John Lott

John Lott
John Lott

John Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is an American academic and political commentator. He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the non-academic conservative American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA, and his areas of research include econometrics, law and economics, public choice theory, industrial organization, public finance, microeconomics, labor economics, and environmental regulation.

Lott is an author in both academia and in popular culture. A political conservative,[1][2][3][4] he is a frequent writer of opinion editorials, has published over 90 articles in peer-reviewed academic journals related to his research areas, and has authored five books, including More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns, and Freedomnomics.

Outside of academia, Lott is best known for his participation in the gun rights debate, particularly his arguments against restrictions on owning and carrying guns.


Academic career

Lott studied economics at UCLA, receiving his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D. in 1984. Lott has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, Stanford, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University. Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission (1988–1989). He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–95) and as a fellow (1995–99) at the University of Chicago. Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (2001–2006). He left AEI for SUNY Binghamton.[5] From July 2007 to 2010, Lott was a senior research scientist with the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland, College Park.[6][7]

Lott has published over ninety articles in academic journals, as well as five books for the general public. Opinion pieces by Lott have appeared in such places as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune. Since March 2008 he has been a weekly columnist for Fox News.[8] He has also appeared frequently on television and radio shows.

In terms of total academic journal output from 1990 to 2000 adjusted for journal quality, John Lott ranks 26th worldwide among economists, and in terms of total academic journal output in journal pages published he was 4th. In terms of citations in the same period, he ranks 86th.[9][10]

Among economics, law, and business researchers, Lott's research is the sixth most downloaded on the Social Science Research Network.[11] Nobel laureate Milton Friedman said that "John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues."[12] Newsweek also referred to Lott as "The Gun Crowd's Guru."[13]

Lott's work

Lott has produced research, authored opinions, and stirred up controversy in many areas with his economic analysis of certain issues.

Concealed weapons and crime rate

In an article written with David B. Mustard[14] and Lott's subsequent books More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns, Lott presents a statistical argument for the claim that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America. He supports this position by an exhaustive tabulation of various social and economic data from census and other population surveys of individual United States counties in different years, which he fits into a large multifactorial mathematical model of crime rate. His published results generally show a reduction in violent crime associated with the adoption by states of laws allowing the general adult population to freely carry concealed weapons.

The work was immediately controversial, drawing large amounts of support and opposition. Numerous academics praised Lott's methodology, including Florida State University economist Bruce Benson,[15] Cardozo School of Law professor John O. McGinnis,[16] and University of Mississippi professor William F. Shughart.[17] The book also received favorable reviews from academics Gary Kleck, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell.[18]

Other reviews claimed that there were problems with Lott's model. In the New England Journal of Medicine, David Hemenway argued that Lott failed to account for several key variables, including drug consumption, and that therefore the model was flawed;[19] however, Lott's book did account for other variables such as cocaine prices.[20] Others agreed, and some researchers, including Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue, claimed that the model contained significant coding errors and systemic bias.[21] Gary Kleck considered it unlikely that such a large decrease in violent crime could be explained by a relatively modest increase in concealed carry,[22] and others claimed that removing portions of the data set caused the results to still show statistically significant drops only in aggravated assaults and robbery when all counties with fewer than 100,000 people and Florida's counties were both simultaneously dropped from the sample.[23]

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of current research and data on firearms and violent crime, including Lott's work, and found "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime."[24] James Q. Wilson dissented from that opinion, and while accepting the committee's findings on violent crime in general,[25] he noted that the committee's own findings in several tests showed "that shall-issue laws drive down the murder rate".[26]

Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[27] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[28]

Women's suffrage and government growth

Using data from 1870 to 1940, Lott and Larry Kenny studied how state government expenditures and revenue changed in 48 state governments after women obtained the right to vote. Women were able to vote in 29 states prior to women's suffrage and the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Lott found that the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling.[29]

His research indicates that women's suffrage had a bigger impact on government spending and taxes in states with a greater percentage of women. Even after accounting for variables such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income, per capita real state government spending, which had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting, doubled during the next 11 years. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting in national elections and 19 additional state elections.[30]

Media bias and defensive gun use

Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that media coverage of defensive gun use is rare, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that "[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police".

Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that "national surveys" suggested that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack." In that same paragraph he also wrote that "[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police." The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott argued that there is media bias, but, given that other estimates were available, the number that he was using was actually biased against the claim that he was making. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[31] and the Los Angeles Times.[32]

In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent.[33] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[34] Lott explained the lower rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[35] The other surveys all asked people to recall events over the previous five years, while Lott had only asked people about events that had occurred during just the previous year. Lott used the higher estimate because it was biased against his claim of media bias. The survey questions have also been made available for years to anyone who would have liked to replicate the survey themselves.

Environmental regulations

Together with John Karpoff and Eric Wehrly at the University of Washington, Lott has worked to show the importance of government regulations through both legal and regulatory penalties and the weaknesses of reputational penalties in reducing pollution.[36] Firms violating environmental laws suffer statistically significant losses in the market value of firm equity. The losses, however, are of similar magnitudes to the legal penalties imposed; and in the cross section, the market value loss is related to the size of the legal penalty.

Media bias

With Kevin Hassett at the American Enterprise Institute, Lott has investigated media bias.[37] Their research looking at newspaper headlines after the release of government economic data on GDP, unemployment, number of jobs, durable good sales, and retail sales suggests that American newspapers tend to give more positive coverage to the equivalent economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency. They offered a solution to the problem of how to objectively measure what the actual news story was and then obtain an objective measure of how it was covered by newspapers. Their results showed a smaller though similar effect from Democrats controlling Congress.

Affirmative action in police departments

Lott finds that when hiring standards are lowered in the process of recruiting more minority officers, the overall quality of all officers is reduced and crime rates are increased. The most adverse effects of these hiring policies have occurred in the most heavily black populated areas. There is no consistent evidence that crime rates rise when standards for hiring women are changed, and this raises questions about whether norming tests or altering their content to create equal pass rates is preferable. The paper examines how the changing composition of police departments affects such measures as the murder of and assaults against police officers.[38]

Abortion and crime

With John Whitley at the University of Adelaide, Lott has considered crime rates and the possible influence of laws which place abortion decisions with the pregnant person other than boards of physicians. They acknowledge the old 1960s argument that abortion may prevent the birth of "unwanted" children, who would have relatively small investments in human capital and a higher probability of crime. On the other hand, their research suggests that liberalizing abortion rules correlates with an increase in out-of-wedlock births and single parent families. In turn, they argue that this increase in single parent births implies the opposite impact on investments in human capital (i.e., average investment per child decreases under their argument). Using the correlation between children in poverty and in single parent homes with crime they build an argument that liberalization of abortion laws increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent.[39]

Fluorescent lighting

In June 2008 an opinion piece by Lott about compact fluorescent light bulbs was featured on the FOX News website.[40] The article was written from the point of view that Congress was making a mistake by mandating the use of compact fluorescent bulbs. Lott points to the United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ estimates of the health hazards associated with compact fluorescent lamps and that the costs of cleaning up broken bulbs far outweigh the benefits. His reasons include: that the costs of compact fluorescent bulbs largely balance off their increased life expectancy, but that the EPA claims that compact fluorescent bulbs are dangerous if broken, as they can cause mercury poisoning in those who breathe the air near a broken bulb, and that the bulbs are difficult to dispose of and transport. Lott blames the Democratic congress for the decision, saying:

"When one looks at the problems with these bulbs, it becomes very understandable why people aren’t rushing to own them. Possibly people are a little smarter than the Democrat controlled congress that passed these rules."

Other areas

Lott has done research supporting the conclusion that most of the large recent increases in campaign spending for state and federal offices can be explained by higher government spending.[41] Lott has also done research supporting the conclusion that higher quality judges, measured by their output once they are on the court (e.g., number of citations to their opinions or number of published opinions), take longer to get confirmed.[42]

Lott has advocated government deregulation of various areas, and has also been published in the popular press taking positions in support of the U.S. Republican Party and President George W. Bush on topics such as the validity of the 2000 Presidential Election results in Florida.[43]


Defamation suit

On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[44] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[45]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[46]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[47] The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote that Levitt's Correction Letter "offers a doozy of a concession." [48]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[49]

