Tim Lambert updates the most recent issues concerning Lott and Reynolds.
Lott should have lost all credibility by this point, but what is strange is that Reynolds seems okay getting caught up in Lott’s little games.
If Lott was the source for the first article:
of them have reputations as being antigun. Steven Levitt, has been
Most of the people selected for the panel have reputations as good scholars, but none of them have specialized in firearms policy. Most described as "rabidly antigun."
The closest that anyone on the panel gets to not being entirely antigun is James Q. Wilson
Glenn responded on an e-mail list that he had published Levitt’s reaction on Instapundit.
Reynolds isn’t revealing his source, but one can expect it to be Lott. In which case, Reynolds is getting burned by Lott if Lott is the source. Lott claims in his book that media accounts describe Levitt as ‘rabidly anti-gun.’ Only Reynolds and Kopel can know for sure, but if Lott is using such sleight of hand, they have a responsibility not to be a part of it.
Lott’s work is poorly done. He is a joke amongst those who do quantitative research in social science. Whether he is better or worse than Charles Murray would be a funny discussion to have. Just who is the biggest incompetent out there?
Yet Reynolds and others continue to schill for him. It would not be that hard for Reynolds to walk across campus and find someone with a decent background in statistics to explain this to him, but he has shown no interest in determining if Lott’s work is of any merit.