That will be tue only if a 'real' survey shows a very different / contradictory result form the phantom survey, which I expect is NOT the case.Actually, there have been many other surveys on this point, and they all reached results that contradict Lott. (Those other surveys include some done by Gary Kleck, the preeminent and very pro-gun criminologist at Florida State University.) The discrepancy between those surveys and Lott's survey are the very reason that people started wondering about the legitimacy of Lott's survey in the first place.
Actually, there have been many other surveys on this point, and they all reached results that contradict Lott. (Those other surveys include some done by Gary Kleck, the preeminent and very pro-gun criminologist at Florida State University.) The discrepancy between those surveys and Lott's survey are the very reason that people started wondering about the legitimacy of Lott's survey in the first place.Well then I stand corrected.
I had heard that Lott claimed to have re-tested the hypothesis (with evidence this time)and essentially replicated his results -- so (if that's true) something has to be wrong between Kleck's findings and Lott's -- do you think they are testing the same question?
Actually, there have been many other surveys on this point, and they all reached results that contradict Lott.
This seems just a little bit off to me. There are certainly plenty of surveys out there, but the "98%" figure seems to have originated with Kleck. At least it's the most widely circulated, and a surprisingly commonly misunderstood figure. Boiled down, Kleck says that his data showed that in 98% of defensive gun uses, no one is injured. What he was not so clear in explaining is that he
includes "warning shots and missed shots in what is essentially a 'no harm no foul' line of reasoning. Lott said that in 98% of DGU's, one need only refer to, display, or brandish a gun to deter a crime.
I'd also take issue with your assertion that this discrepancy is what got people looking at this in the first place. Tim Lambert has been taking a scattergun approach to attacking Lott's work (and coming close to ad-hominem attacks as well) for quite a while now. He picked up the scent and ran with it, and did so by blind-siding Lott by taking a series of posts from a private mailing list, and posting on his website. I knew this would have legs as soon as I saw it, and you can bet that this will be mentioned in the (rare) critical notices that Lott's new book will receive in the press, regardless of the facts of the matter.
From my point of view,
Lott's response about the survey and evidence is credible. Sure, I'd like to see a list of names of the kids who did the phone calling, and even some recovered data of of the hard drive, but in the real world, that's not always possible. He's been meticulous in the past, generous with his data, and has responded thoughtfully to some remarkably disingenous critics. In short, he's been through the wringer, and if he had been faking data, he would have been caught long ago.
The web posting thing is a non-issue in many ways, and even lends credibility to his position regarding the survey, in that he fessed up, took his lumps, and has moved on. Others may differ, but I don't see that this affects his credibilty -- grace under fire, maybe, but that's a different matter altogether.