Is John Lott a credible source/author?

[jl123]

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

Kestryll will be right on that.

[BillCA]

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/...hn-lott/57930/

Dr. Lott is an economist and, I believe, a statistician. It would not surprise me that he, like many others who are focused on a problem, seem "eccentric" because they can rattle off statistical details of something, but can't recall the name their admin assistant, much less those of temporary workers. As to the survey, I've not followed the incident, but the hazards of using non-networked systems that aren't backed up automatically raises it's head frequently in both business and academia.

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

Agreed. As long as Dr. Lott lets the data dictate the outcome, he'll stand well above Bellsiles. Bellsiles manipulated and falsified data to support a pre-ordained conclusion. I don't believe Lott (or any competent researcher) needs to manipulate the data to reach RKBA positive results.

[Meplat]

I do not defend any transgressions Lott may have made. However, comparing him to Bellsiles is ludicrous. Bellsiles book was proven to have been fabricated almost entirely from whole cloth. Beyond that, the basic premise of his book reveals an abysmal ignorance of the nature of 'gun culture'.

In comparison Lot has one survey that has been questioned, but not proven bogus? Not even in the same league.

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

[dantodd]

Dr. Lott is an economist and, I believe, a statistician. It would not surprise me that he, like many others who are focused on a problem, seem "eccentric" because they can rattle off statistical details of something, but can't recall the name their admin assistant, much less those of temporary workers.

Those temporary workers either received school credits or payment for their contributions both of which would be tracked on systems that are far more robust than a single non-networked PC. It is not possible to believe that he had so many students working for him in a research role during the year in question that it would be impossible to individually contact them to find one or more who worked on the survey.

[the_quark]

I do not defend any transgressions Lott may have made. However, comparing him to Bellsiles is ludicrous. Bellsiles book was proven to have been fabricated almost entirely from whole cloth. Beyond that, the basic premise of his book reveals an abysmal ignorance of the nature of 'gun culture'.

In comparison Lot has one survey that has been questioned, but not proven bogus? Not even in the same league.

I certainly wasn't trying to imply Mr. Lott's transgressions were in the same league as Bellisiles'. At the very least, the former has the advantage of having had his questionable data be basically supported by other, similar surveys.

That said, it is hard for me to feel I'm being intellectually consistent if I'm disregarding the Bancroft Prize winner while blindly supporting Mr. Lott.

[wash]

It is understandable to use a pseudonym if you are receiving death threats but this illustrates the fact that civil rights activists need to be squeaky clean if they don't want to be discredited and defamed.

I believe the one number in one sentence would be easily defendable if maryrosh had only made a few book reviews.

It was more than that and now Mr. Lott has it hanging over his head.

On the same note, if Mr. Lott had backed up his hard drive, Mary Rosh would have been much easier to ignore.

Any one who makes credible statements that are unpopular in the anti-gun crowd is under the microscope. I wouldn't want to be there but I'm glad that there are people willing to live there.

[mdimeo]

To answer the OP, I think:
1. Lott is a good guy
2. Who made some very unfortunate mistakes
3. is always worth reading
4. and who you should probably believe as a credible researcher
5. But who is very easy to attack for his past mistakes, and therefore
6. should probably not be cited when trying to convince non-gunnies, because they will look him up and mostly unfairly decide he's dishonest.

-m@

[M. D. Van Norman]

More Guns, Less Crime.

[dantodd]

To answer the OP, I think:
1. Lott is a good guy
2. Who made some very unfortunate mistakes
3. is always worth reading
4. and who you should probably believe as a credible researcher
5. But who is very easy to attack for his past mistakes, and therefore
6. should probably not be cited when trying to convince non-gunnies, because they will look him up and mostly unfairly decide he's dishonest.

-m@

And by copping to #5 early rather than defending the mistake his work would by subject to greater scrutiny but would still be usable because all questions would have been adequately answered.

[vincewarde]

Big Picture

1) John Lott's conclusions correspond to real world experience in both the nation's experience with CCW expansion and increased gun sales.

2) The Antis cannot point to one instance where gun control has reduced crime. (Exception: Cases where gun control has been implemented at the same time as totalitarian government. You decide which one reduced crime.) We can point to many cases where gun control increased crime. This also supports Lott's conculsions.

Just my .02 worth.

[Librarian]

That said, it is hard for me to feel I'm being intellectually consistent if I'm disregarding the Bancroft Prize winner while blindly supporting Mr. Lott.

I understand that position.

I support the conclusions of Dr Lott's research; I've read it and the criticisms, and I believe he's substantially answered all the negative criticisms of the MG/LC project. I hope I'm not blindly supporting him, and I don't recommend blind support, either.

You might also recall that Dr Bellesiles Bancroft Prize was withdrawn. See also link.

[Rossi357]

His stats are more accurate than those of the Brady bunch.

[Wherryj]

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

Pot, meet kettle...

[Meplat]

Such is the duty of integrity.

That said, it is hard for me to feel I'm being intellectually consistent if I'm disregarding the Bancroft Prize winner while blindly supporting Mr. Lott.

[biofire]

You should check out this debate with Lott, Kleck, and Halbrook on one side, and the usual cast on the other. They present an overwhelming amount of data, while the other side has lots of anecdotes. No contest.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/guns-reduce-crime/