postwatcher04 - at - hotmail.com

About PostWatch
 
..::Archives::..


 
..::Links::..
The Nation

Winds of Change

Memri

Virginia Gun Rights

= WatchBlogs =
Timeswatch

Alphecca

Biased BBC

ChronWatch (SF Chronicle)

Croooow Blog

OmbudsGod

Regnum Crucis

Rhetorica









  ..::Other Links::..
Debka.com

Independent Women's Forum

Inkwell

MRC

Romanesko

CampusWatch.org

Amy Wellborn

Mark Shea

Kesher Talk

Right Wing News

Eleven Day Empire

Discriminations

Where is Raed?

Healing Iraq

The Command Post

Powerline







 
PostWatch: An irregular correction to the Washington Post


Brought to you by Christopher Rake
















PostWatch
 

Thursday, February 13, 2003
 
3:11 PM

Tim Lambert, who has the extensive links on John Lott noted below, linked to my recent posting on the subject and claims that "Postwatch makes the same error as [one John] Whitley: Lott's new survey does not bolster his 98% claim -- the sample size is just too small."

Here's what I said, and I'm at a loss to discern what error he's referring to:
Lott is embarking upon new research to bolster his earlier claim that brandishing a gun deterred a crime 98% of the time.

Excuse me, but is Lott not embarking upon new research to bolster his earlier claim that brandishing a gun deterred a crime 98% of the time? Correction, please. Conclusions about the sample size or whether Lott is persuasive on this issue are another matter.

I didn't identify Lambert when I first linked to his page, but InstaPundit describes him as "the main figure driving this matter." It's worth noting in that context the following from Lambert, which is also cited by InstaGuy:

Finally, I should comment on the overall significance of this question. Lott's 98% claim takes up just one sentence of his book. Whether or not it's true, it doesn't affect his main argument, which is about alleged benefits of concealed carry laws


And that, my friends, is the main difference between this dispute and the one over Michael Bellesiles, as I said the other day.

Lambert adds that if Lott is wrong about the value of brandishing weapons (which by the way can be illegal under many concealed-carry statutes, depending on the situation), then he's putting lives in danger. In that connection, I'll just note that "studies show" that victims fighting back have a better chance of surviving and of reducing injury, and aside from that there's a moral principle involved, which is the right to self-defense. However, the real kicker for me and my readers is this: If you think I obsess too much over Suzy Whaley or Annika Sorenstam, you really oughta check out Lambert's page, devoted, as it is, to one sentence in John Lott's book and Lott's masquerading as "Mary Rosh" in defense of his work.



Comments: Post a Comment
 
Powered by Blogger Pro™


Google
Search WWW Search postwatch.blogspot.com