Media Matters’ Founder David Brock showed no shame when he was caught illegally using guns for his own personal protection. Indeed, Media Matters’ continues to lash out at others who own guns or support letting individuals use guns for the own protection, even increasing their attacks.
In April alone, Media Matters ran 32 articles attacking the NRA alone. Additional pieces have defended the Obama administration’s Fast & Furious program and dealt with other gun related topics.
Media Matters also attacked me three times over the last two weeks: I had an op-ed in the New York Daily News and an appearance on MSNBC defending Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws and The New York Times actually had the temerity to interview me and refer to me as “a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities.”
Media Matters wasn’t happy.
In total, since January 2011, they have criticized me in 25 pieces.
With headlines such as “John Lott fudges gun facts again” and “New York Times citing discredited gun researcher John Lott,” Media Matters attempts to thuggishly intimidate both people such as myself and those who talk to me (my response to their piece on the New York Times is available here). Alas, some people, including those in the media, believe Media Matters. . . . .
Even more astonishingly, Lott then claimed that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has nothing to do with the controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin's death.The quote that Media Matters reports from the interview gets most of my point across. What Media Matters doesn't understand is that the Stand Your Ground law covers self-defense of all types and what I was referring to was what had changed in the Stand Your Ground law relative to what was in the original law that required retreat when possible. The point is clear that the Stand Your Ground law added nothing new that allowed Zimmerman to claim self-defense that he couldn't already claim under the old law. Yet, instead of dealing with the logic of this point, Media Matters just asserts its point.What I will say is that no matter whose story is right, the Stand Your Ground law isn't relevant to the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. If George Zimmerman is right and the wounds on the back of his head that he was on the ground, Trayvon Martin was on top of him beating him, there was no place for him to retreat. And so the old defense, even if you had the rule that you have to retreat as far as possible, he still would have been able to act in self-defense there. And if the other side is right that somehow George Zimmerman provoked the attack, attacked Martin to begin with, then he wouldn't be able to rely on the Stand Your Ground law to protect him in that case either.Lott is really burying his head in the sand on this one. The Sanford Police Department cited the "Stand Your Ground" law as the reason that Zimmerman was not initially arrested. Before he became George Zimmerman's lawyer, attorney Mark O'Mara appeared on a Florida local news program and suggested that Zimmerman's actions may have been legally excusable under "Stand Your Ground." Controversy surrounding the law has even led Republican governor Rick Scott to convene a taskforce to address concerns related to the 2005 legislation.
Lott is correct that Zimmerman may unsuccessfully assert "Stand Your Ground" at trial. Or it is possible that Zimmerman will not use the defense at all. Or that he will use it and prevail. Only time will tell. But to claim that "Kill At Will" has not been "relevant" to the Trayvon Martin controversy is an act of willful blindness that serves to draw attention away from the legitimate debate surrounding the self-defense law.
Building on this point, Lott then claims that "the Stand Your Ground law doesn't allow you to provoke an attack, doesn't allow you to throw the first punch, it doesn't allow you to go and shoot someone in the back. You have to pass this reasonable person test that you're in direct threat, serious injury or death was going to occur." By suggesting that all shooters claiming immunity under "Stand Your Ground" face a thorough review into their actions, Lott is ignoring the fact that some of these shootings, even those that occur under dubious circumstances, are resolved without the shooter ever having to face a jury of his peers.
1) ""Call them what you will: 'Stand Your Ground' or 'Castle Doctrine' laws." In doing so, he is grouping together two laws that are in fact radically different - this faulty conflation is at the center of his entire argument."The difference between 'Stand Your Ground' and 'Castle Doctrine' laws is over where they apply, not what the rule is. Both laws remove the duty to retreat. Castle Doctrine laws apply to attacks within ones home as well as sometimes on ones property. Once you step off your property and onto the sidewalk Stand Your Ground laws apply. The principle of whether one has to retreat is the core of this debate so I have a hard time understanding how these laws are "radically different."
