He doesn't come off looking any better than Bellesiles in this article.
If you enjoyed reading about "Is there any truth to this? Re: John Lott" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
February 5, 2003, 05:12 PM
This is going around on the political lists. The Rosh thing seems to be true. The survey claim may not be as some folks have come forward as to being participants in the survey. But it does sound flakey.
Some gun folks don't like Lott's data for other reasons. Kleck thinks little of it. There have been rumblings of the data being funny at some of the academic gun conferences.
One can only hope that any mistakes are trivial and not complete duplicity like Bellesiles. Lott's data have been one of the mainstays of the progun argument used for CCW and the like.
If he was fradulent, then we would have a giant hit.
It is clear, however, that CCW, doesn't increase crime committed by CCW types. That has been studied by others.
On the internet no one knows you are a dog with a CCW permit.
February 5, 2003, 06:13 PM
Only one person has come forward supporting Lott's 1997 survey so far - and he is a lawyer, past NRA Board of Directors member and pretty fervently pro-gun.
Imagine if Bellesiles claimed he did a survey and the only person who came forward to support it was Sarah Brady.
If the allegations are true, then Lott and most of his research is going to be sunk - even though the part being attacked is a completely minor sideline and his research has already stood up to much more robust criticism than Bellesiles ever dreamed of.
As far as the Mary Rosh thing, Lott has admitted that this is true.
February 5, 2003, 09:09 PM
We need to hold ourselves to none but the very highest standards of honesty and integrity, partly because it's the right thing to do, partly because the leftist extremists have no standards of honesty and integrity whatever, and will do anything and everything to further their mindless pursuit of disarming the law-abiding.
February 5, 2003, 10:52 PM
Michelle's a rigorous researcher in her own right, and it does appear from this and the background stories that Lott screwed up.... :(