Gunning for John Lott

instapundit ^ | January 12, 2002 | Glen Reynolds

[absalom01]

JOHN LOTT is being accused, of well, something. The complaint doesn't run to his published scholarly work, but to public statements he's made about a survey whose results were never published. Some people are now saying that he never conducted the survey at all. Here's an email from James Lindgren from a list that I also belong to, posted by vociferous Lott critic (and, if I recall correctly, erstwhile Bellesiles defender) Tim Lambert, that lays it out at some length.

I've been following this on that list for months (it goes back before that email) but haven't posted on it because (1) I thought it would violate list etiquette; and (2) I expected a response from Lott that would lay it all to rest.

But now -- as a recent email to the list from Eugene Volokh points out -- the story has broken out into the Blogosphere. Here's a post by Jim Henley, here's one by Julian Sanchez, and here's another by Marie Gryphon.

And no satisfactory response by Lott has been forthcoming. I don't know what to say about that. Lott's critics want, rather too obviously, for this to be another Bellesiles affair, though to my mind it is, even if the accusations pan out, something less than that, perhaps more akin to the Joseph Ellis scandal. And I can't help but feel that there's going to be a strained effort to turn every criticism of every bit of non-PC scholarship into a reverse-Bellesiles affair for a while, as the lame effort to draw a Lomborg-Bellesiles connection seems to demonstrate.

But if the charges against Lott are true -- and thus far, the evidence is suggestive, not dispositive -- it's a serious matter indeed even if it's not of Bellesiles caliber. The only one who can really clear this up is John Lott,. If he fails to do so, well, under the facts of the matter it will be difficult for anyone else to prove anything, but many will choose to draw unflattering conclusions.

As I proofed the above I checked, and Clayton Cramer has a post on this, too. He reports that Lott has repeated the 1997 study now, and posts a letter from, and a summary of a phone call from, John Lott.

UPDATE: Tim Lambert, who has been the main figure driving this matter, has a page rounding up weblog coverage and also offering this observation:

Finally, I should comment on the overall significance of this question. Lott's 98% claim takes up just one sentence of his book. Whether or not it's true, it doesn't affect his main argument, which is about alleged benefits of concealed carry laws. I don't think any fuss would have been made if Lott hadn't repeated the claim numerous times on TV shows, on radio shows, and in opinion pieces.

Bearing in mind the source of this statement, to which I have added emphasis, I think that those who are too anxious to turn Lott into another Bellesiles should exercise caution.

ANOTHER UPDATE: As I plow through the built-up emails in my office account, it's obvious that Jim Lindgren is investigating this matter rather thoroughly. Stay tuned.

[absalom01]

I thought this was interesting in that there seems to be a computer science professor in Australia (Tim Lambert), who is trying to do to John Lott what Clayton Cramer did to Bellesiles.

Here's the controversy in a nutshell: it seems that Lott made off-hand reference several times to a telephone survey that he says he conducted sometime in 1996. Now, when asked to provide the data, he is coming up short. Says that he lost the data when his computer disk crashed -- eerily similar to Bellesiles silly story about a flood in his office destroying his data from the probate records.

Here's the crux of Professor Lambert's complaint:  Lott made reference to a survey of 2,424 people called on the telephone during a three-month period, and Lambert thinks that this 'gargantuan' effort should have left major financial footprints.  Seems in the academy, one could get a $100,000 for this scale of thing (no, I'm not making this up:  see the link above for the details.)  Lott says '(I paraphrase here) no, this was a seat of the pants effort.  I had a few undergrads help out, using their own phones, and I reimbursed their phone bills, and we used a cd-rom phone directory for the dataset. '  I find Lott's explanation credible, given my experience with volunteer political phonebanking.   I'd say that a group of dozon or sovolunteers could easily get 2.5k completed calls in a week's time.  Given the three month window that Lott sites, this is an easily accomplished feat, at least in terms of the mechanics.  

Now, I know that this all seems like pretty thin gruel, but it's a safe bet that VPC or others of their ilk will soon pick this up and run with it, and then who knows where it will wind up

[absalom01]

.

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Larry Lucido]

If Lott had help, it should be easy to document the effort via affidavits.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Didn't this happen several months ago, or am I thinking about a previous assault on John Lott.

[Shooter 2.5]

I see a big difference here. Cramer doubted Bellesiles so he did some research and found out the author was lying. Now in order to do the "same thing" the left doubts John Lott but expects Lott to prove his findings. That's the difference. If the left thinks that something is amiss, they should be the ones researching the facts.

