It sounds to me like Bellesiles got a raw deal, while Lott is continuing to get an undeserved good deal. What can explain such a flip-flop of reactions and results? It's the passion of the pro-gun crowd and the apathy of the non gun owners that explains it.Michael Bellesiles, of Emory University, supported the gun control case with a book called Arming America. Part of his argument was that guns were rare at much earlier times in U.S. history. Challenged on that claim, he failed to produce the data, claiming that an office flood had destroyed his records. Emory empaneled a committee of scholars to investigate, and its report questioned Bellesiles "scholarly integrity." He resigned from the Emory faculty, and the Bancroft Prize his book had won was revoked. The pro-gun faction began to chortle with glee; end of story, right?
Not so fast. Here is John Lott: ex-University of Chicago Law School, now at the American Enterprise Institute. His book More Guns, Less Crime claims that on 98% of the occasions in which citizens use guns defensively, the mere production of a weapon causes the criminal to desist. These data were allegedly based on some 2000 interviews conducted by Lott himself. But when pushed for the survey data, Lott gave a hauntingly familiar explanation: His hard drive had been destroyed in a computer crash. Apparently the dogs in this controversy eat everyone's homework.
Wait. It gets even funnier. As the debate over gun laws spilled over from the scholarly journals to the Internet, Lott was defended passionately by a persistent ally named Mary Rosh. She attacked Lott's academic critics, including John Donohue of Stanford Law School, claiming in one posting that Lott had been the "best professor I ever had." Alas for Lott and his case, Mary Rosh now turns out to be--John Lott! The American Enterprise Institute has not yet followed the example Emory set with Bellesiles, though it might think about it.
What's your opinion? Does a guy who creates an alter-ego like that inspire loyalty? Can anyone really believe the 98% claim in the first place? I'm afraid I already know the answer to that, but it never ceases to amaze me.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
MikeB: “It sounds to me like Bellesiles got a raw deal, while Lott is continuing to get an undeserved good deal. What can explain such a flip-flop of reactions and results? It's the passion of the pro-gun crowd and the apathy of the non gun owners that explains it.”
ReplyDeleteAlthough both of them may have had suspect research, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary of Bellesiles, while disproving Lott is far more difficult with crime rates decreasing as they are.
Yeah right, ever hear of Tim Lambert?
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/dgu/
Michael Bellesiles
ReplyDeleteThe guy's been basically thrown out of the academic community. His research has been discredited worse than any academic I can remember in recent history
Basically, he's been shunned by the entire academic community. Why? Because he's a bold-faced liar.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure I'd want to support a guy whose "research" has been so thoroughly trashed. Hell, Emory University, his own employer called his research a pile of junk and fired him.
http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html
There's a profound difference between the two.
ReplyDeleteI'll not defend Bellesiles; sloppy research is sloppy research. There's no defense for that.
But it's worth noting Bellesiles specifically stated that none of his writings were about the 2A or gun policy. In fact, Bellesiles noted that he was an ocassional shooter.
OTOH, Lott's writings have and continue to be used as evidence in developing gun policy. And much of that work was and is fraudulent.
--JadeGold
I never heard of Tim Lambert. Should I have? But here is what he said in Laci’s link: “I doubt that it is possible to collect enough to be certain about these things. Nonetheless, the best available data suggests that gun self-defence does not reduce the risk of injury.”
ReplyDeleteThat is not exactly a ringing endorsement for discrediting Lott. It is wishy-washy at best as he uses words like “doubt” and “suggests”. Sounds like the opinion of an anti-gun Brit to me. I am sure there are people who loath Lott and would use much stronger words though.
Personally, I’d take Lott’s research with a grain of salt as he does have books to sell. But he does have correlation on his side. There are more guns, there are more CCWs, and crime continues to go down. That is what is affecting gun policy. As for Bellesiles; to be shunned by Jadegold is to be the ultimate outcast.
"Hell, Emory University, his own employer called his research a pile of junk and fired him."
ReplyDeleteEmory U did neither.
I wonder why Mike W. cannot get his facts somewhat straight?
--JadeGold
"There are more guns, there are more CCWs, and crime continues to go down. That is what is affecting gun policy."
ReplyDeleteAmazing.
Nearly each sentence is wrong.
