[alan]

The August 2003 issue of The Blue Press, published by Dillon Precision has on page 10, a short, rather interesting piece entitled "Sunset for the 1994 Gun Ban?" Lee Arten is the author, according to the by-line.

In rather plain English, lacking the style and flourish of writers such as the late Ernest Hemingway, who wrote, "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee", Mr. Arten noted, with respect to current proposals that would expand, extend or otherwise re-authorize the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, the following. "If you own a gun, don't look from side to side to see who these new gun bills are aimed at. They're aimed at you."

Even if it turns out that one prefers the rhythms of Hemingway to more prosaic varieties of the English language, such as Mr. Arten offers, the message is unmistakably clear. Gun owners of whatever size, shape or color ignore it at their peril.

[alan]

The August issue of The Blue Press has a couple of interesting articles, one of which is comment on John Lott's The Bias Against Guns, professor Lott's latest book.

Having read through the comments, I noted at the end of the third paragraph, the following absolutely unbelievable quote from Professor Lott. "Over time, I have come to believe that the ultimate objective of most gun control advocates is to gradually eliminate the private ownership of guns".

Seems to me, and this goes back to the late 1960's, certainly to the founding of the so-called National Coalition To Ban Handguns/Handgun Control Inc. in the 1970's that the ultimate goals of the anti gun crowd were, have been and remain entirely clear, THE TOTAL PROSCRIPTION OF FIREARMS, and that this fact was obvious, or should have been obvious, to anyone with eyes in their head. It might run along the lines of "slicing the salami", a little bit at a time, but the ultimate goals were unmistakable, especially since we have heard them, time and time again, from the mouths of the anti-gunners themselves.

So I for one wonder as to how Professor Lott managed to remain unaware of "the facts of life", for however long a period of time he referred to. I intend no attack on Professor Lott, I'm simply curious.

[ACP230]

The "Send not to know..." quote is from John Donne. Hemingway quoted it in his novel about the Spanish Civil War.

[alan]

ACP230:

I suppose "woops" is approproiate.

alan

[ACP230]

Alan: "Woops," accepted.

[Waitone]

IIRC John Lott has no special place in his heart for guns. He was a typical academic who for whatever reason had cause to look into the scholarship regarding the use of firearms. What he discovered was plenty of shoddy work which was being passed off as authoritative. He was particularly disturbed at the statistical work done up to that point. His first book "More Guns, Less Crime" tells the story of how he found contemporary statistical analysis was based on a sample of just a few demographic points. Nothing like a national study had taken place.

So he puts together a study of a national database and the results are published in "More Guns, Less Crime." Lott hasn't been paying attention until he decided to conduct his original research.

[AZRickD]

Indeed, Mr. Waitone.

I went to see Lott talk to a small group of egg-head statistics freaks at Arizona State University back in 1997 or so? Maybe '98.

Turns out that Lott is just as much an egg-head as they were. The difference was that all the ASU PhD-stats eggheads were obviously anti-gun. The peppered him with critiques of his methodology and statistical tools (very bookish, even for me). Lott was unfazed. At the end he asked for more questions. They were silent.

I could see that Lott was just as uncomfortable with the non-academic anti-gun visitors as he was the non-academic pro-gun vistiors (me and some friends). He would rather talk shop with the number crunchers.

I don't know that Lott *just* came to his conclusion that "gun control" activists really want to ban guns, or whether this was his first (or best) opportunity to raise the argument. But I am glad he made the argument (because it is true). I have talked to grabbers who admitted it. One top anti-gun group official (perhaps from VPC) was interviewed by Tom Gresham on his nationally syndicated radio show "Gun Talk." Tom got him to admit that the grabber really would like to see all private ownership out-lawed.

You can e-mail Tom at tom@guntalk.com to get the particulars which I have forgotten.

Rick

[alan]

AZRICKD and Waitone:


Perhaps I'm "out of it", but are academics, as a group really that far removed from reality that they do not know what is going on around them, in the real world, perhaps they don't care, or is it that there is a similarity between them and that Protestant minister in 1930's Germany who said nothing when this, that and the other thing happened. When they finally came for him, there was nobody left to speak up.

Surely, the comments of Nelson T. (Pete) Shields in the mid 1970's, to mention just one of the anti-gun movers and shakers, weren't so arcane as to be beyond the grasp of the "academic mind", or were they?

Waitone: Re John Lott having or not having "a special place for guns in his heart", the standard rhetoric of the anti gunners is and always has been tantamount to one proclaiming that the world was flat, a claim that is obviously false. Even such a one as myself, who prior to retirement was perhaps a 1/8 baked mechanical engineer could see that, so I would think that people who were smarter than I could also. Of course, one should never bet anything that they couldn't live comfortably without on common sense prevailing over emotionalism, stupidity and bull????, where human beings are concerned.

[Jim March]

If you think it's impossible for Lott to screw up, allow me to introduce you to Ms. Roche :rolleyes:.

[alan]

Jim March:

I never thought that it was impossible for people to screw-up, myself included.