Anti-gun group posing as Lott on website and emails

An anti-gun organization set up a website pretending to be run by Lott.[50][51] The website was run and emails sent out under Lott's name to claim that Lott opposed legislation designed to limit suits against gun makers and that Lott had reconsidered his position on how individuals could sell guns, positions that Lott had not taken.[52] "E-mails from visitors questioning whether or not the site was actually run by Lott were responded to with messages signed by 'John Lott,' arguing that the site was, in fact, run by the academic well known for his research into the reductions in violent crime resulting from citizens carrying concealed handguns. But comments on the site and claims made in e-mails purportedly from Lott were inconsistent with his research and beliefs and some emails had Lott suggesting ways for people to evade gun control laws."[51]

Disputed survey

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000,[53] Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997.[54] However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said the 1997 hard drive crash that had affected several projects with co-authors had destroyed his survey data set,[55] the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Following extensive publicity, James Hamilton, a retired detective in Tennessee, came forward saying that he had taken the survey. David Gross, a former city prosecutor and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey, and he thought that he was interviewed in the spring of 1997, probably by people working for Lott.[56] Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[57] but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy, quoting on his website colleagues who lost data in the hard drive crash.[58]

Use of Econometrics as proof of causation

Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[59] considered use of econometrics to establish causal relationships by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue) to be "fundamentally flawed" junk science.[60] The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of panel concluded that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC changed their behavior.[61] The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in the report that all their estimates on murder rates supported Lott's conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[62] The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[63] They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies had an impact on other kinds of violent crime.

Mary Rosh persona

As part of the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Rosh persona.[57] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".[64]

Some commentators accused Lott of transgressing normal practice, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[65][66] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[66]

"I probably shouldn't have done it—I know I shouldn't have done it—but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003.[66]



