Inequitable Penalties? The Tales of Two Gun Researchers

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, the piece is horribly slanted to the extent it exaggerates Lott's errors (which to my mind do discredit large portions of his work) and soft-peddle Bellesiles errors (which involved numerous cases of outright fraud).

Anybody who needs a refresher on the myriad ways that Bellesiles sought to mislead people can go here for a handy summary:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_bellesiles.html

Compare that to a critical evaluation of Lott from both sides on the same cite:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

 

[agricola]

Bart,

I hardly think guncite qualifies as a "a critical evaluation of Lott from both sides", in much the same way as HFA doesnt.

 

[Gunstar1]

agricola, your links don't do any better

After glancing over a couple of posts it is quite clear "Deltoid" is as anti gun as gun cite is pro gun.

He is arguing that Lott is wrong about violent crimes actually going up in the UK.

However his entire post misses the point. Tim posts graphs that show the total number went down. The number of crimes may be down, but the RATE per 100,000 has indeed gone up and that is what Lott was talking about in an article that Tim Lambert tries to discount.

Tim says Lott is wrong, that the total number has gone down, not up. Lott did not say the total, he said the RATE went up, which it did.

Then, in other posts he makes smart ass comments or updates then cuts off the ability to respond to it.


If you allow postings, you should not comment on what someone posted then turn off further posts. That is unfair and in many places very biased.

 

[Gunstar1]

for further proof

If he wanted to be unbiased he would also need to discredit the anti-gun movement for all the lies they tell.

Though I do not totally trust Lott, I can say from 20 minutes of reading Tim's blog, he is equally un-trustworthy.

A huge section of reasons why what pro-gun authors say is incorrect, yet not a response or anything about how antigun authors are worse, biased much? In fact he gripes that Lott is citing numbers that no one has used, yet it is easy to find quotes from anti-gun groups that Lott is obviously refuting.

Lott also has responded to press releases from anti-gun groups and then Tim gripes that Lott missed the point of the report. If newspapers are commenting on the press release and Lott is commenting on the press release, I think it is a bit stupid for Tim to then say Lott never read the report (as Tim says"the report never claimed that"). If the release is different than the report (as happens often) then Tim is way off base and shows his bias even clearer.

I may not be able to refute regressions or other things outside of my experience, but I find it funny that he tries to discredit Lott on most of what he does, and mirroring what he says of Lott even the most miniscule reason is enough to claim Lott is wrong, and in fact misses the point entirely of some of Lotts papers. Something he claims Lott does all the time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart,

I hardly think guncite qualifies as a "a critical evaluation of Lott from both sides", in much the same way as HFA doesnt.

Then obviously you didn't bother to actually read the content. I count over 20 links critical of Lott from that webpage; including all of those listed by both you and Tim Lambert.

So why exactly did you think that does not qualfy as a critical evaluation? Not enough pro-Lott links for your taste or did your knee jerk and hit the keyboard?

 

[Gunstar1]

Well, gun cite posts pro and con Lott info. Which as someone posted is actually biased.

However, Tim Lambert's posts only bad responses about Lott, and responses from Lott that are disected in the comments area.
Of coarse Tim posts the last word critical of Lott before shutting down the comments section. Which is unbiased.

You see now?

 

[Waitone]

Lott's odessy demonstrates the absolute need for any pro-second amendment advocate to do it neater and cleaner than the opposition. A lot of good academic work was compromised by flat out dumb actions.

 

[fallingblock]

Tim Lambert vs. John Lott....

is a very interesting conflict.

Some time back, in an effort to shed some light on this recurring theme, I contacted both Dr. Lott and Dr. Lambert.

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

While Dr. Lott prefers not to debate with Lambert in fora such as these, he was very helpful and forthcoming with any information which I requested. I suspect that anyone who approaches John Lott politely would receive the same response.

I believe that there is certainly a clash of personalities involved, and there can be little doubt that Lambert is anti-gun-defensive-use in his outlook.

 

[TimLambert]

After glancing over a couple of posts it is quite clear "Deltoid" is as anti gun as gun cite is pro gun.

