Dan Tex: True, at this point Lott is transparent pro-gun propaganda, but it wasn't always that way. At first, his research was taken seriously. But then the problems began to show up. His statistical methods were brittle and sensitive to changes in assumptions or specifications. His results weren't able to be replicated with extended data. And then of course he went off the rails, some data coding "errors" were found in his subsequent work, he invented an internet sock puppet and went around the internet praising himself, he fabricated a statistic in a major op-ed, etc.
I'm not sure when you speak of 'wasn't always that way', certainly not 'always' of course, but I first pegged him as a propagandist when he wrote 'more guns less crime' which was funded by olin foundation, a subsidiary of winchester ammo, & tried to play people for stupid by claiming his funding had nothing to do with winchester ammo or the gun lobby. Not directly - they're not stupid to put winchester name on a gun study - but the money funnelled in from winchester to olin funnelled into lott.
Lott also claimed an excuse similar to what happened to bellesiles (arming america, fine book) when an emory university hall flooded & damaged a lot of bell's notes; it was verified that the 'flood' happened, & his story believeable. But for lott not really believeable, he somehow was negligent in supplying data (I think what you allude to above as fabricated), and blamed it on failure of his hard drive I think, or something sounding much like a tapdance than a true story.
Yes, well familiar with mary rosh (lott's screename to promote himself & his books, largely on amazon I believe). "I'm the best professor I ever had!"
Sad, bellesiles came out of it disgraced, while lott seems to have suffered little, & even gained credibility from gunnuts, by his indiscretions.
= new reply since forum marked as read