Is John Lott a credible source/author?

[socal2310]

I agree. I am always very puzzled at those that defend Lott just because he supports RKBA. And many of the same people will condemn Bellesiles's practices.

I think you are right on all counts. RKBA is about rights, liberty, and freedom. But if you do want to quote crime rates, look up the work from Gary Kleck instead.

I agree with looking at Kleck's research. Particularly now that we have the courts on our side, we don't particularly need Lott's tainted research in spite of its more favorable (for us) results. We don't need to show firearm ownership reducing crime, a null result is perfectly adequate, the onus is on gun control advocates to show positive results to gun control laws (Though I freely admit that as a libertarian, I would be against gun control even if it was demonstrably effective at reducing crime).

Ryan

[Paul S]

I would like to get into the actual discussions over his questionable research. Hearing people vouch for him is good too, but I'm very interested in the points being raised about his possibly sketchy data.

I take this to mean you believe his research is questionable. Are you challenging his methodology, his results or both?

Your are certainly entitled that opinion. I do not share it. I believe he has done some very good research and is belittled for it because the anti-gun pundits do not like what it shows.

As I recall he was one of the first academics to challenge the flawed research and claims about gun ownership in Colonial America which were based solely on recorded wills and property which was listed. The claim was that there were actually few guns in Colonial America.

Paul S

[safewaysecurity]

NEVER QUESTION OUR ALLIES!!!!!! LOTT CAN DO NO WRONG!!!!!!

[sholling]

It's always amusing to watch our members turn on those who have stood with us. You can always count on gun forum denizens and gun shop commandos to line up to throw friends under the bus and I've never been able to figure out why. I've watched it over and over for a good ten years and still shake my head in amazement. I'm sure those same people can't hardly wait for a chance to turn on Alan Gura.

[jl123]

It's always amusing to watch our members turn on those who have stood with us. You can always count on gun forum denizens and gun shop commandos to line up to throw friends under the bus and I've never been able to figure out why. I've watched it over and over for a good ten years and still shake my head in amazement. I'm sure those same people can't hardly wait for a chance to turn on Alan Gura.

Some of us don't blindly cheer people that say anything that happens to be in line with our beliefs. Lott did have data that was only supported by a survey that he lost all of the data from in a hard drive crash. The hard drive crash appears to be fact. The missing data is fact.

It has been reported that a second survey, recreating the first in large part, has backed up assertions he made in his book.

The sock puppetry....which is fact....made him look bad. So, when it comes to the missing data, his credibility is already in question. He did it not us and it makes his work harder to defend, although from what I've read he is an honest researcher and shares data, even with those he doesn't agree with.

I haven't seen many people turn on him.....they are asking legitimate questions about his work.....so that they don't look dumb quoting made up data.

[the_quark]

I'm sure those same people can't hardly wait for a chance to turn on Alan Gura.

No, really. I've shaken Alan Gura's hand on the steps of the Supreme Court. Twice. And, not for the same case.

[John Lott]

the_quark and some of the other people here are not very bright. Glad you all are so resourceful that you couldn't find the time to look up what I have written in response to these attacks.

[the_quark]

the_quark...[is] not very bright.

Sir, I would like to see your data (or, datum) proving this.

[Stonewalker]

It's always amusing to watch our members turn on those who have stood with us. You can always count on gun forum denizens and gun shop commandos to line up to throw friends under the bus and I've never been able to figure out why. I've watched it over and over for a good ten years and still shake my head in amazement. I'm sure those same people can't hardly wait for a chance to turn on Alan Gura.

I'm not turning on John Lott and I'm certainly not advocating anyone else do that either. I'm still pretty new to the RKBA fight. I saw that his materials were at the GRPC and I've heard good things about More Guns, Less Crime. Just today over at Huffington Post I was reading comments on an article about the UT suicide. John Lott was scheduled to speak on campus later that evening but I guess he ended up speaking at a local bookstore instead.

Somebody there is discrediting his work - I didn't want to blindly step up to defend him without doing some research first. Here's the link. All you knowledgeable CGNers should step up to the plate and go put in some good comments over there. I don't like to blindly support people I know nothing about. I can tell you I intend on buying at least More Guns, Less Crime. It seems as though he's had a couple issues that make him seem discredited. That's a shame. I'm probably going to end up reading most of his research and using it in discourse. If somebody wants to bring up these inconsistencies in his work then I will be prepared to explain what happened.

[Stonewalker]

the_quark and some of the other people here are not very bright. Glad you all are so resourceful that you couldn't find the time to look up what I have written in response to these attacks.

No need to be rude. Did you see Librarian's comment? He linked to your site with your response.

[John Lott]

Dear the_quark: You are very lazy to make claims and not checking them out first, and since you didn't try to look at what I have written first, I don't have any desire to help you out. But I will mention one point. It is not just my word about the results. There are a lot of academics who have looked at this issue, with the large majority finding support for my research. Those who disagree with me usually just want to paint it as just my research. However, I will let you look this up yourself. The fact that you don't even know that simple fact shows that you haven't even taken the most minimal time on this.

Dear Stonewalker: If you get the book, I suggest that you get the newly released third edition as that deals with many of the most recent attacks. Thank you.

[the_quark]

Dear Mr. Lott,

I'm glad I have graduated from "not very bright" to merely "very lazy".

I never once criticized your results, only your published methods.

[DSA_FAL]

Dear the_quark: You are very lazy to make claims and not checking them out first, and since you didn't try to look at what I have written first, I don't have any desire to help you out. But I will mention one point. It is not just my word about the results. There are a lot of academics who have looked at this issue, with the large majority finding support for my research. Those who disagree with me usually just want to paint it as just my research. However, I will let you look this up yourself. The fact that you don't even know that simple fact shows that you haven't even taken the most minimal time on this.

Dear Stonewalker: If you get the book, I suggest that you get the newly released third edition as that deals with many of the most recent attacks. Thank you.

How can we verify that you are actually John Lott and not some impersonator?

[Doheny]

How can we verify that you are actually John Lott and not some impersonator?

Kes could easy enough and probably already has.

[dantodd]

Dear the_quark: You are very lazy to make claims and not checking them out first, and since you didn't try to look at what I have written first, I don't have any desire to help you out. But I will mention one point. It is not just my word about the results. There are a lot of academics who have looked at this issue, with the large majority finding support for my research. Those who disagree with me usually just want to paint it as just my research. However, I will let you look this up yourself. The fact that you don't even know that simple fact shows that you haven't even taken the most minimal time on this.

Dear Stonewalker: If you get the book, I suggest that you get the newly released third edition as that deals with many of the most recent attacks. Thank you.

I bought your book at the GRPC and find your work, in toto, very compelling; but I have to admit I do not find your defense of this specific point compelling. It would be astounding if you spent so much time and effort on a survey and the only data you published was "one number in one sentence." I am also unable to determine why, in your discussion of said number, you mention other research obtaining similar results. It would appear that the accusation was that you provided numbers with no data to support them. Why would other, similar, data be pertinent to the data in question?