He is arguing that Lott is wrong about violent crimes actually going up in the UK.

However his entire post misses the point. Tim posts graphs that show the total number went down. The number of crimes may be down, but the RATE per 100,000 has indeed gone up and that is what Lott was talking about in an article that Tim Lambert tries to discount.

The rate has not gone up. I explained where Lott's numbers were coming from
and linked to the official crime figures. here

If you allow postings, you should not comment on what someone posted then turn off further posts. That is unfair and in many places very biased.

I allow people to post comments and that makes me biased? There is no pleasing some people.

I have disabled comments on posts more than 60 days old to reduce the amount of comment spam I get.

 

[TimLambert]

IThough I do not totally trust Lott, I can say from 20 minutes of reading Tim's blog, he is equally un-trustworthy.

If you want to try smearing me you'll have to do better than that. Here's a challenge for you, if I back up your claim that I am "untrustworthy". Tell us one thing that I have posted on my blog that is wrong. Be specific: quote my exact words and explain why you think what I wrote is wrong. And support your claim with facts and figures instead of just your feelings.

 

[TimLambert]

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the T.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

This is a disgraceful misrepresentation of what happened.

In this thread fallingblock said:

I contacted John Lott a while back and asked him for the details of his discussions with Tim Lambert.

According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.

Now Lott's story about offering me data and being ignored is untrue. He has not sent me any emails or replied to my emails since 1999. fallingblock knows this because I pointed it out at the time.

Lott's research assistant did send me the data from Lott's 2002 survey when I requested from the research assistant. Contrary to fallingblock's claim, I have never said this specific information had not been provided.

If fallingblock believes that Lott provides information when requested, I suggest he ask Lott for the details of the calculations Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that he says comes from his 2002 survey.

 

[Gunstar1]

The rate has not gone up. I explained where Lott's numbers were coming from
and linked to the official crime figures. here
I allow people to post comments and that makes me biased? There is no pleasing some people.

I have disabled comments on posts more than 60 days old to reduce the amount of comment spam I get.

Well you could try having people log in so a spam bot cannot do damage. As I said it is not the fact you close threads, it is the fact that you add sarcastic comments then lock them down. There are several places where a comment is posted and you start another thread and comment on them in there. Whether you mean to or not, it makes you look like an ass. Try either commenting in the same comments area or put a link to where the new comments are in the old thread that has been closed.

Straight from the Britsh Crime Survey:
"The BCS excludes so-called victimless crimes (e.g. drug dealing), crimes such as murder, where the victim is no longer available for interview, and fraud. BCS estimates also exclude sexual offences (due to the small number reported to the survey and concerns about willingness of respondents to disclose such offences)."

So your BCS link does not show murders, drug dealers, fraud, and rape/sexual offences. So if the drug trade or murder rate increases in the UK the BCS will not show it.

Lott talks about "serious violent crime rate" and you respond with a survey that does not count murders, rapes, and drug dealing?

For all I know Lott could be making up the 64% and 118% figures but I do know referencing a survey that does not cover serious violent crime is incorrect to justify why Lott is wrong in his serious violent crime numbers.

Specific enough for you?

 

[Gunstar1]

If you want to try smearing me you'll have to do better than that. Here's a challenge for you, if I back up your claim that I am "untrustworthy". Tell us one thing that I have posted on my blog that is wrong. Be specific: quote my exact words and explain why you think what I wrote is wrong. And support your claim with facts and figures instead of just your feelings.

I am waiting for a response from you Tim. You called me out and I responded, took me 15 minutes to find the flaw in your post. It has been over a day since I posted my proof, I would love to hear your reply.

 

[fallingblock]

Thanks for your reply, Tim....

"Now Lott's story about offering me data and being ignored is untrue. He has not sent me any emails or replied to my emails since 1999. fallingblock knows this because I pointed it out at the time."
*********************************************************

You are making an error in assumption, I'm afraid.

I know that you claim that Lott has been unwilling to provide data to you.

I believe John and his RA's assertion that in fact data has been provided to you as requested.

