The recent letter by Stanford law professor John Donohue (June 7) nicely illustrates the propensity of gun-control advocates to play games with statistics and to engage in ad hominem attacks. In this case, Professor Donohue unfairly attacks economist John Lott, whose research has helped dispell the myths about guns that anti-gun fanatics continue to propogate.

Professor Donohue's own study, which purports to show an increase in crime after concealed-carry laws are enacted, is itself "fatally flawed," to use his own terminology. John Lott's new book, The Bias Against Guns, on pages 235-39 discusses the problems with the way Donohue and his co-author, Ian Ayres, have manipulated the statistics. As Lott shows, even Donohue's and Ayres' own results show that violent crime rates fall after right-to-carry laws are adopted.

It still remains true, as John Lott notes, that "despite all the work that has been done on the topic of concealed handguns, it is remarkable that no academic study has found a bad effect from these laws." It is even more remarkable that proponents of gun-control like Professor Donohue continue to use highly charged, emotional arguments -- stirring up imaginary fears of "dead Ohioans" -- in lobbying against right-to-carry legislation, legislation that not only makes common sense but also is mandated by the Ohio Constitution's guarantee that citizens have the right "to bear arms for thier defense and security."

David N. Mayer
Professor of Law and History,
Capital University,
Columbus, Ohio