Posted on 12/22/2007 8:06:47 PM PST by neverdem
Economist John Lott discusses the benefits of guns--and the hazards of pointing them out.
Until recently, when he bought a 9-mm Ruger after his own research impressed upon him the value of gun ownership, John Lott had no personal experience with firearms, aside from one day of riflery in summer camp when he was 12. That fact did not stop a reviewer of Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press), from labeling him a "gun nut." Writing in The American Prospect, Edward Cohn also identified Lott as "a leading loon of the Chicago School of economics, known for its ultra-market ideology." But that was gentle--a backhanded compliment, even--compared to the attacks from anti-gun activists, who accused Lott of producing his landmark study at the behest of the gun industry.
Lott, now a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, used to be the John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago. That position, like similar ones at other major universities, was endowed by a foundation based on the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin, former chairman of the Olin Corporation. Among many other things, the Olin Corporation makes Winchester ammunition. These facts led Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center to conclude that "Lott's work was, in essence, funded by the firearms industry"--a charge that was echoed by other gun control ad-vocates, including Charles Schumer, then a Democratic representative from New York and now a senator...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Bump
The problem isn’t his work, but the games he has played that have made him look shady.
I respect his work, but after hearing him give a lecture, I can tell you what my impression of him in person is: BORING!
What games? I haven’t heard this mentioned before. Are you talking about some kind of cheating in the studies or something outside his professional life?
And when he was questioned on the 2000 interviews he claimed to have conducted for More Guns, Less Crime, he gave the Bellesiles’-like claim that his hard drive had crashed.
I just want to be careful hitching too closely to someone who is so questionable. Just because we like what he has to say doesn't mean we should hop aboard. The truth is on our side so there's no need to cook the books, so to speak, IMHO.
Admittedly, these are anti-gun pages, but I think they make some good points and explain "Mary Rosh" and other baggage.
I read More Guns, Less Crime. It is basically a statistical analysis, not based on anecdotes or interviews. Any interviews he may have used for illustrative purposes, which I frankly don't even recall, are irrelevant to the robust findings.
Your comparison to Bellesiles is false, Bellesiles made up phoney data that was discredited. Lott didn't "cook the books" because his results are based on the public record. Anyone can scrutinize them. They have held up under leftwing attack..
If you get distracted by gossip or smear campaigns you will have missed the whole substance of his work.
What do you think of the claims here: http://timlambert.org/lott/
So, what’s the state of play? IMAO, it’s like this:
1: the Mary Rosh sock puppet: Lott was guilty of using an anonymous handle to post comments on the interweb. This is not quite the same thing as posting at FR as “Gondring” or “Absalom”, but has not, after consideration, refuted his findings in his published papers. In fact, Professor Lambert’s continued harping, over-playing, and general snarkiness on this issue has compromised his ability to be accepted as an unbiased observer of Professor Lott’s work. It seems personal this point.
Defensive gun use survey: Lott is accused of making this up. Lott states that this was an afterthought, a quick telephone survey, which has been subsequently re-valided by other work. The claim is this: in the vast majority of cases, persons do not actually have to shoot at, or hit, a criminal assailant to derive a benefit from being armed. This is common sense: Lott hypothesized that a potential crime victim would much more frequently simply say “hey, back off, I have a gun”, or brandish a gun, rather than capping rounds in order to deter an offender. This is almost certainly true, but it contradicts a famously disingenuous finding of the 1995 NEJM Kellerman study that possession of a firearm was not useful in deterring crime.
Bottom line: the campaign to discredit John Lott has been marked by an exceptional level of prevarication, misinformation, innuendo, and general incivility. Lott has emerged as a still-credible investigator, whose original findings have become recognized as almost dispositive regarding crime rates and civilian gun ownership. However, anyone who would dare to undertake similar research has been warned that he or she will be subjected to an intense campaign of intimidation and harassment, which one can only assume has chilled honest debate in this area.
Heaven forfend. He was caught using a pseudonym to toot his own horn. Last that I heard, no one has successfully attacked his argument that the spread of shall issue concealed carry privileges has led to an overall decrease in violent crime in the U.S. He also has noted the increase in crime in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, especially home invasion in the U.K., as gun control spread in those countries.
That is to say: A classic left-wing attack.
When the truth hurts, then lie, mislead, insinuate and attack.
As one of these folks--who never reported the incident to employer (who did not allow firearms on the premises) or the police--I can certainly believe it is a large percentage of the time.
1995 NEJM Kellerman
Kellerman...>hack< >spit<
Thanks for the info on Lott. The Mary Rosh garbage leaves a bad taste in my mouth; even if his conclusions are correct, it doesn't look good.
But that was my original point, up-thread.
Agreed. Remember, though, Lott's indiscretion was, and continues to be misrepresented by the enemies of freedom. It is also the sort of behavior that tends to creep out us squares, which is why it is the sockpuppet that will never die. Lott's research has posed a huge problem for the folks who want civilians disarmed, and when they could not discredit the research, they went after the man.
They have come up with very little, despite a decade of effort. We should not throw Lott under the bus based on Tim Lambert's snark.
Lott's choice of pistols is suspect, though....
That's all they've got to work with.
Maybe it will be enough. They've been doing pretty well for themselves so far.
It's nice that his research reveals that the utilitarian arguments of those opposed to gun rights are wrong. But the simple truth is that utilitarian arguments regarding fundamental rights are more than just wrong.
Suppose that what Lott has showed to be false was, in fact true, what difference would it make?
Suppose that reduced restrictions on legal carry did result in more crime, or that increased restrictions on legal carry reduced in less crime. What relevance would that have on whether a nurse, working third shift in an inner city hospital, should be allowed to carry a gun?
Should we restrict her freedoms because of fears of what other people might do?
Absolutely not.
self ping to read later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.