*********************************************************
"Lott's research assistant did send me the data from Lott's 2002 survey when I requested from the research assistant. Contrary to fallingblock's claim, I have never said this specific information had not been provided."
*********************************************************

So, in fact, data has been provided in response to your request?

*********************************************************
"If fallingblock believes that Lott provides information when requested, I suggest he ask Lott for the details of the calculations Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that he says comes from his 2002 survey."
*********************************************************

Well, Tim, the last time I got in the crossfire between you two, things got very intense very quickly, but I am interested in this issue, and to your credit you do seem willing to look at what Dr. Lott has to offer.

I'll be back if I have anything to report......

 

[TimLambert]

Well you could try having people log in so a spam bot cannot do damage. As I said it is not the fact you close threads, it is the fact that you add sarcastic comments then lock them down.

This is untrue. I already explained that comments are automatically closed on old posts. You could have easily checked to see that this was true. Instead you repeat your falsehood.

Lott talks about "serious violent crime rate" and you respond with a survey that does not count murders, rapes, and drug dealing?

For all I know Lott could be making up the 64% and 118% figures but I do know referencing a survey that does not cover serious violent crime is incorrect to justify why Lott is wrong in his serious violent crime numbers.

This sort of thing is why I asked you to quote my exact words. Let's
look at what I actually wrote

[Lott and Lehrer] claim that “overall violent crime†in England increased by 118%. The first graph at left (from Chapter 5 of Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003) shows how utterly false their claim is. Since 1997, violent crime has declined significantly. Where did their 118% increase come from? Well, the second graph shows the number of violent crimes recorded by the police. To get the increase that Lott and Lehrer claim, all you have to do is use the police numbers and ignore the footnote on the graph, which says (my emphasis):

“There is a discontinuity in the police recorded trend for violence in 1998 when new offence categories were added to police recorded violence, notably common assault, and new crime counting rules were introduced. The numbers of recorded violent crimes before and after this change should not be compared, as they are not on the same basis.â€

And just to be perfectly clear, here are their exact words:

The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%.

You must have read this, since you reported their 64% number. But somehow you failed to notice that they said that overall violent crime (not serious violent crime) increased by 118%.

You also failed to notice that Lott claimed that his increase came from the government report. I pointed out the part of the report that he got it from, but if you want to claim that it same from somewhere else, you had better point it out.

And yes, the BCS does not count fraud and drug-dealing. But those are not violent crimes, so make no difference to the overall violent crime rate.

As for murder and sexual assaults, it misses out on them. But the police figures miss out all the violent crimes that are not reported and all the violent crimes that are not recorded. Which set of figures is closer to the true total nmber of violent crimes? Look at the graphs. In 2002/3 the BCS has 2.5 million, while the police have 1 million. So if both numbers undercount, the BCS number is much more accurate.

None of this stuff is new. Criminologists have known for decades that victim surveys give a more accurate estimate. But Lott uses the police figures because they suit his agenda.

 

[TimLambert]

fallingblock misrepresents things again. Here's the claim that he won't support:

I contacted John Lott a while back and asked him for the details of his discussions with Tim Lambert.

According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.

Either support this or admit that Lott told you an untruth.

I know that you claim that Lott has been unwilling to provide data to you.

Oh, cute. You earlier tried smearing me with this:

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the T.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

This one is false, so you try substituting a new version. Yes Lott has been unwilling to provide data to me. But the only time I said that he hadn't provided the data from his 2002 survey was before he released it. (This was when he was saying that the 2002 survey confirmed his alleged 1997 survey while keeping the 2002 survey data secret.)

I am disgusted by your conduct, fallingblock.

 

[Gunstar1]

Have people log in to post and you wont need a 60 day cut off, and if someone just found your site they can post questions. That is my point.

You assume he used the BCS, you have no proof that is where the info came from since he never mentioned it. It is possible he got the raw data from the government. If so the raw data could be combined in a different way then how the government did in the BCS.

From Lott's article:

The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%.

So the data was released and he could not use the SVC rate of 64% from the BCS because it was not included, but he did use the BCS for the 118%? You are assuming that is where the data came from. I see you want to prove the total has not gone up by using the BCS, but if he did not get the 64% data from the BCS, what makes you think the 118% did?

