[Ian]

Some anti-gun person or group has set up a web site at http://www.askjohnlott.org and is pretending to be John Lott. It will show up as a sponsored link on Google for several searches relating to Lott and gun control. Anyway, this site asks people to email questions for Lott about gun control related subjects, and then they respond by saying that Lott has changed his mind and we all really ought to need government permission to buy guns.

Here's the CNS News story on the issue (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200308/NAT20030804c.html) and here's the fraudulent web site (http://www.askjohnlott.org/index.html).

Here's one sample from the web site:

Q: Why would you try to help people get around the laws? Who on earth would advise someone to buy a .50 caliber rifle to shoot people at a mile and a half?

A: Dear Mark K, I'm sorry that you have misunderstood me. I am not advising anyone to shoot people at a mile and a half distance. In fact, I'm letting people like you know what we have against us. Our laws allow anybody to buy .50 caliber "sniper" rifles. As a staunch gun rights supporter, I can't deny how this just makes us look bad. Wouldn't you agree?

While I do support the right of every American to defend him or herself, I have never understood how sniper rifles fall under the category of self-defense.

[atk]

According to whois...

Domain ID:D98296683-LROR
Domain Name:ASKJOHNLOTT.ORG
Created On:27-Jun-2003 22:10:30 UTC
Last Updated On:27-Jun-2003 22:16:48 UTC
Expiration Date:27-Jun-2004 22:10:30 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R91-LROR
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-03418410
Registrant Name:Mary Rosh
Registrant Organization:Center for Truth
Registrant Street1:380 Main Street
Registrant City:Washington DC
Registrant State/Province:New York
Registrant Postal Code:10012
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9179132591
Registrant Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Admin ID:GODA-23418410
Admin Name:Mary Rosh
Admin Organization:Center for Truth
Admin Street1:380 Main Street
Admin City:Washington DC
Admin State/Province:New York
Admin Postal Code:10012
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.9179132591
Admin Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Billing ID:GODA-33418410
Billing Name:Mary Rosh
Billing Organization:Center for Truth
Billing Street1:380 Main Street
Billing City:Washington DC
Billing State/Province:New York
Billing Postal Code:10012
Billing Country:US
Billing Phone:+1.9179132591
Billing Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Tech ID:GODA-13418410
Tech Name:Mary Rosh
Tech Organization:Center for Truth
Tech Street1:380 Main Street
Tech City:Washington DC
Tech State/Province:New York
Tech Postal Code:10012
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9179132591
Tech Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Name Server:GW.DATAGRAM.COM
Name Server:NS.CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG


Hmm... Mary Rosh... wasn't that Lott's pseudonym?

[foghornl]

Interesting, indeed, that the "Center for Truth" (as Domain Registrant) would set up a fraudulent site.....

[atk]

Yeah, I think it is fraudulant.

A traceroute (ala networktools.com, since my company doesn't allow ICMP) reads:

Hop (ms) (ms) (ms) IP Address Host name
1 0 16 31 66.46.176.3 -
2 0 0 15 216.191.97.41 pos5-3.core1-mtl.bb.allstream.net
3 0 15 0 216.191.65.173 pos2-1.core2-tor.bb.allstream.net
4 15 16 16 216.191.65.70 pos5-0.gwy1-chi.bb.allstream.net
5 16 16 15 206.220.243.177 -
6 15 31 47 66.28.4.62 p15-0.core02.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com
7 47 47 47 66.28.4.85 p6-0.core02.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com
8 46 47 47 66.28.4.170 p5-0.core02.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com
9 47 47 31 66.28.4.165 p15-0.core01.jfk01.atlas.cogentco.com
10 31 47 47 204.6.150.2 msfc02.hc01.jfk03.atlas.psi.net
11 47 47 47 38.144.92.91 -


My guess is that askjohnlott.org is under the control of atlas.psi.net. PSI (http://www.psi.net) appears to be a web hosting company. I wonder what their EULA reads...

[atk]

Just started reading the EULA at http://www.psi.net/abuse.html . It would appear that askjohnlott.org is in violation.

Hi-ho email, away!

(BTW, the abuse email address is abuse@cogentco.com)

[gun-fucious]

check out the linked site:
www.WhoIsMaryRosh.com
PO Box 618354
Chicago, IL 60661
US

Domain name: WHOISMARYROSH.COM

Administrative Contact:
Registration, Domain domains@fatcow.com
2400 Louisiana NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
US
+1.8775328269
Technical Contact:
Registration, Domain domains@fatcow.com
2400 Louisiana NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
US
+1.8775328269

thats the same PO Box as Mike Magnum
Gun Guys.com
Mike Magnum
P.O. Box 618354
Chicago, Il 60661

Gonzo Schexnayder
624 W. Surf, #3A
Chicago, IL 60657

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23415

http://www.splattereffect.com/photos/gonzo-1.jpg

Gonzo Schexnayder, Executive Producer & Head Writer

Gonzo has been performing comedy professionally since the age of 6, when his first joke was a response to a question his sister posed to their mom while driving through south Louisiana's lovely scenic vistas. "Mom," she said, "what's a womb?" Gonzo quickly interjected (timing is everything), "That's what a motorcycle runs on. Woooom, wooooom." It was also his first road show.

Besides comedy, he has performed in comedic plays, improvisational comedy and sketch-comedy shows, as a stand-up comedian, and in voiceovers, commercials, films and television, most of which he got paid for, some of which were comedy. He has also written comedy, in nearly all those formats and a few others (especially if you laugh at his poetry).