  1. ^ Zeller, Tom (September 12, 2006). "Bloggers panned for puppet shows; Writers undeterred despite unmasking of online 'supporters'". International Herald Tribune: pp. 17. 
  2. ^ Pierce, Greg (November 13, 2008). "Inside Politics". Washington Times: pp. A07. 
  3. ^ Lightman, David (March 28, 2011). "30 years after Reagan shot, outlook dim for gun control". McClatchy News Service. 
  4. ^ "Political Headlines". Fox Special Report With Brit Hume. Fox News. November 12, 2008. 
  5. ^ Curriculum Vitae of John R. Lott, Jr., dated March 17, 2008.
  6. ^ Social Science Research Network
  7. ^
  8. ^ Fox News
  9. ^ "Revealed Performances" Worldwide Rankings of Economists and Economics Departments 1969-2000, by Tom Coupe, Ecares, Universite Libre de Bruxelles (pdf)
  10. ^ European Economic Association
  11. ^ "Social Science Research Network"
  12. ^ "Peter Brimelow, Guns, Drugs And Insider Trading, Forbes Magazine, September 18, 2000"
  13. ^ Matt Bai, "The Gun Crowd's Guru: John Lott has a high profile--and a target on his back", Newsweek, March 12, 2001]
  14. ^ John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 Journal of Legal Studies 1 (1997) working paper PDF; journal article PDF (requires subscription).
  15. ^ Benson, Bruce L. (September 1999). "Review of More Guns, Less Crime". Public Choice 100 (3–4): 309. doi:10.1023/A:1018689310638. 
  16. ^ McGinnis, John O. (July 20, 1998). "Trigger Happiness". National Review 50 (13): 49. 
  17. ^ Shughart, William F.; Lott, John R. (April 1, 1999). "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws: Review". Southern Economic Journal 65 (4): 978–981. doi:10.2307/1061296. JSTOR 1061296. 
  18. ^ Back cover, More Guns, Less Crime
  19. ^ Hemenway, David (December 31, 1998). "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws / Making A Killing: The business of guns in America". The New England Journal of Medicine 339 (27): 2029–30. doi:10.1056/NEJM199812313392719. 
  20. ^ "Plassmann and Whitley Stanford Law Review (2003)" Confirming More Guns, Less Crime, by Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley, 2003, p. 1361
  21. ^ Ayres, Ian; John J. Donohue III (April 2003). "Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis". Stanford Law Review 55 (4): 1193. doi:10.2139/ssrn.343781. 
  22. ^ Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 
  23. ^ Black, Dan A.; Daniel S. Nagin (January 1998). "Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?". Journal of Legal Studies 27 (1): 214. doi:10.1086/468019. 
  24. ^ NAS, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Executive Summary, Major Conclusions, page 2. Chapter 6 Right-to-Carry Laws, pages 120-151, reviews research by Lott and others on this issue.
  25. ^ NAS, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Appendix A Dissent by James Q. Wilson, page 269.
  26. ^ Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Appendix A Dissent by James Q. Wilson, page 270.
  27. ^ Glenn, David (May 9, 2003). "'More Guns, Less Crime' Thesis Rests on a Flawed Statistical Design, Scholars Argue". The Chronicle of Higher Education 49 (35): A18. Retrieved 2007-05-27. 
  28. ^ Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis", 55 Stanford Law Review 101 (2003)
  29. ^ "How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" by John R. Lott Jr. and Larry Kenny, Journal of Political Economy, 1999
  30. ^ Article published Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at Washington Times: Women's suffrage over time, By John R. Lott, Jr.
  31. ^ Lott, Jr., John R. (1998-06-23). "Keep Guns out of Lawyers' Hands". Wall Street Journal. p. 1. 
  32. ^ Lott, Jr., John R. (1998-12-01). "Cities Target Gun Makers in Bogus Lawsuits". Los Angeles Times. p. 7. 
  33. ^ McDowall, David (Summer 2005). "John R. Lott, Jr.'s Defensive Gun Brandishing Estimates". Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (2): 246. doi:10.1093/poq/nfi015. 
  34. ^ Gary Kleck, and Marc Gertz, “Defensive Gun Use: Vengeful vigilante imagery versus reality: results from the National Self-Defense Survey,” Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 26 (1998)
  35. ^ Discussion of different surveys on defensive gun use
  36. ^ "The Reputational Penalties for Environmental Violations: Empirical Evidence" by Jonathan M. Karpoff, John R. Lott Jr., Eric Wehrly, Journal of Law and Economics, Forthcoming
  37. ^ SSRN-Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased? by John Lott, Kevin Hassett. SSRN 588453. 
  38. ^ "Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime" by John R. Lott, Jr. Economic Inquiry, April 2000
  39. ^ John R. Lott Jr. and John E. Whitley, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births", Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 254 working paper and Economic Inquiry, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 304-324, April 2007 published article.
  40. ^ "Looking at Fluorescent Bulbs in Different Light" by John R. Lott, Jr, June 2008
  41. ^ "A Simple Explanation for Why Campaign Expenditures are Increasing: The Government is Getting Bigger" by John R. Lott Jr., Journal of Law and Economics., October 2000
  42. ^ "The Judicial Confirmation Process: The Difficulty in Being Smart" by John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Empirical Law and Economics, 2005: 407-447
  43. ^ "Nonvoted ballots and discrimination in Florida" by John R. Lott, Jr., Journal of Legal Studies, January 2003
  44. ^ PDF of Lott's complaint v. Levitt
  45. ^ Higgins, Michael (2006-04-11). "Best-seller leads scholar to file lawsuit; Defamation allegation targets U. of C. author". Chicago Tribune. p. 3. 
  46. ^ "Judge Castillo issues decision on Lott v. Levitt" on John Lott's website
  47. ^ Glenn, David (2007-08-10). "Dueling Economists Reach Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit". Chronicle of Higher Education 53 (49): 10. 
  48. ^ "Unusual Agreement Means Settlement May Be Near in 'Lott v. Levitt,' July 27, 2007"
  49. ^ "7th Circuit Affirmation of District Court Dismissal of Defamation Lawsuit"
  50. ^ Jennifer Harper, "Gunning for Lott," Washington Times, August 1, 2003.]
  51. ^ a b Jeff Johnson, "Fraudulent 'Ask John Lott' Website Now Claims to Be Parody," Cybercast News Service, August 6, 2003.
  52. ^ Jeff Johnson, "Gun Statistics Expert John Lott Victim of Identity Theft," Cybercast News Service, August 04, 2003.
  53. ^ Otis Dudley Duncan, "Gun Use Surveys: In Numbers We Trust?", The Criminologist, Vol. 25, No. 1, Jan/Feb 2000, p. 1, 3-7.
  54. ^ John R. Lott. Jr.'s Reply to Otis Dudley Duncan's Recent Article in The Criminologist, The Criminologist, Vol. 25, No. 5, Sept/Oct 2000, p. 1, 6.
  55. ^ Julian Sanchez noted that the 1997 harddrive crash is widely accepted as a fact; the dispute is over the lack of solid evidence that Lott lost a survey data set in that crash.
  56. ^
  57. ^ a b Sanchez, Julian. "The Mystery of Mary Rosh". Retrieved 2007-06-15. 
  58. ^ "Evidence of Survey". , "2002 Survey". 
  59. ^ "The Conspiracy Meme", Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 35 No. 1, January/February 2011, Page 37
  60. ^ Ted Goertzel, "Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression", The Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 26, No 1, January/February 2002, pp. 19-23.
  61. ^ NAS panel report on right-to-carry laws
  62. ^ James Q. WIlson, "Dissent," Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press 2004, pp. 269-271.
  63. ^ "Committee Response to Wilson’s Dissent"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press 2004, pp. 272.
  64. ^ ratings of Lott posted at
  65. ^ Chris Mooney in Mother Jones: Double Barreled Double Standards. October 13, 2003
  66. ^ a b c "Scholar Invents Fan To Answer His Critics" Richard Morin, Washington Post, February 1, 2003; Page C01