That aside, I draw a large blank re the lady you mentioned, or at least her name. Could you clarify please. Thanks.

alan

[Bruce H]

Ms Roche was John Lott's imaginary online supporter. She said great things about Lotts work and how important it was. This was found out by the opposition and used to void much of his work. Must be a real insecure person to have to invent an online supporter to talk about yourself. Did much damage to otherwise good research. Yes academics are very removed from reality for some reason. Must be their environment.

[zastros]

It's not just academics. Everyone has blind spots. I guess it all goes back to whose ox is being gored. If it isn't yours, what do you care?

IIRC Lott's foray into the gun debate started when he was trying to come up with real world examples for one of his statistics classes. He wanted to show his students how stats could be used to prove a point. According to him, every study about guns had fatal flaws in it. So he started one using good statistical methods. The rest, as they say, is history.

zastros

[ACP230]

It was pretty low of Lott to make up a one woman internet cheering section.
I think it is even more reprehensible for his anti-gun detractors to keep saying that Winchester controls the John M. Olin Foundation in an attempt to smear Lott. They had to know that was false after the first few times it was printed or broadcast, but they kept on saying it, and probably are still doing so today.

Another question: How many of you guys get The Blue Press?

[alan]

ACP230:

As to how many people get The Blue Press, cannot say,, however I suspect that everybody who ever bought anything from them is on their mailing list. I bought a 550 in 1980 or thereabouts, and have been getting TBP for years. My customer number, they assign those things is 18, something thousand.

As to Lott making up a non-existant person, seemingly to blow his horn, why would an otherwise intelligent person pull a boneheaded stunt like that? As was noted, it most certainly could serve to detract from whatever else he might have to say, on anything. Disappointing, very disappointing, but that's life.

zastros:

Of course, every has blind dspots, but then there are blindspots, and there are blindspots. Lott's seems to be the personification thereof, perhaps the giant economy size blindspot. Talk about someone "shooting themselves in the foot"!!

[zastros]

I'll certainly agree that it was idiotic, though I have to admit to using a sockpuppet on a newsgroup in the past myself. Sometimes, you want someone else to say something that you might not want to say yourself. Certainly bit him in the ???, though.
zastros

[alan]

Zastros

You wrote,

"I'll certainly agree that it was idiotic, though I have to admit to using a sockpuppet on a newsgroup in the past myself. Sometimes, you want someone else to say something that you might not want to say yourself. Certainly bit him in the ???, though."

Re this, just a bit of personal philosophy, or should anyone prefer personal baloney. Never write, correction, never mail anything unsigned, and never "sail under a false flag". Of course, I can take this positiuon, possibly due to the fact that it's rather unlikely that anyone is going to take any real interest in what I might have to say or to write. Still, it seems to me that if you aren't proud enough of what you are saying or writing, to sign it, or to stand up and say it, you might be better off keeping quiet.

As you so nicely pointed out, the use of a "foil" by Lott seems to have detracted from the impact he might otherwise have had, though I could be wrong in that conclusion.

[alan]

Jim March & Bruce H:

Any particulars about Ms. Roche, such as dates and places would be appreciated.

Thanks,

alan

[AZRickD]

Saying Lott's *research* is harmed because he debated on the internet using a nom de plume is nonsense.

His research is not harmed by an ad-hominem such as the "Olin Foundation" connection, no more than it is by an ad-hominem that he anonymously engaged in an internet debate.

1+1=2 whether Lott concocted Ms. Roche or not.

Rick

[DeadCalm]

That is surely disappointing news about the Lott/Roche story. Of course there is no defense for Lott's behavior and although some academics get into trouble for some of their escapades they all know better than most what they risk. It's a jungle in there, and while they may live in ivory towers the towers are full of dirt, fierce creatures, and parasites. Lott may have simply needed that imaginary friend's foil as one of you suggested. I am now on the downside of my life on the planet, but in my youth I often made up quotes that I attributed to others, knowing that my pontifications would look more compelling if created by the older and wiser sages whom I could never quite identify for attribution. A cheap trick, and somewhat juvenile, but when you are shy or insecure it's easier to speak through the mouth of your "sock puppet." At least Lott's research has not been discredited by his behavior--or has it?
Ross

[zastros]

The research itself is still rock solid, but Lott does not come off as well. After the "Arming America" debacle, ALL the "anti's" took it on the chin. Now they're looking for ANYTHING to discredit Lott's evidence.
Hypocritical? You bet.[though my kettle is blackish too]

BTW Alan; some of you may have noticed a propensity of mine for cheap jokes. Well, there are, in fact, some puns too low even for me. Hence the sockpuppet. I feel shame.:o

zastros

[alan]

zastrot:

Don't worrt about your lack of perfection, for even I, who approaches perfection closely, have failed to actually achieve it. Also, while my spelling isn'y really all that bad, my typing seems to detoriate from keystroke to keystroke.

Attention others, re Professor Lott and his fictious friend:

Given the Bellsiles debacle, and it's inevitable aftermath, while the facts, or the lack thereof, as the case might be, will withstand criticism, an individuals reputation, and therefore the value of his/her work can certainly be diminished. As to the extent of this diminishment, only time will answer that question, however any diminishment that Lott might suffer is unfortunate.

[Leatherneck]

I'd rather Dr. Lott made up imaginary supporters than facts, the way the antis do...

TC
TFL Survivor