Gun Facts

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I think he gets a little pleasure from that burr John stuck in his craw....lol

linz

Agreed. He may complain about it, but really, it makes him feel alive.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

SITE THEM PLEASE. There are "pay for publication" peer review journals out there. Just b/c you say it's so doesn't make it so. If I can be asked on a public forum for sources for statements I've made, so can you. Buck up or shut up.

Funny in another thread you clearly stated that you didn't deem it necessary to quote sources and that people should do their own homework. Here you do a complete 180 degree reversal. At least be consistent in your position, not change depending on which side of the argument you are on.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Funny in another thread you clearly stated that you didn't deem it necessary to quote sources and that people should do their own homework. Here you do a complete 180 degree reversal. At least be consistent in your position, not change depending on which side of the argument you are on.

I think that was entirely his point (and even of the thread -- the gun facts are incidental). If people are going to demand such things from him, then he is going to demand such things from them.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,150]

Ahem - I gave sources:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2408770#2408770

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Ahem - I gave sources:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2408770#2408770

I know. I never said you didn't. Well, I did and then I rescinded that bit after I realized my mistake.

I was just pointing out the actual purpose here.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Ahem - I gave sources:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2408770#2408770

I know. I never said you didn't. Well, I did and then I rescinded that bit after I realized my mistake.

I expect you hadn't yet donned the tinfoil hat for the day.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

John Lott is supected by reputable scholars of having fabricated some of his data. Much of his analysis cannot be reproduced by other researchers. He has filed lawsuits against some who have written comments doubting his work. He is known to have cherry picked the data he used. There is a good reason he has been unable to obtain a tenured position at any reputable university.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Scientific American, Vol. 295 Number 3, page 40

Ayres and Donohue,
Stanford Law & Econ. Working Paper 247;
Stanford Public Law Research Paper 44; Yale Public Law Research Paper 28; Yale Law & Econ. Research Paper 272

and more...

Oh the other side.

You are loosing this one sir

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/05/john-donohues-inaccurate-claims.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

what is really telling here is kallend chooses a source that will not even defend thier own claims on Lott

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

John Lott is supected by reputable scholars of having fabricated some of his data. Much of his analysis cannot be reproduced by other researchers. He has filed lawsuits against some who have written comments doubting his work. He is known to have cherry picked the data he used. There is a good reason he has been unable to obtain a tenured position at any reputable university.

This is hilarous.
None of the post above true. Lott answers all of these on his web site as I checked into them and even email him (and got a responce) on some I could not find info on. Lott work is solid and that just kills you doesn't it!

Edited to add.

Although anti gunner claim incomplete data more and more are seeing that at worst, nothing changes, the county side does not get more dangerous. More opinions such as the attached are coming out after 10 years of experience

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/15386395.htm

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

This is hilarous.
None of the post above true. Lott answers all of these on his web site as I checked into them and even email him (and got a responce) on some I could not find info on. Lott work is solid and that just kills you doesn't it!

Oh my god! You got a responce [sic] from the guy telling you that he is correct. Well then, it must certainly be true.

"Hey, I found problems with your research."

"No, it is correct."

"oh, okay then."

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Scientific American, Vol. 295 Number 3, page 40

Ayres and Donohue,
Stanford Law & Econ. Working Paper 247;
Stanford Public Law Research Paper 44; Yale Public Law Research Paper 28; Yale Law & Econ. Research Paper 272

and more...

Oh the other side.

You are loosing this one sir

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/05/john-donohues-inaccurate-claims.html

HA ha - why do you think you get impartial information on John Lott from his own web site. That is even worse than depending on Newsmax for your information.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

more than you can get from your sources

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Funny in another thread you clearly stated that you didn't deem it necessary to quote sources and that people should do their own homework. Here you do a complete 180 degree reversal. At least be consistent in your position, not change depending on which side of the argument you are on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that was entirely his point (and even of the thread -- the gun facts are incidental). If people are going to demand such things from him, then he is going to demand such things from them.

That only holds true when he starts providing sources in the other thread. He walked away from that one without providing those. If he truly has changed his stance on it, he should now provide sources, otherwise he seems to have something in common with Kerry.

