New York Times: FAIL - Who'd of Thought?

[torgo1968]

I started with his wikipedia and then went on to read every source document that I could find. I have found no legitimate criticism of his research.

Did you not read the "controversy" section like I suggested? Again, it doesn't comprise proof of wrongdoing on his part, but the appearance of it pops up over and over.

We are way to quick to throw out people on our side.

We are far quicker to embrace anything that looks good for us. It results in overstating the strength of our argument when doing so is unnecessary.

No-one is perfect and we need to stand up for the people on our side.

No one is asking for perfection. But notice that when you look up Gary Kleck, a criminologist who is "on our side", you don't find anything questioning his integrity. The responses to his work are all academic in nature. That's because Kleck doesn't work as a go-to flack for a "news" organization. It also helps that he is a member of several organizations that are considered liberal, so again, they can't attack the man, only the work. Whether he deserves it or not, Lott has given the opposition a means of dismissing him. That doesn't change many of our minds, but we are talking about citing him when arguing or discussing the gun issue, so any cracks in his reputation matter.

You say you don't care where a man gets his paycheck, but in your first post you did just that because he was on FOX. Pick a postion and stick with it.

No, I don't care where he works. But if I'm citing a man's work in an attempt to change someone's mind, I had better care if they will be able to dismiss him as a partisan.

John Lott did an incredible amount of research on gun crime vioilence and self-defense.

Quantity doesn't equal quality.

If we throw his work out, we will be left with whatever the CDC or the anti's produce which will ignore any benefit from guns at all.

Completely untrue. See Gary Kleck for one, and there are others.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[oakchas]

I believe Lott's numbers. But I won't use him as a citation with an experienced anti, because they will dismiss him, and his work, as "tainted"as a result of the controversy....

For that matter, the data on both sides of "the argument" are not conclusive either way. At least according to one somewhat neutral study.

Statistics can be skewed, rather easily I'm afraid. In either direction.

[mkh]

The liberal mindset: Don't try to confuse me with facts.

[torgo1968]

The liberal mindset: Don't try to confuse me with facts.

Don't do this. There is nothing about liberalism or conservatism that causes people to adhere strictly to logic and evidence. As I said in another thread, people believe what they want to believe. I can give you a long list of issues where facts mean nothing to conservatives, liberals, or both.

[CharlesMorri]

All I can say is....ImageUploadedByTapatalk1361068669.955347.jpg

[AngryBadger417]

Everyone just needs to calm down and drink the look aid. Too many rational thoughts going on here

[phreddy]

Did you not read the "controversy" section like I suggested? Again, it doesn't comprise proof of wrongdoing on his part, but the appearance of it pops up over and over.

We are far quicker to embrace anything that looks good for us. It results in overstating the strength of our argument when doing so is unnecessary.



No one is asking for perfection. But notice that when you look up Gary Kleck, a criminologist who is "on our side", you don't find anything questioning his integrity. The responses to his work are all academic in nature. That's because Kleck doesn't work as a go-to flack for a "news" organization. It also helps that he is a member of several organizations that are considered liberal, so again, they can't attack the man, only the work. Whether he deserves it or not, Lott has given the opposition a means of dismissing him. That doesn't change many of our minds, but we are talking about citing him when arguing or discussing the gun issue, so any cracks in his reputation matter.



No, I don't care where he works. But if I'm citing a man's work in an attempt to change someone's mind, I had better care if they will be able to dismiss him as a partisan.



Quantity doesn't equal quality.



Completely untrue. See Gary Kleck for one, and there are others.

When you deal with economics volume of data is very important. Quality too.

Again, can you give me any evidence of problems with the quality of his research?

Undocumented claims by Chuck Schumer and Alan Dershowitz are not proof.

Missing data from one survey even though Lott has people willing to back him up that the survey happened is not proof.

Even in the dissent, one of his critics agreed with him.

Wilson noted in the report that all the panel's estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.

Please give me some kind of evidence that Lott does lousy research or quite smearing his name.

[Rock and Glock]

We're done pissin' about Lott. Understood?

[CharlesMorri]

Everyone just needs to calm down and drink the look aid. Too many rational thoughts going on here

I see....ImageUploadedByTapatalk1361151096.908649.jpg

[Cook74]

All I know is Ann Coulter is way smarter than me and I like her analogies...

The article was well written and I could care less if the anti-gun crowd dislikes the research done, so be it... that is their right...

The anti's would complain no matter what was said, if it is not in line with their agenda... what ever the heck that is...

[torgo1968]

Edit: @Rock and Glock: Didn't see your post before I sent this. My apologies.

Please give me some kind of evidence that Lott does lousy research or quite smearing his name.

No point in addressing anymore when you still aren't reading what I've said. If you had, you wouldn't be asking me to stop doing something that I haven't done nor accuse me of claiming "proof" of something when I've explicitly said that those things weren't proof.

[IsaiahM33]

It doesn't matter what facts you place in front of the anti-gun crowd. They believe they are right and how dare you question their position. Just look at Piers Morgan. He may not be American but he is the poster boy for emotion over logic. Great article...but it won't change anyone's mind. Yes, I've become very cynical. I truly believed there was NO WAY Obama would be reelected. Boy, is there egg on MY face! The more time goes by, the more "mainstream" America moves to the left. Little by little. It isn't going to stop. We'll keep compromising until there isn't anything left to compromise with! Whatever....I'm done venting. Ann Coulter...brilliant woman but, like Sarah Palin, someone that has been demonized and made fun of so much by the left that even the right no longer really accepts them. Guess I'm not done venting.....

[Crowman]

I believe it is wrong to even discuss other countries when it comes to the gun issue. Yes, the anti gun folks/media love to bring it up but it is nothing more than deflecting off the real issues.

America is not these other countries. None of the countries they cite have the 2nd amendment(right to keep and bear arms). Many of the cited countries have different laws than America does, they also do not have(if any) the plea bargaining system America has.

I simply tell any anti gun person that brings it that America is not any of those countries and refuse to discuss that issue any further.

[TX expat]

I believe it is wrong to even discuss other countries when it comes to the gun issue. Yes, the anti gun folks/media love to bring it up but it is nothing more than deflecting off the real issues.

America is not these other countries. None of the countries they cite have the 2nd amendment(right to keep and bear arms). Many of the cited countries have different laws than America does, they also do not have(if any) the plea bargaining system America has.

I simply tell any anti gun person that brings it that America is not any of those countries and refuse to discuss that issue any further.

Not to mention that just about all of these places that antis love to use as "examples" have about 5% of our population. You can't draw any real parallels between a country that has 12 million people and a country that has over 300 million; it's just not realistic. But heck, 'realistic' has never been a strong point for 'em anyway.

[phreddy]

We're done pissin' about Lott. Understood?

Understood.