John Lott RESPONDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scarcely well said.

It's pointlessly said.

In this case, our enemy's enemy is one of our best advocates, and one who has been terribly ill used by his opponents--no misjudgements about his response to that changes the worth of his arguments, which have not been credibly challenged.

Given the views of the personnel making up this panel, I am not surprised they made obvious errors in coming to the conclusion the CCW does not lower crime--I am astonished they even came to so "reality based" a conclusion as that CCW laws do not raise crime.

The expectation that was met is that they want more government money to study the issue longer.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Uh, TDPerk, I wasn't referring to John Lott. That's a line in my sig. I posted something, realized it wasn't necessary, then went back and edited to post to a single period.
 
My favourite bit from Lott's response:
I originally overheard Phil Cook and Dan Nagin discussing the need for a panel to “deal with†me in the same way that an earlier panel had “dealt with Isaac†Ehrlich’s work showing that the death penalty deterred murder. They agreed and Nagin said that he would talk to Al Blumstein about setting up such a panel. Needless to say, that is what ended up happening.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and then Nagin twirled his mustache and laughed "Muhahahhhaaaa".

Is it possible for you lot to be more gullible?
 
My memory damn sure ain't what it used to be, but when John Lott started out with his research, way back when, wasn't he, at that time, one of those who was actually in favor of gun control laws? I seem to recall that he undertook his research initially, to "prove" the effectiveness of, and the need for more, gun control laws. As one in what seems to be the minority, and by that I mean a scientist/researcher who can objectively look at his results, he came to the conclusion that he was 180 degrees out-of-whack.

Anyone else recall this? Or am I totally whacked????? :uhoh:

Sam
 
TimLambert,

(Remember my memory disclaimer) I don't remember him "publishing" anything in support of gun control, I just seem to remember something he wrote when he first came into national prominence for his pro-gun research, that he had gone into it, maybe not exactly in support of gun control but at least "believing" in it and looking to prove and/or promote it, at that time. and that he was surprised to learn of its fallacies.

Sam
 
Digressing for a moment about gun-control researchers: Gary Kleck began as a somewhat anti-gun person. He joked against both the NRA and the gun-control group; he was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU", to quote the man.

A worthwhile read is "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. (Univ. of Fla Press; 1985) In the appendices it was stated that they all began as either gun-neutral or mildly anti-gun. What they discovered during their research turned them toward "neutral-plus" or at least mildly pro-gun. They have since had other works published. (The primary conclusion of Under The Gun was that no gun law ever passed in Florida had ever affected crime rates.)

Note that these four people are primarily statisticians...

FWIW,

Art
 
I believe that I have been correctly corrected! It almost certainly is Gary Kleck about whom I was thinking.

Thanks,
Sam
 
Aw, guys, Tim is unhappy that we don't support his attack blogging...

"Is it possible for you lot to be more gullible?"
*********************************************************

But Lambert won't go and play the game. :rolleyes:
 
Lott's change

From Second Edition of More Guns Less Crime, Epilogue page 167.

"Before I had started this research, my home had been a "gunn-free zone". More than banning real gins, however, my wife had insisted that our children not even play with toy guns because she didn't want her children growing up to be comfortable even around toy guns."

"However, since my research into this area we have indeed purchased a gun."

So I would say that there was a change in mindset on the part of Lott, would't you?

Cheers,
Mike.
 
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 where he could listen to you? And while Lott attacked the panel when it was first set up, his complaint was that it had been designed to ignore his research, not that it had been set up to “deal with†him.
Lott also claims:
I think that Lindgren is a biased observer. He was upset after a critical piece that I published on a paper of his work in 2003 and his attacks started shortly after that. Further his attacks are untrue.
Click to expand...
However, if you look at Lindgren’s report you will notice that Lott chose Lindgren to conduct the investigation and that the original version of the report was written in 2002. Which is before 2003. It seems that Lott’s critical article was payback for Lindgren’s report, rather than the other way around.
 
cuchulainn, there was no such exchange. If you were conspiring to “deal with†Lott, would you do it where he could listen to you?
Click to expand...
Maybe there was such an exchange; maybe there wasn't. Do people sometimes overhear bad things being said about them? Yes they do. But it is ultimately an uprovable claim one way or the other. People whose bias favors Lott will believe him right away (perhaps making them gullible). People like you whose bias goes against Lott will dismiss his claim out of hand (perhaps making you just as gullible in your own way). The rest of us will shrug our shoulders and say, "Who knows? It's certainly possible, but does seem somewhat improbable."

As for your bias, Tim, it does exist. Perhaps you didn't start out that way. Perhaps you started out innocently seeking to clarify and understand Lott's work with absolutely no ill feeling about him or his conclusions whatsoever. But looking at your blog and other writings it's pretty evident that you've gone beyond bias to something that is accurately described with such adjectives as visceral and bellicose.

As unbelievable as you think Lott is -- and he does have a credibility problem right now -- you've let your emotions cause you to appear just as unbelievalbe.
 
So I checked with Dan Nagin. He wrote:
I assure you that I had no such conversation with Phil or Al. I played absolutely no role is setting up this panel or defining its agenda. As a member of the Committee on Law and Justice I was aware of its formation but played no active role its organization.
Click to expand...
 
Like I said, Tim, maybe the conversation did occur; maybe it didn't. It boils down to a "Did Too! Did Not!" exchange, and is ultimately unprovable one way or the other.

Lest I be branded gullible, I'll take neither Lott nor Nagin at their word on this.
 
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?
 
I have no idea, Tim. But whatever the answer, it wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove Lott's claim of overhearing the alleged conversation. We're dealing with a "Did Too! Did Not!" exchange.

We can either ignore that the situation is unprovable and fall behind the fellow whose claim best fits our bias, or we can acknowledge that we can never know for sure and maintain some objectivity.

And incidentally, the answer about the alleged conversation is beside the point. Lott's work stands or falls regardless of whether Cook and Nagin had the conversation. The panel's review of his work stands or falls regardless of whether the conversation took place.

It is possible for the panel to have been as biased as Lott claims, but their work still stand up to scrutiny. On the other hand, it is possible for the panel to have been paragons of objectivity, yet their work nonetheless be bogus.

You seem to be focusing on a side issue, while you should be looking at the facts presented by the panel. You really seem to have gone far beyond "Is Lott's work valid" to a focus on "Is Lott a bad guy." You've let your emotions (frustration?) take over, and it's giving you the appearance, at least, of lost objectivity.
 
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 errors in the panel's analysis that you can point to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Double Barreled Double Standards/John Lott
Replies
4
Views
726
BogBabe
B
S
  • Locked
A John Lott article run by Fox News
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
TimLambert
T
Justin
  • Locked
John Lott sues "Freakonomics" author Steven Levitt
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
9K
Carl N. Brown
Carl N. Brown
W
  • Locked
> Handgun-Free America Disavows Statement by NRA Spokesman John Lott
Replies
7
Views
999
Art Eatman
A
2
  • Locked
Anybody see "Hardball" last night?
Replies
5
Views
599
rperry03
R
Back
Top