search
top

Interview With Nikki Goeser and John Lott

From NRA News:

9 Responses to “Interview With Nikki Goeser and John Lott”

  1. Watchman says:

    Fantastic interview. These two really back a one-two punch.

  2. MikeB504 says:

    One interesting idea. If they were to add the people on the terrorist watch list to the ones that would be NICS denials, that allow for an easy way for people that want to do evil with a plane to easily verify if they would be able to board the plane.

    Doesn’t that make the NICS checks a tool for the terrorists?

  3. astrocreep says:

    Mike,
    While Lott may have admitted to creating the Mary Rosh persona to comment favorably on his book listings, it’s hardly grounds to dismiss his work. See: ad hominem

    That ridiculous site you linked to is run by ‘Mike Magnum’ of The Gun Guys. That little nugget didn’t take much effort to uncover.

    To casually throw in a link to a site with an obvious agenda is lazy. To insinuate that The Gun Guys should be listened to by anybody is lunacy.

    Re: that link
    Presenting a collection of hyperlinks to op.ed pieces in the mainstream media hardly counts as discrediting his research. I’m sure many of those editorial writers Magnum links to got their information FROM HIM or his one true love, The Brady Campaign.
    Neither are credible or factual.
    Most of that site just regurgitates drama from 8 freaking years ago.
    Move on man.

    Say what you want about the Mary Rosh thing. It was stupid and unprofessional.

    Don’t pretend that it discredits him though.

  4. mike says:

    astrocreep, does the Mary Rosh thing ADD credibility to him?

    The reason I point it out is that it’s better we do it than our foes do it. If a guy is willing to make up an entire person for 3 years, who’s to say he wouldn’t also make up a few numbers? I’m not saying he did, but if someone on the other side had pulled a Mary Rosh, we’d be all over them. In fact, I’ve seen folks from our side call our opponents out for doing this very same thing. Perhaps someone else will be kind enough to remember who it was, but it was fairly high profile.

    Anyway, John Lott has zero credibility in my book. A good way to not be called out on this kind of crap is to not engage in it. And I disagree that it’s ad hominem. As much as I want the guy working for us, his actions speak to his integrity. Negatively.

  5. LC Scotty says:

    “who’s to say he wouldn’t also make up a few numbers?”

    The fact that his data sets are culled from public sources and he’s made his analysis and data sets available on request goes far in establishing his credibility-even as damaged as it was by Mary.

  6. astrocreep says:

    ad hominem:
    Attacking a person’s character rather than answering their argument.

    It applies to precisely these types of issues.

    Paul Helmke may possibly be a transvestite alien hooker but we still have to attack his arguments on their own right. I could care less what moral choices he makes; I object to his arguments, his reasoning, and his data. Everything else is his business.

    Rationally, a person’s character is irrelevant.
    Participating in these petty charades lowers us to the moral level of the average anti-gunner.

    LC Scotty is right. If Lott had fudged even one number, the anti’s would have been all over it like flies on poop.
    His research is sound, his data is objective, his conclusions are arguable.
    His character is irrelevant.

    Besides, who ever had their opinion swayed by an amazon.com review?

  7. mike says:

    “Besides, who ever had their opinion swayed by an amazon.com review?”

    I use amazon.com reviews to make all of my amazon book purchases, and a majority of my amazon electronics purchases. I’d wager that most people do. But whatever. I guess for me, the Mary Rosh fiasco removed my truth bias for John Lott. He may be the most honest, straight-up researcher, but for me he needs to prove it every time. I just don’t trust him/her.

  8. john lott says:

    No real reason to get most of these claims correct. But then again, I suppose that wasn’t really the point.

top