The John Lott article at Wikipedia was unprotected and the edit
restarted. Lott is using a sockpuppet called Timewarp to try to make
massive changes to the article. Some of the additions
he wants to make are interesting:
Although Lott has published in academic journals regarding education,
voting behavior of politicians, industrial organization, labor
markets, judicial confirmations, and crime, his research is hard to
consistently tag as liberal or conservative. For example, some
research argues for environmental penalties on firms.
Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Here’s Mary Rosh
I had him for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn’t know that he was a “right-wing” ideologue from the class. He argued both sides of different issues. He tore apart empirical work whether you thought that it might be right-wing or left-wing.
And of course, Lott’s research does give consistently right-wing results:
guns good, media biased against
Republicans, votes for
Florida spoiled ballots hurt
Republicans, Rush Limbaugh was
right, and so on. One paper with two other authors makes little difference to the general pattern.
In fact, Lott’s 98%/2% figure contradicts the other two surveys over
the last twenty years that estimated this rate. However, “Kleck and
Gertz’s estimates rise to 92 percent when brandishing and warning
shots are added together.”
Actually nine published
contradict Lott. Nor do Kleck and Gertz’s estimates rise to 92% if
warning shots are added. Their estimate is 84%. And it is wrong to
compare this number with Lott’s 98% brandishing number, since it is
measuring something different.
Before the controversy arose, Lott had repeated his survey for a book
that he had written in 2002.
In fact, Lott “repeated” the survey in December 2002 because of
the controversy, which arose in September