John Lott's organization to thwart the antis

[g.willikers]

John Lott's Crime Prevention Research to combat the anti-gun propaganda.

Last Sunday, Guntalk interviewed Mr. Lott about the renewed attempts by the antis to pass off crime and guns research as legitimate studies.
He said that Bloomberg recently donated a huge amount of money to John Hopkins for that purpose.
He further explained how 23 leftist foundations are going to duplicate what they did to promote Obama Care and provide plenty of propaganda against gun and gun owners.
The interview was during the third hour of the show, last Sunday.

Mr. Lott said his organization could use as much financial help as possible to help hire staff to provide intellectual ammunition to counter all that will be supplied to the media and academia by the other side.
Here's the web site for the Crime Prevention Research organization.
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org

[Tom Servo]

Lott's been an asset to us in the past, but he has one very big problem in Mary Rosh.

And let's not swing into left/right politics. There are plenty of self-professed liberals who support us and more than a few conservatives who don't.

[Librarian]

he has one very big problem in Mary Rosh.

Yes, indeed. He shot himself in the foot, good and proper.

Now, are we going to let him heal, or insist he must limp for the rest of his career?

[Frank Ettin]

We might let him heal, but our opposition probably won't.

Once credibility is eroded it's tough or impossible to restore it among folks who are inclined to be unsympathetic.

[Willie D]

As soon as you start a study trying to prove your agenda, your research is suspect. That goes for nearly any topic, whichever side you wish to argue for.

John Lott has made good money telling gun folks what they want to hear but his record as an impartial researcher is garbage.



If he could unequivocally PROVE a point (like, say, more guns equals less crime) that would be swell but at this point he's established himself as more advocate than scientist, which doesn't help his cause.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Willie D

As soon as you start a study trying to prove your agenda, your research is suspect.

Unfortunately, all too often a study and/or how it is used, is used to prove an agenda. Most people who have to work for a living have better things to do than pour through a study, which may reference other studies, to determine if the tidbits of it in a newspaper story or magazine article are misleading or not. Personally, I think more armed people will increase the chances of someone being able to put down someone foaming at the mouth. What do you think the police show up with? They call them guns

[Jammer Six]

We need someone else. Lott needs to recognize that he ended his own career and that he needs to do something else. Something that doesn't involve a reputation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Research from advocacy groups isn't well respected. We certainly see in medical research how the cash controls the research.

Would Lott publish a negative gun result? Say he found the gun buy backs did help out. What would he do?

Kleck is a better example of an academically based researcher who has a good rep for being honest. He won an award from the criminologists' group for Point Blank.

Publish agenda driven research and eventually you will fall if you don't act honestly. Look at the Bellesiles affair. Award winning book, cover of the Chronicle of Higher Ed and NY Times Book Review. Tried to attack gun rights and make the point for the anti. Eventually progun scholars AND neutral scholars who knew the technique he used, reached out and destroyed his career.

[glh17]

I've been out of the academic research loop since I retired about 3 years ago. As an economist, I'd hear of Lott's study and some of the criticisms but never read the original research.

It's one thing to have people throw stones at your technique or data, but it's an entirely different thing when you lose your reputation through something like the Mary Rosh caper. Too bad because I'm sure he has the ability to do some fine research. He's worked at some of the top universities.

[Jammer Six]

His "research" is just the tip of the iceberg he created.

His actions, not his research, are what is discussed. Even by us.

Now if you want to have a discussion involving any kind of science with someone who is educated in science, they can point to Lott's shenanigans as an example of pro-gun interests and what they can be expected to generate.

[Buzzcook]

Last Sunday, Guntalk interviewed Mr. Lott about the renewed attempts by the antis to pass off crime and guns research as legitimate studies.

And why are they not areas of legitimate study?

Dr. Lott became ridiculous because of Mary Rosh. But it was bad science in his more guns/less crime book that ruined his scientific reputation.

[Jammer Six]

And why are they not areas of legitimate study?

Because you can't prove a negative.

[JohnRLott]

Well, let's hope that others in this debate are better informed than the people posted here.

1) I used the family email account in an internet chatroom to discuss gun control issues. I had originally posted under my own name, but on the contentious issue other posters would sometimes think a discussion in a chatroom was an invitation for them to go after me outside that discussion. I also often didn't have time to respond to attacks and it was taken as me not being able to respond. When there was a question about who had been making posts under that pseudonym, within a couple hours of the request, I noticed it and noted that the posts were by me. Indeed, many of the posts were simply cut and pastes from other things that I have written. However, since it was a family account, I wasn't the only one who made posts using that account, though I did make the vast majority of them.

2) "John Lott has made good money telling gun folks what they want to hear" -- Seriously? Again, you all aren't very well informed.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...richard-daley/
I have lost other academic jobs because of this research. I have had many chances to do consulting on gun related issues, particularly in the suits against the gun makers, but I always turned that down because I was concerned that it would impact my perceived objectivity on gun related research.

3) Unlike many researchers, I have always shared by data, even before the studies have been published. The large majority of researchers have obtained results similar or larger to what I found (http://johnrlott.tripod.com/surveyofrtcliterature.pdf). Even those who have been critical were able to replicate my research.

4) Gary is great, and he has done some very good research. However, as I am sure that you can confirm, Gary's work shows that gun ownership has no net effect on crime and he has argued that there is no harm from having registration and other regulations because changes in gun ownership rates won't impact crime rates. Most of the researchers referenced in point (3) above are to the right of Gary on that point. There is nothing wrong with that view, though I think that his emphasis on cross-sectional data is flawed and I have tried to make that clear for those who have read MGLC or The Bias Against Guns.

It is very disappointing that you all haven't tried to be better informed about these issues.

[Jammer Six]

I don't think anyone is talking about your research.

[Tom Servo]

I don't think anyone is talking about your research.

Well, they need to be. Let's get back on topic here.

[Jammer Six]

Isn't the original topic that Lott needs money?

And aren't the reasons for and the reasons against giving him any, therefore, reasonable discussion?

[Buzzcook]

Because you can't prove a negative.

First of all you can prove some negatives, ie "there are no cats in this room". You can also disprove some negatives, see cats above.
What negative is it that's being proved or not?

But that doesn't answer my question. After all the subject of this post, Dr. Lott, is involved in both crime and gun research.
I doubt that the OP considers Dr. Lott's research as illegitimate.

[Buzzcook]

I must admit that I was surprised to get a PM for JohnRLott when I signed in tonight. Pretty sure that was the same reaction for most if not all the posters to this thread. The PM was the same as his post to this thread.

imho we're very small fry for Dr. Lott to involve himself with.

The Mary Rosh story.
http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/0...y-of-mary-rosh

Dr. Lott makes two statements on the subject.
1. that he used the pseudonym in order to avoid conflicts in chatrooms, either personal attacks or broadening outside of the subject of guns.

I'm sure that many famous people would like to have discussions in their area of expertise without the burden of their own notoriety or being side lined into other controversial areas they are involved with.
But many of the Mary Rosh posts are specifically defenses of Lott, rather than impersonal discussions based on data and logic.
In fact Dr. Lott admits here that many of the Rosh posts were cut and pastes of his own arguments.

2. Dr. Lott says that the Mary Rosh account was a shared one. That is what the linked article says.

... to his credit Lott confessed. "The MaRyRoSh pen name account," he explained, "was created years ago for an account for my children, using the first two letters of the names of my four sons."

Is Dr. Lott now suggesting that his children or wife posted things such as this?

"[Lott] was the best professor that I ever had....Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material."

Do all the Lott family get involved in on line discussions on gun topics?

More recently there are accustation of Lott using a pseudonym, Timewarp, to make favorable edits to his Wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

More on Dr. Lott's post later.

[Jammer Six]

I'd have to think about that. (The negatives.)

I imagine you're right, that the original poster doesn't think Lott's research is illegitimate.

That's why he posted that Lott needs money.

I figure that Lott needs money because of his actions; that is, his research funds dried up because of the damage he did to his own reputation.

His posting activity right here, including his "family account" activity, show that he still does not understand the damage such actions can do.

He will not help us. He will only hurt us, he can do nothing else. Therefore, I am not inclined to give him any money.

This, of course, all assumes that this time, we are actually talking with John Lott.

[g.willikers]

This, of course, all assumes that this time, we are actually talking with John Lott.

No telling, is there, it's the internet.
Gotta' wonder sometimes who's behind the curtain in any forum.

I was not aware of the Mary Rosh incident.
We're in a battle for our gun rights every day, and we need all the help possible.
Everyone screws up now and then.
How important Mr. Lott's contributions are, and have been, should take precedent.

[NH_Pilot]

Merry Christmas,

The internet is an interesting place. It is pretty common to see some folks grab onto bits of another's postings and type replies that assume that the original poster is up to some dark nefarious activity. And we see the opposite, that someone sees a negative post about a peer that they view as having views similar to their own and types a response that suggests that the party being criticized is next in line for sainthood and the critiquer must be an envious low life. In reality, neither position is even close to the truth. And the posts say a lot more about the poster than the subject of their post.

One observation that I would contribute is that it is not a winning strategy to say that the other side can be as misleading, devious, and fraudulent with facts and data as they want to be, but all of our "friends" must be perfect and never misplace a comma or period in what they write. Was it Pogo who said "We have met the enemy and it is us?" I am told that in the middle east they say "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Given the state of current affairs, I will suggest that the latter sentiment is more effective. We can argue about who is more worthy of admiration after the big struggles are settled in our favor and the historians are writing up nice articles for Wikipedia. Energy today spent fighting amongst friends is energy not directed at the Bloombergs and Hudaks.

Its the Christmas season and next year is an election year. There will be no perfect candidates. But if you can decide that firearms rights are THE most important issue for you, and you look for the most electable and firearms friendly candidates in your area, and volunteer to work the phones, fold and mail brochures, etc., you might be happier next Christmas. So consider giving your friends and fellow travelers a pass for a while and aim your energy at the folks who want to take away and restrict your rights.

Merry Christmas,

Wes

[JohnRLott]

Buzzcook, the Reason story had many false claims. But it is good that you raise the postings on Wikipedia as a false example of the claims of pseudonyms.

Professor Jim Purtilo at the University of Maryland put together these posts:
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/Wikipedi...amecalling.htm
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/details.htm
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/

As to the claim that I have started this center because I am desperate for money, "Jammer Six" is really quite amusing. I suppose that you are making the same claim about John Whitley, who was the research director at the Department of Homeland Security for three years and is serving as the CPRC's research director. The point is that on my own it is simply impossible for me to evaluate to anything more than a tiny fraction of the very poorly done studies that are coming out, let alone the avalanche of public health research that is now being funded with hundreds of millions of dollars from everyone from Bloomberg to these large foundations to the federal government.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter...981-2010-ajph/
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org

If one were to use the types of arguments posted here, we could claim that someone such as "Jammer Six" is a gun control advocate using a pseudonym to post in this forum.

[Jammer Six]

That's not him.

I'm having trouble trying to decide if I'm disappointed.

[Brian Pfleuger]

If you're saying that the person posting under JohnRLott is not, in fact, Mr Lott, you'd better have real evidence ready to post. Otherwise, my research says otherwise.

Get back on topic.

[Jammer Six]

Mr. Lott said his organization could use as much financial help as possible to...

As to the claim that I have started this center because I am desperate for money, "Jammer Six" is really quite amusing.

Okay. This is my "proof", such as it is.

I suppose Lott could say one thing to an interviewer and another to us. But in a thread repeating his plea for money, I don't see the point of implying that he doesn't need money after all.

So one or the other of these claims that are attributed to Lott isn't true.

Since I don't think even Lott is that disingenuous, I conclude our new poster isn't Lott.

To get back on topic, when we spend research dollars, we need someone else to head it.