His theatre credits include I Hate Hamlet (comedy), Lovers and Other Strangers (comedy), The Death of Bessie Smith (not a comedy) and his critically acclaimed Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland (kid's comedy). He was a founding member of the improvisational comedy group, Troupe Therapy, and the improv/sketch-comedy company, Broad Shoulders. He has studied at The Second City in Chicago and The Groundlings in L.A. He juggles, plays guitar (carelessly), and can do something weird with his stomach. He shares his life with his beautiful singing wife, Callie, and their imaginary friends.


Gonzo created Splatter Effect to fulfill his desire to write and perform satire and comedy that provokes people into using their noggins.


http://www.splattereffect.com/bios.html

[atk]

gun-fucious,

I just looked at that site. While I realize it's meant to be funny (rather, I assume it's meant to be funny, based on your post) but I find it to be humourless and stale. Yuck.

--
atk

[PeteyPete]

Same PO Box listed on this website: http://www.buzzflash.com/about/

[MeekandMild]

Hmm... Mary Rosh... wasn't that Lott's pseudonym? If so I wonder if it is also a copyright infringement?

[gun-fucious]

this is Gonzo's idea of humor:
http://www.splattereffect.com/archives/wits060500.html
:cuss:

[cordex]

nice link, gun-fucious.

Funny how he bounces the definition of "child" around so much, isn't it?

[atk]

gun-fucious,

Just read it. I'm still waiting for the punchline.

[gun-fucious]

more of Gonzo's "humor"
www.gunguys.com

[Combat-wombat]

Is that stuff about John Lott being Mary Rosh true?

BTW, how do you get that info about websites?

[Geech]

Is that stuff about John Lott being Mary Rosh true?

Sort of. It was an alternate identity adopted by Lott when after he was harassed and even threatened for participating in chats. It's not nearly as diabolical as the VPC would have you believe, though.

[NukemJim]

Is that stuff about John Lott being Mary Rosh true?

Unfortunetly yes.

Mary Rosh was a ficticous former student of Lott's that wrote rave reviews of the class she took by him and the bookshe read by him, and that Lott used in asking questions and rebutting people on the web in debates about his book. He has been (Unfairly I believe ) conpared to the bozo who wrote "The arming of America"(IIRC) where he made up record of estate paperwork from 18th and 19th century proving that guns were uncommon in early American days. Won a prize for it, then was caught listing estate records that did not exis in a western state (Cailforna?) They looked at all his data ( or rather the lack there of ) and revoked prize and he lost his job at the college he was working in charged and found guitly with the academic equivalent of fraud ( similar in the real world to being charge with multiple count of rape/tortuture/execution of children ).

The primary difference (IMHO) is that Lott used public FBI records and then used advanced statistics to accaount for various changes. People can (and do) disagree with his calculation of the numbers but it is an open the numbers are availabe to everyone to process and from my limited understanding is that the data hold up rather well.

He did reference in a preface to some editions of the first book a telephone survey that he could not produce data or witnesses for (a crashed hard drive was his excuse ) about the number of times a firearm is used in defense without being fired in the US each year. Later studies conducted by others got numbers that were close to the numbers he claimed.

As to question number two I have absolutly no clue in the world and stand in awe of those who can do that stuff.

WAY COOL I love the Net:D

NukemJim

[MicroBalrog]

Later studies conducted by others got numbers that were close to the numbers he claimed.

And several people who know him confirm that his hard drive crashed.

[Sergeant Bob]

Combat-wombat BTW, how do you get that info about websites?
Whois.com (http://www.whois.com/domainreg.aspx)

http://network-tools.com/


Microbalrog And several people who know him confirm that his hard drive crashed.
I also read somewhere that a bookcase fell on his computer. Either way, most of the data on a hard drive can be retrieved even after a crash.
http://www.data-recovery-people.com/
Just go Copernicing for hard drive data retrieval

[MicroBalrog]

I believe you will find this link helpful:

http://www.johnlott.org/files/GenDisc97_02surveys.html

[Geech]

I also read somewhere that a bookcase fell on his computer.

I bet that sure made a crash! :D

Besides, aren't methods of data retrieval expensive? It might have been cheaper simply to conduct another survey using the same method as the first one.

[MicroBalrog]

Let's put it this way, allegation of academic fraud are unproven at best in this particular case.

[NukemJim]

And several people who know him confirm that his hard drive crashed.

Yes, agreed but according to what I recall ( and as always I could be wrong ) He could not provide names of students who did the calls, billing records, raw data, ( No he does not have to be a computer genius to be a college professor but if he does not know enough to make multiple backups of his data I am sorry but he would have to be either incompent at best or lying at worst. I say that because I work in a universty hospital doing occasional research for the faculty in nuclear medicine { hence the handle } we routinely make 2 copies of all data but for research work we always make a minimum of 3 copies stored in 2 seperate buildings. )

Remember this is not a hobby for him it is his job. So yes I absolutley believe him that his hard drive crashed and he lost data. No doubt. But there have been people ( Pro gun ) who attempted to verify that the poll was conducted and were unable to do so.

I hate to sound negative I have and have read the first book and will be getting the 2nd soon ( so many books so little time I just got 2 by John Farnam, 1by Farnam & Nicholl,1 by Givens and 1 by Lovette. ) I believe in his data and feel that the man has been given a very hard time by the media. However when debating you must acknowledge as possibilities theorys you do not like unless you can disprove them. I would LOVE for John Lott or anyone else to come up with independant verififaction of the poll. Which as I stated on the first post was esseantially confirmed by other studies.

