Tom Maguire has an interesting post which collects some links to blogspace discussion about the Appalachian Law School shootings.
One interesting thing is that Lott and Kopel independently made the same error—they both claimed that the New York Times did not mention the defender’s gun when it did. Both errors were particularly egregious. Kopel quoted a sentence from the article but did not notice that the gun was mentioned in the very next sentence. Lott counted the New York Times story as one of the four that mentioned the gun, but also claimed that it did not mention the gun. I think this is evidence of bias on their part. They were so sure that the New York Times wouldn’t mention the gun that they didn’t notice that it had. (To be fair, both of them have corrected this particular error.)
Maguire doesn’t think things look good for Lott and wonders
whether some Lott supporters or gun enthusiasts have attempted to rally a convincing counter-argument. Presuming, of course, that there are Lott supporters (probable), and plausible counter-arguments on this incident (doubtful).
Mark Kleiman has taken the anti-Lott side. How do we rally the pro-Lotters? Are there any?
Pro-Lott bloggers seem to have given up defending him. William Sjostrom did say he was going to write something, but nothing has been forthcoming.