The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate

[East_TN_Patriot]

Realistically, aren't most individuals who write and promote books trying to sell books, or an idea or a belief system?  Would anyone so invested in attempting to gain remuneration for advocating their particular beliefs be so judged?  Because Mr. Lott is trying to make a living espousing a type of belief, does that completely negate his objectivity?

 

When a scholar teams up with a pop-culture personality with a very divisive record such as Glenn Beck, then yes, I think his objectivity is in question.  Not everyone who writes books does it to get rich.  Most researchers use their work to uncover new knowledge and share it with other researchers and policy-makers.  

EDIT:

Let me reiterate and clarify my earlier point.  I think that Lott's "more guns, less crime" thesis is flawed and I believe he vastly overstated the effect that CCW laws have on the overall violent crime rate.  Multiple researchers have talked about his work and made similar criticisms.  What these same scholars did say is that Lott's work definitely confirmed that CCW laws do not lead to increases in violent crime, which is perhaps a more important finding.  I personally don't believe that gun owners should be obligated to prove CCW laws improve anything in order to exercise our rights.  All we need to show is that exercising 2nd Amendment rights don't cause more problems.  If we can show that violent crime is hampered by CCW laws, all the better, but you don't much for your case by citing a book by someone with little credibility to many Americans like Glenn Beck and I would like to have thought that Lott was wise enough to realize that.  

Edited June 2, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[East_TN_Patriot]

Somebody is making a good living off of that. I bet there are a lot more prison beds now than in the 80's as well.  More prosecutors, more defense attorneys too I would presume.

Crime is a Big Business it seems.

Yes, most definitely.  Prison spending has increased so much that many are talking about the "prison-industrial complex" that speaks to the collaboration between the criminal justice system, politicians, and private businesses who make money off of incarcerating offenders.  In all fairness, many of the people who are incarcerated are non-violent drug offenders, but that makes it even more difficult to effectively deal with violent criminals.

[Worriedman]

When a scholar teams up with a pop-culture personality with a very divisive record such as Glenn Beck, then yes, I think his objectivity is in question.  Not everyone who writes books does it to get rich.  Most researchers use their work to uncover new knowledge and share it with other researchers and policy-makers.  

Could it be the pop-culture personality reached out and contacted the researcher to bolster his thesis, and yes, thought process, to add veracity by association maybe, or, perchance Beck thinks Mr. Lott may know something about the issue?  And, the book in question is under Beck's signature, not John Lott's.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

 

Lott has held positions in law and economics at Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission (1988–1989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the University of Chicago. Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (2001–2006). Lott has also been a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland.  His bone fides appear fairly substantial to me at least.

I have met Mr. Lott on a couple of occasions, and he seems a very bright individual who did not evidence anything other than a very friendly personality.

I have also met and done a little collaboration with Glen Beck, does not make me any less of a concrete finisher or high school/college instructor, nor lesson my objectivity (at least on that single account).

Edited June 2, 2013 by Worriedman

[East_TN_Patriot]

Could it be the pop-culture personality reached out and contacted the researcher to bolster his thesis, and yes, thought process, to add veracity by association maybe, or, perchance Beck thinks Mr. Lott may know something about the issue?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

 

Lott has held positions in law and economics at Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission (1988–1989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the University of Chicago. Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (2001–2006). Lott has also been a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland.  His bone fides appear fairly substantial to me at least.

I have met Mr. Lott on a couple of occasions, and he seems a very bright individual who did not evidence anything other than a very friendly personality.

I have also met and done a little collaboration with Glen Beck, does not make me any less of a concrete finisher or high school/college instructor, nor lesson my objectivity (at least on that single account).

I am very familiar with Lott's background.  I'm not saying he is a bad guy.  I'm simply criticizing his decision to team up with a guy like Glenn Beck, whom does have a record of misrepresenting information and being borderline loony.  I used to be a big Glenn Beck fan, but I watched him head down tinfoil hat lane and personally caught multiple incidents of simply inaccurate information he presented (not based on my opinion, but blatant cases of inaccurate information about laws and historical facts).  If Glenn Beck called me and asked me to write a book with him, I would tell him no.  

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.  

[Worriedman]

I don't know the answer to that and I have never seen any data on it.  What I do know is that it's totally up to the prosecutor to seek the enhanced penalties and many times they do not.  In my police days, what the prosecutor would do is use it as a plea-bargaining tool.  If they would accept a plea deal, they would not tack on the 10-20-Life penalty or whatever was potentially on the table.  

 

 

So, are you saying our Public Servants, those charged with (and paid to protect) the general population are more concerned with their conviction numbers than adding years to the sentences of real bad people, the kind that uses a firearm in the commission of a felony?

