Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Doug McNash <[d m cnash] at [crl.com]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: Re: WALL STREET JOURNAL 9/9/96

Here is both Schumer's [lame] letter and the response.

>From WSJ Letters:

         Gun-Control Thesis
         Is a Shot in the Dark

         John R. Lott Jr.'s thesis--that concealed
         weapons laws reduce crime rates ("More Guns,
         Less Violent Crime," Rule of Law, Aug.
         28)--flies in the face of common sense and a
         body of scholarly research. The bottom line:
         Crime is going down despite concealed weapons
         laws, not because of them.

         America is winning the war against crime
         because of a balanced program of common-sense
         anti-crime measures. The 1994 crime law, which
         I sponsored, included longer prison sentences
         and more police on the streets. States have
         strengthened penalties for a wide range of
         crimes. Congress and the states have also
         enacted gun-control measures, like the Brady
         Law and the assault-weapons ban.

         Prof. Lott basically dismisses it all. In a
         perverse bit of argumentation, he contends that
         the Brady Law is "associated with more
         aggravated assaults and rapes." The dry facts
         may come from his data, but any connection
         between the two is wild interpretation. Does
         Prof. Lott really mean that the Brady Law
         caused more rapes? Or does "associated" simply
         mean the two happened at the same time, perhaps
         by coincidence? Common sense provides a clear
         answer, even if the statistics do not.

         In that spirit, I'd like to point out one other
         "association." The Associated Press reports
         that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University
         of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation,
         which is "associated with the Olin
         Corporation," one of the nation's largest gun
         manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too.
         But it's also a fact.

         Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.)
         Washington

                 +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

         An Insult to Our Foundation

         As president of the John M. Olin Foundation, I
         take great umbrage at Rep. Charles Schumer's
         scurrilous charge (Letters to the Editor, Sept.
         4) that our foundation underwrites bogus
         research to advance the interests of companies
         that manufacture guns and ammunition. He
         asserts (falsely) that the John M. Olin
         Foundation is "associated" with the Olin Corp.
         and (falsely again) that the Olin Corp. is one
         of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Mr.
         Schumer then suggests on the basis of these
         premises that Prof. John Lott's article on gun
         control legislation (editorial page, Aug. 28)
         must have been fabricated because his research
         fellowship at the University of Chicago was
         funded by the John M. Olin Foundation.

         This is an outrageous slander against our
         foundation, the Olin Corp., and the scholarly
         integrity of Prof. Lott. Mr. Schumer would have
         known that his charges were false if he had
         taken a little time to check his facts before
         rushing into print. Others have taken the
         trouble to do so. For example, Stephen Chapman
         of the Chicago Tribune looked into the charges
         surrounding Mr. Lott's study, and published an
         informative story in the Aug. 15 issue of that
         paper, which concluded that, in conducting his
         research, Prof. Lott was not influenced either
         by the John M. Olin Foundation or by the Olin
         Corp. Anyone wishing to comment on this
         controversy ought first to consult Mr.
         Chapman's article and, more importantly, should
         follow his example of sifting the facts before
         reaching a conclusion.

         For readers of the Journal, here are the key
         facts:

         The John M. Olin Foundation, of which I have
         been president for nearly 20 years, is an
         independent foundation whose purpose is to
         support individuals and institutions working to
         strengthen the free enterprise system. We
         support academic programs at the finest
         institutions in the nation, including the
         University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Stanford,
         Columbia, the University of Virginia, and many
         others. We do not tell scholars what to write
         or what to say.

         The foundation was created by the personal
         fortune of the late John M. Olin, and is not
         associated with the Olin Corp. The Olin Corp.
         has never sought to influence our
         deliberations. Our trustees have never taken
         into account the corporate interests of the
         Olin Corp. or any other company when reviewing
         grant proposals. We are as independent of the
         Olin Corp. as the Ford Foundation is of the
         Ford Motor Co.

         The John M. Olin Foundation has supported for
         many years a program in law and economics at
         the University of Chicago Law School. This
         program is administered and directed by a
         committee of faculty members in the law school.
         This committee, after reviewing many
         applications in a very competitive process,
         awarded a research fellowship to Mr. Lott. We
         at the foundation had no knowledge of who
         applied for these fellowships, nor did we ever
         suggest that Mr. Lott should be awarded one of
         them. We did not commission his study, nor,
         indeed, did we even know of it until last
         month, when Mr. Lott presented his findings at
         a conference sponsored by a Washington think
         tank.

         As a general rule, criticism of research
         studies should be based on factual grounds
         rather than on careless and irresponsible
         charges about the motives of the researcher.
         Mr. Lott's study should be evaluated on its own
         merits without imputing motives to him that do
         not exist. I urge Mr. Schumer to check his
         facts more carefully in the future.

         Finally, it was incorrectly reported in the
         Journal (Sept. 5) that the John M. Olin
         Foundation is "headed by members of the family
         that founded the Olin Corp." This is untrue.
         The trustees and officers of the foundation
         have been selected by virtue of their devotion
         to John Olin's principles, not by virtue of
         family connections. Of our seven board members,
         only one is a member of the Olin family. None
         of our officers is a member of the Olin
         family--neither myself as president, nor our
         secretary-treasurer, nor our executive
         director.

         William E. Simon
         President
         John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
         New York

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
Doug McNash                        [d--g] at [dickens.com]              |\*\     /*/|
Dickens Data Systems               http://www.dickens.com        | \*\   /*/ |
1175 Northmeadow Parkway, Suite 150                              |  \*\ /*/  |
Roswell, GA  30076                                               |   > * <   |
(770) 442-7921 Voice                                             |  /*/ \*\  |
(770) 442-7525 Fax                                               | /*/   \*\ |
                                                                 |/*/     \*\|
                                                                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~