Is John Lott a credible source/author?

[hoffmang]

An important point through this entire thread - no one here is questioning Dr. Lott's basic findings of "More Guns Less Crime" as those have withstood good rigorous peer review from both sides of the gun issue. The old issues are old, but they are a concern for someone who agrees with Dr. Lott and who is being serious about the issues.

-Gene

[the_quark]

You might also recall that Dr Bellesiles Bancroft Prize was withdrawn.

Sorry, ex-Bancroft Prize winner.

I think mdimeo sums up my thinking on it quite well:

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.

I agree with most of that, but I'd add from an academic perspective I can understand why even people who aren't liberal gun-grabbers might have misgivings about him.

I'll also add that, on the big picture, I think he's reasonably correct.

Such is the duty of integrity.

Or laziness and stupidity, apparently.

[dantodd]

An important point through this entire thread - no one here is questioning Dr. Lott's basic findings of "More Guns Less Crime" as those have withstood good rigorous peer review from both sides of the gun issue. The old issues are old, but they are a concern for someone who agrees with Dr. Lott and who is being serious about the issues.

-Gene

This.

And since the data are properly documented (with the one nagging exception) it is an excellent jumping off point for tracking down first sources.