheriff)|David Clarke]].<ref name=":2" /> In 2020, Lott left the organization to take a position in the Trump administration.<ref name=":2" />

===Defensive gun use===
{{Main|Defensive gun use}}
Lott argues in both ''More Guns, Less Crime'' and ''The Bias Against Guns'' that defensive gun use (DGU) is underreported, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In ''More Guns, Less Crime'', Lott writes that "[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police." In May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." Lott cited similar figures in op-eds in ''[[Wall Street Journal|The Wall Street Journal]]''<ref name="Lott98WSJ">{{cite news|first=John R. |last=Lott Jr. |title=Keep Guns out of Lawyers' Hands |newspaper=Wall Street Journal |page=1 |date=1998-06-23}}</ref> and the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''.<ref name="Lott98LAT">{{cite news|first=John R. |last=Lott Jr. |title=Cities Target Gun Makers in Bogus Lawsuits |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |page=7 |date=1998-12-01}}</ref>

In 2002, he said that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology. A study in ''Public Opinion Quarterly'' said that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent.<ref name="2002studycriticism">{{Cite journal|last=McDowall |first=David |date=Summer 2005 |journal=[[Public Opinion Quarterly]] |title=John R. Lott Jr.'s Defensive Gun Brandishing Estimates |volume=69 |issue=2 |pages=246–263 |doi=10.1093/poq/nfi015}}</ref> According to Lott, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/General-Disc-9702-Surveys.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/General-Disc-9702-Surveys.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live | title=What Surveys Can Help Us Understand About Guns? | access-date=22 June 2016 | author=Lott, John|page=8}}</ref> Lott said that the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.<ref>Discussion of different surveys on defensive gun use [http://www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip Johnlott.org]</ref>

=== Defamation suit ===
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.overlawyered.com/lott_complaint.pdf/Lott%20v%20Levitt.pdf |title=PDF of Lott's complaint v. Levitt |access-date=August 27, 2007 |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927213215/http://www.overlawyered.com/lott_complaint.pdf/Lott%20v%20Levitt.pdf  }}</ref> for [[defamation]] against [[Steven Levitt]] and [[HarperCollins Publishers]] over the book ''[[Freakonomics]]'' and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book ''Freakonomics'', Levitt and coauthor [[Stephen J. Dubner]] claimed that the results of Lott's research in ''More Guns, Less Crime'' had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the ''Journal of Law and Economics'' had not been peer-reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.<ref>{{cite news|last=Higgins|first=Michael|date=2006-04-11|title=Best-seller leads scholar to file lawsuit; Defamation allegation targets U. of C. author|page=3|newspaper=Chicago Tribune}}</ref> A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in ''Freakonomics'' was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.<ref>"[http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/01/judge-castillo-issues-decision-on-lott.html Judge Castillo issues decision on Lott v. Levitt]" on John Lott's website</ref> The dismissal was affirmed by a three-judge panel of The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.<ref>"[http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-3095_022.pdf 7th Circuit Affirmation of District Court Dismissal of Defamation Lawsuit] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090216142918/http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-3095_022.pdf|date=2009-02-16}}"</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Staff|first=Courthouse News|date=2009-02-13|title=Professor Wasn't Defamed by 'Freakonomics' Author|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/professor-wasnt-defamed-by-freakonomics-author/|access-date=2021-01-02|language=en-US}}</ref>

A settlement was reached over the claims made by Levitt in the emails to McCall whereby Levitt did not have to issue a formal apology but rather send a letter of clarification to John McCall that the issue of the ''Journal of Law and Economics'' was peer-reviewed, and that Lott had not improperly influenced the editors.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Gajda|first=Amy|title=The Trials of Academe|year=2010|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-05386-1|location=Harvard University Press|pages=166–170|doi=10.2307/j.ctvjghvr3|s2cid=198001655 }}</ref><ref name="settlement">{{Cite journal|last=Glenn|first=David|date=2007-08-10|title=Dueling Economists Reach Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Dueling-Economists-Reach/6720|journal=Chronicle of Higher Education|volume=53|issue=49|page=10}}</ref><ref>"[http://chronicle.com/article/Unusual-Agreement-Means/39297 Unusual Agreement Means Settlement May Be Near in 'Lott v. Levitt,' July 27, 2007]"</ref> The ''Chronicle of Higher Education'' characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."<ref>[http://chronicle.com/article/Unusual-Agreement-Means/39297 "Unusual Agreement Means Settlement May Be Near in 'Lott v. Levitt'," ''Chronicle of Higher Education'', July 27, 2007]</ref>

