[dadman]

What the other side is saying about the research of John Lott:

Double Barreled Double Standards
For years, John Lott has provided a vital scholarly basis to the pro-gun movement. But now his research and his integrity are drawing heavy fire.

By Chris Mooney
October 13, 2003

If economist John R. Lott didn't exist, pro-gun advocates would have had to invent him. Probably the most visible scholarly figure in the U.S. gun debate, Lott's densely statistical work has given an immense boost to the arguments of the National Rifle Association. Lott's 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime -- which extolled the virtues of firearms for self-defense and has sold some 100,000 copies in two editions, quite an accomplishment for an academic book -- has served as a Bible for proponents of "right to carry" laws (also known as "shall issue" laws), which make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons. Were Lott to be discredited, an entire branch of pro-gun advocacy could lose its chief social scientific basis.

the rest of "Double Barrel" article (http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/42/we_590_01.html)

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I found this passage from the article very revealing as to the authors bias:

Yet soon afterwards in the same journal, economist Dan Black and criminologist Daniel Nagin found that slight alterations to Lott's data and model dramatically skewed the outcome. For instance, removing Florida from the analysis caused the beneficial impact of right to carry laws on murder and rape to vanish entirely

So in other words, removing the 4th most populus State from the database, and one of the few who adopted concealed carry during the study period, is a "slight alteration" to the data?

What a joke.

[agricola]

Lott did bring this on himself, and if people are going to go after Bellisiles then they must similarly ask their own side for high standards.

[Brett Bellmore]

The vigor with which they're going after Lott probably is payback for Bellesiles, but that doesn't mean Lott hasn't become an embarassment.

[BogBabe]

removing the 4th most populus State from the database, and one of the few who adopted concealed carry during the study period, is a "slight alteration" to the data?

That's gun-grabber SOP. Pick and choose your data, use extremely selective time periods, narrowly tailor your sample, manipulate manipulate manipulate until you get the results you want. E.g., compare Kellerman's 43x study, consisting of firearm deaths in a single county in a narrow time frame using a population of dysfunctional households, to Lott's longitudinal study of firearms usage in every county in the U.S.

"Gee, let's just take this study and remove all the data that supports the gun-rights POV, and proclaim that what's left supports our anti-self-defense agenda. The media and the sheeple will willingly buy into it."