|
Jim Lindgren's
"report"concerning John Lott's survey of defensive gun usage got wide publicity
on several blogs. But the concerns I raise haven't yet been exposed.
They should be, IMHO.
Jim Lindgren concludes that
David Gross took a 1996 survey by a professional polling organization done as
part of a study by Hemenway and Azrael at Harvard rather than a 1997
survey taken by students as part of a study John Lott of Chicago was
conducting.
Mr. Gross disagrees.
What follows is a
compliation I've put together of a number of David Gross' e-mails to me
discussing this situation.
11/11/03
I don't know where James Lindgren gets off stating things as he does, for
he is wrong about my improving memory. I expressly closed the issue out
quickly. Please, see my email of January 20, 2003 at 4:25 P.M. I spent a
total of less than 24 hours involved in the discussion, start to finish. I don't
believe that I said that the survey concerned the laws; I said that I was
familiar with the
carry laws. I think James Lindgren has that incorrectly in any notes he took. That's his confusion; not mine. I sent my first message concerning my awareness of the issue at 4:26 P.M.
on January 19, 2003. I talked with Mr. Lindgren once that evening, [shortly
before] 10:46 P.M when I sent a message referring to his call. Lindgren
was impressed that I remembered the timing of the talk at the Minneapolis
Athletic Club (some four years earlier) to within a couple of weeks, and that,
when I said "a couple of years before" to John Lott, I meant "a couple of
years"
and not 1 3/4 years or 2 1/4 years. THAT, alone, excludes the 1996 Harvard study, because it WAS early 1997 when I answered the short survey, NOT 1996. 01/20/03
I believe that in my emails to you and in my conversation with James
Lindgren, I have stimulated just about all of my memories and impressions that
I'm going to have concerning the survey that I took, without having any
substitutions and additions by any possible suggestion, express or implied. I do
not wish to be
seen as a partisan in this matter, for I am not. I also am unwilling to speculate. My recollections and impressions of the survey that I took are now closed to prevent any accusations that I am having "convenient" recollections. I simply refuse to get in the middle of this any more than I already have. I am a witness who has come forward; I don't have a dog in this fight. * * * The bottom line is that listening to the audiotape [of Lott's 1999 speech],
today, has confirmed the recollections that I had of the survey and the
timing. * * *
It goes beyond any statistical possibility that I was surveyed by anyone
else, given the timing, the subject matter, its brevity, it's precise focus,
etc.. The clincher, for me, was my recollection, last night, in my e-mail, that
there was a question concerning warning shots as a distinct category of
discharge as opposed to a shot directed/fired AT the criminal. From that e-mail,
before I listened to the tape of his talk, today: "I don't recall whether
the survey was limited to permits to carry and usage, or whether the subject
matter was the broader "defensive use" to include use on
private property. I think it was the broader question, because I know that I mentioned those two significant incidents in my life as defensive use. I seem to recall, at this point, some question about a "warning shot," concerning discharge of a firearm, but I'm not sure." I had not listened to the tape, when I wrote that note, because I hadn't even begun to look for it yet. I had just concluded my conversation with James Lindgren and was responding to an earlier email reporting that I had been contacted by James Lindgren, already; and amplifying my comments on what I remembered; as well as obligating myself to try to find the audiotape, something I had recalled since I was first contacted, and which I had mentioned during my conversation with James Lindgren. Yet, as clear as day, in the tape of the talk, as I listened this morning,
was the distinction between warning shots as a discharge (a distinct category,
or part of "brandishing") and shots directed/fired AT the criminal. Bingo! That
was the sound of a synapse firing, ladies and gentlemen. :-)
The 98% figure is not only set out in his talk, but further,
briefly
explored/defined. He does not, anywhere that I could find in the tape, say that he was the one who had developed the figure and its nuances. But it was clear to me, then, whoever did conduct the survey, that I had been a respondent in that survey; and I mentioned it to John Lott in passing [after his speech]. Now, I'm sure that it was John's survey. I'll bet the house on it. I have
no reasonable doubts based on logic, evidence, and common sense.
10/04/03
I am certainly willing to write a letter that says,
"Dear Jim, if you had only suggested the possibility of Harvard/Cambridge, I could have easily dispelled your confusion, because . . .. ." 1) Wrong year by a whole year!
2) Wrong source: I very clearly recalled the "Chicago"
connection, and as both my older brothers (one of whom used to live in Highland
Park at 461 Lakeside Place and worked in the loop [and I currently have a friend
who lives at 471 Lakeside Place; and, by the way, my brother's in-laws lived at
827
Bob-O-Link Road in Highland Park] WENT TO HARVARD (Cambridge, MA), I would have recalled any such connection, there, as significant, in that context and with that association. THAT didn't happen. Interestingly, this comparison (Cambridge vs. Chicago) has never surfaced before or been brought to my attention in any way, shape, or form. I could have easily and quickly dispelled any confusion in that regard, if only because of my demonstrated ability to remember associative detail as a mnemonic aide. If Lindgren had asked me about this, I would have given him an answer that clarified HIS confusion, based on the above. I have no confusion; not possible; no way; no how. The Chicago connection is something that I CLEARLY and IMMEDIATELY and INITIALLY recalled and discussed; and the lack of any Cambridge/Harvard connection is equally as firm and solid: negative. There was no doubt about that at any time. There is no doubt, now. This is nuts. A. And who said that a relatively
locquatious (under the circumstances) respondent (me) would be cut off by the
interviewer, because the last DGU was just over 24 months earlier, instead of
listening, politely, and coding the
information properly on the facts of the response. 3) There were no 30 questions asked; no way. It was
fewer than a dozen or so. Not many at all. SHORT; VERY SHORT. I was very clear
on that, always.
4) Warning shots issue. As developed as the
"clincher" (in my mind) in earlier communications.
End of discussion. I kept myself completely "pure" in my communications
with you and in my discussions with Lindgren, I was uncoached in any fashion;
unled by anyone; and undeterred by any criticism of my motives, because I had
none, except the pursuit of the truth of the matter. Perhaps I was too
honest,
forthright, and forthcoming. Again, there's no doubt in my mind, based on my reconstruction of the
source, timing, and number and content of the questions, that it was John Lott's
survey. I'm only sorry that I was forced to "work backwards" to the conclusion
from significant intervening, associative markers so many years later. It's how
I remember things and put them into context. Even Lindgren remarked on
the
accuracy and detail of my memory and its associations. The truth is like that. I'm sure that the survey to which I responded was NOT the long, 1996, Harvard survey; and any inference from the circumstances that Lindgren draws in that regard utterly fails to exclude clearly the very short 1997 study from Chicago that had a warning shots question. The circumstances of my recollection lead directly to Chicago and away from Cambridge (proper use of circumstantial evidence: he can not support even probable cause for inquiry (a search warrant) on what he has done. **********************************************
Professor Joseph Olson Hamline University School of Law tel. (651) 523-2142 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-1284 fax. (651) 523-2236 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
