Quote of the day—John R. Lott, Jr.

I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.

John R. Lott, Jr.
September 25, 2014
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”

There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:

In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”

The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”

John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”

The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”

Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]

31 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John R. Lott, Jr.

  1. I don’t get the anecdote.

    People write books about the moon all the time. It doesn’t mean that they’ve been there. Why would someone have to go to Iraq to write a book about the Iraq war?

    • It’s not just about not having been to Iraq. It’s also about not having to do much research.

      Nearly everyone has seen the moon and can have an opinion about what the moon means to them. But they can’t write a meaningful book on the origins of the moon without doing some research.

      If the book on the Iraq war was about the impact on the people of Iraq then it a trip to Iraq would seem to be in order. If the book were about the constitutionality of going to war in Iraq it would seem to be in order to do some research on constitutional law and other wars where war was not declared. If the book were about the existence or non-existence of WMD then research into the UN inspections would seem to be required and a visit to the sites in Iraq would be a good idea.

      I’m not sure what subcategory of the war in Iraq would not require some research unless it were a very personal perspective like, “My child was killed in the war on Iraq.” But still, a visit to Iraq could be of great benefit although it would not be essential.

      • Well, you just said what I was thinking. The only kind of book that someone could write (without doing any research) would be their thoughts and opinions about a particular thing.

        I think Lott made up that quote, as he’s made up quite a few things in his lifetime. He’s not the most honest researcher.

        • Care to back that statement about Lott?

          Sorry, that would take research. You already know what you think…..

        • People were industrious enough to prove that about Neil Degrasse Tyson, I think you should show a little initiative and do the same if you’re going to say something like that.

        • Please read a little more carefully. It was
          Frank Miniter who observed the interaction between Lott and “a liberal journalist”. Even if Lott’s honesty were questionable it wasn’t Lott who told the story.

          • Indeed. But if you’re so biased that you make a habit of slandering Lott without even the slightest trace of bias, those little details are hardly worth worrying about, now are they?
            It is in fact Lott’s detractors who have questionable integrity. Consider the so-called researchers who took Lott’s data, deleted 85% of it, and used the remaining carefully chosen 15% to “prove” the opposite of what Lott has proven. In other words, his case is so overwhelming you have to get rid of nearly all of the evidence in order to contradict it.

          • I didn’t read the article so I misunderstood. I stand by what I said about Lott though.

            One doesn’t have to go far to find lots of links to back up what I said:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621
            The best are the science blogs: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/21/maryrosh/
            Note on the right sidebar, they have 384 posts devoted to Lott. Enjoy!

          • @ubu52, I misunderstand things sometimes too. But you didn’t have to read the article to arrive at the correct conclusion. Sufficient details were in my post to understand it.

            I admit that Lott has made some transgressions. But, without reading your references, the last time I looked his conclusion of More Guns, Less Crime had not been falsified.

          • Now, ubu, citing Wikipedia and media matters is citing groups with known biases and massive credibility issues if their own (like Brock and his illegal gun).

            And just because something’s title “science blog” doesn’t meant it has anything to do with science.

            So how about some credible sources?

          • @ubu52, I downloaded and read part of paper you cited. I’ll blog about it later tonight.

            Thanks for the link and blog fodder.

          • I distrust Wikipedia because I’ve repeatedly seen it manipulated by one side of politics, the side that prefers lies to truth.

            Your side.

  2. Ubu, Lott is an excellent researcher. He puts a lot of his raw data out there for others to examine, and they have not been able to poke major holes in it. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is rabidly left-wing on issues of political hotness, and rapidly change/edit/alter/delete things that do not fit their preferred narrative. For the Left, gon control is ‘good,” to anything and everyone that would tend to contradict that dogma must be destroyed, slandered, deleted, or marginalized.

  3. So we gather from the quote that the reason a person would do a lot of research is he’s too dumb to “know what he thinks”. A smart person then, of course, “knows what he thinks” without having to search for it. QED.
    (Raises one eyebrow) Fascinating. That is possibly the best explanation of the rank and file Progressive (or what I’ve often referred to as the “default leftist”) that I’ve seen.

    I’m reminded of the guy with his shoes on the wrong feet, insisting that everyone else was too stubborn to understand the obvious superiority of his position on the wearing of shoes, and of the leftist argument, “I disagree with your facts”.

    Ubu could simply use that last one for each and every comment, and make things a lot easier– “I disagree with your facts.” It’s all that needs to be said in all cases, and has the added benefit of being completely honest.

    • Ha! I love how you manage to point out something really humorous about this whole thing! Yeah, John Lott must have to do so much research because he’s not smart enough to know what he thinks.

      Thanks for the laugh 🙂

  4. Ran into one of those guys at my local booksore. As I was pointing out the flat-out lies that he was spouting regarding the latest remarks by his messiah, he said, “Well things are much better off then they were six years ago.” That’s when I stopped, because I realized that yu really can’t fix stupid.

    • Things really are much better than they were six years ago. Don’t you remember the financial collapse? The housing collapse? The Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Osama bin Laden was still alive? GWB was just pulling out of the White House and everything was crashing? You don’t remember that?

      You’re right, of course. You can’t fix stupid because it never recognizes itself.

    • I remember the financial collapse, brought to us by government policies. What I don’t remember is the claimed recovery.
      I’m reminded of FDR. He came into power on the claim that he would fix the mess created by Hoover (which was also caused by braindead government interventionism). Instead, he turned a plain old recession into a 12-year long depression. Obama is working hard to copy that achievement. (Just as he’s working hard to copy FDR’s destruction of the Constitution.)

      • Gold was $1900 an ounce at one time. Now its at $1200. Silver $50, now $16. The worldwide metals market is reflecting a recovery, or at least a partial one.

        • When Bush left office gold was about $900/oz. It reached $1900/oz in 2011. It is now $1214/oz.

          Silver was about $16/oz when Bush left. It reached nearly $50/oz in 2011. It is now $17.26/oz.

          I’m skeptical of your conclusion that the metals market it “recovering from Bush”. The massive debt accumulated under the Obama administration (with some help from Bush) is going to put upward pressure on precious metals. Plus there is significant evidence of manipulation by the central banks in the precious metals markets.

          Please give supporting evidence that Obama’s policies have led to a “recovery” in the metals market.

          • Hey Joe, gold tripled between 2005 and 2009. It went from $300 an ounce to $900 an ounce. Prior to this, gold spent years in the $250 range.

            I have to assume you are holding metals. I can tell you that I’ve sold a lot of mine, little bits at a time.

          • I had a little bit before the divorce. My ex got half (actually a bit more than half, there were an odd number of rounds so I gave her the odd one). I haven’t sold any.

            I think the silver rounds are very pretty so I have given a few as presents.

            As to the price of precious metals I expect they will go up in the next couple of years rather than down. If I had the money for it I would be buying now.

          • We get it, ubu — you’re deep in love with the fuhrer.

            WTF is with fascists and fuhrerprinzip?

        • And there’s no inflation(unless you count energy and food)!
          And more jobs(which is bullshit, but it sells well)!
          And The Lightbringer has brought greater peace to the world(if you believe that you’re either an amazing-level tool or actually fucking stupid)!

  5. Pingback: “Research” on the right to carry | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.