If anyone here knows any more about this that can be verified I would like to hear it. It would shield a chink (small but a chink) in my case of being pro gun and pro CCW. But when the data is weak or suspect it MUST be questioned.

NukemJim

[agricola]

and they say satire is dead :D

Dunno if anyone remembers but i had a brief email correspondance with John Lott in the TFL days - he was polite and helpful, so why he did the Rosh thing is a mystery to me.

[HBK]

My question: Are you worried that John Lott will sue you and take all your money, since this site is obviously bull ?????

[Sergeant Bob]

Geech Besides, aren't methods of data retrieval expensive?
The recovery cost for a hard disk drive is a minimum of $425. This charge is only incurred if the data is recovered.
http://www.woftbo.com/cost.html
Probably the cost for a simple head crash. I'm sure he could afford it, heck, I could afford it.

Microbalrog , not disputing Lott's findings or research, but it would have been so easy to prevent all the controversy his choices created. He has to be intelligent enough to know the Leftists would make every attempt to discredit him, especially after the flap over "The Arming of America". The Mary Rosh thing along with "the dog ate my homework" thing really make him look silly.

[MicroBalrog]

The Mary Rosh thing along with "the dog ate my homework" thing really make him look silly.

Look silly - perhaps. Proved/disproved anything - no.

[dustind]

I have heard that hard disk recovery costs easily go into the five digit range, depending on what happened. I guess that is for reconstructing data on a damaged disk, and the $425 is just if the drive burns out and stops spinning, but is undamaged. I am not positive though.

[Sergeant Bob]

Microbalrog , not disputing Lott's findings or research
Concur!

[Geech]

The Mary Rosh thing along with "the dog ate my homework" thing really make him look silly.

You have to remember how Lott went into this thing, though. He wasn't a pro-gunner trying to prove something, he thought this would be a good subject for study. At the time, he probably simply had not thought about the kind of attention this would bring him. It was a simple study, why would it be so important to have that many backups of the available data?

As for the Mary Rosh, thing, if the story about the harassment and threats are true -- and I think it's pretty believable -- it probably seemed like an easy solution to a difficult problem. He probably didn't think about how someone might find out that Rosh wasn't real, or the consequences of what would happen if they did. He just didn't want to be a target anymore.

[HBK]

Why doesn't he just redo the study or have others redo their version using his methods? It would prove him true and show the people that have been threatening to be cowards and idiots.

[MicroBalrog]

Why doesn't he just redo the study or have others redo their version using his methods?

Check his site. It was already done. Several times IIRC.

[Geech]

Donahue did try to use his own data and reach a different conclusion, but his study was really questionable.

[HBK]

Thanks Micro. What does IIRC mean?

[HBK]

Donahue...there's an unbiased source.:rolleyes:

[MicroBalrog]

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly;)

[HBK]

Ha, and I thought it was some technical term, like a copyright.:D

[chas_martel]

Domain ID:D98296683-LROR
Domain Name:ASKJOHNLOTT.ORG
Created On:27-Jun-2003 22:10:30 UTC
Last Updated On:27-Jun-2003 22:16:48 UTC
Expiration Date:27-Jun-2004 22:10:30 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R91-LROR
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-03418410
Registrant Name:Mary Rosh
Registrant Organization:Center for Truth
Registrant Street1:380 Main Street
Registrant City:Washington DC
Registrant State/Province:New York
Registrant Postal Code:10012
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9179132591
Registrant Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Admin ID:GODA-23418410
Admin Name:Mary Rosh
Admin Organization:Center for Truth
Admin Street1:380 Main Street
Admin City:Washington DC
Admin State/Province:New York
Admin Postal Code:10012
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.9179132591
Admin Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Billing ID:GODA-33418410
Billing Name:Mary Rosh
Billing Organization:Center for Truth
Billing Street1:380 Main Street
Billing City:Washington DC
Billing State/Province:New York
Billing Postal Code:10012
Billing Country:US
Billing Phone:+1.9179132591
Billing Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Tech ID:GODA-13418410
Tech Name:Mary Rosh
Tech Organization:Center for Truth
Tech Street1:380 Main Street
Tech City:Washington DC
Tech State/Province:New York
Tech Postal Code:10012
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9179132591
Tech Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Name Server:GW.DATAGRAM.COM
Name Server:NS.CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG

[gun-fucious]

380 Main Street
NY, NY
is a van down by the river

http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=Tmap&ed=eub1wup_0TqNcLNPGcXFAC3sl7X1KUyZ4cOaqeTHk1BrzKLCq7JYWTznOEnZ&csz=Ny+NY+&country=us

Theres a huge thread in L&P

[Kestryll]

IN!!!:D

[Alan Smithiee]

hard drive recovery starts at about $450.00, 5 figures is not at all uncommon, and sometimes it's just not possible depending on what happened (when you have a controler fry it can overwrite data on the drive for example) and you would by amazed at how often I get called out for a HD recovery and the last backup is weeks or months old. when was the last time YOU backed up your data?

and John was also forthcoming about the missing data, he laid it out, didn't try to hide it like some others I could mention. he WAS able to come up with students who took part in the survey and corroberated that it had happened.

