It is difficult to find high quality research which clearly supports either side.
I agree with many or most of John Lott's conclusions and statements about anti-gun legislation, but because of problems with his research, I have to admit that his research often fails to provide valid evidence for his conlusions. That doesn't mean that I think he is wrong, it just means that he hasn't presented enough valid proof yet to support some of his conclusions. ( My evaluation is based on Lott's earlier articles, book, and research from the 1990's. I have not read or studied much of his later work. It is possible that in more recent work, he has corrected previous errors or presented new evidence which supports his views better.)
Google the following: (The following references are mainly focused on federal laws, but they also contain some info on state laws.)
"James Wright" research "gun laws" (James W is a highly respected and very credible sociologist who began his research with an "anti" bias, but who changed his mind after studying the available data and research. He was one of the main researchers who was responsible for discrediting most of the biased, invalid, and sloppy research done in the 20th century.)
"Gary Kleck" research "gun laws" (Kleck is a sociologist and criminologist who is neither "pro" nor "anti" gun. He has done a lot of research which dispels some of the popular myths about the relationship between crime and guns.)
"National Academy of Sciences" research "gun laws"
"National Institute of Justice" research "gun laws"
"Center for Disease Control" research "gun laws"
The three organizaions above did large research studies within the last ten years or so which attempted to review all valid research related to gun laws and reach conclusions about the relationship between gun laws and crime. All three concluded that there was no scientific evidence that any of the gun laws which have been passed (or proposed) have caused a reduction in crime rates or saved lives. (No cause and effect relationship.)
Wright and his associates were involved in some of the research done by these groups. None of the 3 groups are "pro-gun"; in fact, they all began their research with the goal of proving that the US needs stricter gun laws.
The research of these 3 organizations was originally focused mainly on federal gun laws, but contained within their research are some research and conclusions which pertain to state laws.
I think you will find that most of the best (most valid and least biased) research concludes that there is no evidence that any gun laws have caused either an increase or a decrease in crime rates. That may sound disappointing because there is little evidence to support the popular "pro-gun" claim that the passage of CCW laws has led to lower rates of violent crime. (It hasn't, unless you cherry pick the data.)
But when you look at it from a larger perspective, the research is showing that the "anti's" do not have any scientific evidence backing any of their proposed laws or any of the laws which have been enacted in the past. The anti's have no good reason for believing or claiming that stricter gun laws will work to save lives or reduce crime or that previously enacted laws like the "Assault Gun Ban" or the ban on "Cop Killer Bullets" were effective in reducing crime or saving lives in the past. So why do the anti's keep publishing their propaganda ? An informed public and unbiased media would demand that they "put up" or "shut up."
There are a few gun laws for which there is some evidence of a positive effect. These are laws which were passed with the support of the NRA and other pro gun organiztions: Laws which propose increased enforcement of existing (before the Brady Bill) laws against the purchase of firearms by felons, laws which give enhanced sentences to criminals who were in possession of a firearm when they committed felonies, and state laws which require hunters to pass a hunter safety program before a hunter can purchase a hunting license. Much of the research in favor of these laws dates back to the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. Some of the research contains flaws that are common in most research related to gun laws.
I think if you look closely at the statistics and research that has been done on gun laws, you will quickly discover that most of the research done in the US during the 20th Century is either :
1) Biased (It was done by someone who is clearly identifiable as pro-gun or anti-gun, or it was sponsored by an organization which is pro-gun or anti-gun.) This is a problem with most research by John Lott. It is also a problem with research which was sponsored by govt. agencies as a result of proposals made by "anti" politicians. (Much of the research commissioned under the Clinton and Carter administrations)
2) Statistically Invalid (The research does not follow established research protocols, violates basic statistical assumptions, uses statistics improperly, or was sloppily done.) The most common problems which disqualify research done in the social sciences are lack of random selection, lack of a control group which can be used for comparison, and a sample size which is too small. These requirements are not mere "niceties" like proper grammar and etiquette; without following proper research guidelines, it is difficult to say that the research proves anything at all. Some of Lott's research has problems with statistics which makes his research difficult to defend.
3) Improperly or illogically interpreted. (The conclusions of the research are explained or interpreted in a way which suggests that they prove something which the conclusions of the research do not logically imply or prove. ) This is the art of writing propaganda which is seemingly based on true statistics. The false statements in the propaganda seem to be based on good research and statistics but are in fact based on misleading use of the statistics and neglecting to mention parts of the research which do not support the propaganda. Most of the literature and statements of the antis which seems (at first glance) to be based on true statistics fits into this category.
Example: Look out for this problem! Suppose one finds statistics which seem to support the proposition that the passing of state CCW laws led to an increase (or a decrease) in violent crime rates (based on comparing crime rates at the time the laws were passed with the rates x number of years after the laws were passed.) Such statistics might seem to demonstrate that changes in crime rates were caused by the enactment of gun laws.
But for decades there was a nation wide trend towards declining rates of violent crime. The trend started before and continued after many of the laws were passed.) The trend was apparently the result of a combination of factors and causes. Thus, it cannot be concluded logically that the CCW laws reduced (or increased) the crime rates (i.e. the lower crime rates were caused by the CCW laws.) This problem has sometimes been evident in some of Lott's conclusions in his earlier works. When honest researchers refer to this kind of problem in research, they often remind us that, "Correlation does not prove causation." Or more precisely, "Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to prove causation."
It's worth noting that during the years when there was an upward trend in crime rates, none of the anti's claimed that whenever the rates increased after a new stricter gun law was passed, the higher crime rates were caused by the new stricter gun law(s).
Special statistical techniques can be used to factor out other possible causes of an increase or decrease in crime rates. When this is done properly and honestly, the results typically show is that there is no conclusive evidence that any gun laws passed within the last 60 years have caused a significant increase or decrease in crime rates. (See research by James Wright and associates.)
4) Research results and conclusions in favor of the "pro-gun" position is seldom reported or publicized by the mainstream media. When research seems to support the pro-gun position, disproves the anti position, or fails to find any evidence in support of the anti position; you won't see any big articles in Newsweek or NY Times, nor any big news specials on network TV in which any of the previous anti claims or positions are re-evaluated in the light of the new research. You won't see special reports on 60 Minutes or 20-20 which convey the message that the latest scientific research finds no evidence to support claims that we need stricter gun laws.
The info I have provided and the opinions which I have expressed are based on almost 40 years of study and evaluations of research related to gun laws. For the most part, I agree with the "pro gun" position; but I have learned to evaluate research well enough that I can recognize valid or invalid research on either side. The info I provided came from my memory off the top of my head without double checking any references. I hope that none of the info contains misleading errors due to my faulty memory or other oversights.
Good luck with your paper.
