A lot of electronic ink has been spilled over the latest episode of the John Lott Follies. Tim Lambert reports on the latest brouhaha from a micro perspective, while Mac Diva analyzes Lott's gun writings in the context of his larger body of work.

The micro story is that Lott, in his latest book, quotes an anonymous source from a National Review article by Glenn "Instapimp" Reynolds and Dave Kopel; the source is suspected to be Lott himself. Maybe its the fact that Lott has already torpedoed his own credibility, but it's the conduct of Reynolds and Kopel that interests me more.

Reynolds and Kopel wrote, concerning the members of a National Academy of Sciences panel on gun issues, "Most of them have reputations as being antigun. Steven Levitt, [sic] has been described as 'rabidly antigun.'" Reynolds and Kopel decline to name the "describer," stating that he/she wishes to remain anonymous. I don't care who the accuser is. The real question is: at the time Kopel and Reynolds described Levitt as "rabidly antigun," what evidence did they have of that fact? Mr. A. Non. didn't force them to print the allegation. Either they took A. Non's word for it or they independently verified the charge. If they have proof that Levitt is "rabidly antigun," they can vindicate themselves by citing the proof without disclosing A. Non's identity. (And they've now had close to 2 years to gather evidence for the claim.) And if they can't, then they've established that they're willing to publish claims from someone unable and/or unwilling to back them up.

Also of interest: Reynolds made the claim that Levitt was an "ardent supporter of gun control" on his blog on August 16, 2001, 13 days before the stated publication date of the National Review article. (Which was written first: who knows?) In the original August 16 blog entry, Reynolds doesn't attribute the "ardent supporter" characterization to a third party. In the NR article, Reynolds and Kopel just say that Levitt "has been described" as rabidly antigun. On August 29 (apparently after the NR article was published), Reynolds states on his blog that he was quoting "a scholar" in the NR article. In the same post, Reynolds denies any personal knowledge of Levitt's gun views ("I don't know Levitt personally; I've read some of his work (which is good) but on topics other than guns"). If Reynolds hadn't read any of Levitt's writings on guns and didn't know him personally, why was he asserting -- as an indisputable fact and without citing a source -- just two weeks earlier that Levitt was "ardently" anti-gun? (And isn't the 8/29 blog entry and admission that Reynolds hadn't independently verified Levitt's views on guns before submitting the NR article?)

Reynolds claimed last September that Levitt wasn't the "point" or the "main point" of the NR piece. However, without question, the main point of Reynolds' August 16 blog entry ("How To Stack A Panel") was that the panel was biased because it was stacked with "ardent" anti-gunners, as evidenced by the presence of Levitt on the panel.

But I'm not a scholar; what do I know?