[NukemJim]

he WAS able to come up with students who took part in the survey and corroberated that it had happened.

That would be excellent news :) . Can you give me a reference please ? Last time I checked ( It's been a while ) that info was not available.

Why doesn't he just redo the study or have others redo their version using his methods? It would prove him true and show the people that have been threatening to be cowards and idiots.

Not in the academic world. It isnot only the answer but how you got the answer, if you get the right answer but did so doing the wrong way it is considered wrong. As mentioned previosly the studies have been repeated and essentially confirmed on several occasions ( as well as common sense would tell you )

NukemJim

[Gaiudo]

When working on his doctoral dissertation six years ago, my Dad had a harddrive crash with all his research and notes on it, more than six years of work. Even though he had a backup drive, there were invaluable sources and citations on the drive that were new and had not been backed up. The cause of the failure was a power surge. We were in Brazil at the time, and my dad hauled around that hard drive for three years, trying to find someone who could restore the disk. When we finally got back to the US, he found out that to attempt to restore the data would be well into the high six figure range, and even then all bets were off, even from the computer guys. They told him the best thing would to be just to redue all his sources, which he eventually did for the completion of his doctoral work.

So no, in my experience, there is no guarantee for quick, cheap data retrieval, and if physical damage has occured to the disk it may well be dang near impossible.

Gaiudo

[dksck]

Edited by moderator. dksck, you have PM.

[jimpeel]

Am I the only one to go to the fraudulent page and scroll to the bottom? Here is what it says:©Copyright 2003 Rifle Publishing, Inc.

This site is not run by John Lott, he has no affiliation with it.
It is run by Mary Rosh. John Lott used Mary Rosh to support his books in internet forums, and put false claims in her mouth. Now Mary Rosh has created this site, to show John Lott that parody is a two-way street.
You can find out more about her at WhoIsMaryRosh.com .

[publius]

Here's (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030205.shtml) a good article about the Lott research controversy.

excerpt:
The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report (posted online at http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html).

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.

If there are now students who corroborate the research study, it's news to me as well, and welcome news. I'd also like to see sources on that.

As to this:
Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting.

That 98% figure may sound good to some folks, but it doesn't to me. Let's put it this way: if you provoke me into "merely brandishing" my gun, you're going to be looking straight down it, you're going to stand a better-than-2% chance of being shot, and it might just happen before the next time you blink. My point is, if you pull a gun, it should be because you really need to use it, right now. Lott's study, if it occurred, suggests to me that the vast majority of gun owners are pulling out guns in situations where they really don't need to do so. I hope he made it up.

[Geech]

That's just speculation, publius. It could also mean that most criminals surrender when facing armed resistance.

[MicroBalrog]

A soldier here was attacked by several angry Palestinians two or three days ago. Knowing that they were probably trying to kidnap him and then kill him, he put his hand on the bolt of his rifle and cocked it. That was it. Those guys fled.

I suspect this is the kind of stuff to which Lott is referring.

[publius]

That's just speculation, publius. It could also mean that most criminals surrender when facing armed resistance.


Could be. Interesting speculation there. Or maybe they run away instead of surrendering. Want to hear more speculation?

How about this: gun owners hear about Lott's study and decide it's a good idea to brandish a gun, even if you really have no intention of shooting it, because hey, 98% of the time, you won't need to shoot it. Whoever is bothering you will run away. It's the expected result, after all.

That's a dangerous expectation, if you ask me. I never liked it, even before the credibility of Lott and his study (or the newspapers' or Mr. Kleck's, or whoever's) was called into question.

Don't get me wrong, I can see working the action on my 12 gauge to make the "wrong house" noise and scare a creep away. I just can't see expecting it to work virtually every time.

[TimLambert]

Lott has still not located any students who worked on the survey. Nor has duplicated the survey. He did another survey last year that he claimed came up with a 95% number, but he made a mistake in his arithmetic. All surveys conducted by other people such as Gary Kleck, give much lower numbers. More details are here (http://timlambert.org/guns/Lott/survey).

Lott's claim to have used "Mary Rosh" because he was threatened and harassed is like his claim to have conducted a survey in 1997 -- there is no evidence that it is true and plenty that it is false. You can review the discussions he was in as "John Lott" on Google Groups -- everyone was polite towards him.

[MicroBalrog]

TimLambert - are you the real Tim Lambert, if I may ask?
And why did you decide to post here?
And how does the Mary Rosh story relate to anything?

[publius]

Whoever he is, that timlambert.org link he provided is pretty interesting reading, until you get to the heavy duty math part. Geez. I've studied applied statistics, and now I remember why I quit! My head hurts.

Anyway, this bit from the editor of Science, excerpted on Mr. Lambert's page, caught my eye:

Emory empaneled a committee of scholars to investigate, and its report questioned Bellesiles “scholarly integrity.” He resigned from the Emory faculty, and the Bancroft Prize his book had won was revoked. The pro-gun faction began to chortle with glee; end of story, right?

Yes. Nothing Lott did or does can possibly affect Bellesiles' "scholarly integrity", or lack thereof.

BTW, MicroBalrog, the real Mr. Lambert would have a pretty easy time determining that a hit on his site originated from this thread, where I previously linked to it by posting the Malkin excerpt.

