John Lott explained

The odd thing is that John Lott was a pariah a while back, but he has come back with a vengeance while the other guy who did this still tends bar since his academic career was trashed (well, he does teach).

But the really annoying part of all this is that US gun policy is not only based upon ignorance, it has been run on bullshit.

Sad.

See also:

• Double Barreled Double Standards | Mother Jones
• Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies | Armed With Reason
• Lott – Deltoid

John Lott: The Key to Defeating Gun Lobbies

The Quiet Mike Blog has yet another nail in the coffin of the gun lobby's most prominent Bullshit artist.  In fact, I'm really surprised his career hasn't taken the path of Michael Bellesisles except that he is on the right.

It seems that the right believes that if you keep repeating lies they somehow become truths, but there may be something to that given what the Supreme Court has done in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

Anybody who has looked into Lott knows he is the pro-gun equivalent of Michael Bellesisles (except I think Bellesisles was sort of onto something), which the Quiet Mike Blog points out:

Critics of Lott’s research are plentiful, although he dismisses them as “Liberal.” So it’s important to note this blistering rebuke by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin:

“.”“Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can’t identify or produce.
Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey’s existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.”

It is also important to note that John Lott has a history of vetting his own work under another pseudonym, Mary Rosh. This is not in question, Lott himself has admitted his use of the Rosh persona. Here’s Malkin again:

“By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott’s invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.”

John Lott is quick to respond to his critics, this writer included. But he remains unable to definitively address the specific problem of his questioned data. On twitter, he produced these links to absolve himself of these issues.

The question remains as to why rubbish like John Lott's and the rest of the pseudoscholars has remained unchallenged?  Why is the "pro-gun" side afraid of research (or is that research adverse?)?

John R. Lott Jr. is the key to defeating the gun lobbies. His data is either deliberately misleading or subject to ignorant methodology. It has been repeatedly defended only with his own responses. If Lott is held accountable for his mistakes and mistruths, gun lobby talking points would get their volume turned down. It will be fully revealed how baseless many gun lobby arguments are. They are motivated by what they want, not how things are, and certainly aren’t interested in the greater good of the country.

The short form--don't call people "sheeple" if you are unwilling, or just plain unable to research and discover the facts for yourself.

And don't try to persuade someone of something which they can spot as bullshit.

You only come off as idiots--no matter how much you try to soothe yourselves into thinking you're the "intelligentsia".

You aren't even a "pseudo-intellectual".

You're just real dumbfucks.

John Lott: No More Sitting Ducks — We Must Arm Our Soldiers on their Bases

Trib Live 

We need to trust soldiers to carry weapons on bases. That would provide another line of defense against any attacks and not leave our soldiers as sitting ducks.

That's how John Lott concluded his op-ed. As usual, when lamenting the practice of gun-free zones and blaming them for mass shootings, John is conveniently overlooking a few things.

When Jared Loughner did his thing in Tuscon a few years ago, his venue was not a gun free zone.  Being Arizona which enjoys Constitutional Carry, there were armed citizens all over the place but not one of them was able to intervene in time. In addition, several of the other highly publicized mass shootings took place where armed guards were on the scene.  So, the presence of armed good guys has proven to be an ineffective response to mass shootings.

Another rather humorous and ironical aspect of his argument is that many times gun-rights folks, and probably John himself, insist that mass shootings are extremely rare. Now all of a sudden, we need to arm soldiers on bases and eliminate gun free zones to combat them. 

The biggest problem with his proposal is that most of the mass shooters are lawful gun owners. It stands to reason that if lawful gun owners are committing mass shootings every once in a while, if we arm more of them, there will be more shootings.

A John Lott Study Says there has Never Been Frozen Firearms Research

via ssgmarkcr

 Gun control advocates often bemoan the restriction on using federal funds for research on firearms issues and gun violence.  I had recently posted a comment on one of your threads in this regard and then today, I read this article on the dreaded Fox News website.

   

"Study aims to shoot down media narrative on frozen firearms research"

   

"The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 -- when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.

Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote. 

The study, though, acknowledges that “firearms research in medical journals did fall as a percentage of all research.” In the relevant period, the total number of published medical journal pieces has climbed from about 450,000 to 1.1 million a year – gun-related articles did not increase nearly as much."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/study-aims-to-shoot-down-media-narrative-on-firearms-research/?intcmp=latestnews

    One possible area where I might differ is that if this affects research conducted by governmental agencies, When studies are released by a governmental agency, there is at least an initial presumption of accuracy, though that might be wishful thinking on my part.  For example, we tend to male a presumption of accuracy when looking at FBI crime statistics, or injury reports from the CDC.  Though we have had some discussions based on inaccuracies on the part of the CDC.  I'm guessing there are similar errors in the FBI's numbers since all of their data is sent by other agencies which can lead to those errors.  But there is at least an initial assumption that the government doesn't necessarily have an ax to grind.

    So in the case of gun research, this restriction might have been a good thing because it addressed the perception that the research was starting to take on the appearance of a bias in the direction of one side of the debate.

    I will give you a heads up that the Crime Prevention Research Center is headed by John Lott, and therefor can be inferred to have at least some bias as does The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.  I actually believe that the preconceived assumption of bias can be a good thing, because if the data can survive such a confrontational review process, then it makes the study much more credible.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Did_Federal_Fund_Cuts_Really_Stop_Gun_Control_Research_Final.pdf

Can we really compare an organization associated with John Lott with one associated with one of the most prestigious universities in the world? I don't think so. Can we really say they are both equally biased in opposite directions?  No.

John Lott's research reminded me of what our own TS can do when faced with uncomfortable reports. In the end you have to still ask yourself if the original proposition was really addressed.