Typical clintoon tactics. Get your hand stuck in the cookie jar and make counter accusations.

[absalom01]

Seems that this particular issue is just now bubbling up. Actually, it's the first I've heard of a critique that's based on an objectively verifiable fact, rather than an opinion, or some goofy and (deliberately) obscurantist statistical mumbo-jumbo. May go away, may blow up, hard to say.

[danelectro]

Here's the controversy in a nutshell: it seems that Lott made off-hand reference several times to a telephone survey that he says he conducted sometime in 1996.

in the marie gryphon link from the article you posted:

In the second edition of More Guns, Less Crime, he offers the following alteration on page 3: “If a national survey that I conducted is correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” (emphasis added)

i don't have the book handy, so i can't verify. but if the poster is to be believed then it isn't an offhand reference.

[Bonaparte]

It's entirely possible that Lott already has everything he needs to silence his latest critics -- but tht he is playing possum, waiting for them to challenge him in a more formal context. If they lost there, they would have to suffer the humiliation of giving him a formal (and public) apology. They may sense this and it may be why they won't take things any further than message board gossip.

[Reactionary]

So... the leftists are upset about a single sentence or two? Thin gruel indeed, considering that those on their side routinely mangle data to make a political point.

After all, if they're so interested in accuracy, why don't they demand it from their own?

[Frohickey]

Thanks for the post. Haven't heard anything about this until now. Seems that the gun-grabbers want to do a Besillies on John Lott. Besillies couldn't come up with the proof, and was caught in a lie by Cramer.

John Lott couldn't come up with the proof, but no one else has proven that he lied, and with the new survey, and the similar results, its additional proof that the original survey was made.

UPDATE: Tim Lambert, who has been the main figure driving this matter, has a page rounding up weblog coverage and also offering this observation:
Finally, I should comment on the overall significance of this question. Lott's 98% claim takes up just one sentence of his book. Whether or not it's true, it doesn't affect his main argument, which is about alleged benefits of concealed carry laws. I don't think any fuss would have been made if Lott hadn't repeated the claim numerous times on TV shows, on radio shows, and in opinion pieces.

Anyone else see a 'dodge' here from anti-gunner Tim Lambert? Thats what I read in the "...Whether or not it's true, it doesn't affect his main argument..." There was no fuss raised, other than the fuss Tim Lambert raised, and now that the survey was redone, and the results are similar, he needed an out.

[Torie]

If this charge has any merit, Yale would conduct an inquiry. Falsification of date findings is an capital offense. I suspect the charge is BS. Few academics go there. The risk reward ratio simply doesn't pencil.

[JCG]

If he fails to do so, well, under the facts of the matter it will be difficult for anyone else to prove anything....

Then shut the Eff up.

America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

Who is Steve Emerson?

[absalom01]

I suspect the charge is BS.

I think so, too. What's most interesting to me is that this cat in Australia, of all places, thinks it's worthwhile to try to undermine Lott's credibility. It's easy to dismiss the ivory-tower academics, but they're the ones writing the books, and providing the fodder for the gun grabber's sound bites. A minor fracas I think, but worth following.

[.45MAN]

ping

[xm177e2]

It will do a lott of harm to the credibility of gun rights activists if John Lott is proven to have done anything unethical or dishonest. But if Lott is guilty, he's gott to go. We can't let this turn into a protracted scandal, and we shouldn't try to defend him if he's a liar. We're better than Michael Bellesiles and his friends.

[xm177e2]

They're asking Lott to give evidence that such a survey actually took place. That's basically similar to what Cramer asked of Bellesiles, to show his research. Tim Lambert is not out of line.

[Rifleman]

I hope Lott lets this build for a while, then produces the grad students who did the calling. As to loosing data when a drive crashes, I have done it twice in my long computer career.

[copycat]

I am of the understanding that Lott's research for "More Guns, Less Crime" was conducted from government statistics of crime in areas where concealed carry laws were enacted. This "phone survey" then, if that is true, is a mere side issue designed to discredit Lott by attacking a small piece of his work.

I have not read his book. Can anyone comment on how much Lott relied in the "survey" and how much he relied on Fedgov stats to reach his conclusions?

[copycat]

It will do a lott of harm to the credibility of gun rights activists if John Lott is proven to have done anything unethical or dishonest.

Why? How much were the tyrannical gun-grabbers damaged when Bellesiles was outed?