Sunday, February 6, 2011

Media Matters on John Lott

via Norwegianity.

Media Matters:

At first glance, it might seem problematic that this Newsmax piece about gun regulations makes flat assertions about gun sales without referencing any data or citing any sources. But when you consider that the author of the post, John Lott, has been caught using fraudulent data, lying about it, and using a fake internet persona to tout his bogus work, the lack of specificity may actually be a positive: At least Lott didn’t fake a study to support his assertions. Unfortunately, that appears to be the result of laziness rather than a newfound commitment to the truth.

Lott asserts "Virtually no criminal guns are obtained from gun shows." He offers no data or expert opinion to support this contention.

And it gets better from there.

Next, Lott asserts: "Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns." Again, Lott just expects readers to trust him.


  1. "Lott asserts "Virtually no criminal guns are obtained from gun shows." He offers no data or expert opinion to support this contention."

    He doesn't have to. The FBI says the same thing.

    "Next, Lott asserts: 'Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns.' Again, Lott just expects readers to trust him."

    He could also say "water is wet". It is a well known fact that criminals don't obey laws like background checks. That is why they are called criminals. They obtain their guns through illegal channels.

  2. Fatwhiteman, proving that Lott's assertions are support for his? That's just pretty damned funny.

  3. No Demo,

    I am saying that what Lott was quoted on here was painfully obvious. No need to prove anything as there is no doubt.

    The FBI was the first to study and make the claim that most criminals do not go to gun shows to get their guns. Criminals don't obey gun laws.

    Fact. Nothing to prove already proven.

  4. Wrong, FWM, I'll try to school ya again.

    That figure the FBI came up with that only 1% of guns used in crimes came from gun shows is misleading Here's why.

    When a mentally ill criminal named Jesse buys a gun at a gun show and sells it to his cousin Billy Joe, who gets caught robbing the local savings and loan, that doesn't count because he, Billy Joe, didn't get the gun from a gun show. He got it from cousin Jesse.

    The FBI weren't able to go back far enough to know how many guns they traced entered the criminal world through gun shows. You see, passing from criminal to criminal doesn't count. What we're really interested in is the point at which a gun passed from a legitimate owner to a criminal. That's what happens at gun shows, and let's not forget in private sales too. That's why intelligent gun control folks call it the "private sale loophole."

  5. Mike,

    So then under your theory of working backwards to the source, no matter how far removed, all guns start out as new and are sold with a NCIS check so it must be the FBI's falt?

    Since Lisa passed a background check and bought it from Earl's house of guns who sold it to Ray who sold it to Martha who sold it at a gun show to Steve who sold it to Billy Joe.

    Yup, darn gun shows.

  6. Make fun all you want, but the point is, with every gun used by a criminal there was a point at which it passed from the good guys to the bad guys. Hence, I blame the good guys, or the lack of legal constraints which allows them to keep doinig it.