Why are there so many bogus criticisms of Kellermann?

gzuckier explains, in detail, what is wrong with Lott's criticism of Kellermann.

For some reason, Kellermann's work seems to provoke badly flawed criticism. In another posting gzuckier demolishes three other critiques. In an earlier posting I noted that a critique by Kopel and Reynolds got all its facts wrong. And in a AEI event promoting Lott's new book, Carl Moody claimed:

The second cut is, as you say, is the data available to other researchers [inaudible], and the answer is no for Kellermann, so I think he's lying. He's refused repeated requests for his data. So, no, I don't trust him and I don't think anybody here in this room should trust him, or anywhere else, for that matter.

I pointed out to Moody that Kellermann's data was available for download from the ICPSR. Moody had his slander of Kellermann edited out of the transcript. I suggested that he should publicly apologize to Kellermann. He initially said that he would be happy to do so, but reneged, saying that he thought Kellermann would prefer not to get an apology (false, in fact).

Tags

More like this

EdgarSuter wrote: whether or not Mr. Lambert disagrees with a single quote of my assessment of the harmful nostrum of gun control, he has yet to explain the habitual fabricated citations of Kellermann (noted in my letter to Emerg Med News)
It is disingenous for Kleck to take a quotation of Kellerman's out of context to make it appear that Kellermann was asserting that only 2% of of homicides were lawful defensive homicides. Dan Day wrote:
Lott grossly misrepresents Kellermann's study. He states that "they fail to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases could it be established that the gun involved had been kept in the home." Kellermann et al do indeed
Daniel Davies has some criticism of a Steve Milloy Fox News column that purported to debunk a study that found that sugary drinks were linked with weight gain and diabetes.