===Disputed survey===
In the course of a dispute with [[Otis Dudley Duncan]] in 1999–2000,<ref name="DuncanNumbers">[http://www.asc41.com/Criminologist/2000/January-February%202000.htm Otis Dudley Duncan, "Gun Use Surveys: In Numbers We Trust?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525025619/http://www.asc41.com/Criminologist/2000/January-February%202000.htm|date=2012-05-25}}, ''[[American Society of Criminology|The Criminologist]]'', Vol. 25, No. 1, Jan/Feb 2000, pp. 1, 3–7.</ref><ref name="reply">[http://www.asc41.com/Criminologist/2000/September-October%202000.htm "John R. Lott Jr.'s Reply to Otis Dudley Duncan's Recent Article in ''The Criminologist''"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525030504/http://www.asc41.com/Criminologist/2000/September-October%202000.htm |date=May 25, 2012 }}, ''The Criminologist'', Vol. 25, No. 5, Sep/Oct 2000, pp. 1, 6.</ref> Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.<ref name="reply" /> However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,<ref>{{cite web|last=Sanchez|first=Julian|author-link=Julian Sanchez (writer)|date=February 13, 2003|title=Red Herrings|url=http://www.juliansanchez.com/2003/02/13/red-herrings/|access-date=July 28, 2016|work=Julian Sanchez – blog}} (Julian Sanchez noted that the 1997 hard drive crash is widely accepted as a fact; the dispute is over the lack of solid evidence that Lott lost a survey data set in that crash)</ref> the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Critics questioned whether the survey had ever taken place,<ref name="reason">{{cite web|last=Sanchez|first=Julian|date=May 2003|title=The Mystery of Mary Rosh|url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/28771.html|access-date=2007-06-15|work=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]}}</ref> but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy.<ref name="surveysupport">{{cite web|title=Evidence of Survey|url=http://johnrlott.tripod.com/surveysupport.html}}, {{cite web|title=2002 Survey|url=http://www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip}}</ref>

=== Mary Rosh persona ===
In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott used a [[Sock puppet (internet)|sock puppet]] by the name of "Mary Rosh" to defend his own works on [[Usenet]] and elsewhere. After investigative work by [[libertarian]] blogger [[Julian Sanchez (writer)|Julian Sanchez]], Lott admitted to using the Mary Rosh persona.<ref name="reason" />

Further accusations claimed that Lott praised himself while posing as one of his former students<ref name="mj">[[Chris Mooney (journalist)|Chris Mooney]] in [[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]]: ''[https://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html Double Barreled Double Standards].'' October 13, 2003</ref><ref name="wifeandson">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/02/01/scholar-invents-fan-to-answer-his-critics/f3ae3f46-68d6-4eee-a65e-1775d45e2133/ |title=Scholar Invents Fan to Answer His Critics |first=Richard |last=Morin |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=February 1, 2003 |page=C01}}</ref> and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of ''More Guns, Less Crime'' on [[Amazon.com]]. Lott has claimed that the review was written by his son and wife.<ref name="wifeandson" /> "I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told ''[[The Washington Post]]'' in 2003.<ref name="wifeandson" />

===Safe storage gun laws===

In a 2001 study, Lott and John E. Whitley reported that safe-storage gun laws not only did not reduce juvenile suicides or accidental gun deaths, but that they also increased rates of violent and property crime.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Lott Jr.|first1=John R.|last2=Whitley|first2=John E.|title=Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime|url=http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Lott-Whitley-Safe-Storage-Laws.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Lott-Whitley-Safe-Storage-Laws.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|journal=[[The Journal of Law and Economics]]|date=October 2001|volume=44|issue=S2|pages=659–689|doi=10.1086/338346|citeseerx=10.1.1.180.3066|s2cid=154446568}}</ref> The study was criticized by Webster et al. in the ''[[Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' for using [[Tobit regression]] despite the fact that the data used in the study on youth suicides was "highly skewed and [[heteroskedastic]]", and because the vast majority of crimes that Lott and Whitley claimed increased due to safe-storage laws occurred outside the home.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Webster|first1=Daniel W.|title=Association Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws and Youth Suicides|journal=[[JAMA (journal)|JAMA]]|date=4 August 2004|volume=292|issue=5|pages=594–601|doi=10.1001/jama.292.5.594|pmid=15292085|doi-access=free}}</ref> Webster and Carroll also wrote in ''Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law'' that the Lott and Whitley study's findings with respect to crime were inconsistent with prior research.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oD46JBOhMU0C | title=Guns in American Society | publisher=ABC-CLIO | author=Carter, Gregg Lee | year=2002 | page=151| isbn=978-0-313-38670-1 }}</ref>