First, it's important to note that if one has read Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"--that's only the title of his book. His thesis was actually that more guns wouldn't result in more crime---a veery different thing than claiming 'more guns, less crime.'
Second, Lott's book was written in 1998 and looked at data during the period 1977-1992. During this period, there weren't significantly more guns nor did crime go down.
--JadeGold
But it's worth noting Bellesiles specifically stated that none of his writings were about the 2A or gun policy. In fact, Bellesiles noted that he was an ocassional shooter.
ReplyDeleteJade is full of it as usual.
Bellesiles book was titled "Arming America: The Origins of A National Gun Culture" and yet you say none of his writings were about 2A/gun policy.
And no Emory did not actually say "your research is a pile of junk" but that was their overall conclusion
He "resigned" under pressure from the University. They didn't fire him officially, but they did force him to leave the University.
Michael Bellesiles, sez, mikey:
ReplyDelete""Hell, Emory University, his own employer called his research a pile of junk and fired him.""
This is the press release from Emory on the ocassion of Bellesiles resignation.
This link will probably not take you to the 40 page report prepared in this this matter by the investigative committee. It's a long read, in any case.
Suffice to say that Bellesiles got his comeuppance, unlike Lott. Lott is a lying sack of crap and when people rely on or defend his findings THEY are truly desparate--and astonishingly intellectually dishonest.
Jadegold, was I wrong when I said “I’d take Lott’s research with a grain of salt as he does have books to sell”? Why act like I am defending him? My comment of which you said “nearly every sentence is wrong” is my response for what is affecting current gun policy (not Lott’s data pool). Reading the following sentence makes that clear. My point was also that those current trends could be why he has not received the Bellesiles treatment for sloppy research (the topic of the post). If 2009 saw a 30 year high (instead of low) in murders, maybe he would be long discredited even though his data stops at 1992. That however brings up an interesting point. Data used from 1992-2009 is going to look very... very bad for your side (I understand Lott’s sequel is on the way). Which ones of my three sentences are wrong for that period? There are more guns, there are more CCWs, and crime continues to go down.
ReplyDeleteJadegold said: “His thesis was actually that more guns wouldn't result in more crime---a veery different thing than claiming 'more guns, less crime.'”
Wow, I am going to have to rethink my stance on Lott. I have always been skeptical because I thought his position was “more guns CAUSES LESS crime”. If his position doesn’t contain the causation as in “More guns DOES NOT CAUSE MORE crime”, than that is something I can completely get behind.
Mike W hasn't learned that when in a hole, it's best to stop digging.
ReplyDelete"Bellesiles book was titled "Arming America: The Origins of A National Gun Culture" and yet you say none of his writings were about 2A/gun policy."
Actually, I don't say it. Bellesiles says it in his introduction of the book. Bellesiles specifically notes that nothing in his book applies to an interpretation of the 2A or favors any gun policy.
--JadeGold
I thought Lott argues that more guns CAUSES less crime. I'll have to reread his famous book which is right on my shelf. In fact it was the first pro gun book I ever bought.
ReplyDeleteI still find it amazing that pro gun folks so easily accept the Lott / Kleck method of guessing and so vociferously denigrate any gun control attempts to do the same.
Mikeb30200:
ReplyDeleteLott is not guessing. He's lying, and his "research" having been "lost" is nonexistent.
You don't see me running around here citing Lott or Kleck MikeB.
ReplyDeleteI don't have to. The raw data disproves your claims, no studies needed.
Raw data proves nothing, moron. Raw data is raw data, people work with raw data to try to discern trends or tendencies. Tnen they theorize. In Lott's case there wasn't any raw data. If there was he would be able to produce it, or withdraw his assertions that more guns cause less crime or that more guns don't cause more crime. He hasn't, because he can't. Neither can you, mikey, you just ain't that bright.
ReplyDeleteMikeB302000,
ReplyDeletehow about living up to the values you say that you do?
Why do you allow Democommie to call names?
Isn't that a personal attack?
Bob, I may have mentioned this before, but I'll tell you again. My allowing as wide a tolerance as possible to the commenters goes for everybody. There are only a few of you who have so consistently and viciously refused to cooperate that I felt the need to moderate or delete some of what you wrote. Another factor, you may recall, is that name calling and personal attacks against me as the host of this blog are taken more seriously than the same thing between two commenters. Still, if it goes too far I'll intervene.
