| impertinence said: Yeah, John Lott being accepted science... If you have no idea what you are talking about just don't bother. John Lott's research is widely discredited and he has been and continous to be under heavy critisism for massaging data, not being able to provide raw data cited in his research, cherry picking and a number of other transgressions. To claim that John Lott is considered the best research available on gun crime is plain false. I am sure he is universally lauded as a beautiful mind on Fox News where he is a frequent contributor, but do yourself a favor and check the facts a little better. John Lott is a scientist who sold out to the gun lobby, and has pretty much no credibility left. He is not above cooking his numbers, as he has done in the list of mass shootings in non gun free zones that started this whole debacle. |
Here's a qustion.
Have you read any gun research recently?
If you had, you'll note Lott's research is pretty much always the very first thing mentioned in the literature review.
The can't provide raw data complaint, is the only thing you mentioned that was a true complaint against him... yet you conviently left out the fact that that's a complaint with basically every professor at his school because they all lost their data after a hardware crash.
Hell the biggest counterpoint to him has been Levitt. Who actually is against gun control now, suggests RTC pretty much has no effect on anything, gun control doesn't have any effect on anything and suggesting it also doesn't work. Instead he suggests mandatory enhancements for crimes committed with guns.
Academic reality can, and often does, vary from random stuff you might find on internet article comment sections or silly biased websites.
