Tim Lambert cites Tom Spencer’s argument that the damage done by Lott is a lot of laws passed allowing Concealed Carry are due to academic fraud by Lott.
This is liberal gobbleygook and as a good liberal I feel it is necessary to point it out. Do you think the NRA would not have pushed as hard without John Lott’s claims? Do you think anyone actually cared about his work? They may have cited it, but does anyone think it mattered?
Concealed Carry legislation is a fight between two interests that use any tool available to achieve their goals. Lott was a tool—well is a tool, but that is another story. His work doesn’t matter much in the debate over concealed carry. People don’t decide issues based on an academic study, they do it over what they perceive their interests to be.
That doesn’t let Lott off the hook, it just gives him the credit he is due–not much. The NRA deserves the credit for being a politically sophisticated organization that delivers lots of single-issue voters to politicians.
Academics like to claim credit for moving the debate, but mostly, academics provide some window dressing on hot button issues for those with interests to exploit. Less sexy policy areas are often affected by policy entrepeneurs, but guns or welfare studies are mostly tools for politicians to exploit .
UP DATE: Tom points out that isn’t what he was saying. My bad.