2) "For example, Lott later claims that 'In states adopting Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws from 1977 to 2005, murder rates fell by 9% and overall violent crime by 11%.' But 'Stand Your Ground' largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless. But "Stand Your Ground" largely was not implemented until after 2005, making his point meaningless." [Emphasis added.]I didn't say that I had studied all states that had ever adopted these laws. I made it clear in both my research and the New York Daily News article what period of time over which the laws were adopted was studied. Despite the spin that Media Matters puts on it, their point "largely" is completely consistent with what I did. In addition, Media Matters is wrong about Florida's Stand Your Ground law: the laws was enacted on October 1, 2005, which is within the 1977 to 2005 period. A complete list of the state laws was provided in the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 332).
3) ""Castle Doctrine" typically refers to the codification of centuries old common law stating that an individual owes no duty to retreat to an invader of his or her domicile."Media Matters misstates the common law on the duty to retreat. In State v. Redmond, the Washington State Supreme Court pointed out: “The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." This obviously extends well beyond just inside the home. In the same case, the court noted: "Redmond's right to be in the Lindbergh High School parking lot is not disputed."
4) "While Lott would like his readers to believe that "Stand Your Ground" is a mainstay of American legal tradition . . . "My New York Daily News piece makes it clear that the laws had changed over time: "Earlier statutes affirmatively required potential victims to retreat as much as possible before using deadly force to protect themselves."
5) "Actually states that did require duty to retreat largely did so only under the narrow circumstance where the victim could do so safely."My piece clearly stated that the requirement to retreat "sometimes putting their lives in jeopardy." The problem that arises is a practical one: whether a prosecutor agrees with the victim over whether they had retreated far enough. As I wrote in National Review Online: "a prosecutor might argue that a victim didn’t retreat sufficiently. There have been many cases where victims have been chased and knocked down a couple of times before firing in self-defense, and yet prosecutors claimed that the victim still could have done more to retreat before firing their gun." Again, I point to the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010) for examples of this.
6) "Lott's dubious legal analysis continues with the statement, "The supposedly infamous laws passed in Florida and elsewhere, in contrast, use a 'reasonable person' standard for determining when it is proper to defend oneself -- requiring that a reasonable person would believe that another individual intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death on them." Of course what Lott fails to mention is that the elimination of the duty to retreat often means that "Stand Your Ground" confrontations end with only one surviving witness to attest to the reasonableness of using deadly force: the shooter himself."How is this different from any murder case? In the Zimmerman case not only is there a lot of forensic evidence (wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head, broken nose, grass on his back, wetness on his back, and I am sure other pieces after the crime labs have been able to examine the evidence) but there are also several witnesses.
7) "In Florida there were 43 cases of justifiable homicide in 2005. By 2009, the last year that complete figures were available, the number had risen to 105. The very data cited by Lott confirms this trend is mirrored nationwide. But while Lott criticizes the media for implying causality between "Stand Your Ground" laws and rise in justifiable homicides, at no point does he provide his own theory about what is really behind the uptick. . . ."Since Media Matters assumes that its readers won't actually read what I have written, let me quote from my piece: "But part of that increase is just a trick of numbers; it occurs because the laws have reclassified what is considered 'self-defense,' not because more people are being shot." in addition, I also note: "Curiously, though, this went unnoticed: Over the same period of time, there has been an increase in justifiable killings by police. And there are no similar data problems here, no changing definitions or large changes in jurisdictions reporting. Between 2000 and 2010, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that justifiable police killings rose by 25%, rising to 387 from 309, suggesting that something else is occurring." How is Media Matters then accurate to claim: "at no point does he provide his own theory about what is really behind the uptick."
8) "John Lott's methodology is simple. Develop a conclusion, and then invent whatever legal or statistical justifications are needed to reach it. At this point, it is shocking that anyone outside of the National Rifle Association gives any credence to his claims."Really? After all their errors in post after post that they put up, this is their name calling response? Because of having to learn the hard way, I have made a screen shot of their existing webpage before I put up my critique.
Woolrich, a 182-year-old clothing company, describes its new chino pants as an elegant and sturdy fashion statement, with a clean profile and fabric that provides comfort and flexibility.
And they are great for hiding a handgun.
The company has added a second pocket behind the traditional front pocket for a weapon. Or, for those who prefer to pack their gun in a holster, it can be tucked inside the stretchable waistband. The back pockets are also designed to help hide accessories, like a knife and a flashlight.
The chinos, which cost $65, are not for commandos, but rather, the company says, for the fashion-aware gun owner. And Woolrich has competition. Several clothing companies are following suit, building businesses around the sharp rise in people with permits to carry concealed weapons.