External links

Lott's websites

Regarding Lott's research

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • John Lott — ist der Name folgender Personen: John Lott (Ökonom) (* 1958), US amerikanischer Wirtschaftswissenschaftler John Lott (Mathematiker) (* 1959), US amerikanischer Mathematiker Diese Seite ist eine Begriffsklärung zur Unterscheidung mehrerer mit …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • John Lott (Mathematiker) — John William Lott (* 12. Januar 1959 in Rolla, Missouri) ist ein US amerikanischer Mathematiker. John Lott, Oberwolfach 2010 Lott studierte am Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Bachelor Abschluss 1978) und an der University of California,… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • John Lott (football coach) — NFL player ImageWidth = 150px Name=John Lott DateOfBirth=birth date and age|1964|5|9 Birthplace= Denton, Texas College=North Texas Position=Offensive tackle DraftedYear= DraftedRound= ProBowls= years=1987 1988 teams=Pittsburgh Steelers New York… …   Wikipedia

  • Lott — ist der Familienname folgender Personen: Bernhard Lott (1950–2008), deutscher Mundartdichter Doris Lott (* 1940), deutsche Autorin Felicity Lott (* 1947), englische Sängerin George Lott (1906–1991), US amerikanischer Tennisspieler Gunnar Lott (*… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Lott — can refer to:People* Barbara Lott, actress * Bret Lott, author * Cara Lott, pornographic actress * Chris Lott, magazine publisher * Elisha Everett Lott, 19th century Texas legislator * Felicity Lott, soprano * Gail Carter Lott, ornithologist *… …   Wikipedia

  • John Morgan (mathematician) — John Willard Morgan is an American mathematician, well known for his contributions to topology and geometry. He is currently Professor and Chair of the Mathematics Department at Columbia University. LifeHe received his B.A. in 1968 and Ph.D. in… …   Wikipedia

  • John M. Olin Foundation — Not to be confused with the F. W. Olin Foundation or Spencer T. Olin Foundation, founded by Olin s father and brother, respectively. John M. Olin Foundation was a grant making foundation established in 1953 by John M. Olin, president of the Olin… …   Wikipedia

  • Lott — Recorded in a number of spellings including Lott, Lote, Lotte, Lots, and possibly others, this is an English surname but one of probably French origins. It may derive from the Hebrew personal name of Lot meaning cover , which was popular in… …   Surnames reference

  • John Newcombe — Country Australia Residence Sydney Born 23 May 1944 (1944 05 23) (age 67) Sydney Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) Turned pro 1968 …   Wikipedia

  • John Cornelius Stennis — John C. Stennis John Cornelius Stennis (* 3. August 1901 in Kemper County, Mississippi; † 23. April 1995 in Jackson, Mississippi) war ein US Senator aus dem Bundesstaat Mississippi. Er studierte Rechtswissenschaften und wurde noch als Student ins …   Deutsch Wikipedia