4/30/2006
About Me
Amazed how lucky I am that I have had jobs where I could just think about whatever I wanted to think about. This summer I will be moving to the University of Maryland. Previously I held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. I have published over 90 articles in academic journals. I received my Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984.
E-mail: johnrlott@aol.com
Academic Papers
- Terms of Use
Copyright 2005 by John R. Lott, Jr. All rights reserved
My Op-eds
Reviews of Freedomnomics
Previous Posts
- Problems with Wikipedia
- Candidate for Orange County Sheriff Supports Shall...
- "Loose Change": Really Weird Conspiracy Theories a...
- Lynn Swan Leads Rendell in Pennsylvania Governor's...
- Australian Gun Buyback Failure
- What Mexicans think of their judicial system
- Who Knew? Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are apparen...
- "Debate over Bonds doesn't say if steroids actuall...
- A Small Victory for Private Property Owners
- Is Lethal Injection Unconstitutional for Death Pen...
Book Reviews
- For a list of book reviews on The Bias Against Guns, click here.
Interesting Past Topics
-Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws
-Ranking Economists
-National Academies of Science Panel on Firearms
-Baghdad murder rate
-Arming Pilots
-Appalachian law school attack
-Sources for Defensive Gun Uses
-The Merced Pitchfork Killings
-Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me
-Steve Levitt's Correction Letter
-Ian Ayres and John Donohue
-Other issues regarding Steve Levitt
-General discussion of my 1997 and 2002 surveys as well as related surveys
-Problems with Wikipedia
-Errata for Gun Books
Links
Economist and Law Professor David D. Friedman's Blog
Economist Robert G. Hansen's Blog
A debate that I had with George Mason University's Robert Ehrlich on guns
Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide
An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott
Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades
St. Cloud State University Scholars
Bryan Caplan at George Mason University
Alphecca -- weekly review on the media's coverage of guns
Xrlq -- Some interesting coverage of the law.
Career Police Officer
Gun Law News
Georgia Right-to-Carry
Darnell's The Independent Conservative Blog
Clayton Cramer's Blog
My hidden mathematical ability (a math professor with the same name)
geekwitha45
My Old AEI Web Page
Wrightwing's blog
Al Lowe's blog
St. Maximos' Hut
Dad29
Sonya Jones takes on the Enviros
Eric Rasmusen
William Sjostrom
Dr. T's EconLinks.com
Interview with National Review Online
Data
- Johnlott.org
(description of book, downloadable data sets, and discussions of previous controversies)
Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack
Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election
Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set
"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper
More Books of Mine
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy
Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?
2 Comments:
First, your book The Bias Against Guns is excellent and I use the information in it all the time. On this 9-11 topic, while it is certainly true that some of the conclusions drawn from the few facts that are actually known about 9-11 are subject to scrutiny, that cuts both ways doesn't it? Is there enough data to draw conclusions? Suspensiuon of belief in general may be the most prudent course. Thus, unless one dogmatically believes the "official story" about 9-11, it is difficult not to come to the same conclusion - that the "official story" is pretty "weird and stupid." What is most frustrating about discourse on 9-11 is that virtually all of the real evidence has either been supressed or destroyed in the name of "national security." Why is it a matter of "national security" that we not be able to see the many cc video tapes that document the Pentagon strike, the remains of every single plane, the airport videotapes showing the hijackers, the remains of the hijackers, the FAA voice tapes, the first responder tapes, the flight recorders from every single plane, and the remains of the towers themselves (it was big effort haul away and dispose of the tower rubble without allowing any inspection of any of it)? And why destroy all of the Able Danger files and data (3 terabytes of computer files)? So, we are left a handful of facts, a massive amount of admittedly destroyed and supressed evidence, which produced an official story and invasions of 2 countries, a new "domestic surveillance state," - and the few people out there questioning what happened - they get called "weird and stupid." Perhaps there are some kooky conclusions being drawn. But awefully important questions remain. Don't they?
Dear Aaron:
Thanks for taking the time to read the book. I appreciate it.
I agree with you that true believers can exist on both sides. My main problem with the movie is that if you are going to challenge conventional wisdom at least try a little to respond to the arguments from the other side. Take for example their pictures showing that a few windows were exploding out from the World Trade Towers a few floors below the level that had so far collapsed. One theory would be that the air pressure from the building that had collapsed so far created air pressure that caused these windows to be pushed out. The point is that their theory of bombs in the building is not just the only theory, nor even the most believable one, and that the movie producers should at least try once in a while to address alternative explanations.
As to the Able Danger files, it wasn't part of the movie, and I don't know enough to respond to you point. It certainly seems like some explanation for the destruction would be nice. Possibly that is a conspiracy, though my first response is to assume an accident or some other explanation. While I may be misunderstanding you point, you do not seem to be asserting that the loss of data is proof of conspiracy (which is what the movie would seem to do), but that there are questions that need to be answered.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home