[GTAVercetti 0]

I never said he was correct.

I was justing saying what he was doing.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

This is hilarous.
None of the post above true. Lott answers all of these on his web site as I checked into them and even email him (and got a responce) on some I could not find info on. Lott work is solid and that just kills you doesn't it!

Oh my god! You got a responce [sic] from the guy telling you that he is correct. Well then, it must certainly be true.

"Hey, I found problems with your research."

"No, it is correct."

"oh, okay then."

lol!

I have to say, as I've said before, I don't know what is true anymore regarding Lott. What his detractors allege are very serious. There seems to be a lot of meat behind their arguments and I not yet found satisfactory responses to them. It's all very disappointing, really.

I'd be interested in hearing any defenses of Lotts work. For example, have any respondents to his surveys ever come forward (I've heard of one, but he was "discredited" as being a "rabid gun nut") to say they have participated in Lott's research?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[rushmc 23]

Ok, the law suit is true but how else do answer liable?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

lol!

I have to say, as I've said before, I don't know what is true anymore regarding Lott. What his detractors allege are very serious. There seems to be a lot of meat behind their arguments and I not yet found satisfactory responses to them. It's all very disappointing, really.

I'd be interested in hearing any defenses of Lotts work. For example, have any respondents to his surveys ever come forward (I've heard of one, but he was "discredited" as being a "rabid gun nut") to say they have participated in Lott's research?

Honestly, I have no idea about Lott and whether he is trustworthy or not. But I am more inclined to believe peer-reviewed articles than to trust him just because he says he is correct.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Compared with all the better pro-gun articles out there on which our time is better spent, it is not unreasonable to discard content from writers of dubious reputation, regardless of the topic.

Exactly. It would be like going to the planetary alignment/harmonic concordance nuts for information about the solar system.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

more than you can get from your sources

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

If you're pro-gun and not acquainted w/ the work of Guy Smith and his Gun Facts publication, shame on you! The latest version is out, V 4.1 and can be downloaded here for free...

http://www.gunfacts.info/

If you're anti-gun, go hither and read the document. It's well written, well researched, and thoroughly referenced.

edit starts here...
And don't listen to kallend who'll like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject the whole document just because it references some work done by John Lott even though his reasons for discrediting Lott are spurious.

Turns out kallends rejection of Lott may have some serious meat behind it. I don't know, there's a lot to read through and even a small bit of the allegations are true, a seriously dark cloud hovers over Lott's work. I was wrong to post what I did about kallend and I hereby retract what I said. Still, I think the "Gun Facts" documents has merit and should be given a fair review. One bad apple, if Lott indeed is that bad apple (I have my doubts at this point) doesn't always spoil the whole barrel.

edit ends here


Particularly telling is the graphic on page 8, which shows Concealed Carry law status by state as of the Summer of 2006. There are now only TWO states the do not allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens and only 8 other states that have restricive laws for such. That means there are 38 states that have shall-issue or do-issue laws on the books for their citizens.

The anti-gun lobby is clearly losing. And it's a beautiful thing.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Even though I am not a christian, I did once go to bible school and nowhere do I recall god giving us rights to keep and bear arms. It was the second amendment that secured that right.

As Kris told you, the Bill of Rights didn't give you that right. It guaranteed a right you already had, ensured that the new government would not try to take away that right and others.

[kallend 2,150]

peace, bro.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PLFXpert 0]

Make love, not war?

No?


OK, then.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[JohnRich 4]

Re: John Lott's lawsuit:

Scientific American Story

Quote: "...a flurry of conference presentations and journal papers, some of which replicated his results and some of which did not."

It's odd how the gun-o-phobes only mentioned the ones that did not replicate his results.

Re: the author of the book "Freakenomics":

Quote: "Did he mean to imply that Lott falsified his results? 'No, I did not.'"

Thus, Lott's lawsuit to clear his reputation, which was impugned by the book, seems to have merit.

If someone published a widely popular book that said that Professor Kallend doesn't know shit about physics, I suspect you too might be tempted to file a civil lawsuit for libel.