From: John Lott <jlott@aei.org>

Date: Mon May 5, 2003 6:02:24 PM US/Eastern

To: David Glenn <david.glenn@chronicle.com>

Subject: Re: Chronicle article: Scholarly Debate Over Guns and Crime Rekindlesas States Debate Legalization

Dear David:

I was not all concerned about whether I had enough space, and as someone who writes some op-eds I do realize that space constraints can cause things to run together. My concern was only just over accuracy. I had only had the piece read to me over the telephone when I was on my trip and when I read it myself I noticed this point. I knew it was too late to change anything, but I just didn't want there to be any confusion.

Regards,

John Lott

On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 05:38 PM, David Glenn wrote:

Dear John Lott:

Thank you for your note. Yes, it would have been better for me to have

written something like, "Because the articles appeared in a law review,

neither the broad arguments about how to specify the statistical models

nor the narrower argument about coding errors were reviewed by

third-party scholars. . ." etc.

On the other hand, if your primary concern is that I didn't give enough

space and weight to your claim that the coding errors don't affect the

overall interpretation of the results, I respectfully disagree. We

devoted a full paragraph to your statement, "Whether one believes the

regressions in the Plassmann and Whitley piece or not. . ." etc.

Best,

David Glenn

John Lott wrote:

I reread your piece and I found an English mistake. I believe that you

combined two points into one and I don't think that it makes a lot of

sense. I said that the coding errors did not have a big effect on

interpretations of the results and that the Ayres and Donohue piece was

in a law review with student editors who were unable to evaluate the

different claims in the arguments (there were many claims in this

debate such as what was really shown by the hybrid model).

On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 10:48 AM, david.glenn@chronicle.com

wrote:

Mr. Lott also points out that because the claim of coding

errors appears in a law review, it has not been subject to

review by third-party scholars, as would have been the case in

a peer-reviewed economics journal.

--

David Glenn

Assistant Editor

The Chronicle of Higher Education

1255 Twenty-Third Street NW

Washington, DC 20037

phone: 202/466-1726

fax: 202/452-1033

e-mail: david.glenn@chronicle.com