So what was the one word correction that prompted Lott to remove his name from his paper? In their draft, Ayres and Donohue wrote (my emphasis):
On the other hand, the temporal pattern, that states adopting shall-issue laws in the late 1980s did better while those adopting in the 1990s did worse, may simply reflect the influence of a time-varying factor (the crack trade?) that caused sharp rises in crime for many states in the late 1980s, and then greater-than-average price declines in the 1990s.
Now the word "price" here makes no sense. Why contrast a crime increase in the 80s with a price (of what?) decrease in the 90s? The context of the sentence is all about crime increases and decreases. It seems obvious that they meant to say "crime" rather than "price".
Not to Lott, however who felt that they were saying that there a relationship between crack cocaine prices and crime. From his draft:
While they don't mention the use by Lott and Mustard of this variables, Ayres & Donohue, supra note 5, at 51, even imply a relationship between crack cocaine prices and crime when they mention "the greater than average price declines in the 1990s."
Lott also puts scare quotes around the word "error" when mentioning their error, implying that it wasn't an error, but what they meant to say.
More like this
Jeff Johnson of CNSNews.com writes a very pro-Lott piece on the dispute between Lott and Ayres and Donohue. Probably the most notable feature is what is not mentioned---there is nothing about the coding errors Lott made. We can be sure that Donohue mentioned the problem to…
This is a long post, so I'll start with two summaries. One sentence summary: It looks as if Lott might have been caught cooking his "more guns, less crime" data.
One paragraph summary: Ian Ayres and John Donohue wrote a paper that found that, if anything, concealed carry laws lead…
Lott has a new posting where he has some more about the important matter of the coding errors in his data. Sandwiched between some more complaints about unfair the Stanford Law Review has been and some imaginary errors in Ayres and Donohue, we have:
Of course, this is nothing new with…
In The Latest Misfires in Support of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis Ayres and Donohue write:
In the wake of some of the criticisms that we have leveled against the Lott and Mustard thesis, John Lott appeared before a National Academy of Sciences panel examining the plausibility of…