Is John Lott a credible source/author?

[Stonewalker]

I don't know much about John Lott but it appears as if he's got quite a bit of controversy following his numbers and research. I intend on doing more research when I get the time, but I need to know if this is somebody who I should quote and defend or not. Does anybody here know him personally? Know his body of work?

How about the articles written to defame him, does anybody know the story with those? Are they credible sources? Are their arguments legitimate?
Here is the link to the negative stuff

We need to stick to truth if we are to restore our rights. I don't want to be arguing based on false info, which is why I usually stick to the Legal/Constitutional side of things anyway. I also feel the Bill of Rights is the only justification I need when debating RKBA. Anyways, I hope some the big guys here know the skinny on John Lott, thanks!

[Apocalypsenerd]

Good question. I would like to know if this stuff is accurate as well.

[TKM]

One of the good guys.

I'd be proud to be defamed by the same people as him.

[Stonewalker]

One of the good guys.

I'd be proud to be defamed by the same people as him.

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.

[Glock22Fan]

He has been slammed by the same sort of people as praise the Brady's and Violence Prevention Center. However, there has also been post criticism peer reviews, i believe (sorry, no cites) that slammed the criticism and said that his methodology was academically completely well founded and his results justifiable.

Google should be able to find stuff on this topic, I seem to remember finding a paper that discussed and dismissed the whole controversy. Sorry I have no idea where.

Found a few links for you to start:

here, here and here.

Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate or 225-page books for laypeople. But John R. Lott, Jr.'s study in the January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing that concealed-carry weapons permits reduced the crime rate set off a firestorm. The updated study, together with illustrative anecdotes and a short description of the political and academic response to the study, as well as responses to the responses, makes up Lott's informative More Guns, Less Crime.

In retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist [TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain targets: "Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off stickin' up one of them."
But Lott's actual quantification of this, in the largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to date, a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks, ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; it's almost touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims. Lott loses a little focus when he leaves his firm quantitative base; as an economist, he should know that the low number of rejected background checks under the Brady Bill doesn't demonstrate anything by itself, because some people may have been deterred from even undergoing the background check in the first place, but he attacks the bill on this ground anyway. But the conclusions that are backed by evidence--that concealed-weapons permits reduce crime, and do so at a lower cost to society than increasing the number of police or prisons--are important ones that should be considered by policymakers. --Ted Frank --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

[Southwest Chuck]

I don't know much about John Lott but it appears as if he's got quite a bit of controversy following his numbers and research. I intend on doing more research when I get the time, but I need to know if this is somebody who I should quote and defend or not. Does anybody here know him personally? Know his body of work?

How about the articles written to defame him, does anybody know the story with those? Are they credible sources? Are their arguments legitimate?
Here is the link to the negative stuff

We need to stick to truth if we are to restore our rights. I don't want to be arguing based on false info, which is why I usually stick to the Legal/Constitutional side of things anyway. I also feel the Bill of Rights is the only justification I need when debating RKBA. Anyways, I hope some the big guys here know the skinny on John Lott, thanks!

I think you need to look at your source for a better prospective on their viewpoint:

From Wikipedia

SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) is an internet site that is a collaborative project of the liberal[1] Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). According to the project's website, it "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interest groups."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch

...

[Stonewalker]

I think you need to look at your source for a better prospective on their viewpoint:

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch

...

Yea, I'm guessing that Lott's data review criticizers are agenda-driven, but I'm at work still and I wanted to get this rolling so I would have plenty of reading for when I get home. That's good to know though, thanks

[Librarian]

John made one serious error that is causing him problems - look up "Mary Rosh". Apparently he got into an on-line kerfuffle and, according to the story, created a 'sock-puppet' supporter as an ally.

Don't know why he'd do such a thing, but it has tarnished his reputation.

The academic work is, generally, first rate.

Full disclosure: I own all but one of his books, I made a point of introducing myself to him at GRPC last Saturday, and I bought his third edition of More Guns, Less Crime from him later Saturday. (I already owned the first and second edition, and the journal issue that published the Lott/Mustard paper.)

[rp55]

SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia) is an internet site that is a collaborative project of the liberal[1] Center for Media and Democracy

And if you look up the Center for Media and Democracy at activistcash.comThese guys come from the far side of liberal.

[Mute]

Aside from the Mary Rosh silliness, his academic work generally stands up to peer review and scrutiny.

[the_quark]

John made one serious error that is causing him problems - look up "Mary Rosh". Apparently he got into an on-line kerfuffle and, according to the story, created a 'sock-puppet' supporter as an ally.

Not just one. He claimed he did a national survey of defensive gun use. When challenged for the records of the survey, he was unable to produce anything, and couldn't remember the names of the students that helped him with it. There's no real record of him ever having done it, and yet he claimed results from it.

Academically, there is no higher sin than making up data (it's what we rightfully hung Bellsiles on).

Here's Megan McArdle on it, and she's no left-wing ideologue:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/unbecoming-john-lott/57930/

[choprzrul]

I can tell you that he sits and stares at the ceiling during a conference just like I would expect any brilliant person to do. I think that the rest of the discussion rather bored him. The man knows his numbers!

.

[surprised]

Academically, there is no higher sin than making up data (it's what we rightfully hung Bellsiles on).

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.

We need to stick to truth if we are to restore our rights. I don't want to be arguing based on false info, which is why I usually stick to the Legal/Constitutional side of things anyway. I also feel the Bill of Rights is the only justification I need when debating RKBA.

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.

[Librarian]

Let me refer you to Lott's response to that survey issue here. One can find that persuasive or not. (That is, BTW, a clear invitation to the classic internet "Let's you and him fight" - I'm not defending Lott here - not my work or reputation at stake.)

I would caution avoidance of the baby/bathwater problem. All academic research should be carefully read, and Lott's especially carefully because of the two problems noted - he has built his own set of warnings, and he thereby rates the extra attention.

[BigDogatPlay]

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.

What questionable research and what sketchy data? Links please?

His sock puppetry antics aside, which have no real bearing on the source work, I've found his research and data to be of reasonably good quality. I do agree he comes with baggage, but that doesn't mean his work and conclusions are not above board and solid.