[MicroBalrog]

BTW, MicroBalrog, the real Mr. Lambert would have a pretty easy time determining that a hit on his site originated from this thread,

But why did Mr. Lambert decide to come post here?:what:

[TimLambert]

MicroBalrog - Yes, I am the real Tim Lambert.
I came across a link to this thread in a referrer log, and I wanted to correct some errors made by some posters.
Mary Rosh is relevant because if you want to believe that Lott did a survey in 97 despite all the evidence to the contrary, then you basically have to take his word for it. The fact that he lied as Mary Rosh with statements like Lott "was the best professor that I ever had" (http://timlambert.org/guns/files/maryrosh.html#2001-11-09) suggests that he lied about other things as well.

[MicroBalrog]

his word for it.

And also Mustard's, Whitley's, and several others'.:)

[TimLambert]

MicroBalrog wrote: And also Mustard's, Whitley's, and several others'

All they can confirm is that Lott had a disk crash in 97 and lost data. That hardly proves that he did a survey then. Proving you own a dog does not prove that it ate your homework.

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, look at this site:

http://www.johnlott.org/files/GenDisc97_02surveys.html

These people claim the survey was, in fact, conducted, and while most of them do not give DIRECT evidence to support that fact, their testimony is still interesting, especially the testimony of David Gross.

[gun-fucious]

hey jimpeel,

yesterday there was only the
©Copyright 2003 Rifle Publishing, Inc.

me thinks someone has recieved a bigfoot letter

[TimLambert]

MicroBalrog: the link you give is Lott's spin on what Mustard et al said. I have their actual words here (http://timlambert.org/guns/files/lottreply10.html). Whitley says he met some undergraduates in Lott's office. That's it. No evidence that these students did a survey for Lott. Mustard is doing his best to help Lott, but he's only sure that he heard about this survey in 99, when Lott also told me about it. David Gross is the only one with direct evidence, but anyone in the entire country could have claimed to have been surveyed. It is just too much of a coincidence that someone who Neal Knox said "wrote and almost single-handedly pushed the law into existence" (referring to recently passed MN carry law), would just happen to have been surveyed?

[publius]

Thanks for the link, MB.

I'm having trouble swallowing that explanation about the phrase "such polls show" in the op-ed Lott wrote.

Tim,

The "lying through Mary" thing doesn't bother me much. I didn't even read Lott's explanation of Mary, because I'm not very interested. So he created a fictitious fan. Along with her, he'd have to create some sort of fictitious relationship, so he decided to make this one a former student. Did you expect a fictitious person to have a real background?

Mr. Lott had, and has, many fans and foes on the net. So he wants to use a pseudonym in public, because the appearance of his name will raise hackles, or for whatever reason. Lots of people have done it, notably some (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html) who used the very same pseudonym I'm using now. It doesn't really affect my perception of Mr. Lott's credibility at all. Some of the questions about his research do affect my perception of his credibility, but overall, you can still count me as a Lott fan. I carry a gun legally in Florida, and I'm glad the criminals and cops aren't the only people wandering around armed down here.

[MicroBalrog]

MicroBalrog: the link you give is Lott's spin on what Mustard et al said

The link I gave also provides a file with a full text of their testimony.

[TimLambert]

publius: There is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym, or even inventing a background for the pseudonym. It would have been perfectly OK if "Mary" had explained her familiarity with Lott's work by saying that she was a former student. But she went beyond that to praise him as the best professor she ever had. She also promoted him to "chaired professor" (which is a big deal in academia). Meanwhile Lott put out a statement that he was not participating in the "apparent on-line discussions". He didn't have to say that -- no-one had asked him, but he wanted to create the impression that he was above all that on-line bickering instead of getting in and flaming away. He lied, and not to gain a big advantage, but for a small advantage.

[publius]

Tim,

Sorry, but I still don't care. The praise and the promotion don't mean much to me. Just parts of the "Mary" character, and I don't have a problem with creating an online persona. If confronted, I'd expect Lott to lie about his creation if possible. Saves the trouble of creating a new one, you know? ;) You say he just volunteered that he wasn't participating in online discussions. OK, fine. He's trying to play the role of the staid professor in the real world, while sparring online in anonymity. Hey, we all get our kicks somehow.

[Sergeant Bob]

What if their were someone on this board who you debated regularly, came up with a pseudonym or two and used them to back up that someone and argue on their behalf, to make it appear they had more support for their position?

Would you still be willing to take what that person says seriously? Would that decrease their credibility? I would find it rather foolish and sophmoric, and wouldn't pay them much attention in the future.

[publius]

Sarge, I agree that would be silly.

The thing is, what you're asking about and what Lott did are different in one crucial respect: he's John Lott. At least in the gun and anti-gun cultures, he's pretty famous.

If you're famous, people who like you and people who don't will behave differently around you. To get them to behave normally toward you, you've gotta masquerade as just another Joe, or Sargeant Joe, as the case may be.

Convincing me that I should care how Lott plays on the internet is going to be an uphill battle. I do, however, care how he writes and researches as AEI resident scholar John Lott. I don't like it when he makes our side look stupid. Even if you buy Lott's explanation of everything that's happened, you still have to face the fact that he's too damn stupid to back up his work, or at least he was. How embarassing. Who doesn't know to do that?

[agricola]

sarge,

noone has asked or answered the question yet: where are the students that conducted this study?

[publius]

Hi farmer,

Haven't spoken to you since TFL days. Glad to see you again.

If you'll read Mr. Lott's responses to the various criticisms, posted earlier by MicroBalrog, you'll see where he claims to have made names and email addresses of students who did the work available. That's the first I've heard of it, but I did see that claim in there.

