The Bellesiles of the Right? Another Firearms Scholar (John Lott) Whose Dog Ate His Data

Slate ^ | 2/3/2003 | Timothy Noah

[CatoRenasci]

Even if he's on our side, dishonesty in his work is unacceptable. The deceptive posting was plain dishonest. It's one thing to use an anonymous alias to post here or to post on other discussion boards, but quite another thing to create false reviews or post self-promoting lies. The case for guns is strong enough that we don't need to embrace liars.

[Puppage]

Nice try, Timmy.But, YOU LOSE..again. Why not show us just ONE city, town, etc. that has strict gun control where the crime rate is LOWER than those that DO NOT have strict gun control?

Why does Chicago, Washington DC and LA have the highest murder rates in the country, and also the strictest gun control, hmmm?

[FreeTally]

More horsesh!t trying to discredit Lott.

This was discussed previously, and at worst, one could conclude from Lott's data that in certain States and areas, CCW's had little or no effect upon the crime rate.

To insinuiate that he completely concocted data and is akin topeople such as Bellisiles is dishonest at best.

[N. Theknow]

Wonder how to find crime stats for Skokie, IL and Kennesaw, GA?

IIRC, when Skokie banned all guns, Kennesaw passed an ordinance that every household would not only have a gun but all members of the household would be required to know how to properly handle, maintain and use it.

[ez]

Lott should reproduce his survey and letthe chips fall where they may.

[Puppage]

Yep, and burglary & assault went WAY down in Kennesaw. However, the crime rate in surrounding towns exploded. Now, why do ya think that is? Could it be that the bad guys KNOW who may be armed & who isn't?

[coloradan]

Do you mean Morton Grove, IL? They banned handguns.

[Ronnie Radford]

The most annoying aspect of this expose is that the 98% figure is incidental to Lott's work. The article makes it appear that Lott is lying about data that is fundamental to his conclusions by comparing him to Bellesiles, who invented virtually all of his data. Lott's contribution to the case for guns was to show that guns reduce crime by examining crime statistics for every county in the US over a substantial period of time. The writer never mentions that this is the core of Lott's research and that he has no difficulty supporting his conclusions.

It angers me that Lott would damage his reputation (and therefore his research) with something so trivial as lying about a survey that is not necessary for his core conclusions and posting fake reviews on his work.

[LS]

Funny, I've had the study for YEARS now and the data is ALL in the back. Every stat, every chart, and EVERYTHING is cited from the FBI Uniform Crime Stats which is on the web. There is no missing data here.

[LS]

By the way, notice that they go after the BOOK, but not the SEMINAL STUDY published by U. of Chicago that is the basis for the study, and which had EVERY SOURCE out there for years.

And having scanned Kleck's book, I could have sworn that in fact he said there, or in his ARTICLES (which these cheap-shot artists don't mention) that he had the 98% figure mentioned.

[LS]

It is "reproduced." Check his original paper at the U. of Chicago website. The book was mere fluff. They have NEVER discredited his paper.

[absalom01]

For me, the most annoying aspect of this is that this phoney claim was made and debunked during the course of a couple of weeks early January, all on mail lists and the blogosphere.

Slate chose to run with a non-issue, just to smear professor Lott -- why? Well, it turns out that Lott has a new book scheduled for publication in March -- I wonder if there's any attempt among some 'objective' journalists to rain on that particular parade, hmm?

There's more on the genesis of this sorry mess here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/search?m=any&o=time&s=%22gunning%20for%22

In particular, look at Washintonian's post at no. 22, giving Lott's response.

[N. Theknow]

Could be, but I thought Skokie banned all tyes of guns. Then again, I could just be having the onset of Somezeimer's Disease.

[driftless]

You are correct. Lott should know that in this day and age, false statements will be caught. However the article does not refute Lott's main contention that more guns results in less crime. I myself am skeptical of the three million plus claim. But even if it is much less, it still deters more crime than if there are no guns. The fact is that well-armed law-abiding Americans create a positive good and not by a small margin.

[Ronnie Radford]

Thanks for the additional info.

[sailor4321]

One thing I've leaned about anti-gunners over the years is that they lie --- deliberately and repeatedly. Their "facts" are often wrong or incomplete and they are masters at the splashy propaganda statement. I would characterize this piece as fitting nicely into the mold and won't believe a word of it without independent corroboration.

One thing is clear: the gun grabbers believe the Besiliedes fiasco hurt them badly...and they will do ANYTHING to try to regain the intiative.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Picking at some peeling paint on Lott's "house" is nothing like the discovery that Bellesiles' "house" was built on quicksand without a foundation.

[Puppage]

He spent months going after Jeb Bush about children services for not doing what Oreilly thought he should do

Again...OPINION, NOT FACT.

[Shooter 2.5]

I myself am skeptical of the three million plus claim.

The three million number is getting close to 1% of the population. Look at it this way. I was in a store where the owners are armed. There's a shotgun sitting in the corner. How many times could have it been possible where a would-be robber changed his mind about robbing the place because that shotgun was in the corner. More than once a year?

I'm walking in a parking garage and there's a guy standing in the cold like he's waiting for someone. As I walk to my car, the guy starts eyeing me. I glance at the man and unzip my coat and suddenly the guy has other places to be. Did I branish a weapon? No. Did I just become a statistic of John Lott's? I'll leave that to you to decide.