To the Editor:
I applaud Nicholas D. Kristof’s proposal that guns should be regulated, just as we do to other potentially dangerous products (“Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?,” column, Jan. 13).
It seems to me that the most logical extension of that idea would be to require a license, similar to a driver’s license, for which you would have to take a test.
It would test the applicant’s psychological soundness and anger management abilities. It seems to me that hunters in the National Rifle Association should not object to such a requirement.
After all, in Canada, where guns are also plentiful, a safety course is required before you purchase a gun.
Wendy Perron
New York, Jan. 13, 2011
To the Editor:
Nicholas D. Kristof attacked my research in his Jan. 13 column. While conceding that “concealed weapons didn’t lead to the bloodbath that liberals had forecast,” Mr. Kristof asserted that “many studies have now debunked” my finding that more guns lead to less crime.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of studies support my results. Among peer-reviewed studies in academic journals by criminologists and economists, 18 studies examining national data find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 indicate no discernible effect and none find a bad effect from the law. Among non-refereed studies, three find drops in crime and two say either no effect or possibly small increases in crime.
Mr. Kristof cites a public health professor’s suggestions for one-gun-a-month sales limits, gun safes and further background checks, but I know of no academic criminologists or economists who have found that these laws reduce any type of violent crime. No gun ban has reduced murder rates.
John R. Lott Jr.
Alexandria, Va., Jan. 17, 2011
The writer is the author of “More Guns, Less Crime.”
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 