[publius]

Oops! re-reading, it was names of students who did the repeat survey in 2002 which were released.

BTW, your question was asked, both by Mr. Lambert and by Michelle Malkin, in articles linked to this thread. It's a good question. There are several other good questions too, and not that many good answers. Personally, I don't think that virtually all evidence of a survey can disappear without a trace. I also doubt that firearms are used in self defense without being discharged 98% of the time. I can certainly see it happening, just not that often. Mr. Lambert says that other researchers have come up with numbers saying a shot is fired something like 27% to 60% of the time, IIRC. That's a pretty large range, which tells me we really don't know the right number.

I also don't care about the right number very much. Whether other people shoot or don't shoot in other situations has no real bearing on whether a given individual needs to shoot in a particular situation.

[gun-fucious]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958535/posts

it would also appear that the freepers have unmasked the culpret:

Domain ID:D98296683-LROR
Domain Name:ASKJOHNLOTT.ORG
Created On:27-Jun-2003 22:10:30 UTC
Tech Email:maryrosh@mail.com
Name Server:GW.DATAGRAM.COM
Name Server:NS.CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG

Registrant:
Peretti, Jonah (EGLJTYIIMD)
45 Main Street
12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
US

Domain Name: CONTAGIOUSMEDIA.ORG

Administrative Contact:
Peretti, Jonah (JP28089)

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12276

http://www.eyebeam.org/divisions/img/jonah.jpg
http://www.eyebeam.org/divisions/soiree.html
Jonah Peretti
I am Director of R&D at Eyebeam, a not-for-profit arts organization focused on exploring the expressive potential of emerging technologies. I run a residency program, develop events like the Social Network Soiree or We Love NY, explore the use of emerging technologies like rapid prototyping, and develop new technologies with the potential to have a cultural, artistic, or political impact.

I collaborate (often with Chelsea Peretti) to create Contagious Media, including the Nike Sweatshop Email, the Rejection Line, BlackPeopleLoveUs.com, and JusticeMachine.com. Here is an essay about the Nike Sweatshop Emails, an article about BlackPeopleLoveUs, and an interview that provides perspective on the projects.

I teach graduate students in NYU's Interactive Telecommunications Program and lead an on-going contagious media design lab at Eyebeam. I have also taught at Parsons School of Design, the Kitchen's Summer Institute, and the University of Connecticut. I am availble for a limited number of speaking engagements and do occasional consulting projects. I can be reached at jonah AT eyebeam DOT org. My old MIT web site is hopelessly out-of-date.

[Quartus]

focused on exploring the expressive potential of emerging technologies

Hmmm. A blissninny masquerading as a professor. Well, that's not unusual these days...


if he does not know enough to make multiple backups of his data I am sorry but he would have to be either incompent at best or lying at worst


Lots of very intelligent people don't make backups. I don't find that hard to believe at all. But the weight of the evidence certainly seems to go against Lott's integrity. Mary Rosh isn't just a psuedonymn. As Lambert said, there's nothing wrong with a psuedonymn. Uh, publius or Quartus or whatever, if you want to remain anonymous on the 'Net that's not a reflection on your integrity.

Until you start making things up to prove your credibility. That's no longer a psuedonymn. That's a lie.

We jump on the blissninnies when they defend a liar. We shouldn't be guilty of the same thing. We don't need lies or phony studies to prove our position. Truth works much better. We should stick to it and require our allies to stick to it. If anything we should be harder on our own than the enemy is.

[HBK]

But despite all this, Lott's studies were valid. Have not others repeated his work and gotten the same results? THat is the true test of validity. THerefore, despite the Mary Rosh crap, the fact remains that the studies were valid. End of story.

[Geech]

Yeah, as Lott said, that study was one sentence in his book. The most it ever would have done would be to help the consience of the left get used to the idea of sticking up for yourself.

[MicroBalrog]

Hold it right there.

Mr. Lambert and crew claim that the survey doesn't exist (no proof, mind you).

Lott brings up a witness who says he was questioned and several others who claim they heard about it or remember something about it.

What has been done to discredit those witnesses? Nothing. Therefore, and until the absence of the survey is somehow proven, the charges against Lott are worth little.

He might have been wrong in his study, but there's no proof he faked it.

[Quartus]

He might have been wrong in his study, but there's no proof he faked it.

I don't think anyone has proven that he faked anything, and the work of others has supported his main premise. If the figure is 40% or 60% or 98%, it's still not what the antis want to hear - it trashes their rhetoric.


But Lott has demonstrated a lack of integrity in my view, so anything he says needs double scrutiny.

As was said, his study stands. But it isn't nearly as useful as it was before Lott opened himself up to credible charges of dupicity. I prefer my witnesses to be unimpeachable! At this poiint, using Lott in argument is like using a gun that misfires frequently. It's just not the best choice.

[publius]

Uh, publius or Quartus or whatever, if you want to remain anonymous on the 'Net that's not a reflection on your integrity.

Until you start making things up to prove your credibility. That's no longer a psuedonymn. That's a lie.


The only things made up by the made up character, Mary, were that Lott was a great professor and that he had a chair. I'm not really defending Lott so much as questioning why he's being attacked for what seems to me to be harmless netplay.

But despite all this, Lott's studies were valid. Have not others repeated his work and gotten the same results?

