Posted on 06/12/2006 11:56:35 AM PDT by neverdem
Could it be that more guns cause less crime? Could it be that criminals who suspect their potential victims are armed would be deterred from committing crimes? That's what John R. Lott Jr. argued in his 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime."
But could it be that Lott is wrong; that other researchers have been unable to confirm his thesis? That's what Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner argued in their bestselling 2005 book, "Freakonomics." How should this debate be resolved? Lott's solution is to try to get the U.S. District Court in Chicago to issue an injunction blocking the sale of "Freakonomics." That's a terrible way to deal with controversial research about a crucial public policy issue. Instead of trying to silence his critics, Lott ought to respond to their criticisms.
Lott contended in his book that crime was reduced by so-called right-to-carry laws in 35 states allowing people to carry concealed weapons. His supporting research is considered only briefly in "Freakonomics," which has sold more than 1 million copies and has remained a bestseller for more than 56 weeks. Instead, Levitt and Dubner briefly mention the "troubling allegation" that Lott "invented some of the survey data" in "More Guns, Less Crime" and then go on to discuss more broadly that Lott's overall argument is apparently wrong.
"Regardless of whether the data were faked," they say, "Lott's admittedly intriguing hypothesis doesn't seem to be true. When other scholars have tried to replicate his results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime."
That last sentence, Lott says in his lawsuit, is false and has "seriously damaged" his reputation. Therefore, he argues, the sale of the book should be stopped until the offending sentence has been removed. Yet many other scholars have criticized Lott in stronger terms...
(Excerpt) Read more at law.northwestern.edu ...
Article states: "Lott's solution is to try to get the U.S. District Court in Chicago to issue an injunction blocking the sale of "Freakonomics." That's a terrible way to deal with controversial research about a crucial public policy issue. Instead of trying to silence his critics, Lott ought to respond to their criticisms."
I hate to admit it but I agree. This is something a liberal would do.
Couldn't get a better name for this professor, hehehe... JON WIENER instead of FRANK FURTER!!!
Having said that, this is the second time he has done things that throw suspicion on his work.
The court should order a survey. Let the truth out. If the author is right and crime has been reduced then he wins, if not then he losses. Calling for the suit to be thrown out is silly, doesn't the writter of the article want to know the truth.
Anytime a thug is shot and killed by someone possessing a firearm, whether they be a CCP owner or not, crime goes down by one thug.
Or in the case in Atlanta, by a pocket knife wielding Devil Dog who aced 5 attackers armed with a shotgun and a pistol.
Second.
There's more to this story.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648014/posts
Apparently, Lott has been trying to confront the guy making the claims and he won't respond.
The victim MUST have MINIMUM success!!! Is the LAT the only paper that gets it??? Fo de chillins, ya know.
No, I agree. But trying to silence them does.
It's the second time he has taken that tack.
The first time was on the net when he apparently was attacking his critics on blogs using a different name and representing himself as someone else while attacking them personally and trying to discredit them instead of defending his work and talking about his methods.
It's troubling to me. Your mileage may vary.
No one else seems to have been able to repeat his work. I hope they do though.
Lie. There is a LOT of survey data on usage of firearms by civilians in self defense--not necessarily by newspapers, but by REAL scientists specializing in the area (criminologists). Some of the best work was done by Gary Kleck, who started out anti-gun, but had to change his tune, based on the evidence.
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
Even a pair of ANTI-GUN researchers did such a poll (Jens Ludwig and and Phillip Cook), and found in excess of TWENTY MILLION such self-defense uses PER YEAR. They then proceeded to undertake to say why THEIR OWN RESEARCH was inaccurate, and the number couldn't POSSIBLY be that high.
As to the rest, I can only say "Remember Bellesiles".
Actually, trying to silence the defamatory speech is a typical and understandable reaction by a person who believes that they have been defamed. It is also one of several effective remedies available to correct the injustice (if, in fact, the speech is found to indeed have been legally defamatory). Would you deny this type of compensation to the victim?
No. I agree there are different ways to do it. I also think it might be part of the compensation.
It does show a pattern however that is troubling to me. Maybe not to you.
I would like to see him defend his work. Wouldn't you?
If his research is legitimate, he should be able to defend it easily and even duplicate it.
My understanding was that he was, in fact, defending his research through other actions. But that should be independent from any actions that he might take in response to the defamatory speech. One action does not accomplish the other - both must be pursued.
As for me, "I don't need no steenkeen statistics".
My right to defend myself is fundamental even if it doesn't reduce crime.
Sounds legit to me.
I did NOT say Lott's research was faulty, I cannot know that. But I hope his research can be verified as above reproach. I further hope he'll always use wisdom and good judgment when confronting his critics.
As I said before however, my rights do not depend upon the outcome, either of the lawsuit or the actual conclusion of whether or not it reduces crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.