John Lott is at it again. This time he accuses Chris Brown of misquoting him when in fact Lott's post had been quietly corrected after Brown pointed out that is was wrong.
This seems to be the same behaviour that got him into trouble over his mystery survey. Rather than concede that he had made an error when he wrote:
"If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack."
Lott invented a survey of his own that he claimed produced the 98% number, even though that was mathematically impossible.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Howard Nemerov has a post defending Lott and responding to Chris Mooney's Mother Jones article. Unfortunately, he gets his facts wrong, leaves out inconvenient facts and indulges in fallacious arguments. I'll go through his post and correct these, but first some general comments.
Even…
Last December I examined a posting by John Ray who dismissed ozone depletion as a "Greenie scare" using facts he seemed to have just made up by himself. Now he's back, attacking gun control. This time he's not using facts that he made up---he's using facts that Lott made up. He quotes…
Lott has on op-ed on gun carrying by professional athletes. As usual, he gets his facts about guns and crime wrong. Lott claims that NCVS data shows that guns are the safest means of self-protection:
Take robbery or assault. The Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey has…
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a story about David Gross, who, after all this time, is the only witness to Lott's 1997 survey who has ever been found:
A major player and legal consultant on Minnesota's new gun-permit law is a former board member of the National Rifle Association…
Lying is like sex to these guys.
Comment #2 is Dennis Markuze (aka David Mabus). Don't bother clicking on the link.
Warning: "judgmentday" is notoriously deranged Canadian troll David Mabus. Do not engage, do not feed.
John Lott is an honorable man who would never do such a thing.
What's the deal with Lott's eyebrows? It looks like he had some kind of eyebrow surgery or something. Maybe it has something to do with his Mary Rosh persona...
I agree. I was in the same class as Mary when Lott taught us, and I couldn't get enough.
John Lott need lots of sock puppet defense for this massive no no.
Please don't make such ridiculous slurs.
A sample of seven should be enough for anyone.
Ya think?
Whoever made whoismaryrosh.com, I will buy you a beer any time.
Johnny is a dear honest boy.
Chris Brown should be ashamed of himself for tormenting poor Johnny.
I used to live across the road from Mrs Rah Yo and young Johnny when they were neighbours.
Even back then he had a little water pistol which he like to point at people (in self-defence, of course) - a habit that he defended far more vigorously than decorum warranted, according to some.
Personally, I felt sorry for the little tyke... it was obvious that he had an issue with his weaponry.
Nice to see a thread on here with so much love, care and concern displayed. Admiration, respect and loyalty should be publicly stated for more leaders and teachers more often.
I think this is A. Good. Thing.
There's something very satisfying about being able to demonstrate someone is less than honest with a screen capture or two (compared to having to write a five paragraph reference-linked technical explanation in response to a one-liner denialist long-debunked throwaway turd).
This survey is not fictional.
It was 100 of us at an NRA rally. I'd sure like to know who the 2 BATF-sellouts were, though.
Great post and very funny comments. Sorry I didn't see it sooner. I often write about Prof. Lott.
Lott is posting here
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538353
Defending his use of Mary Rosh and his research.
"" Well, let's hope that others in this debate are better informed than the people posted here.
1) I used the family email account in an internet chatroom to discuss gun control issues. I had originally posted under my own name, but on the contentious issue other posters would sometimes think a discussion in a chatroom was an invitation for them to go after me outside that discussion. I also often didn't have time to respond to attacks and it was taken as me not being able to respond. When there was a question about who had been making posts under that pseudonym, within a couple hours of the request, I noticed it and noted that the posts were by me. Indeed, many of the posts were simply cut and pastes from other things that I have written. However, since it was a family account, I wasn't the only one who made posts using that account, though I did make the vast majority of them.
2) "John Lott has made good money telling gun folks what they want to hear" -- Seriously? Again, you all aren't very well informed.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...richard-daley/
I have lost other academic jobs because of this research. I have had many chances to do consulting on gun related issues, particularly in the suits against the gun makers, but I always turned that down because I was concerned that it would impact my perceived objectivity on gun related research.
3) Unlike many researchers, I have always shared by data, even before the studies have been published. The large majority of researchers have obtained results similar or larger to what I found (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/surveyofrtcliterature.pdf). Even those who have been critical were able to replicate my research.
4) Gary is great, and he has done some very good research. However, as I am sure that you can confirm, Gary's work shows that gun ownership has no net effect on crime and he has argued that there is no harm from having registration and other regulations because changes in gun ownership rates won't impact crime rates. Most of the researchers referenced in point (3) above are to the right of Gary on that point. There is nothing wrong with that view, though I think that his emphasis on cross-sectional data is flawed and I have tried to make that clear for those who have read MGLC or The Bias Against Guns.
It is very disappointing that you all haven't tried to be better informed about these issues.
Last edited by JohnRLott; Today at 06:18 AM. ""