Kind of negates the need for "enhanced penalties" except as a form of campaign advertising, does it not?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I am very familiar with Lott's background.  I'm not saying he is a bad guy.  I'm simply criticizing his decision to team up with a guy like Glenn Beck, whom does have a record of misrepresenting information and being borderline loony.  I used to be a big Glenn Beck fan, but I watched him head down tinfoil hat lane and personally caught multiple incidents of simply inaccurate information he presented (not based on my opinion, but blatant cases of inaccurate information about laws and historical facts).  If Glenn Beck called me and asked me to write a book with him, I would tell him no.  

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.  

I'd imagine you would have to slay most of the dragons in the media if you wish to slay this one. Each one has

his own unique flaw, and each one has reported something not necessarily in the best picture.

 

You mentioned on an earlier post about Lott's interpretation of data in a unique time frame situation that makes

his data flawed. It sounds like we were going through some kid of crime bubble? I'm not arguing a point, but I

would like to know some kind of study that makes his wrong, other than subjectivity from some other source like

an opposition to his.

 

I did get into an argument with someone on another forum who praised the works of an "economist" in California,

who wrote some kind of paper that included a lot of flaws. It really looked to be a political hack job to me. I do know

most every study on anything is fundamentally flawed because of the person doing it, but if there is something

rational to show Lott may have been wrong, send me a link, would you? Or where to look for it.

[RobertNashville]

When a scholar teams up with a pop-culture personality with a very divisive record such as Glenn Beck, then yes, I think his objectivity is in question.  Not everyone who writes books does it to get rich.  Most researchers use their work to uncover new knowledge and share it with other researchers and policy-makers.  

EDIT:

Let me reiterate and clarify my earlier point.  I think that Lott's "more guns, less crime" thesis is flawed and I believe he vastly overstated the effect that CCW laws have on the overall violent crime rate.  Multiple researchers have talked about his work and made similar criticisms.  What these same scholars did say is that Lott's work definitely confirmed that CCW laws do not lead to increases in violent crime, which is perhaps a more important finding.  I personally don't believe that gun owners should be obligated to prove CCW laws improve anything in order to exercise our rights.  All we need to show is that exercising 2nd Amendment rights don't cause more problems.  If we can show that violent crime is hampered by CCW laws, all the better, but you don't much for your case by citing a book by someone with little credibility to many Americans like Glenn Beck and I would like to have thought that Lott was wise enough to realize that.  

I've no special expertise in statistics; just enough classes to be able to at least follow the language but I've had the opportunity to personally speak with Lott about how the conclusions were arrived at...while anyone could be wrong in drawing conclusions I don't believe there is anything demonstratively wrong with Mr. Lott's conclusions.  I would also point out that many if not most of the experts who criticize his work seem to have at least a tenuous connection to the "other side"; meaning they aren't exactly unbiased in their criticism.

 

Most of this, however has nothing to do with "Control"...the book is not about the "More Guns; Less Crime" theme but rather a tool for countering those who want control; not just "gun control" but control over our lives in total.  As such, I think it's well worth the read.

[RobertNashville]

I don't know the answer to that and I have never seen any data on it.  What I do know is that it's totally up to the prosecutor to seek the enhanced penalties and many times they do not.  In my police days, what the prosecutor would do is use it as a plea-bargaining tool.  If they would accept a plea deal, they would not tack on the 10-20-Life penalty or whatever was potentially on the table.  

Regardless, the length of the average prison term is much higher today than in the early 1980s.  According to the US Department of Justice, in 1990-1999 the average prison sentence was 8 years, but by 2010 the average prison sentence was 25 years.  

Well, it would seem then that, even if sentences are longer; they aren't nearly long enough. Perhaps it's an incorrect perception on my part but It seems a rather rare occurrence that thugs break into our homes and/or commit other serious, violent crimes that don't already have long and even quite serious criminal records...even often out on payroll for prior, serious crimes.

 

I'm not against giving a person another chance to straighten up his/her life and become a productive citizen but I think a second chance should probably be the limit after which they should remain incarcerated at least until they are far too old to be a danger to anyone (that would also take away most of the arguments for BG checks...if bad guys weren't "out" they wouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and buy a gun!). :)

[Hershmeister]

Whenever i get into a "gun control" debate, i simply tell the other party that the supremes have already ruled on the matter and the 2nd amendment has been incorporated in the Mcdonald case. Just like they did with Roe v Wade and many other foundational bill of rights cases. Then i suggest they read it in full before we discuss further.