How the Academic Left Engages in Debate: Inside an ugly attack on a renowned criminologist

National Review ^ | August 16, 2011 | John R. Lott Jr.

[JohnRLott]

Academic debates occasionally get pretty ugly, and that is just the way it is. Sometimes they get very ugly. There is one case that has bothered me for several years.

James Q. Wilson is now 80 years old, and for decades he has been the most prominent criminologist in the country, responsible for a number of important ideas, such as the Broken Windows theory, which argues that urban disorder and vandalism produce additional crime.

Undoubtedly, Wilson has made a number of enemies, as he has taken positions that upset some on the left. One such issue was Wilson’s involvement with the National Academy of Sciences panel that wrote the 2004 report “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.” The panel was set up by the Clinton administration and contained many outspoken gun-control proponents . . . .

[Trailerpark Badass]

“In fact, there is only one group in America that DOES benefit from high crime — and that is the gun lobby. Fear and crime sell guns; crime reduction and safety undermine gun sales. The crime drop of the Clinton years was enormously costly to the gun industry as sales of guns dropped sharply. So who would be more likely to want fear and crime in the citizenry — a sitting president who would be blamed for not stopping crime, or the gun lobby that gets an extra pay day every time crime or fear of crime ticks up?”

LOL, I don't have any figures handy, but anyone who thinks gun sales went down under Clinton is on drugs. The AWB was probably responsible for the selling of more guns than any other single act in history.

[RobRoy]

Yep. I bought my SKS during the Clinton presidency - my first “real” gun. And the gun shops in the seattle area exploded. Many moved to much nicer digs and stayed there.

The industry’s next shot in the arm came in January of 2009, for obvious reasons. ;-)

The author is full of excrement.

[RobRoy]

>>And the gun shops in the seattle area exploded.<<

That was a real poor choice of words, but I think you get my drift. Maybe if I had prefaced it with “profits at the gun shops...”.

:-)

[SatinDoll]

Did you even read the article? Because it wasn't the author making that statement, but a professor named John Donohue.

The author is reporting on a dispute between two professors who were on the National Academy of Sciences panel that wrote the 2004 report “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.” The National Review writer, Lott, is taking the position that “The Left” handles disputes over gun facts by lying and attacking/smearing people with positions they do not like.

I believe that on Free Republic we all agree that the presence or sales of guns doesn't cause crime and/or violence to rise; instead it does exactly the opposite. “The Left” just can't accept that reality.

[kevkrom]

“In fact, there is only one group in America that DOES benefit from high crime — and that is the gun lobby. Fear and crime sell guns; crime reduction and safety undermine gun sales. The crime drop of the Clinton years was enormously costly to the gun industry as sales of guns dropped sharply. So who would be more likely to want fear and crime in the citizenry — a sitting president who would be blamed for not stopping crime, or the gun lobby that gets an extra pay day every time crime or fear of crime ticks up?”

As usual, Donohue provided no evidence to back up his claims.

I agree that Donohue should provide a source for this claim, but as a statistician who's done considerable research in this area, I would think you'd be able to find out the truthfulness of the claim relatively easily, wouldn't you?

[Macoozie]

Wilson shows that the LACK OF EVIDENCE is precisely the problem for those promoting the claim that guns = violence. The Professor notes all legitimately published, challenge and debated studies show that SAFETY comes from an armed citizenry. People are safer when they can protect themselves.

A = A

Donohue can’t provide evidence to the contrary because it does not exist.

Lott’s point is that Gun Control zealots LIE because the truth is not on their side.

[kevkrom]

You know that. I know that. But when the other side is making a bogus claim, it’s a lot more effective to use the real stats to show that it’s BS rather than simply pointing out the opposition has no evidence.

The latter is a weak defense in that it leaves doubt as to what the truth is for those observing the exchange.

[richardtavor]

You actually know this bloated ego? Might want to wash after talking with him.

[RobRoy]

My repoly may have been sloppy. I was quite aware that it was Donohue that made the comment. It is he I was taking to task.

Sorry about that.

[SatinDoll]

Hey, each of us is allowed to be a bit sloppy at times.

Hope I wasn’t too much of a scold!

[RobRoy]

I keyed your car.

Virtually, of course. ;-)

[SatinDoll]

LOL!

[therut]

I bought and read every word in the dull academic book. Clinton thought this would be his last hurrah for his anti-gun buddies. It did not work out that way. They could not say one time that any gun control reduced crime. Not once. They said there was no evidence one way or the other most of the time. The only thing that they said might help is gun court like drug court for minors. You did not hear much about this study cause the MSM did not like the results.

[simplesimon]

Thank you Dr Lott for the article.

[neverdem]

Thanks for an excellent article.

If you're going to link an excerpt, could you link the printer friendly version for those limited by geography to only 56k modem dialup internet service, please?

[upchuck]

56K dial-up modem BUMP.