Barkley Rosser, liberal economist, sneers at John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" thesis here, entitled "Gun Nuts Exposed at Distorting Data and Results."
A snippet --
In the latest Econ Journal Watch, just out, Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III have a paper, "Yet another refutation of the more guns, less crime hypothesis - with some help from Moody and Marvell" . . .
I am not doing their paper justice, but the media discussion is often dominated by Lott and his allies who are now pushing for loosened gun laws in Virginia, and are counting on Dems laying low and not challenging their incessantly repeated claims that such gun law relaxations reduce crime. They should not lay low. The claims are baloney and lies, based on distorted date and misrepresentations of results from ones with better data.
The comments back and forth are often silly and Say Uncle rightly calls this, "I know you are, but what am I?"
In a reply on both Barkley's and SayUncle's sites I endeavour to "scare the white people" again. I entitle my response:
How many economists (with their social scientist dates) can dance on the head of a gun control pin?
The fascinating thing about intellectuals is that they actually believe that their trench warfare over footnotes and data actually MEANS anything in the grand scheme of things as we are faced with today.
All of your snarky arguments are about to be overwhelmed by events. Either the society collapses under the economic tidal wave that is about to hit (in which case those who have firearms will no doubt survive better than those who eschew them, and the armed will be ill-disposed to obey any scheme that works toward their disarmament) or the Obamanoids will proceed with AWB2 and the federal seizure of control over all private transfer of arms (the ill-named lie called "the gunshow loophole") thus sparking armed civil disobedience if not outright civil war.
In the first event, you left-wing academics are either going to be stew for the cannibal's pot, or pulling plows for those who are armed.
In the second, those who advocate citizen disarmament of the "gun nuts" are going to be hiding in deep cellars and caves from those people who, having lost family members to a predatory government, will be using Bill Clinton's Serbian rules of engagement to wipe out the political, media and intellectual underpinnings of that tyrannical regime.
In any case, your footnotes will be used for kindling.
Kinda makes you want to go buy a firearm, doesn't it? Better hurry, before they're all gone.
LATER: I also posted this response at another science blog out of Australia, Tim Lambert's Deltoid. There, I was presented with this remarkably cogent and well reasoned rebuttal:
Shorter Mike Vanderboegh:
I don't care if you're right or wrong, because I has gunz!!!!!!
Posted by: bi -- IJI | January 22, 2009 12:06 PM
To which I replied:
And you were trying to be insulting with that, right?
Put another way: "When Democracy Turns to Tyranny, I STILL Get to Vote." People may vote with their feet (as in leaving deadly "citizen disarmament zones" like the liberal-conrolled cities or states for places where gun ownership is cherished), with their wallets (as in the Great Obama Gun Rush) or, if all else fails, with their rifles.
You know, calling us "gun nuts" and advocating that our liberty and property be taken from us does not endear you to us. If the Obamanoids decide that they can twist the meaning of the Constitution and the laws so that they no longer protect us, then they can hardly quibble if we decide that the law no longer protects THEM either. Nor will they protect you, come to that.
For 75 years we have been pushed back by the federal government in the free exercise of our right to arms. Each time we backed up grudgingly. Now some of us have decided that we will no longer back up -- that if the administration draws the line of the law behind where we now stand, we will resist. And we will do so at the muzzles of our rifles if necessary.
We don't want to tell you how to live, we merely wish to be left alone. You can sneer at us, revile us, call us names, but you cannot deny (unless you are as ungrounded in reality as you accuse us of being) that we are here, we are armed and we are not going away quietly.
Now, you can either accept that, or you can try doing what has always worked for you in the past. If you do the latter, we will introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences. It is the the statute that kicks in when all the other laws have been knocked flat.
Or, as my Grandpa Vanderboegh told me: "Don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick, boy, unless you want your balls ripped off."
All of the intellectual argument between Lott and his critics, in the end, is spit in the wind. Don't poke the wolverine. Good advice. It remains to be seen if y'all are smart enough to recognize it.
Mike Vanderboegh Pinson, AL
OK, OK, I'll get back to Absolved now.