I have taken a look at the articles and then some. Looks like Mustard and Lott were scrutinised for their use of an unreliable statistical model, as shown by (among others) Black & Nagin (1998) where they used the same dataset. Donohue et al did not exactly invent the wheel in pointing out the study, however, it was an important step to raise alertness and academic interest in the actual statistics and robustness of this data, so all in all their conclusion may have been flawed - the domino effect has been significant in the end. Donohue et al did seem to have a much more rigorour model, which can be credited simply to better computing since Mustard and Lott's earlier study. Furthermore, their datapool seems much larger. That should increase their robustness.
These come from journals not indexed in WoS/scopus/cochrane/embase/pubmed. I cannot easily reach them (if at all) with my licenses, because they stem from a social viewpoint rather than a medical one.
I have a few criticisms.
Their methodological criticism of Lott centers around the fact that RTC states also increased incarceration and police funding. They assume that incarceration rates should decrease crime, and if it decreases by less than they'd expect they point to RTC laws as the proximate cause.
The problem is that increased police funding, rising incarceration rates, and a push for relaxed law on civilian carry are all responses to increased crime. I don't see the authors acknowledge this at all. When crime is rising, the public might demand an all of the above approach specifically because of the rapid perceived increase in violent crime.
In another case, the author's criticize Lott for some of their model outcomes. In one case, Lott concluded that non-Black / non-White men of a certain age produced negative outcomes re: RTC, but women in the same category produced positive outcomes that outweighed the men. The authors conclude this is nonsensical and dismiss it as noise, but it seems to match what we know about male / female crime rates in general, and empowering women with the means to defend themselves against otherwise physically dominant men is an often used argument for RTC laws. The authors unfortunately didn't seem to think of it.
The authors otherwise rely heavily on anecdotes, even ones which seem to make little sense. The Goetz subway shooting stands out as a case where the shooter was explicitly denied a RTC permit (and was later convicted on related charges) while simultaneously preventing a robbery. The Zimmerman case also makes an appearance, and the authors suggest that Zimmerman might have been asking for it, and Martin never would have assaulted him had he stayed home. That's probably true, but the broader question is whether we're ok with a world where crime is rampant and citizens hide in their houses.
The article mentions 31 reported instances between 2007-2017 of a permit holder (16,000,000 by their estimate) using a firearm to shoot 3+ individuals. It's begging the question, how many shootings of 3+ individuals were committed by individuals without a RTC permit? Is 3.1 per year significant, or a very low rate vis-a-vis the population at large?
The authors spend a paragraph discussing pushback on policing spurring violent crime. Comey is quoted as a source. This misrepresents the argument the FBI was making, which is that being overly critical of police makes police less likely to intervene in preventing crime. The authors interpret this as police being afraid of RTC permit holders, which is simply bizarre. They also argue that involuntary discharge and the prevalence of RTC permits consumes police time, but they don't quantify what percentage of time is supposedly being consumed, nor do they square that with the fact that crime is predominately in areas with relatively strict carry laws (e.g. municipalities).
This post was edited by bogie160 on Oct 9 2025 12:25am