Well, some of it, but with respect to the subject at hand, no, in fact, his 98% figure (now he's using 90% or 92% figure is not replicated by anyone else. As mentioned on Mr. Lambert's site, cases in which a gun is discharged in self defense have been estimated between 20-something and 60-something% by various individuals, which is quite far from the 2% (now 10%) of cases claimed by Lott.

Also, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Think of all the defensive uses of firearms you've heard about in your life. Is a gun actually fired in more than 2% of them? It just never struck me as particularly believable, and that was before the existence of the study came into question.

Yeah, as Lott said, that study was one sentence in his book. The most it ever would have done would be to help the consience of the left get used to the idea of sticking up for yourself.


Yes, and he was using that one sentence in exactly that way, notably in the op-ed piece referenced earlier. Sure, it was one sentence, but a pretty important one.

MicroBalrog,

In the academic world, if you claim to have done a study, you have to be prepared to prove you did it, and prove it was done correctly. Lott's attempts to do so have fallen short for me, and I'm someone who really wants to believe the guy! Bellesiles couldn't come up with proof of his "research" and I called BS. Same thing here.

Imagine Bellesiles came up with some notorious gun grabber who said, "Oh yeah, I remember sorting through probate records for hours with Mr. Bellesiles!" The chorus chants, "What has been done to discredit this witness?"

Mmm Hmmm. Right. Lott produces a Huge with a capital H fan of concealed carry who says he thinks he was interviewed. He's the only direct witness, as Mr. Lambert says. The others, it seems, think they kinda remember something about that, or whatever. Look, if it's not very convincing to me, and I want to be convinced, think how it looks to the other side.

[NukemJim]

In the academic world, if you claim to have done a study, you have to be prepared to prove you did it, and prove it was done correctly. Lott's attempts to do so have fallen short for me, and I'm someone who really wants to believe the guy! Bellesiles couldn't come up with proof of his "research" and I called BS. Same thing here.

Look, if it's not very convincing to me, and I want to be convinced, think how it looks to the other side.

Sums up my view fairly well. I would like very much to believe but the evidence is just not there.

I think ( Opinoin only here not verifiable facts ) that a very large percentage of the time a firearm MAY prevent violence if the offending party finds out the the possible victim is armed either by word of mouth that Mr. X "carries", statement of person with firearm indicating that they are armed, cycling of pump gun action, putting hand in jacket as if to draw etc...

I have been in one such situation in my life so I know they occur. The difficulty is in trying to show how often something does NOT happen especially when there is frequently great social and legal pressure in NOT telling people what happened.

I would like for more studies on the defecnsive use of firearms and the decrease in crime that MAY be caused by CCW. But I have to question studies that support my postion as well as those that attack my position. Otherwise we are no better than an Antigunner who rabidly spouts the Brady Center official party line without questioning it.

NukemJim

[MicroBalrog]

In the academic world, if you claim to have done a study, you have to be prepared to prove you did it, and prove it was done correctly. Lott's attempts to do so have fallen short for me, and I'm someone who really wants to believe the guy! Bellesiles couldn't come up with proof of his "research" and I called BS. Same thing here.

You're correct, but:


1. After Lambert and company claimed the research (on a fairly inconsequential part of the analysis) didn't exist, it was claimed (rather believably) it was destroyed. We know as fact that at least part of Lott's research notes were in fact destroyed (unlike with Bellesiles), so the question is, was that 1997 survey among that stuff? Lott says yeah, Lambert says nay.

2.Most of Lott's study was based on publicly available figures which everybody can check (which was verified by several studies I can give links to). If it was fake, he wouldn't be able to achieve the results later confirmed by several honest researchers - right?:)

[NukemJim]

Most of Lott's study was based on publicly available figures which everybody can check (which was verified by several studies I can give links to). If it was fake, he wouldn't be able to achieve the results later confirmed by several honest researchers - right?

There are 2 sets of data that we are talking about.

1) The manipulation of the crime rate for each county in the US. That data is pubicly available and can be indipendantly verifiable. The controversy comes in how he did his calculations and normalizations. Again publicly available and verifiable. No problem with that althogh I freely admit that the math is above my head.

2) Lott's claim that 98% of the time that a gun is not discharged in a defensive situation. This was in the preface to the book itself. He has given several different explanation of how he got that number. This was NOT based on publicly available figures but rather on a study he currentlly claims he had done by students using phones from their rooms and that he financed himself and that he lost all records on his hard drive crash ( and yes I do believe he had a hard drive crash ) . He cannot produce billing records, students who called, initial raw data, backup data, and the one person who says he was interviewed on the phone A) does not recall who did the survey B) is a major force in the ProCCW movement. ( If Diane Feinstein was the only person who could verify a study showing 98% of the guns in the country are used in crimes I would question that as well )

It is the 2nd set of data that I question. ( and again I would LIKE to believe the claim )

if he does not know enough to make multiple backups of his data I am sorry but he would have to be either incompent at best or lying at worst

If I sound overly harsh about his lack of backups again this is his profession ( data handling and manipulation in the academic world ) and is an area where I have some practical experience. I am not saying he is lying but the other option is not that good either. Given the controversy over this part of the study I find it hard to believe that NONE of the students who performed the study ( on their own computers ) have not come forward with raw data or backups ( I still have backups from my first Mac that I got in '92 ), billing data, rough draft, survey lists or something. Again I would like to believe this data and would love to be proven wrong on this.

If he could not backup his claim he should not have made the claim. This is especially true in the academic world in which he was at the time ( Also happens to be where I work, University of Chicago and yes I was here when he was here.)

