[absalom01]

The survey in question dealt with a tangential issue, and Lott's main conclusions are neither hurt nor helped by the question asked in the survey. (The claim he made, BTW, is that in 98% of cases, one need only display, brandish, or make verbal reference to a firearm to deter a mope. This is similar to Kleck's finding that 98% of the time, one does not have to actually perforate a mope to get him to lay off, but Kleck includes 'warning shots' and missed shots, in addition to display of a weapon to get his figure.)

Though Lambert's question is clearly energized by his desire to damage Lott, and by extension his work, it's still a fair question. Lott's answers to date have not been very good.
And you must read the book: it's well worth the price both in time and money.

[steve-b]

The claim he made, BTW, is that in 98% of cases, one need only display, brandish, or make verbal reference to a firearm to deter a mope.

Trying to find some way to discredit this fact is the gun grabbers' (Un)Holy Grail, because it undercuts the only real statistical argument (a gun is X number of times more likely to be used to kill you than to kill a crook) they have.