Is Gun Research by John Lott Discredited?: Responses to Media Matters' false claims

Note that I have tried to make many of these responses after the posts that Media Matters has made about me, but they do not allow me to put them up in the comment section.  I have tried putting out these points on twitter or in a few Fox News op-eds, but Media Matters never responds to those discussions, presumably because it would draw attention to my responses.  Unfortunately, as I have discovered over the years, Media Matters is uncritically read by many in the media, and possibly that is another reason that they don't allow my responses to be posted.  I also think that by constantly posting discussions about me being "discredited" they hope to influence Google searches (see the screen shot below from this morning showing a total of about 160 posts where they attack me (some of the 172 are not really about me)).  Anyway, here are some of my responses:

"The Nine Worst Claims About Guns From John Lott's New Book." -- response is available here.

"Who Is Gun Advocate John Lott?" -- response is available here.

"Mother Jones and Media Matters bungle study on Mass Public Shootings" -- response is available here.

"Why Is NY Times Citing Discredited Gun Researcher John Lott?" -- response is available here in the section labeled "update".

"Gun "Researcher" Pushes Sham Statistics In The Wall Street Journal" -- response is available here.

"Discredited Gun Researcher John Lott's Failed Attempt To Correct Obama's Gun Statistic" -- all one needs to see is the Washington Post Fact Checker article available here.  Kessler is making a similar argument to the one that I made here.  Will Media Matters attack Kessler in the same way that they attacked me?

"John Lott Tries To Substantiate His Debunked Assertions By Repeating Them" -- response available here.

"Gun Advocate John Lott: Travyon Martin's Mother Used As A Prop To Make Stand Your Ground Seem Racist" -- response available here.

"John Lott Vs. The FBI" -- response available here.

Coulter: High-Capacity Magazine Put Loughner "At A Disadvantage" During Massacre --  response available here.

"Progressive Economists Refute AP, Defend The Buffett Rule" -- response available here.

"Napolitano And John Lott Advocate For Allowing People To Carry Concealed Guns Without Permits" -- response available here.

"John Lott Tries To Substantiate His Debunked Assertions By Repeating Them" -- response available here.

"The NRA Encourages Its Members To Lie To Their Families At Thanksgiving" - response available here.

"John Lott Continues Media Tour In Defense Of "Kill At Will"" -- response available here

"Gun Researcher John Lott Offers False Firearm Statistics Days Before Congressional Appearance" -- response available here

"Fox Column Shrugs Off Unprecedented Obstruction Of Obama's Judicial Nominees" -- response available here

Other responses to Media Matters by me:
Media Matters, 'Stand Your Ground' and me 
David Brock, Media Matters and gun control hypocrisy
MEDIA MATTERS' POTENTIALLY LETHAL DISTORTIONS ON GUNS

"Media Matter's dishonest attacks on Fox News" -- discussion here.

Media Matters doctoring my picture is discussed here.

Often Media Matters and others will point to one single paper or two that criticize my work.  In fact, there is a large academic literature that exists on these topics, and when you look at the whole literature you will see that most academic peer-reviewed studies support my findings (see a list of published research in Table 2 available here).

A list of all my posts regarding Media Matters is available here.

UPDATE: Ann Coulter has a discussion on this attempt to keep on calling me "Discredited." See Ann's column available here.  One should also note the rest of the academic research on this topic.

Read More

Media Matters doesn't even try to look at the arguments on the other side

Media Matters has a new piece written up about me entitled: "The Nine Worst Claims About Guns From John Lott's New Book."  It is really amazing how weak their criticisms of my book "At the Brink" are.  Since they have continually refused to let me respond to their posts in the comment section of their website, my responses are shown here:

1) Lott: "Facts And Figures" Prove "Establishing 'Gun-Free Zones' (At Schools, For Example) Actually Makes Mass Shootings More Likely."

Media Matters: Most Recent Mass Shootings Have Occurred Where Guns Are Allowed

Their evidence?  A report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns claims most mass shootings since January 2009 have occurred where guns could be lawfully carried.  The problem is that Media Matters doesn't even bother to respond to what I have already shown is wrong with the MAIG report, see here.

2) Lott: "In 1996, Obama Supported A Ban On Handguns."

Media Matters: Fact Checkers Have Dismissed Survey Answer As Evidence That Obama Wants To Ban Handguns

Again, Media Matters doesn't even try to address the evidence for this statement.

Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.
For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.” Realizing how damaging this could prove in the general election, his presidential campaign “flatly denied” Obama ever held this view, blaming it instead on a staffer from his state senate race.
But then IVI provided Politico the questionnaire with Obama’s own handwritten notes revising another answer. Members of IVI’s board of directors, some of whom have worked on Obama’s past campaigns, told Politico that “I always believed those to be his views, what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”
But the IVI questionnaire isn’t the only one out there.

3) Lott: Assault Weapons "Inflict The Same Damage" As "Small-Game Hunting Rifles." 

Media Matters: An Assault Weapon Typically Fires A More Powerful Round Than A Small-Game Hunting Rifle, Resulting In Devastating Tissue Damage

To put it simply, I made the claim that the .223 caliber is simply considered by many states to be too light to be used to hunt deer and other large animals.  Is that statement false?  Does Media Matters directly deal with that claim at all?  The reason for the government regulations that prevent using such caliber bullets is that it is more likely to wound than to kill these larger animals.  I will add the list of states here tomorrow.

As of December 2009, the states that banned deer hunting with .223 caliber bullets were:
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  Many other states, such as Alaska, ban that caliber of bullet for hunting even larger animals such as caribou.

