From Second Amendment advocate F. Paul Valone of Charlotte, in response to "Some N.C. guns in the wrong hands" (Dec. 27):
New York Times reporter Michael Luo cherry-picks anecdotes, misrepresents data and ignores contradictions to smear North Carolina's concealed handgun permit-holders as rife with criminals. What follows comes partly from questions posed during his interview with me.
Luo matched data between our concealed handgun permit (CHP) and criminal record databases, producing "more than" 2,400 matches. Beyond the fact that all but "more than" 200 were misdemeanors - not necessarily disqualifying for CHPs - his methods are unsound.
Depending on number and type of parameters, accuracy in database matching varies wildly, potentially producing "false positives." Because the CHP database doesn't reveal Social Security numbers, Luo matched only four parameters, including inexact name matches.
For example, depending on parameters selected, matching CHP and voter databases produces between 46,000 and 234,000 matches. Given Luo's small number of "hits," it's possible false positives exceeded real ones. When asked how many of the 2,400 he verified with the State Bureau of Investigation, he answered, "20-or-so."
Even Luo's exaggerations paint permit-holders as more law-abiding than the general public. If our overall homicide rate of 5.3/100,000 inhabitants were applied to our 228,072 permit-holders, we would expect 12 homicides per year. Yet Luo found only 10 such cases over 5 years. Similarly, permit-holders were one-eighth as likely to commit DUIs and other felonies.
Although Luo tweeted, "data is the data" [sic], his piece highlights not data, but carefully selected anecdotes. Using anecdotes to imply trends represents logical fallacy, making Luo ripe for the National Education Policy Center's "The 'Plural of Anecdote is Not Data'" award.
In 16 years under concealed carry, N.C. violent crime plummeted by 43.5 percent, with corresponding drops in murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. While correlation does not imply causation, research by former U.S. Sentencing Commission chief economist John R. Lott indicates the drop mirrors states with similar laws. Citing one study critical of Lott, Luo avoids mentioning 15 researchers supporting Lott's conclusions before branding him "discredited."
When Luo highlights failures by sheriffs to revoke permits from errant permit-holders, he avoids mentioning CHPs are linked to drivers' licenses, enabling police to identify arrestees with permits. Nothing prohibits the SBI from doing periodic checks on permit-holders.
Yet Luo dodges the critical question: How many whose permits should have been revoked went on to commit gun crimes? Lott says it's "interesting that [Luo] never mentions this so I assume the number was likely zero."
Luo even claims he didn't cite anecdotes of permit-holder gun defenses because I refused to provide examples. Newsflash, Mike: The NRA maintains a searchable, online database of defensive gun uses.
Perhaps Luo misunderstands the limits of his data. On Facebook he confessed: "Made me wish I had taken a stats class in college." But given four biased Luo articles, blogger Francis Porretto said it best: "When all the errors are in the bank's favor, you can be forgiven for thinking there's more at work than sloppy arithmetic."
