In article , "Joseph Meehan" wrote:

One further note, it is not sufficient to discount a finding by
questioning the qualifications of its proponents. This reverse "appeal to
authority" is similar to "if you can't fault the message, condem the
messenger."

I agree. I have not discounted the findings, I have clearly stated I
have not ever reviewed them However I did point out that the normal and
usual expected expertise of an Economist does not include crime studies.
That certainly does not make him wrong, but it does eliminate any special
authoritative weight

I would disagree as would many others who have actually
read Lott's work.

If there is a flaw in Lott's methodology or conclusion, state it; if
someone using the same data can reach a differing conclusion, we'd all
like to see it. Whether Lott is a criminologist, lawyer, or rodeo clown is
irrelevant.

As stated I have not reviewed it. I did not car to download the detail
and without the detail it is nothing more than the opinion of someone
without any apparent authority on the subject.

If you are seriously interested in the effects of gun control
it won't take you long to discover that Lott's work is pretty
much required reading. His is not the only work you should
review (and not the only point of view) but a very brief review
of the literature should reveal the importance of Lott's
contributions.

Again, if you read Lott's work, you will quickly appreciate
the applicabilty and value of his economics background as
applied to the subject matter.

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~