UPDATE: The issue might be even a little more complicated for other states.  Peter Blumberg wrote this to me: "Maryland requires a minimum of 1200 foot-pounds of energy for a rifle bullet to be legal for hunting deer.  The typical loads sold by Remington are a trifle below this."

4) Lott: Civilian Holders Of Permits To Carry A Concealed Gun Have "Prevented Mass Shootings On Many Occasions."

Media Matters: Shooting Rampages Are Not Typically Ended By Civilians Carrying Concealed Firearms

Media Matters relies on Mother Jones of all places to claim that I am incorrect here.  But there is an obvious error that Mother Jones made.

If they had read the first paragraph of my article, the reason that they couldn't find civilian defensive gun uses stopping the attacks should have been obvious: they only looked at cases where more than three people have been killed (or as Mother Jones says "at least four people") and I pointed out that all but one of those cases took place where permitted concealed handguns were banned. . . .

5) Lott: Law Enforcement Backs Legislative Effort To Force States To Recognize Concealed Carry Permits Issued In All Other States.

Media Matters: Law Enforcement Groups Oppose Proposal To Expand Concealed Carry

Media Matters relies on a survey from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, but they again ignore the long discussion that I have on the other side here.

6) Lott: "Germany, Despite Having Some Of The Strictest Gun-Control Laws Anywhere, Has Been The Scene Of Two Of The Three Worst School Shootings In The World." 

Media Matters: The Two Worst School Shootings In The World Occurred In The United States

I was discussing the worst K-12 school shootings before Newtown.  Media Matters raises the Virginia Tech College attack and the Newtown attack.  And that responds to my claim exactly how?

7) Lott: The "Vast Majority" Of Studies Have Found Concealed Carry Reduces Homicide.

Media Matters: Lott's Thesis That More Guns Lead To Less Crime Has Been Thoroughly And Repeatedly Debunked

Media Matters then cites a list of studies that only look at one side of the issue without mentioning the studies that find the benefits.  Hint: to show the percentage of studies that find a particular result you have to look at all the studies.  A list of all the studies is available here.  By the way, the one paper that claimed to find a cost from these laws did so because of data errors.

The last two points were dealing with operation "Fast and Furious."  Regarding Media Matter's weight on the Department Of Justice Office Of The Inspector General, I would simply refer people to the part of my book that deals with these points where I discussed the fact that the report simply took Obama officials at their word and did not investigate any contradictions in their statements (while I have much more in the book, you can see something here).

Original material from Media Matters (click on to make larger).  Given Media Matters' proclivity to alter statements and doctor photos, I have found it necessary to make photos of their pages after they have put them up.

Of course, Media Matters pattern is to engage in hit-and-run attacks.  They make claims, won't let me post responses in their comment section, and they won't respond to my responses (presumably for fear that their readers might actually see the responses).  At some later point they will repeat the claims again and ignore any responses that I have made.

Other attacks from Media Matters are responded to here.

Read More

While Media Matters helps lead push for gun control, Media Matters breaks gun laws to use guns for self defense

What is good for Media Matters is apparently not good for anyone else.  Apparently, non-Media Matters citizens don't deserve the same personal protection.

The former Media Matters for America staffer in charge of guarding the group’s leader not only committed multiple felonies when he carried firearms across the country but did so with the organization’s blessing and money, according to a report in the The Daily Caller Monday.
Multiple guns were reportedly bought and used to protect liberal leader David Brock. They were purchased with member money and were green-lighted by the head of the group, according to an unnamed source.
The Daily Caller reports that Brock's assistant carried a concealed Glock handgun without the proper permit.
The Glock-toting revelation flies in the face of the strong anti-gun stance Media Matters touts. . . .

Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg keeps armed security while he wants to take away everyone else's guns.

In the video, Bloomberg is seen surrounded by security. Mattera approaches Bloomberg and asks, “In the spirit of gun control, will you disarm your entire security team?”  

Bloomberg’s reply:  “Uh, you, we’ll get right back to you.” 

“Why can you defend yourself but not the majority of Americans?” Mattera asks as the mayor walks away. “Look at the team of security you’ve got.  And you’re an advocate for gun control?” . . .

Read More

Can anyone really take Media Matters seriously?: Their defense of the claim that 40 percent of guns are sold without background checks

Media Matters is at it again, this time they are attacking an op-ed that I had at National Review and they defend the claim that 40 percent of guns are sold without background checks.  In their defense, they point to Politifact as saying that the "40 percent" statistic is "Mostly True."  Yet, Media Matters can't even get that quite right as Politifact says that the claim is "half true."   Of course, Politifact doesn't understand the issues being debated.  Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post is no where as critical as I would like, but he still gives Obama's use of the "40 percent" claim three out of a possible four Pinocchios.  Kessler notes:

we have documented that (a) the survey numbers are about two decades old, so they include purchases that predate any background checks; (b) the survey sample is rather small; and (c) the results are significantly different when adjusted for “purchases” or “sales” — the phrasing used by the president. . . .  

The key point though is that even the 36 percent number in the original study that Obama cites (not the 40 percent that he rounds it up to) was for all transfers, not just guns sold.  

UPDATE:  Here is the way I described this in April 9, 2013:

Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks. 

And what's more, Mr. Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers gave this number (well, actually 36%, not his rounding up to 40%) for all transfers, not just for guns sold. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts. 

Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called “kitchen table” dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed. 

By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the “gun show loophole.” . . .

I have made similar points earlier, such as the article that Media Matters attacks in National Review.

Read More