[CatoRenasci]

Even if he's on our side, dishonesty in his work is unacceptable. The deceptive posting was plain dishonest. It's one thing to use an anonymous alias to post here or to post on other discussion boards, but quite another thing to create false reviews or post self-promoting lies. The case for guns is strong enough that we don't need to embrace liars.

[ez]

Lott should reproduce his survey and letthe chips fall where they may.

[Ronnie Radford]

The most annoying aspect of this expose is that the 98% figure is incidental to Lott's work. The article makes it appear that Lott is lying about data that is fundamental to his conclusions by comparing him to Bellesiles, who invented virtually all of his data. Lott's contribution to the case for guns was to show that guns reduce crime by examining crime statistics for every county in the US over a substantial period of time. The writer never mentions that this is the core of Lott's research and that he has no difficulty supporting his conclusions.

It angers me that Lott would damage his reputation (and therefore his research) with something so trivial as lying about a survey that is not necessary for his core conclusions and posting fake reviews on his work.

[LS]

Funny, I've had the study for YEARS now and the data is ALL in the back. Every stat, every chart, and EVERYTHING is cited from the FBI Uniform Crime Stats which is on the web. There is no missing data here.

[driftless]

You are correct. Lott should know that in this day and age, false statements will be caught. However the article does not refute Lott's main contention that more guns results in less crime. I myself am skeptical of the three million plus claim. But even if it is much less, it still deters more crime than if there are no guns. The fact is that well-armed law-abiding Americans create a positive good and not by a small margin.

[Britton J Wingfield]

Yes, we need to keep our own house in order.

[Feiny]

Is CatoRenasci your REAL name?

I understand his desire to post incognito, but it was completely silly. I am not sure why he cared what a group on a chatroom (even if they were peers) thought about his work.

His son writing a book review is irrelevant. I have written several for friends books in order to help their exposure & possibly procure a sale. If my dad wrote a book, I would write a glorious review.

I have no idea what the 98% figure is about....or if this guy even has his info right. He was wrong about the age of Lotts son....the boy is 13 not 16. I guess this guy doesn't need to have HIS facts straight before attempting to discredit someone.

Even if everything he says is true, it does not invalidate Lotss work.