Their ranks swelled to around seven million last year from five million in 2008, partly because of changes to state laws on concealed handguns.
Shawn Thompson, 35, who works at an auto dealership in eastern Kentucky, bought two shirts last month from the Woolrich Elite Concealed Carry line. Both, he wrote on his blog, are a step up from more rugged gear.
“Most of the clothes I used in the past to hide my sidearm looked pretty sloppy and had my girlfriend complaining about my looks,” he wrote, adding in an interview, “I’m not James Bond or nothing, but these look pretty nice.” . . .
By contrast, in 1984 only 8 states had such statutes, and 15 did not allow handgun carrying at all, said John Lott, a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities, including the University of Chicago.
Only one state, Illinois, now forbids handgun carrying in any form, but the legislature is considering a change.
A majority of states have long allowed the open carrying of handguns, said Mr. Lott, who also provided the data on gun permits. But the reality, said Mr. Lott and other gun experts, is that people do not want to show others that they are carrying a weapon or invite sharp questioning from the police. . . .
1) "It's curious that the Times went to Lott for comment, given that the paper has previously noted that studies of his work 'have found serious flaws in his data and methodology.'"Media Matters rarely responds to what I write and of course they have prevented me from leaving comments on their website (they don't want to confuse the audience). I made a post about the NY Times' piece here, though I kept it limited because I was hoping that the Times would publish my letter to the editor. Unfortunately, they didn't publish it.
2) "Lott first gained fame in the 1990s for his claim that the passage of laws allowing for the concealed carry of handguns causes levels of violent crime to drop -- a claim that has since been debunked."Again, among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly [a slightly out of date list is available here and the new totals are discussed here].
3)"Lott has since been convincingly alleged to have fabricated data to claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses don't involve the firing of a weapon."I may have been "alleged to have fabricated data," but this ignores the statements by those who say that they took my survey, the replication of the survey, and the differences between my survey and those of others. In addition, where I have referenced this survey the data was biased against the claim that I was making. I argued that the simple defensive brandishing or warning shots are not news worthy. The higher the rate of defensive brandishing or warning shots, the easier it is to explain why the media is not biased when it doesn't cover most defensive gun uses. If I wanted to show that the media was more biased, I should have used the surveys with lower defensive brandishing rates. But ultimately the point of science is replication, and, as just noted, the results were replicated.
4a) "cited data that doesn't exist to claim that the end of the assault weapons ban reduced murders"Here is what I wrote in the LA Times: "Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended."
4b) From Media Matters' 2005 hit piece on my op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that the current piece links to: "The FBI will not release state-by-state and month-by-month UCR data for 2004 until fall 2005, as part of its final report "Crime in the United States, 2004" (the bureau has released previous years' reports in late October)."Media Matters may not understand this, but the FBI's UCR had already released an estimate on what different violent crime rates were for the first half of 2004. Thus it was possible to compare the number of crimes for the entire year to those over the first half of the year and tease out the number of crimes in both the first six months and last six months of 2004. If there was any substantial change in crimes during the last 3.5 months of 2004, it would presumably show up in the estimate for the last six months of that year. Finally, in addition, I had called up a person who I had gotten data from in the past at the FBI and asked them whether violent crime rates had fallen in the last quarter of 2004 and I had been told "yes."
5) "altered blog posts after the fact to eliminate false claims for which he had been criticized"Media Matters is well-known to publish doctored photos (see here for an example). My pages are regularly backed up by other sites.
Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz alleged Friday that Media Matters has "crossed the line into anti-semitism" by tolerating an employee who uses charged language to criticize supporters of Israel.
Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat who is a staunch supporter of Israel, first started speaking out against the liberal media watchdog group last month. He went further in an interview on Fox News, saying Friday that Media Matters has crossed the line into "bigotry." . . .
Dershowitz called on Media Matters to fire Rosenberg, but also called on the White House to disassociate itself from Media Matters -- warning that their cozy relationship would cause problems in the 2012 reelection campaign.
"The president should do to Media Matters what he did to Jeremiah Wright -- totally disassociate, rebuke and say 'I stand with Israel,'" he said. . . .
BERLANGGANAN VIA EMAIL
