John Lott Uses Distorted Anecdotes To Push For "Dangerous" Gun Laws

[SecularMotion]

Long discredited gun researcher John Lott recently took to FoxNews.com to push for weakened restrictions on carrying concealed guns. Not surprisingly Lott again uses distorted anecdotes to support the gun lobby favored National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act. In fact, the same examples Lott cites to suggest gun laws are unreasonably punitive and inflexible actually show that even in states where gun charges can lead to stiff penalties, prosecutors have used discretion to avoid excessive punishments.

The legislation in question would force any state that issues its residents permits to carry concealed guns to accept the concealed-carry permits of all the other states -- no matter how weak the standards for getting a permit in those states. Several law enforcement associations have spoken out against the National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act suggesting it would "endanger" police officers and "compromise public safety."

Lott focuses on two prominent cases where travelers to New York were arrested on gun charges. In both cases the individuals had concealed carry permits from their home states that were not valid in New York, and were voluntarily seeking to check their guns with authorities. Standards to carry concealed guns vary among states and states like New York with stronger restrictions sometimes don't accept permits from other states with less stringent restrictions. Lott's inaccurate description of these cases largely serves to falsely create the appearance that without concealed carry reciprocity, New York guns laws result in long jail terms for accidental offenders without consideration of possible mitigating factors.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201200005

[aikoaiko]

1. Media matters is also distorting the picture

Sure, Lott should have updated the story before he published it. No question.

But a national reciprocity bill would have led to no criminal charges that would have required plea deals. I wonder how much money on lawyers these folks had to spend to get less harsh punishments.

Prosecutors are not obligated to reduce charges. People who make mistakes with carrying their firearms are in jeopardy.

The rosy picture that media matters paints is just as distorted, if not worse, than the gloomy picture that Lott describes.

[gejohnston]

2. Once again Media Matters gets it wrong

without doing any real research.

The states often operate by agreements made between states. Does New York actually have higher standards or they simply are applied arbitrarily? Some counties require training. NYC operates by who has money, even if you are a racist coke head like Don Imus. If a alcoholic coke head like Imus can get one, it makes me wonder about may issue. New York does not recognized Wyoming CCWs. Wyoming does not recognize NY permits either. Big deal.

[X_Digger]

3. Ahh, mediamatters spending that $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation..

http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3?rr=1&OrderBy=GrantDate&OrderAsc=0&pageNum=1

The Joyce Foundation has to get something for their cash..

[rl6214]

4. Media Matters will distort anything to further their anti-gun agenda

[DonP]

5. John Lott! Wow, nobody cites John Lott around here.

I don't think I've even seen his name in a year or so since several former DU members (RIP) obsessed over him.

Well, except the occasional gun grabber looking for an easy laugh. He's not quite as big a laugh getter as citing Micheal Bellisiles is, but pretty close.

But with Media Matters track record, that's about the level of their typical editorial stance.

I'm sure we and all the legislators will give their point of view all the credit it deserves.

[Hoyt]

6. Ha, Lott -- and Fox News -- are cited quite often here. Try a search and you'll see.

[DonP]

7. OK, where are the links?

References by gun grabbers don't count either.

[SteveW]

11. Uh, wrong again. Lott is rarely cited -- except by gun-controller/banners. nt

[Simo 1939_1940]

10. W/regard to the point you made in the subject line........

Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Pretty obvious why MM set up John Lott as their bogeyman. Heaven forbid its readers get exposed to credible liberals who don't buy the "gunz is pure eeeevil" dope they peddle.

[SteveW]

13. When MM have Kates or Kleck give their views, I'll listen. nt

[DanTex]

8. Odd that people here complain about MediaMatters, which is a progressive media watchdog,

while at the same time defending links to FoxNews, Townhall, WorldNetDaily, and other right-wing sites peddling pro-gun propaganda.

[gejohnston]

9. because Media Matters is completely screw it up on this issue

and posts articles that are poorly written and demonstrably false. Those items have been pointed out specifically and why it is false. Being a progressive media source does not alter that fact. Is it a knee jerk "it must be wrong if they printed it" without researching it or dishonesty?
Blindly believing everything one side says makes you only half informed. I used to do the same thing, until MM and a couple others printed stuff that was obviously (to me) inaccurate if not dishonest.
I also started looking at readers comments (never paid attention to them before) and noticed many posts that were no better than freerepublic.
Then there was the hypocritical being-for-Bush's bogus list-after-being-against-it.
The criticisms of MM are legitimate and not ideological based. I find it odd that an open minded "scientifically minded" individual would excuse half baked and dishonest scribblings simply because of ideology. Sorry, I believe in holding my side to higher standard and my side should be completely honest even if it is not convenient.

[SteveW]

12. B.S. is B.S., even if the hallowed/hollowed NYT or WaPo engage in it...

Most MSM do good stories -- except when it comes to their wholly failed social crusade of gun-prohibition. So, when MediaMatters (with its largesse from the Joyce Foundation) craps its pants, it will be called out.

[Buzz cook]

15. Where have you been this last 20 years.

even if the hallowed/hollowed NYT or WaPo engage in it

Both of those papers have been shills for the right wing for at least that long. If you think either paper is reliably liberal, I have to wonder what your definition of liberal is.

[gejohnston]

16. who said anything about liberal?

he only said anti-gun. That does not always mean liberal. See:
Bloomburg, Mitt, Sly Stallone, the Bradys, Charles Krauthammer, etc.

[SteveW]

17. Don't worry, I'm under no illusion about the NYT and WaPo (both hollowed).

[SteveW]

14. You guys must really like Lott; always citing him. nt