[thefactor]

all the data for his seminal work were proven to be pretty much made up. that is why he gave his data away to anyone who asked for it. he knew no one else would be able to replicate the numbers.

he's a serial professor who spends 3 years at different prestigious universities and his salary is paid for by pro-gun groups.

this is all common knowledge throughout academia. but he publishes and he's free so schools love him.

and look, i agree with him! gun bans are the scourge of the USA! but come on. have some integrity.

[Loyal Buckeye]

all the data for his seminal work were proven to be pretty much made up. that is why he gave his data away to anyone who asked for it. he knew no one else would be able to replicate the numbers.

I would like to see a source re: this.

[marktwain]

“all the data for his seminal work were proven to be pretty much made up. that is why he gave his data away to anyone who asked for it. he knew no one else would be able to replicate the numbers.”

---

That is a pretty serious accusation. The worst that I have seen from the academic studies is that they show no change when states enact concealed carry laws.

The fact that Lott releases his data shows integrity, not the lack of it. Releasing data is what allows other people to replicate your work.

[marktwain]

“he's a serial professor who spends 3 years at different prestigious universities and his salary is paid for by pro-gun groups.

this is all common knowledge throughout academia. but he publishes and he's free so schools love him.”

---

This sounds so similar to the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” “deniers” treatment. Academia has lost a great deal of credibility with me. The political “spin” seems so much more important than the truth.

A person does not publish his data to be discredited. People withhold data to prevent being discredited, such as a number of the supporters of man made global warming. The Olin foundation at the University of Chicago is hardly a "pro-gun group". This is the same tar the supporters of "climate change" use. Don't try to disprove the facts, attack the funding source!