cuchulainn
Member
There's still Gary Kleck
A New Book Refutes John Lott - And More
- Thread starter 2dogs
- Start date
- Status
publius
Member
Forgot to mention that
To whom Lott apparently falsely attributed stuff he made up.
To whom Lott apparently falsely attributed stuff he made up.
I for one want to see the data and how it was used in this new book before I make any judgement on its credibility or lack thereof. As for those who are so willing to dismiss Lott's work - please show me the data and evidence that refutes it. If you can't then you are engaging in the liberal’s favorite game of trashing the messenger, and then using the public perception you have thereby created to dismiss their work.
If Bellesiles had been guilty of the "horrible" sins associated with Lott so far - he would still have his prize, his book would still be in print, he would still have his position at Emery, and he would still be lionized by gun control advocates and the press.
On the other hand, some here have already - (in a fit or self-righteous pique and/or blind panic at any hint that Lott made a mistake in judgement or may be besmirched by unproven allegations) - thrown not only the man, but the primary substance of his research out the window. Give me a break, the man has a well-documented body of work that has held up under years of aggressive attack by gun control advocates and their acolytes in the academic community. I find it sad that some seem so eager now to aid them in their work.
I do not advocate blind loyalty to any man or to the work of any man - but before I will dismiss Lott's work I want to see the evidence that it is wrong. I suggest that anyone who is truly interested in the truth should do the same.
If Bellesiles had been guilty of the "horrible" sins associated with Lott so far - he would still have his prize, his book would still be in print, he would still have his position at Emery, and he would still be lionized by gun control advocates and the press.
On the other hand, some here have already - (in a fit or self-righteous pique and/or blind panic at any hint that Lott made a mistake in judgement or may be besmirched by unproven allegations) - thrown not only the man, but the primary substance of his research out the window. Give me a break, the man has a well-documented body of work that has held up under years of aggressive attack by gun control advocates and their acolytes in the academic community. I find it sad that some seem so eager now to aid them in their work.
I do not advocate blind loyalty to any man or to the work of any man - but before I will dismiss Lott's work I want to see the evidence that it is wrong. I suggest that anyone who is truly interested in the truth should do the same.
Sergeant Bob
Member
The other Lott controversy
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.
________________________________________________
Lindgren's report
That means that the source that Lott gave for the 98% figure has shifted over time:
1. In the 1998 edition of More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott attributes the 98% figure to “national surveys.â€
2. Elsewhere in 1997 and 1998, Lott appears to attribute the 98% figure to “such polls†as the “Los Angeles Times, Gallup and Peter Hart Research Associates.â€
3. In a May 13, 1999 letter and in 1999 revisions to the 2000 edition of his book, Lott attributes the 98% number instead to his own 1997 study, saying in the letter that the 98% figure is not based on Kleck.
4. In almost identical February 9, 2000 and March 1, 2000 articles for the Independence Institute, Lott switches to attributing the 98% figure, not to his own study, but to Gary Kleck’s (which does not support this figure).
5. In the Criminologist (Sept./Oct. 2000), Lott switches back to claiming that the 98% figure came from Lott’s own 1997 study, not from Kleck, which is where things stand as of this report.
publius
Member
SIGArmed,
The Sarge there is better informed than I am. I just like reading Michelle Malkin over at townhall.com. She really tore Lott a new one over this recently. She called the whole Mary thing "beyond creepy." I thought that was funny, though I don't agree. I don't have any real problem with Lott's invention of Mary, other than it seems pathetic. My problem is his "dog ate my research" story.
Think about what that means. In Lott, we had a valuable weapon for the gun rights community. Before parts of his work began to wither under fire, the whole of it was instrumental in gun debates nationwide, especially regarding CWPs. He's actually part of the reason I finally gave in and got myself a CWP. I was thinking, one day, John Lott is going to count one more person because of me, and what he finds will piss off the gun grabbers and comfort me.
By fabricating part of his research, he's destroyed it all. He's become Lott the Liar. Even the good work he's done is greatly reduced in value.
My only comfort is that his research will no longer be used to encourage people to believe that you can stop a crime by merely brandishing your gun 98% of the time. Lott made that dangerous piece of nonsense up.
The Sarge there is better informed than I am. I just like reading Michelle Malkin over at townhall.com. She really tore Lott a new one over this recently. She called the whole Mary thing "beyond creepy." I thought that was funny, though I don't agree. I don't have any real problem with Lott's invention of Mary, other than it seems pathetic. My problem is his "dog ate my research" story.