Your gripe about him using extended data past 1998-1999, he said the data to arrive at 118% was from 1998-1999 to 2002-2003 data so your little gap complaint is not proof in and of itself. You think it might be, but that is not proof.

Did you contact Lott and ask him where he got the data? No I bet you assumed he is using BCS and that was it. Lott does not mention the BCS, he says recent data released showed SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME rate had gone up. Now if he had the raw data and to arrive at a total for violent crimes Lott added the serious violent crime total (murder/sexual assault not in BCS) with violent crime total (assault/robberies, a select group also listed in the BCS) it would show a different number than just the BCS.

Look at the graphs. In 2002/3 the BCS has 2.5 million, while the police have 1 million. So if both numbers undercount, the BCS number is much more accurate

I dont know what catigories Lott used that were also in the BCS, but personally I dont think harrasment is a violent crime. It is possible Lott does not either and removed that data from the computation.
In that case your charts mean nothing. Frankly a report on violent crime that does not include murders and sexual assault is incomplete. If Lott did not rely on the BCS data straight off the page, then using the BCS to disprove him still wrong.

Prove he used only the BCS to get 118% and I am with you all the way. Until you can, you are assuming that is where he got ALL of the information he wrote about in the article. Assumption is not proof.

 

[fallingblock]

Stay calm, Tim

"fallingblock misrepresents things again."

*********************************************************

Uh, how's that, Tim?

**********************************************************
Here's the claim that he won't support:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingblock
I contacted John Lott a while back and asked him for the details of his discussions with Tim Lambert.

According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.

Either support this or admit that Lott told you an untruth.
*********************************************************


I received that assurance from John Lott in a personal email, Tim.

I believe Lott, and you confirmed above that you did indeed request and receive data on the 2002 survey from his RA.

Your assertion that Dr. Lott refused to supply data seems to be contradicted by the fact that he instructed his RA to release the data on the 2002 survey which you requested.


*********************************************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingblock
I know that you claim that Lott has been unwilling to provide data to you.

Oh, cute. You earlier tried smearing me with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallingblock
In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

This one is false, so you try substituting a new version.
*********************************************************

Tim, how is "this one false"?

You agreed above that Lott's assistant sent you the research which you had requested.

*********************************************************
"Yes Lott has been unwilling to provide data to me. But the only time I said that he hadn't provided the data from his 2002 survey was before he released it. (This was when he was saying that the 2002 survey confirmed his alleged 1997 survey while keeping the 2002 survey data secret.)

I am disgusted by your conduct, fallingblock."
*********************************************************


Well, you see Tim, I think that you may be to easily excited by the obvious animosity which you exhibit for not just John Lott's work, but John Lott himself.

Research is, as you know, sifted and sorted, pushed and pulled, validated and vindicated by peer review.

Personal animosity and/or resentment just get in the way of the process.

I've found Dr. Lott to be quite approachable on the details of his research.

And you Tim are quite personable until the subject of John Lott comes up.

What I'd like to see, if possible, is a more amicable process of review between the two of you.

That, it seems, may be too much to hope for.

 

[fallingblock]

I'm back with Dr. Lott's comments, Tim.....

With regards to providing data which you requested:

*********************************************************
"I guess that I don't understand what Lambert is getting at here.
I did not deal with him personally because he was abusive, but I directed my RA to provide him what he wanted.
So I directed my RA to provide him with the data and indeed I believe that he was the first person to receive this particular data. Any other data had he asked for it would have been provided and the RA (James Knowles,
[email protected]) would have answered any questions he
had and I believe that James did answer whatever questions were directed
towards him. The bottom line is that Lambert was given whatever he
asked for."
*********************************************************


On the subject of the 2002 survey:


*********************************************************
Tim Lambert wrote:

""If fallingblock believes that Lott provides information when
requested, I suggest he ask Lott for the details of the calculations
Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that
he says comes from his 2002 survey."
*********************************************************

John Lott's reply:

*********************************************************
"The actual data has been available on one of my websites at
www.johnlott.org since February 2003. The Appendix
of my book, The Bias Against Guns, goes through and discusses the data in depth. I talk about how the survey was done, the questions used in the survey, who did the survey, how it was weighted, etc. there. The www.johnlott.org website also has some downloads discussing the survey debate in general.

