Search results for query: *

fallingblock wrote: "He says he did, you say he didn't" Not exactly. After I said that he didn't, he changed his story, saying that the data is publicly available. Which is sort of true -- some of it is, but no-one can replicate the results he calims to get from that data. So you can tell...

fallingblock, if you think something I've written is false, perhaps you could, like, tell us what it is? I seem to recall that you emailed Lott and he told you that he offered several times to provide data to me and that I did not reply. Now *that* was a false statement, wasn't it?

Yes, he really had a hard drive crash, just as Emory really had a flood. It doesn't show that he lost the survey data in the crash any more than Emory having a flood shows that Bellesiles' data was lost in that flood. What is interesting is that he produce a half dozen witnesses to prove...

Carl, your numbers are incorrect. Kleck's 1993 survey found 76% brandishing. His 1988 paper did not put forward any number. There have been nine published surveys that have estimates of the brandishing percentage, and none of them have been close to the number that Lott claimed he found...

They are calling for a rule that would prevent US government funds being spent, directly or indirectly, on insecticide treated netting. That would help prevent the use of netting. I think that the experts on malaria should be allowed to decide the best way to fight it -- and they seem to think...

Yes Radagast, if I am publishing false statements about other groups that would throw my statements about Lott into disrepute. However, I'm not publishing false statements. Something you could have discovered if you had bothered to take a few minutes to investigate the matter. I think this is...

Blatant liar is accurate Carl Brown points to Kleck's survey getting about the same number of DGUs as Lott's alleged survey as evidence that he carried out a survey. But he ignores the fact that Kleck's survey got a hugely different number for the percentage of defender's that fired their gun...

So Carl, you are trying to claim that Lindgren wrote his report about Lott's mystery survey to get back at Lindgren for taking down Bellesiles? And it's funny that you accuse me of quibbling when you mount one of the most quibbling defences of Lott ever seen. Do you have any substantive...

This is not true. You should read Wilson's dissent and not rely on Lott's fabrications.

cuchulainn, yes Lott shouldn't exagerated, but he does this all the time. And when we're trying to figure whether Lott is lying or Nagin is lying, the track record of the two gentlemen is quite relevent. There are three positions on clustering: A You don't need it for the reasons given in...

To go through Lott's "substantive" points: 1. Lott misrepresents Wilson's dissent. Wilson only disagreed with the other 13 panel members about whether there was evidence that carry laws reduced murder. He did not dissent from their conclusion that there was no credible evidence that the law...

Art, you might want to look at Lott's claim again: So, no, it wasn't "deal with" by ignoring it, but by examining his data and models and finding them inadequate.

Oh, and TDPerk, here are Lott's exact words from The Bias Against Guns: How is this compatible with his new claim that the panel was set up to "deal with" his research?

TDPerk, thanks for proving my point. All Lott has to do is claim that the panel is stacked with gun-control advocates and you think he has won the argument. (Though if the panel was made up of gun-control advocates, you would think he would be able to produce examples of them, well, advocating...

Sorry, but Lott's argument is that we should discount the panel's finding because of their alleged anti-gun bias. To prove their anti-gun bias he offers this unlikely story about a plot to "deal with" him. We can go into the details of their analysis if you want, though. Are their any...

So tell me, if Lott thought that the committee had been set up to "deal with" him, why did he, at the time, and later in his book say that it had been designed to ignore his research?

So I checked with Dan Nagin. He wrote:

SHOOT1SAM, the guy you are thinking of is neither Kleck nor Lott, but James Wright. See James D. Wright, "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," The Public Interest, 91 (Spring 1988):23-29. cuchulainn, there was no such exchange. If you were conspiring to “deal with†Lott, would you do it...

Dear Shoot1SAM, you are mistaken. Lott has never published anything in support of gun control.

My favourite bit from Lott's response: Yeah, and then Nagin twirled his mustache and laughed "Muhahahhhaaaa". Is it possible for you lot to be more gullible?