Ted Barlow thinks that Mac Diva overstates her case against Lott's views on non-gun issues. I agree with him. While it is relevant to note that Lott's research always seems to produce results supporting a right-wing agenda, in most of those issues he does not indulge in advocacy. You can't say that he thinks that woman's suffrage was detrimental because he produces a study purporting to show that it made the government bigger (something that Lott would consider bad). Lott might believe that giving women the vote had some benefit that outweighed any costs. In any case, he is not out there arguing against votes for women like he is arguing against gun laws.
More like this
This is an annotated list of John Lott's on line reviews at Amazon
and at Barnes and Noble.
Most of his reviews were posted anonymously or under a false name, and he used this anonymity to post many five-star reviews of his own books and to pan rival books.
When you post a review at…
In a post on his blog Keith Burgess-Jackson wrote:
First, studies by law professor John Lott and others show that private gun-ownership reduces crime rates. This may be counterintuitive, but it's true. There would be more crime than there is if guns were banned.
In an attempt…
Right, so I now live (most of the time) in Indiana. We're up next, along with North Carolina, in the presidential primary spotlight. I've been getting multiple mailings every day, we've got ads on TV, the cities are being visited by major players; while I'm new to Indiana and am coming from the…
Howard Nemerov has a post defending Lott and responding to Chris Mooney's Mother Jones article. Unfortunately, he gets his facts wrong, leaves out inconvenient facts and indulges in fallacious arguments. I'll go through his post and correct these, but first some general comments.
Even…