Interview with John Lott

"A man we can always turn to to get the facts." Hahahahahahaha

Having had a good laugh at that intro, I will say this.  He's absolutely right about the unfortunate tendency of some gun-control folks to exaggerate. It was just stupid to inflate the supposed number of school shootings like that. If they'd limited their statistics to just the true school shootings the point would have been sufficiently made and the opposition would not have been able to tear it apart.  As it is, the entire thing is discredited which is a damn shame since school shootings have continued since Newtown.

It's interesting what he said about New Jersey concealed carry permits. This is where the gun-rights folks like to exaggerate. I've been told more than once that in NJ there's a de facto ban on carry outside the home.

Lott claimed that school shootings have actually declined in recent decades.  I wonder if in order to make that appear true, he's not guilty of exactly the opposite of what he accused Bloomberg and The Moms of doing?

John Lott Making Shit Up Left and Right

At least when Colion Noir makes shit up he sounds convincing.  In this interview, John Lott sounded like a doddering fool.

Piers Morgan on the Gun Control Situation

John Lott used the Aurora Batman Shooter as an example to say that deranged spree shooters purposely choose gun-free zones for their attacks. That's usually not the case at all.  These guys usually go to the place of their grievance.  I don't know why the pro-gun guys keep pushing this obvious untruth.

His other main point was the one which La Pierre has made the NRA's official stance, more armed good guys are needed. There are a couple problems with that.  One is the armed good guys are not highly trained and properly vetted. They're no more prepared to handle a hot situation than anyone else. The requirements for a concealed carry license are too low in most states and in others they are actually non-existent.

Ironically, Jared Loughner carried a concealed weapon legally that day in Tucson.

His case, and that of Columbine, VA Tech, and others show that even when there are armed good guys present, they are usually powerless to stop the bad guy. The Empire State Building shooting illustrates what can happen when they do.

What's your opinion?  Has the tide turned in the gun-control vs. gun-rights argument?

Please leave a comment.

2012 Murders are Up in Oakland

 Local news reports

The fatal shooting of a 33-year-old man in Oakland has bought this year’s homicide tally to 110, tying the city’s mark last year.

Officer Rob Rosin tells the Oakland Tribune that police responding to reports of gunfire found Jose Rivera Estrada lying on a sidewalk in east Oakland Wednesday night.

He was pronounced dead at the scene. Rosin said police did not have a motive for the killing or any suspects in custody.

The incident was Oakland’s 110th homicide so far this year, the same total for all of 2011. The city also recorded the same number of homicides in 2009.

This is the time of year when we see reports like this. The John Lott supporters keep telling us that BECAUSE there are more guns around there is less violence.  But, even the author himself knows that's not true. 

Like we reported about Baltimore the other day, Oakland doesn't seem to be benefiting like it should.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

John Lott Admits His Book's Title is a Lie

I don't think that increased sales of any particular type of gun is associated with crime rates

John Lott, Double Talking Con Man

From page 11.

"These national polls should also produce more honest answers since a law-enforcement agency are not asking the questions. They imply much higher defensive use rates. Fifteen national polls, including those by organizations such as The Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates imply that there are 760,000 to 3.6 million defensive uses of guns per year. Yet even if these estimates are wrong by a very large factor, they will suggest that defensive gun use is extremely common."

You can support the Mikeb302000 blog by purchasing that incredible book from Amazon by clicking the icon in the post. If you're a gun control supporter, there's irony there, if you're a gun rights fanatic, there's double irony. In either case the book is a must read.

From John Lott's Website, the Lime Story !

I was curious as to how our Red Az got the silly notion that the story in the Daily Mail was factual.  I figured it came from someone like Rush Limbaugh, so I browsed the distribution of the story on the web.

I have had an issue with the fact aversion of the right wing for some time now, including the lapses of my own member of Congress from the district in which I live, as well as that of another Minnesota member of Congress, Michele Bachmann's notorious lack of connection to either fact or reality.

I found the story on the website of John Lott, of More Guns, Less Crime fame.  An excerpt of the story appeared right next to this bio:

Virginia, United States

Amazed how lucky I am that I have had jobs where I could just think about whatever I wanted to think about. I have published over 90 articles in academic journals. I received my Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984.

The headline of the post read:

11/23/2011

Limes are classified as a weapon in the UK?

What is next? Lime registration? From the UK Daily Mail:

and over the labels 'GunControl, Terrorism'

all of which are under this giant banner, apparently intended to impress the gullible:


Posting that story, that brief comment, right next to the bio where he tells his web site readers about his academic accomplishments certainly seems to me to be an attempt to give the imprimatur of fact and accuracy to this. There is no criticism, no skepticism, no challenging thinking that this might not be true, plausible, or reasonable. That impression is further conveyed by the labels at the end of the excerpt.

I shouldn't be surprised.  Looking at his book entry on Wikipedia.org, under controversy, the studies in support of Lott's work seem largely to derive  or be funded by fairly far right sources, rather than independent academic sources.  The list of sources which oppose or contradict Lott's work is considerably longer.

So, now it is clear that Mr. Lott doesn't do his fact checking on the content of his web site.  On top of the challenges to his other work, perhaps that shouldn't surprise me.  But it does go a long way to explaining where  the story got its original circulation, because I don't really find it plausible that there are a lot of gun nuts who make a habit of reading a UK tabloid.

Shame on Mr. Lott for lending even his limited credibility with the gun loonz to such nonsense.  Shame on Lott and the rest of the loons for single sourcing content and for doing so without any research into the credibility of their sources.

But it sure is fun to be on the debunking side of the story.

In case our readers are wondering, I've left comments on Lott's site and others noting the factual inaccuracy of the story as well as the poor credibility of the source, and a criticism for promoting it without fact checking it first.

Like our gun nuts so often do.  How fortunate they have us to do those necessary critical thinking exercises for them.