ReplyDeleteI know it's hard for you, but please drop it. This has nothing to do with anything. It's just another form of your personally attacking me for the way I run my blog. It's another of the endless attempts of yours to say I'm a hypocrite or something like that. So, knock it off, will ya?
And point proven MikeB302000,
ReplyDeleteYour policy isn't about fairness.
Your policy isn't about courtesy.
Your policy isn't about civility.
It is about you, all about you.
Once again you've shown your true colors.
Oh, poor mikey:
ReplyDeleteHe's never called anyone names. He's never referred to anyone as being stupid, deluded, childish or cowardly.
Like most bullies, physical or virtual, mikey can dish it out but he can't take it.
TS:
ReplyDelete"Although both of them may have had suspect research, there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary of Bellesiles, while disproving Lott is far more difficult with crime rates decreasing as they are."
There is, afaia, not one study by any credible researchers that supports Lott's assertions. If you know of one, post a link--if it's not funded by the NRA or someone else who stands to gain politically or profit by it.
democommie: "..if it's not funded by the NRA or someone else who stands to gain politically or profit by it."
ReplyDeleteMay we all also disregard any research results that have been funded by anti-gunowner groups such as the Joyce foundation or someone else who stands to gain politically by it?
"May we all also disregard any research results that have been funded by anti-gunowner groups such as the Joyce foundation or someone else who stands to gain politically by it?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would you make such a demand? As numerous commenters on this thread have pointed out there are only a handful of people on the side of the Brady Campaign and the VPC, so why would it make any difference, politically? They have no power, none, according to most everybody who's on your side of the argument. So, what would you be afraid of. Oh, wait, maybe they're not completely without support.
democommie: "Why would you make such a demand?"
ReplyDeleteIt follows from your similar demand.
democommie: "As numerous commenters on this thread have pointed out there are only a handful of people on the side of the Brady Campaign and the VPC, so why would it make any difference, politically? They have no power, none, according to most everybody who's on your side of the argument. So, what would you be afraid of. Oh, wait, maybe they're not completely without support."
An excellent point -- thanks. I most certainly would not want gunowners to believe that anti-gunowner advocates have no chance at political power, lest they let down their guard or let lapse their membership in gunowner groups. Continued vigilance is neccessary.
It is particularly foolish for any gunowner to claim that the anti-gunowner movement is "dead." To quote Abdul Alhazred's Necronomicon:
"That is not dead which can forever lie..."
democommie, Thanks for pointing out the gun control movements are not dead, in spite of what their antagonists often say. The ones who do say that are just whistling inthe dark. And unlike what FishyJay just inferred, it's not because they lie. It's because they have some valid points.
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "And unlike what FishyJay just inferred, it's not because they lie."
ReplyDeleteOops -- I see that you are not familiar with the quote.
"That is not dead which can forever lie..."
That's "lie" as in "lie in wait."
The quote should make more sense now.
Oh, I don’t think gun control is dead. I wouldn’t be here if I did.
ReplyDeleteDemocommie: “There is, afaia, not one study by any credible researchers that supports Lott's assertions. If you know of one, post a link--if it's not funded by the NRA or someone else who stands to gain politically or profit by it.”
What exactly are Lott’s assertions in your mind? This came up with Jadegold where she said his conclusion was “more guns don’t cause more crime”, whereas I had heard it was “more guns cause less crime”. You’ve seemed to have spent a lot of energy on Lott (even if you didn’t read it), so I am curious what your take is.
Like most bullies, physical or virtual, mikey can dish it out but he can't take it.
ReplyDeleteSays the guy who's so cowardly he deletes comments.....
Ah the hypocrisy and projection is astounding.
Bob S. - Yes, MikeB's double standard is sad but predictable. I make a vaild analogy he doesn't like and he gets his panties in a twist, yet Demo can make baseless, crude, petulant personal attacks and MikeB condones it.
democommie: "Why would you make such a demand?"
ReplyDeleteIt follows from your similar demand.
Poor poor Democommie. He can dish it out but can't take it.
His positions has been personally disproven by me, using actual DATA, and he ran away like a child, unable to bring raw data and facts to refute me.
Oh well, that's what happens when we have unbiased factual sources and the anti's have none.