Ugh–the cold is almost over and I’m back to regular schedule. That being said, Mark Kleiman has the definitive post on the most recent Lott shenanigans.
Mark makes an important point that I’ve tried to keep in front of the discussion, but it gets lost in Lott’s evasions and bizarre claims. I originally was very wary of concealed carry laws because of concerns with potential increases in violence. Being a cyclist, I have enjoyed a fair share of road rage incidents and thinking of those morons as armed (even though many probably are already) is scary. After reviewing the literature on this issue, it seems to me that concealed carry laws are not likely to increase or decrease crime and I have become primarily agnostic on the question. And the chances of dealing with any armed idiot probably isn’t that much different with or without permits. In fact, the training might increase the number of idiots who think before they act given they know their legal responsibilities.
Ayres and Donohue argue there is a small increase, but I find it hard to believe that is from increasing legal concealed carry permit holders. I may well be wrong, but I think any judgement on this issue should await further research. They point out some decent theoretical reasons why that might be so, but to eliminate multicollinearity problems in such data sets is nearly impossible.
Go read Tim Lambert for the full updates including a bit on weighting that really calls into question Lott’s truthfullness, well again.
More interesting is the response of others to some of the most recent allegations. Reynolds has a very funny reaction:
By way of full disclosure, I went to law school with Ayres and Donohue, and regard them both as honest, straight-up guys notwithstanding that they have a political position that in many cases would be different from mine. Unlike some of Lott’s other critics, these guys are real scholars, writing in the Stanford Law Review, which gives their criticism considerable weight. I am, however, entirely incompetent to judge the underlying dispute on its merits, and hope that people who have the relevant expertise will weigh in.
Reynolds doesn’t have the ability to evaluate the work on the merits and so he continues to argue it by way of political positions. As I said before, " They assume everyone is a hack and so the point of a panel like this is that hacks from both sides should be included."
Reynolds argues by reputation and not evidence which completely misses the point of social science–though this cluelessness isn’t reserved to him as Kieran Healy points out. The arguments Kieran is addressing are especially disturbing given that much of McArdle’s argument could have been made by a creationist.