A new edition of Arming America has just been drafted and Michael Bellesiles has written a response to his critics, excerpted at HNN. I read it, and do not find it even slightly persuasive. It sort of reminds me of some of Lott's defences. Anyway, HNN has comments from James Lindgren, Jerome Sternstein, Clayton Cramer that go into some of the specifics.
More like this
John Quiggin has a thoughtful post on the parallels between the Bellesiles and Lott affairs. Meanwhile, Charles Murtaugh, responding to this Tapped piece reckons that there is an important difference: there are pro-gun people like Michelle Malkin criticizing Lott, but there weren't pro-control…
Over at the History News Network, a die hard Bellesiles supporter who posts under the name "Benny Smith" has attacked James Lindgren for, get this, his "ill-fated attempt to defend" Lott. Here's Smith's version of what happened:
After serious questions arose regarding a…
Mark Kleiman writes:
What seems to me even more striking, though Mooney doesn't mention it, is the difference in the way the two are treated in the mainstream press: while no news article about Bellesiles could fail to mention the controversy about Arming America, Lott---who made up an on-line…
Lindgren has updated his report. Main changes are the inclusion of a reply from John Lott and a dissection of Lott's new "Did I say three months? I meant one month. Yeah, that's the ticket!" claim.
Lots more people have blogged on this: Glenn Reynolds, Pejman Yousefzadeh, skippy,…
A comment by Clayton Cramer? Oh, gawd.