Think about what that means. In Lott, we had a valuable weapon for the gun rights community. Before parts of his work began to wither under fire, the whole of it was instrumental in gun debates nationwide, especially regarding CWPs. He's actually part of the reason I finally gave in and got myself a CWP. I was thinking, one day, John Lott is going to count one more person because of me, and what he finds will piss off the gun grabbers and comfort me.
By fabricating part of his research, he's destroyed it all. He's become Lott the Liar. Even the good work he's done is greatly reduced in value.
My only comfort is that his research will no longer be used to encourage people to believe that you can stop a crime by merely brandishing your gun 98% of the time. Lott made that dangerous piece of nonsense up.
Hmmmm. The blog seems to be at odds with Sergeant Bob's source. So I see the jury as being still out on this.
But if it is true that Lott fabricated the evidence, then we are left with...
...with friends like these, who needs enemies?
<sigh> When will people learn that truth is the most potent weapon?
But if it is true that Lott fabricated the evidence, then we are left with...
...with friends like these, who needs enemies?
<sigh> When will people learn that truth is the most potent weapon?
bad_dad_brad
Member
I have read Lott's book. Personally, I find it a bit weak regarding the argument that more guns in the hands of responsible citizens means less crime. I agree with his premise however. He did a better job showing how ineffective and stupid most gun laws are.
Sometimes books like this actually have a detrimental affect on gun owner's rights. No anti will ever read it.
I am just surprised it took the anti crowd so long to refute it.
Sometimes books like this actually have a detrimental affect on gun owner's rights. No anti will ever read it.
I am just surprised it took the anti crowd so long to refute it.
ojibweindian
Member
This is crap. Pure and simple.
We do not need "studies" and "facts" to "prove" a FREEDOM or FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT exists.
It's quite simple. People have a right and the freedom to defend themselves, speak, own property, etc, etc, etc.
We do not need "studies" and "facts" to "prove" a FREEDOM or FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT exists.
It's quite simple. People have a right and the freedom to defend themselves, speak, own property, etc, etc, etc.
Sergeant Bob
Member
Critics target data in 'More Guns, Less Crime'
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Although others have confirmed that Mr. Lott's computer was wiped out in a literal crash — a bookcase fell on it — evidence of his 1997 survey has been harder to find.
"I lost essentially all my data for everything I'd written that wasn't co-authored," Mr. Lott said in a telephone interview. "So what happened was that I spent that summer and the next two years replacing all the data. The problem with the survey data is that you can't go back to a primary source and replace that."
_________________________________________________
If I faced the prospect of spending 2 1/2 years replacing data for a book, I would try to find a way to retrieve the data from the "crashed" hard drive. In most hard drive "crashes", physical or otherwise, the data is retrieveable.
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Although others have confirmed that Mr. Lott's computer was wiped out in a literal crash — a bookcase fell on it — evidence of his 1997 survey has been harder to find.
"I lost essentially all my data for everything I'd written that wasn't co-authored," Mr. Lott said in a telephone interview. "So what happened was that I spent that summer and the next two years replacing all the data. The problem with the survey data is that you can't go back to a primary source and replace that."
_________________________________________________
If I faced the prospect of spending 2 1/2 years replacing data for a book, I would try to find a way to retrieve the data from the "crashed" hard drive. In most hard drive "crashes", physical or otherwise, the data is retrieveable.
Yeah, even if a bookcase fell on it while the disk was actually reading data, causing what is known as a 'head crash', most of the data can be retrieved. There are oodles of companies that will take your money and give you your data back. Generally around $800 is the starting point, and figure maybe 3 times that for a really bad crash.
But what's that compared to the cost of publishing a book? The publishing house could have picked up the tab with no problem.
BTW, ojibweindian, it's not about proving a right exists. It's about winning a political battle, which means persuading the Great Mass of Ignorant Americans to take your side. It's about the Middle of the Roaders who VOTE. Just asserting a right that they don't understand and have been taught doesn't exist will NOT help us.
But what's that compared to the cost of publishing a book? The publishing house could have picked up the tab with no problem.
BTW, ojibweindian, it's not about proving a right exists. It's about winning a political battle, which means persuading the Great Mass of Ignorant Americans to take your side. It's about the Middle of the Roaders who VOTE. Just asserting a right that they don't understand and have been taught doesn't exist will NOT help us.
ojibweindian
Member
I'm not so sure about winning the political battle with studies, etc. Let's face it, most of the studies, on either side, are so hotly contested, and the authors so discredited, that these studies, I believe, contribute to the confusion and the vitriol of the debate.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Quartus, a drive can crash and take out the entire drive, if you leave it running after the crash. (Takes a while, as debris bounces around inside it, and damage snowballs.) Had it happen to one of mine. 
Maybe newer drives are tougher. I hope so, anyway.
But I think the key point to recall is that the survey in question, which has now been replicated, had nada to do with Lott's "More guns, less crime" thesis. It related to one solitary sentence in the book. Bellesiles' fraud was from one end of the book to the other, he didn't HAVE a book once you took out everything wrong in it.
At this point the worst that can really be said about that survey is that the sample size was too small to make it significant. Which is bad enough, but not Bellesiles scale wrongdoing.
Maybe newer drives are tougher. I hope so, anyway.But I think the key point to recall is that the survey in question, which has now been replicated, had nada to do with Lott's "More guns, less crime" thesis. It related to one solitary sentence in the book. Bellesiles' fraud was from one end of the book to the other, he didn't HAVE a book once you took out everything wrong in it.
At this point the worst that can really be said about that survey is that the sample size was too small to make it significant. Which is bad enough, but not Bellesiles scale wrongdoing.
Sergeant Bob
Member
Stating that in 98% of incidences involving the defensive use of guns no shots were fired has nothing to do with a book about the defensive use of guns? I think it's very important.
That's moral relativism, he isn't as bad as Bellesile's, so it's OK?
Actually, the worst that could be said is he lied outright (if the reports are true), and his credibility is suspect. If he started the book with a lie, what reason is there to believe anything else he writes?
The difference between us and the anti's (ideally) is we refuse to compromise our principles, and do not accept lies and junk science (even from people on our side), just because it fits our agenda.
Brett Bellmore
Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stating that in 98% of incidences involving the defensive use of guns no shots were fired has nothing to do with a book about the defensive use of guns? I think it's very important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has very little to do with the question of whether concealed carry reform reduces crime rates. Or else one presumes Lott would have expended more than one sentence on the subject in his book. Look, it was just a passing mention!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's moral relativism, he isn't as bad as Bellesile's, so it's OK?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He isn't as as bad as Bellesiles, so he isn't as bad. That's not moral relativism, that's a sense of proportion. Jaywalkers and serial killers aren't in the same league.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the worst that could be said is he lied outright (if the reports are true), and his credibility is suspect. If he started the book with a lie, what reason is there to believe anything else he writes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, to be precise, the worst that could be said with any certainty is that the sample size was too small for the result to be significant. Admittedly, people can say anything they want, if they're just blowing off steam, and don't care whether they can back it up with evidence.
The hard drive crash has been confirmed. A second survey has produced comparable results. Maybe we could ask Bellesiles to go back and take another look at the San Francisco court records that burned before he was born, and see if he gets the same results?
I'm not happy that Lott has proven to have feet, (And shins!) of clay. But he's no Bellesiles, and that's for sure. The worst that's been proven of Lott is that he's occasionally sloppy on minor points, and perhaps a tacky self promoter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stating that in 98% of incidences involving the defensive use of guns no shots were fired has nothing to do with a book about the defensive use of guns? I think it's very important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has very little to do with the question of whether concealed carry reform reduces crime rates. Or else one presumes Lott would have expended more than one sentence on the subject in his book. Look, it was just a passing mention!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's moral relativism, he isn't as bad as Bellesile's, so it's OK?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He isn't as as bad as Bellesiles, so he isn't as bad. That's not moral relativism, that's a sense of proportion. Jaywalkers and serial killers aren't in the same league.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, the worst that could be said is he lied outright (if the reports are true), and his credibility is suspect. If he started the book with a lie, what reason is there to believe anything else he writes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, to be precise, the worst that could be said with any certainty is that the sample size was too small for the result to be significant. Admittedly, people can say anything they want, if they're just blowing off steam, and don't care whether they can back it up with evidence.
The hard drive crash has been confirmed. A second survey has produced comparable results. Maybe we could ask Bellesiles to go back and take another look at the San Francisco court records that burned before he was born, and see if he gets the same results?
I'm not happy that Lott has proven to have feet, (And shins!) of clay. But he's no Bellesiles, and that's for sure. The worst that's been proven of Lott is that he's occasionally sloppy on minor points, and perhaps a tacky self promoter.
- Status