On this last point, Lambert has been extremely dishonest.
For example, he has a long list of surveys but he lists the date for
them as the mid 1990s when that was just when a particular paper cites
them as opposed to when virtually all of them were done primarily in
the early 1980s or earlier. Anyway, if you tell me exactly what you
want, I can point to the discussions that I have written up. The
book's appendix isn't very long and the paper on the surveys at
the above website won't take very long to read (though no one seems to
have read it)."
*********************************************************


And finally, on the 2002 survey:

John Lott wrote:

*********************************************************
".....actually read what I wrote on the brandishing issue. Here is the quote from my book:

Even though the survey I conducted during the fall 2002 indicates that
simply brandishing a gun successfully stops crimes 95 percent of the
time that guns are used defensively and other surveys have also found
high rates, it is very rare to see such a story. No conspiracy
explanation is really needed to explain why an editor finds a dead body
on the ground very newsworthy (particularly if it is a sympathetic
person like a victim). Take a story in which a woman brandishes a gun
and a criminal flees, no shots are fired, no crime is committed, and no
one is even sure what crime would have been committed had a weapon not
been drawn. Nothing bad actually happened. It is not emotionally
gripping enough to make the story “newsworthy.â€
____________
The point here is a simple one.
I want to show that the media is biased. Therefore a lower percent of brandishing would make my case stronger. Instead with the 95 percent figure I was providing an explanation for why the media doesn't cover a lot of cases. If he believes that the 95 percent number is too high, the results are BIASED against my claim."
*********************************************************

Tim, this is obviously NOT a guy who is unresponsive to polite requests for any of his data.

Is that old saying -
"getting more flies with honey than vinegar"?
used here in Australia?

 

[TimLambert]

Have people log in to post and you wont need a 60 day cut off, and if someone just found your site they can post questions. That is my point.

I want to make it easy for people to post. Logging in is a hassle. The only comments I was getting on old posts were spam.

You assume he used the BCS,

No, my point is that he didn't use the BCS and he should have.

 

[TimLambert]

"According to Lott, he has offered several times to provide data for Tim and Lambert does not reply.

I believe Lott, and you confirmed above that you did indeed request and receive data on the 2002 survey from his RA.

Which contradicts his earlier statement. If I didn't reply to this offer, how did I request the data?

In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

Tim, how is "this one false"?

It's false because I did not claim that Lott had not provided the results of the 2002 survey.

 

[TimLambert]

I did not deal with him personally because he was abusive,

I was not abusive. You can see my email to him at the start of the affair here. Nor is true that he chose not deal with me personally. The AEI posted Knowles' email as the contact to request the data. I contacted him directly.

I directed my RA to provide him with the data and indeed I believe that he was the first person to receive this particular data.

Not so. Others had it before me.

On this last point, Lambert has been extremely dishonest.
For example, he has a long list of surveys but he lists the date for
them as the mid 1990s when that was just when a particular paper cites
them as opposed to when virtually all of them were done primarily in
the early 1980s or earlier.

Untrue. Look here. I cite the source of the information in the standard way as Author/Year of publication, but no-one could possibly believe that was the year the survey was conducted, since I also give that for some of the surveys. Nor is true that "virtually all" were done in the early 80s or earlier, unless you think that four out of nine is "virtually all".

Tim, this is obviously NOT a guy who is unresponsive to polite requests for any of his data.

He hasn't provided the data I asked for, which was the details of the calculations Lott made to come up with the 95% of DGUs involve just brandishing that he says comes from his 2002 survey. And yes, I've read what is on his book and on his website. There is little detail there. If you want to see the sort of details I am asking for, look here

 

[Gunstar1]

I want to make it easy for people to post. Logging in is a hassle. The only comments I was getting on old posts were spam.

It is one thing to have to login to read a website like newpapers do and I would agree is a hassle, however logging in to make a comment is not. Packing.org is a good example of what I am talking about.