Again I would like to believe but even though I think ( No facts here just opinion ) that many times firearms do not have to be discharged to serve as a deterent, unfortunety anumber from study that cannot be proven to have taken place and has been attributed to two different studies at two different times is NOT something I wish to use in a debate.

NukemJim

PS The Mary Roush thing just made him look silly I can understand why he did it. I think it was a poor choice but that is just my opinion. It does NOT invalidate his data that can be verified.

[MicroBalrog]

NukemJim: Isn't set 1 the more important one?

BTW, PM for you.

[NukemJim]

Isn't set 1 the more important one?


Yes, absolutley. However the controversy with set #2 the "telephone survey" lowers his credibility.

Look at it like this. You are about to buy a New car, a salesperson says "this car can stop in a shorter distance than 98% of all cars". Only when you ask him how him/her how they got that number he gives you 2 different responses as to where is was published, when you ask him for specifics he says "sorry I lost all the info on a hard drive crash".

Aren't you going to wonder about some of the other things he/she told you ? I know I would. Even the brochure he hands me with printed numbers from the manufacturer is going to be questioned isn't it. The brochure may very well be right but since he/she gave you a BS story you have to question everything he/she says from that point on.

This is why in academia why credibility is so important so that when somebody makes an unusual claim people look at the claim NOT THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM.

NukemJim

[Quartus]

Yes, absolutley. However the controversy with set #2 the "telephone survey" lowers his credibility.


That about sums it up. And most importantly, it lowers his credibility with the mushy middle - the people we CAN and MUST win over.

Facts mean nothing to the hard-corp socialists like Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. We all know that. We can't win them over.

But there are a LOT of people in the middle who CAN be won over and it's with just this group that credibility is all important.

I'm not saying I don't believe Lott. I'm saying he's made himself and his work a lot less useful.

[NukemJim]

[QUOTE]That about sums it up. And most importantly, it lowers his credibility with the mushy middle - the people we CAN and MUST win overQUOTE]

I agree with the above.

NukemJim

[Quartus]

Gotta work on that QUOTE function, Jim! :D

[NukemJim]

Ooops, Sorry about that. While I am NOT a compugenius I still do not know how I messed that up. Oh well:rolleyes: I think you got my opinion anyway even with my technical incomptentce

NukemJim

[MeekandMild]

Lott's claim that 98% of the time that a gun is not discharged in a defensive situation.

I suspect this isn't just something he has pulled out his a**. I would challenge anyone who doubts its veracity to use his methods and try to disprove it.

(Just like you are free to try to disprove the law of gravity by climbing the Tower of Pisa and throw off two different sized cannonballs to measure their relative rate of fall. I daresay we forgot the name of the assistants who helped that original experiment too but it doesn't mean it isnt' replicable.)

From my personal and family and community experiance (recalling if you will my experiance in the behavioral sciences field), I would say he may have underestimated and the number is closer to 99% or 99.5% or even 99.9%.

[publius]

I suspect this isn't just something he has pulled out his a**. I would challenge anyone who doubts its veracity to use his methods and try to disprove it.


He may not have gotten it from his a**, but he certainly had some trouble remembering just where he did get it. If you recall, he originally attributed the number to "national surveys", only later claiming it was a single survey which he conducted. (And one which, well, let's just say the Thought Police from Orwell's 1984 would not have done such a good job of making every scrap of evidence disappear.)

Lott himself used his own methods in the later survey and came up with about 90%.

If you read Mr. Lambert's page, you know that other researchers have come up with substantially different numbers, in every case showing that guns are actually fired more often than Lott's results indicate.

[agricola]

meek,

If Lott lied, or fabricated this story, then he should be called on it, and by those who supported his arguments, otherwise you're complicit in his shenanigans. Look at it this way - if Bellisiles or whoever produced an anti-gun book with the same survey problems and then impersonated a student to promote himself you and the rest would be all over it like a rash, and rightly so.

Besides, even if you take him at face value, what does it say for the randomness of the survey that he (or the disappearing students under his command) interviewed one of the most prominent pro-2A men in a state as part of the study?

[Quartus]

Well, agricola, I'm in complete agreement with your first paragraph. However, your second shows a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the word, "random".

If the study was done by calling names pulled out of a hat, it could very well include 50% pro-gun activists. Not very likely, but it COULD happen. "Random" means just that - there was no attempt to filter the participants, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. The bigger the survey the more closely the makup of participants should reflect the makup of the whole population. If not, we rightly get suspicious. Getting ONE activist by chance says nothing derogatory about the randomness of the survey.

[Geech]

I think Agricola's point is that this guy has a reason to lie, so we should take his statements with a grain of salt. If he was one of many people who came forward and acknowledged that he had participated in the survey, there wouldn't be any reason to doubt his word. But since it's pretty much just him... Well, it's kind of suspicious.

[StLGlocker]

Just started reading the EULA at http://www.psi.net/abuse.html . It would appear that askjohnlott.org is in violation.

I doubt that a serious case could be made for getting it shut down, it's pretty clearly a parody (see the notice at the bottom of every page) and would most likely be protected under the First Amendment.

EULA or no, good luck getting Cogent to do ANYthing about any sort of abuse issue. I'd be surprised if they even respond to mail directed to abuse@. They provide hosting to some of the Internet's sleaziest spammers, and turn a deaf ear to complaints. :cuss: