When John Lott Talks, Smart People Listen

Professor Lott, from NRO, from a larger piece, on “Military Style Firearms“:

…murder rates fell immediately after September 2004 [when the Clinton-era “Assault Weapon” ban was lifted], and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.

More on Monday.

 

32 thoughts on “When John Lott Talks, Smart People Listen

  1. Yeah right, that is the same John Lott who believed a Daily Mail (a regular tabloid hoax source you’ve quoted before) when he claimed that it was against anti-terrorist laws in the UK to buy more than two limes or lemons at a time.

    This man is a crackpot who fakes reviews of his work, and who has been widely discredited. Quoting him is as bad as the ‘are you fucking nuts?’ post you put up earlier this week where you seemed to support the notion that it was a good idea to ignore the rules of firearm safety to shoot an attacker in the Aurora Colorado theater scenario.

    Shooting in that situation would involve this rule of firearm safety, in case you’ve forgotten it:

    Be sure of your target and of what is beyond it

    This rule is intended to eliminate or minimize damage to non-targets when a firearm is intentionally discharged. Unintended damage may occur if a non-target is misidentified as a target, if the target is missed, or if the bullet hits something or someone other than the intended target.

    Handlers are taught that they must positively identify and verify their target. Additionally, they learn that even when firing at a valid target, unintended targets may still be hit, for three reasons:
    The bullet may miss the intended target and hit a non-target around or beyond the target.
    A non-target may pass in front of the target and be hit with a bullet aimed at the target.
    The bullet may pass through the intended target and hit a non-target beyond it, so called “overpenetration”.

    Therefore, this rule requires a handler to “always be sure of your target; not just the target itself, but above, below, to the left, to the right, in front of, and behind the target”.

    This may create situations that present dilemmas for a handler. Such situations are for instance a police officer in a riot, a civilian facing a possible intruder at night, or a soldier in a situation where civilians are near the enemy. Indecision or misjudgment of the handler’s abilities in such a situation may cause undesired outcomes, such as injury to the handler due to hesitation, or the handler violating rules of engagement and causing unintended damage.

    ANY statistics from John Lott are highly suspect. You do remember all about multi sourcing, right? Lott is not a reliable, credible, or independent source.

    So NO, smart people DO NOT rely on anything he says or writes. Sheesh!

  2. Oh, DG. You chanting-point-driven, easily-manipulated person, you.

    BTW, please do us a favor and answer the *many* questions and responses made about the rhetorical droppings you’ve left in some previous comment threads. People are starting to think you don’t pack the gear for a serious debate.

    I’ve got some time to waste, so I’ll waste a little on the rest of your little ablution here:

    Yeah right, that is the same John Lott who believed a Daily Mail (a regular tabloid hoax source you’ve quoted before)

    That’s called “Appeal to Authority” – “I don’t like your source, so your entire argument is wrong”. It’s a logical fallacy. If I quote the Daily Mail, it’s because there’s somethign I believe to be correct. You can say it’s not correct – but not just because it was in the Mail. Which is what you do.

    And it’s an interesting little bit of usage, coming from someone who quotes from “ThinkProgress” and “The Daily Kos” as if both were the revealed truth.

    This man is a crackpot who fakes reviews of his work,

    He got busted writing online commentary about his work under a pseudonym. It’s dishonest – and he’s dealt with the issue, YEARS ago – and it doesn’t impinge on his actual work product.

    BTW, don’t the two of you do the same exact thing on “Penigma?” Have multiple sock puppet IDs, to create a “consensus” behind your views?

    and who has been widely discredited

    No, he’s been widely attacked. The attacks have largely – I’d say “completely”, but he’s got a huge body of work, and I don’t know it all – been chopped to shreds.

    Quoting him is as bad as the ‘are you fucking nuts?’ post you put up earlier this week where you seemed to support the notion that it was a good idea to ignore the rules of firearm safety to shoot an attacker in the Aurora Colorado theater scenario.

    I said no such thing. You are making things up.

    Again.

    ANY statistics from John Lott are highly suspect.

    According to an assortment of liberal camp-followers who, when they have to put their stats out for public dissection, ALWAYS fail. ALWAYS.

    Lott is not a reliable, credible, or independent source.

    According to a Google search of liberals you agree with? I”m sure he does not.

    And you’ve been busted doing that, and no more than that, for years in this space.

  3. “This man is a crackpot……”

    Out of curiosity from what institute of higher learning did you recieve your Doctorate Dog?

  4. Scott,

    Yeah, interesting that she appeals to authority when the liberal has the more “prestigious” degree, and to ridicule when they don’t.

    It’s a very tidy worldview.

  5. Hey, DG,

    Before you comment anywhere else on the blog – since you’ve just attacked John Lott over a slew of things that have nothing to do with the article above – would you care to go after the *facts* Lott presented?

    Rather than skittering away behind a bunch of logical fallacies, ad-homina and diversion?

  6. Reading DG scold and try to educate Mitch on his misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of anything involving firearms, would be like my 8 year old son telling me I don’t know anything about computers and I’m doing it all wrong.

    (I’ve worked in IT since 1995)

    Please DG, it’s getting to the point that not only are your “facts” (and opinions) in dire need of correction, but your narcissistic ego needs to be chopped down several levels as well.

    Put a sock in it.

  7. Dog Gone, reading everything she reads on the Internet, and dating a french model (“Bon Jore!”).

  8. DG, here’s a link to a site that has all of John Lott’s data available for download:

    http://www.johnlott.org/

    you claiming to be the “expert” on Mr Lott’s veracity I’m sure you wouldn’t mind downloading the data and directly FACT CHECKING it then reporting back to us on exactly where Mr Lott went wrong.

  9. Look, people. The reason DG never links to the sources of her information is because her sources are television comedians, like Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, or because they are highly partisan liberal opinion generators, like TPM, Kos, or Media Matters. Basically, she does not understand that watching every Bugs Bunny cartoon ever made, even with close attention to detail, does not make you an expert on rabbits.

  10. And we shouldn’t forget the case of Michael Bellisles. Golden boy of the liberal gun-control movement, liberals trumpeted his scholarship that, they said, proved that America’s “gun culture” was creation of modern myth creators.
    Thanks to truth-loving pro-second amendment scholars and pro-second amendment groups, it became very, very clear that Belleisles had faked his data. Nearly all of his citations have since been found fraudulent or are questionable. Bellisles had his Bancroft prize for historical writing revoked.
    So Liberals promptly forgot that he existed. Bellisles, once the champion of the gun-control lobby, has become a non-person. Bellisles’ fraud was so deep, and so influential, that the stink of it is still attached to the Bancroft prize and the liberal historians who praised his work. They never checked his research.
    .Naturally, the people who once praised Bellisles, now blame him for their own malfeasance in repeating his preposterous lies.

  11. The headline of the post reads, “When John Lott Speaks, Smart People Listen.” Which then brings the usual screed from Mrs. Teasdale.

    QED, Mitch.

  12. It’s worth noting that the perp, having started his rampage at the front of the theater, would have offered any person who was armed a very safe backstop for firing. Nobody was behind him.

    And the drop in murder after the assault weapons ban makes sense. It’s hard to carry one in public, so most criminals (the Aurora murderer aside) choose something they can conceal–small pistols are high on the list–but then those criminals realized after 2004 that they just might be facing an enraged homeowner with an AK, and they’d be stuck with that .25 Lorcin by their side.

    “Oops.”

  13. Is this a joke? Are you really serious?

    You are unaware of someone named Tim Lambert? He’s an Australian who has totally destroyed Lott’s theories. And while we’re at it, One of Michael Bellesiles’ most dogged critics, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren, also prepared a report investigating Lott’s survey claims. “I have serious doubts whether he ever did the study,” says Lindgren, “and the only evidence that he’s brought forward for having done the study is ambiguous” — an NRA activist who claims to remember having been called and asked about defensive gun uses.

    Are you aware that John Lott’s credibility is non-existant among real scholars?

    Here’s some reading material for you:
    Double Barreled Double Standards
    Tim Lambert’s Material on Lott
    Why Is NY Times Citing Discredited Gun Researcher John Lott?

    Of course, one of the trick of propaganda is to limit the resources so that they back up your argument and get rid of anything which discredits or disproves your argument.

    Lott has so stacked the deck that finding this material is pretty difficult. Not that you would be too interested in doing that since it buttresses your silly and poorly informed opinions.

    A more accurate title for this post would have been “When John Lott Talks, Smart People Laugh”.

    Stephen Hawking’s 1988 book “A Brief History of Time” begins with the following famous anecdote:

    A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

    You are the old lady saying “it’s turtles all the way down!”

  14. “Lacithedog”

    Before I utterly shred your comment, let me say three things.
    1. Welcome to Shot In The Dark.
    2. I’m extraordinarily tired of anonymous and pseudonymous commenters. Seriously. If you want to say something, put your actual identity behind it. I’m not just aiming this at you, btw.
    3. Arguments that begin with a passive-aggressive “are you serious” almost inevitably set their authors up for a painful fall.

    OK. Down to brass tacks.

    Youi’re one of those “Penigma” people, aren’t you? I can tell because you use the “Dog Gone” method of research; when addressing an issue, hit Google for the first three (left-leaning) sources that match your prejudices. Declare them the truth (condescending to the reader as you do so), and, I’ll predict, skip away without awaiting the inevitable debunking that awaits (as has met every single substantive claim Dog Gone has ever made in these parts).

    As to the supposed dearth of evidence that Lott ever did the survey? That was put to rest years ago (you should check the dates on your Google results); a number of respondents, including my friend David Gross, confirmed that they were interviewed by Lott’s working group. Lott claimed that he lost his original data in a hard drive crash – which HAS been verified by colleagues who’d been working with Lott. Other lefties have claimed that it’s fishy that Lott can remember none of the names of the students he worked with on the surveys; economists I know who know Lott say that’s not very unusual given his personality (having met and interviewed Lott, I’d tend to agree).

    OK. Lambert: He’s 50-50. He truly did bust Lott on the “Mary Rosh” issue. That was, in fact, stupid. Everyone, including most of Lott’s supporters, myself included, admit that’s a little weird. It also didn’t relate in any way to the peer review of his research.

    You claim “Are you aware that John Lott’s credibility is non-existant among real scholars?” I urge you to provide a list of all real scholars with their opinions in detail. All of them.

    Wait – you were just making a hopeless generalization? Darn tootin’ you were. Opinions on Lott vary. You are reciting the official opinion of the anti-gun left. Like your Penigma cohorts, you state it as natural law, rather than a set of opinions from an incredibly fractious subset (economics) of a very fractious body (academics) on a very inflammatory and politically charged subject that is the subject of a decades-long debate between real Americans and fascist thugs.

    Oops. That was my opinion at the end there.

    Anyway, welcome to SITD. We’re a friendly lot here, but be advised, you’re not in the fever swamp anymore. You’ll actually have to bring an argument.

  15. Actually bring an argument? As opposed to your ad hominem:

    Youi’re one of those “Penigma” people, aren’t you?

    Let’s see, Libruls. They are stoopid and hate lot because. Well, he fakes reviews of his books

    I’m curious as to how long conservative has been synonymous as ignorant and ill-informed in the US since most non-US Conservatives actaully have some idea of what they are talking about.

    OK, Try Lindgren’s Report. He was one of Michael Bellesiles’ most dogged critics:

    “I find recent developments in this affair personally troubling. I carefully recorded what John Lott told me and now Lott has changed the story he told me in several specific ways–most of them minor. They are discussed in my revisions to this report. I have no research interests in this subfield and no ideas for further efforts to get to the bottom of this inquiry beyond surveying graduates and Lott’s looking at picture books of former students. This project detracts from my other scholarly efforts. Accordingly, my part in this affair is essentially done, at least if John Lott will stop changing his stories about our conversation. If not, then I suspect that I will have to stay in it a little longer, at least to respond to comments on this report.”

    And Michelle Malkin grassed on Lott:

    “Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as “payback” for the fall of Michael Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book, “Arming America.” But it wasn’t an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

    In an interview Monday, Lott stressed that his new defensive gun-use survey (whose results will be published in the new book) will show similar results to the lost survey. But the existence of the new survey does not lay to rest the still lingering doubts about the old survey’s existence.

    The media coverage of the 1997 survey data dispute, Lott told me, is “a bunch to do about nothing.” I wish I could agree.”

    Of course, the old cognative dissonance is kicking in and you have to say that them libruls are full of it. But, the same people who were attacking Bellesiles are questioning Lott.

    There might just be something there if you want to open your eyes.

    Then again, that’s painful because you begin to start seeing how much of a schmuck you are when you realise that you have been lied to.

    And you can’t blame it on the libruls over at penigma.

  16. OK, how about you come up with a credible study which cites Lott?

    If I used the first three results that come up with Lott as the subject, they would be from Lott’s website since he stacks the deck.

    As I said, you have Michelle Malkin and James Lindgren attacking Lott’s credibility. Doesn’t that get your senses going.

    Or, do you just need to BELIEVE!

    As I said, if he turns out to be BS, how much is the rest of what you’ve been told?

    But, I’m just a librul from Penigma who don’t know nothin’ cause I’m a librul!

    Unlike you who fails to question party line, especially when it forms the bedrock of your belief.

    You have more to lose than I do, Mate!

  17. Glenn Reynolds wrote about Lott:

    I trust Jim Lindgren as a neutral arbiter with expertise in the area, and it seems to me that this time Lott’s critics have him dead to rights, and he’s failed to mount a convincing response.

    Eugene Volokh wrote:

    Lindgren is a very smart guy who knows a lot about quantitative scholarship, and who to my knowledge has no axe to grind on this; remember that he was the most prominent critic of Michael Bellesiles. People who are interested in the More Guns, Less Crime debate should definitely take Lindgren’s views seriously.

    Pro-gun blogger Kevin Baker wrote:

    “For me it was the “Mary Rosh” bit that discredited Lott in my eyes. Defending yourself through a pseudonymous alter-ego was, IMHO, dishonest. If he was willing to be mendacious about that, then why should I trust his word on other matters? …

    Lott gives the appearance of being the gun-rights Michael Bellesiles, and James Lindgren, who Eugene Volokh notes seems pretty neutral on the entire gun-rights issue, was instrumental in showing Bellesiles’ flaws. That he is doing so with Lott makes his criticism more believable, not less.”

    Ralph Luker wrote:

    “The balances of opinion about John Lott’s credibility seem now to be tipping heavily against him. … It’s time for Clayton Cramer to belly up to the bar. It isn’t enough to claim that Lott is credible because you want him to be credible.”

    Lefties All!

    It’s tough when your own side shoots you down.

    But, isn’t shooting in the dark when you take shots without having an idea of what you are shooting at?

    You do it quite well here and have seriously missed your target and made a fool of yourself.

    But, I’m jest a librul! What do I know?

  18. Actually bring an argument? As opposed to your ad hominem:

    Yep, it’s an ad hominem. It’s one that Pen and DG have earned with years of facile, easiliy-debunked arguments backed with a lot of unearned hubris and condescension.

    Let’s see, Libruls. They are stoopid and hate lot because. Well, he fakes reviews of his books

    Speaking of unearned condescension. I grew up in a “librul” household, was a “librul” until my early twenties, can probably make most “librul” arguments better than you can, and used to spell things for a living (in the private sector, no less).

    I know – the lefty stereotype of everyone that doesn’t kiss their asses is that we r all teh dum. You only debase your own argument with that crap.

    Try to do better, if you can.

    I’m curious as to how long conservative has been synonymous as ignorant and ill-informed in the US since most non-US Conservatives actaully have some idea of what they are talking about.

    Wait – weren’t you the one just complaining about “ad-homina”?

    OK, Try Lindgren’s Report. He was one of Michael Bellesiles’ most dogged critics:

    Fascinating, but irrelevant; the fact that he opposed one academic who was (unequivocally) busted faking data lends no merit, by itself, to his attack on Lott.

    “I find recent developments in this affair personally troubling. I carefully recorded what John Lott told me and now Lott has changed the story he told me in several specific ways–most of them minor.”

    Which relates to “the story he told”, not “the research he did”. There is certainly a story behind whatever led to the loss/forgetting/misplacing/concealment of Lott’s data. It’s possible it’s all fake, but not only do you not present any evidence of this, but your excerpt seems to disclaim that Lindgren has anything substantial to add to the story.

    And beyond that, you’ve recorded Lindgren walking away in a snit. Fascinating, but not ultimately relevant.

    And Michelle Malkin grassed on Lott:

    As she was right to do. Lott’s behavior in re his first survey left doubts. Did his later work put those doubts to rest? I think so. You’ve provided no cites less than ten years old, so I’m going to respectfully suggest you don’t know the answer to that.

    Of course, the old cognative dissonance is kicking in and you have to say that them libruls are full of it.

    No cognitive dissonance on my part. I’ve heard all these arguments before. For well over a decade. Do you actually think you’re bringing anything new to the argument?

    But, the same people who were attacking Bellesiles are questioning Lott.

    Again – fascinating, but logically irrelevant. The case against Bellesiles was completely different than the case against Lott; different facts, different course of events, different everything. What you’re doing is the same as saying “The Manson Family murders and the OJ Simpson killing were linked because Vincent Bugliosi wrote about them both”.

    Then again, that’s painful because you begin to start seeing how much of a schmuck you are when you realise that you have been lied to.

    Hmmm. Something familiar here.

    And you can’t blame it on the libruls over at penigma

    Hmm. Stay tuned.

  19. “Lacidog”

    I gotta say, PB/Peev/Peevish/”Mikey”/Penigma, you’ve gotten a little better at ginning up sock-puppet IDs. It took me two comments before your written tics gave you away.

    But they did.

    Look, PB. I’ve always considered you a friend. You’re a great guy, in real life. I’ve never quite figured out why you need to present such a snide, over-easily-offended, hair-trigger personality online. It’s puzzling. It really is.

    That said – yeah, you and DG have adopted a certain style over at your blog; call it an ad-hominem if you want, but you both have a pretty consistent MO.

    Just saying.

  20. Oh, you”re getting trounced, yet you stick to your guns.

    This is not an ad hominem, it’s a well founded criticism:
    I’m curious as to how long conservative has been synonymous as ignorant and ill-informed in the US since most non-US Conservatives actaully have some idea of what they are talking about.

    You still want to believe that John Lott has credibility, even though it is pretty conclusive that he is considered a lying bastard. Note how he keeps getting compared to Michael Bellesiles. If you were as informed on this topic, you would know there is more than a few similarities between the two. But, you didn’t read the Mother Jones article. which buttresses my ignorance comment.

    If Lott is different from Bellesisles, it’s because Lott was far worse and has been shown to be far more mendacious. If 10 years of reading about Lott’s dishonesty and seeing Lott being attacked by fellow conservatives isn’t enough to get you to admit you are wrong, then nothing will.

    One can be highly intelligent, yet ignorant as hell since ignorance is a state of not knowing. And Mitch, you are showing that you find your ignorance quite blissful. and you’re not gonna let some libruls shoot it down.

    Or fellow conservatives for that matter.

    Which is why I am also using some conservatives to try and who you that you are wrong. Yet, when one doesn’t want to see the error of their ways, ain’t no argument going to change your mind.

    Not even pro-gun bloggers:

    smallestminority.blogspot.com/2003/09/more-guns-less-crime-via-instapundit.html:

    “Lott gives the appearance of being the gun-rights Michael Bellesiles, and James Lindgren, who Eugene Volokh notes seems pretty neutral on the entire gun-rights issue, was instrumental in showing Michael Bellesiles’ flaws. That he is doing so with Lott makes his criticism more believable, not less. “

    But, you can happily cite Lott to your heart’s content, since I am pretty sure that you are going to stick with the “Turtles all the way down” no matter how many people come out and call Lott dishonest.

    Just remember, that you can change the name from John Lott to Michael Bellesiles and imagine what you would say about someone writing a similar piece to yours.

    Cos, that’s what truly smart and informed people do when they see this piece.

    So, keep on blusterin’.

    And I’ll keep on laughin’!

    I’ll let Dog Gone deal with you since I prefer to deal with informed people, which you aren’t.

    And nothing’s gonna change that since you know you are “right”.

  21. Lacidog Penigma,

    Glenn Reynolds wrote about Lott:

    HAH! I KNEW you were Googling! Every single result you’ve provided comes from Page 1 of the “Lott Debunked” search!

    Press on!

    Unless you’re worried about “cognative” dissonance!

  22. Oh, you”re getting trounced, yet you stick to your guns.

    If this is what you think “trouuncing me” is, then clearly logical fallacy is the least of your issues.

  23. even though it is pretty conclusive that he is considered a lying bastard.

    Nope. “Penigma”, it is not “pretty conclusive” that he “is considered” any single thing. It’s a conclusion that your carefully selected bits of – what’s the term? Propaganda? – lead one to, viewed in a vacuum.

    You fill a vacuum with the facts that fit your preconceptions. That’s fine – it’s part of argumentation. Backing it up with bluster and anger and sputtering isn’t quite the followup you need to stick the landing.

    Just saying.

  24. I’ll let Dog Gone deal with you since I prefer to deal with informed people, which you aren’t.

    You want to scamper back to the friendly fever swamp? Well, it’s nothing new…

    And nothing’s gonna change that since you know you are “right”

    It’d be more accurate to say “nothing you’ve provided gives me any reason to change anything”.

    Say hello to your fellow swampies!

  25. Ah, Mitch, you have as much credibility to me as do John Lott and Michael Bellesiles.

    You are an ignorant person who needs his ignorance to feel superior to others. Or to quote you:

    It’d be more accurate to say “nothing you’ve provided gives me any reason to change anything”.

    No, you’ve made your mind up and I can’t confuse you with facts. No matter how many I give you.

    “It’s turtles all the way down, young man!”

  26. Ah, Mitch, you have as much credibility to me as do John Lott and Michael Bellesiles.

    Stumped at actual facts, it’s back to name-calling.

    Hey – you’re really “Penigma”.

    You are an ignorant person who needs his ignorance to feel superior to others.

    Incorrect. I need nothing to feel superior to others. And I need only look at your version of “logic” to feel superior – as a debater and writer – to you.

    Not trying to be bitchy. It’s an observation. Most people outside the fever swamp would agree.

    No, you’ve made your mind up and I can’t confuse you with facts. No matter how many I give you.

    You’ve given me the observations of a couple of academics. As I’ve shown, some are correct (and I agree), some are irrelevant.

    You’ve confused “Stuff Penigma Writes” with “the Truth”.

    You seem to do that a lot.

    Hey, weren’t you going to leave this to DG from now on?

  27. Mitch wrote:BTW, please do us a favor and answer the *many* questions and responses made about the rhetorical droppings you’ve left in some previous comment threads.

    I often just don’t get back to follow up on comments. So here is a suggestion to improve on that in future – is there some way you can do what other blogs do, allow someone to be updated on subsequent comments on your posts? If you do that, I promise to use it, and respond. Until this moment I was unaware that I had been leaving anything unanswered. I know other word press platform blogs have that feature, so I’m hoping I’m not asking for anything too difficult here, and I’m sure I’m not the only person who would use it and enjoy it.

    I find the time to drop by your blog about as often as you swing by Penigma (and I comment when I do!). If I want to connect with you on something, I’m more likely to drop you a personal email than to do it in a blog comment.

    As to pseudonyms – for some of us, it is simply the identity we’ve created; people know us by our pseudonyms. I got the idea for using one from YOUR commenters, many of whom still use theirs. It is a way for people to recognize us on multiple blogs. So complaining about that seems like a bit of a double standard, unless you are equally pushing everyone get rid of their long standing blognomen.

    Moving on to your next comment – which seems more directed at me than to Laci:
    hit Google for the first three (left-leaning) sources that match your prejudices. Declare them the truth (condescending to the reader as you do so), and, I’ll predict, skip away without awaiting the inevitable debunking that awaits (as has met every single substantive claim Dog Gone has ever made in these parts).
    I stand by every substantive claim I have ever made here, and what you call ‘debunking’ has not been well founded.

    At least you give me credit for multisourcing, which I’ve often found you NOT doing. Your criticism is incorrect. I actually look for the sources that are most verifiable, or where someone is more likely to be reporting in-person locally, in the case of a news story. So, for example, instead of looking for the first three google listings, I will look for a local newspaper or television station to see what they have to say, and then cross reference that with, for example, a local press release from an authority web site like the local PD or county sheriff.

    Recent case in point – I faulted the very nice Joe Doakes on his claim that James Holmes was wearing a hunting vest instead of ballistic protection. Joe’s source was a San Francisco article where a retailer claimed to have sold Holmes a vest, but did NOT assert he was wearing it in the movie theater attack. I couldn’t find ANY source that supported Joe’s claims Holmes was wearing that hunting vest – but I did find multiple official sources that indicted Holmes had bought a LOT of stuff, which could plausibly include the vest.

    In contrast I found EIGHT separate press sessions where the chief of police and other law enforcement in Aurora CO stated, specifically, over a period of days, that Holmes wore ballistic protection during the theater attack, which they defined as bullet proof or bullet resistant, depending on the type of bullet fired at it. During that time range, they revised other information, but not the ballistic claim. I then further provided to Joe the press officer contact info and the web site where the updates were posted. Joe was wrong – and he graciously, mostly, admitted it, to HIS credit.

    I recently wrote about the fact that there were at least 60 mass shootings between the Tucson shooting in January 2011 and the Aurora Co. shooting July 2012. ONE – but not the only – source for that number was the Brady campaign, which I quoted and linked because they had the better layout of the information. So to you, or a casual observer, it might look like I was ONLY using a source which supported my so-called liberal view.

    You would be wrong. I took EVERY single one of those 60 mass shootings from that list, and checked out each one independently, using a mix of local print and broadcast news sources, to be sure the information from Brady was accurate. Obviously, it was not practical to put every one of those links into the post, but when I put in that kind of effort to do credible research and fact checking – which is much more than YOU do – you owe me an apology for your criticism about the ‘top 3 google searches to support my view’.

    Laci does the same kind of research going to original sources, not second or third or fifth hand summaries of content.

    Sorry Mitch, but you use parisan sources, you don’t read the original research material, and you don’t go to original local news sources to fact check — mostly you don’t fact check at all, and you single source, often from unreliable anonymous sources. You don’t have a basis to be critical.

    My research stands in sharp contrast to some of the posts where I’ve faulted you. The one that comes to mind first was when you were quoting Fox Fake news, Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, on claims that multiple reports PROVED that felons were illegally voting. There were SEVEN of those academic studies; I looked them up and READ them. ALL OF THEM. They said, consistently the opposite of what you and Tpaw and Michele the Bimbo and Faux news claimed they said. The MN County Attorney’s association study showed the same thing — and as they are each elected, and were consistent across the political spectrum, and they cited all their cases, they credibly contradicted you. Further, if they failed to prosecute any voter fraud, they’d be handing their career over to their opposition, so they clearly had a really good motivation to be accurate, thorough and aggressive on voter fraud — and they didn’t find any that was significant . They found some instances in 2008 of felons voting where the corrections department (mostly Ramsey Cty) had some messy record keeping and incorrect or inconsistent information provided to the felons on their voting status. That didn’t occur in 2010. But there was only one case of actual intentional fraud by someone voting twice — for the Republican ticket in 2008.

    You in contrast give credence to the Minnesota Majority and other claims that have been thoroughly refuted. They may be your friends, but they are not accurate.

    I don’t use liberal sources or sources that agree with me; I try to conform my opinion to the most accurte information I can find. Now, I can see where you might have problems discerning which came first, but bottom line, I use better quality sources and go into more depth.

    One of the things I most enjoy about Laci is his intellectual honesty. If he finds solid, factual information that conflicts with what he though, he adjust what he thinks to fit the facts, not the other way round. And if he thinks I’m not giving adequate weight to something oppositional, he calls me on it. I respect that kind of intellectual integrity, and I would suggest you give him credit for it. For example, here Laci is critical of Lott on the basis of his own extensive reading, and the sources has provided to you include both pro- and anti-gun material, and that material is consistent in being critical of Lott. Lott does NOT have a good reputation outside of a very very small right wing echo chamber, and that is not an exclusively right wing view. I’ve personally encountered Lott representing as fact hoax stories from a tabloid, where I could verify through multiple sources that he was factually inaccurate . That currently contradict’s Lott’s claim that he is factually reliable, especially when it is in addition to the other CREDIBLE criticisms of his work from across the gun issue spectrum.

    Bottom line, the man FAKES things. He can’t produce his work or his sources. People he claims as sources claim he is lying about their contribution, he is credibly accused of engaging in junk science for a right wing paycheck — seriously, how much more do you need to recognize this guy is not credible, at least, not on the topic of anything firearm related?

    I enjoy both you and Laci as two of the more charming gentlemen I know, but you single source and tend to be shallow to boot, and more partisan than I am, or Laci is.

    You are wrong Mitch – and you owe me an apology for being unfair about the google search criticism. I’d like to see you start being as careful about what you write as I am.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.