No, my point is that he didn't use the BCS and he should have.

Why should he use the BCS when it does not count murder and sexual assault? Are they not violent crimes?
Serious violent crimes are a subset of violent crimes. If serious violent crimes are not counted in the BCS then the TRUE VIOLENT CRIME TOTAL is not complete, and cannot be unless you don't believe rapes and murders are violent crimes.

What the USA considers Violent Crime as:
murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault

The BCS considers violent crime as:
robbery, aggravated assualt, harrasment, and assualt where slight or no injury occured.

Now please tell me how the BCS is more accurate in telling violent crimes when it does not include murder and rapes, yet does include harrasment and assault where nothing violent actually happened? Remeber, these are people remebering past situations that may or may not legally be an assault, and may be having recall bias.

The BCS can show a nice downward trend even if the murder rate was going through the roof.

So my questions to you, do you believe that murder and rape are or are not violent crimes? If you think they are violent crimes, then the BCS is inaccurate for true violent crime data.

Is harrasment and assualt where no injury occured a violent crime? If you say no, then the BCS is inaccurate for true violent crime data.

If you remove harrasment and simple assault from the BCS and add in murders and rapes, you come to a different violent crime total. The BCS is misleading at best since it includes non-violent data like harrasment and does not include violent crimes like murder and rape.

Now if you still don't agree, please tell me how the BCS is more accurate when it includes non-violent data like harrasment and does not include violent crimes like murder and rape. If you can answer that logically, I will gladly go away.

 

[fallingblock]

Well, Tim...it seems we're back to the impasse again....

"I was not abusive."
*********************************************************

Obviously Dr. Lott feels that you were at some point.


*********************************************************
"Not so. Others had it before me."
*********************************************************

Perhaps you were the second? Third?


*********************************************************
"I cite the source of the information in the standard way as Author/Year of publication, but no-one could possibly believe that was the year the survey was conducted, since I also give that for some of the surveys. Nor is true that "virtually all" were done in the early 80s or earlier, unless you think that four out of nine is "virtually all".
*********************************************************


I hope this attempt at promoting more direct and perhaps civil communication is of some benefit to the research review process....


*********************************************************
"He hasn't provided the data I asked for..."
*********************************************************


So, we're down to requesting what, precisely?

If I am to be of use in this debate,

I need to be able to relay accurately the request for
data which I have not the training to utilize.


*********************************************************
"If I didn't reply to this offer, how did I request the data?"
*********************************************************


Perhaps this is not one of the instances which Dr. Lott referred to?


*********************************************************
Originally Posted by fallingblock
In response to Tim's claims that Dr. Lott had not provided specific information when he (Lambert) requested it, Dr. Lott provided me with the name of the R.A. who had provided Tim with the information.

Tim, how is "this one false"?


It's false because I did not claim that Lott had not provided the results of the 2002 survey.
*********************************************************

No, it is true because Lott was (and is) willing to respond to polite requests for his data.

Your original claim was that Lott had refused to provide data as requested.
Did you specify the data which he refused to supply in your original complaint?

General semantics 101 all over again!

 

[GEM]

Yesterday, I was in a seminar with John Lott, Gary Kleck and a set of critics of his work.

There are technical debates about the validity of his claims. However, Lott was there and quite professional. He stated again to the assembled professional critics that he would be happy to supply his data. He looked his critics in the eye and they seem to have respect for him, even if they disagree. I heard the author of a new piece criticizing his work saying that Lott was a good researcher and the debates are scientific in nature.

A couple of years ago, I also was in one with Clayton Cramer, Lindquist and the other critics of Bellesiles. Cramer is obviously RKBA but Lindquist explicity says that he isn't a big gun fan. Bellesiles didn't get taken down, lose his prizes, his job, etc. because he was correct. The Chronicle of Higher Ed. had two cover stories on him, first that he was the author of a wonderful book on gun myths! Then they reported honestly on his fall and problems.

There are professional journals that would happily critique Lott and conventions where such presentations would be appropriate. That's a bigger venue than blogs.