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.