The book arrives here on Sunday.
Old news or not, it speaks to the man's character--or apparent lack thereof. I thought he was one of the good guys, with solid, honest, factual research.
It's a shame that I will no longer be able to cite his work.
Then whose work will you cite ? Are there any studies other than those cranked out by the FBI or CDC (who Lott cites), or would something from Daniel Webster at JHU, funded by Bloomberg Buck$$$, suffice ?
Could there possibly be another reason to question Lott's credibility beyond self-promoting reviews.
Old news or not, it speaks to the man's character--or apparent lack thereof. I thought he was one of the good guys, with solid, honest, factual research.
It's a shame that I will no longer be able to cite his work.
The other side can't touch his analysis and the thoroughness of his work so they go after him personally. We've all seen it before, it's what they do. To me it seems that he is a little thin skinned and did some boneheaded things like make up a supportive username etc. But that might be understandable when you are being trashed daily by people who haven't even read your work. IIRC when his laptop crashed he had sent out his data-set to other economists for peer review. Not one of them would send him a copy back. He has recreated the majority of that data in the years since and his work has been validated.
Alinsky Rule #5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
This is my understanding. The man is an analyst and not a public speaker and does not do well under the spot light. While many have questioned his analysis, I have not seen where he has been proven wrong..
.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html
And that is his side of the story. I'm still not buying. You are going to need someone more trustworthy to cite and rely on for facts, IMO. He may be 100% correct, but using him as the source to back your opinion is worthless because his name is known among antis as a debunked fraud.
Might as well use Brian Williams or Hillary as your source.
All of the complaints and so-called "proven bias" of Lott that I have seen've been debunked by facts (not hyperbole, which is all that I've seen from Lott's detractors).
Lott's a terrible speaker (I've seen him twice and he outta come with an FDA warning label about not operating machinery during or immediately afterwards), but a brilliant source for credible and well- and reliably-sourced factual evidence.
Yes he is thin skined..
Originally he was in support of gun control..then he followed the data. Then he got f.ked over..
He is,frequently at the GRPC conference and I will likely buy his book there..
Incidentally his assistant is drop dead gorgeous...she's worth the trip all by herself...
Concealed-carry permit holders are nearly the most law-abiding demographic of Americans, a new report by the Crime Prevention Research Center says—comparing the permit holders foremost with police.
“Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the U.S. that is anywhere near as law-abiding,” says the report, titled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016.”
Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott, a noted economist, said the finding is not surprising considering the rigorous process it takes to get a concealed-carry permit.
Concealed-carry permit holders are nearly the most law-abiding demographic of Americans, a new report by the Crime Prevention Research Center says—comparing the permit holders foremost with police.
“Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the U.S. that is anywhere near as law-abiding,” says the report, titled “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016.”