If there’s one thing that the many supporters of gun rights in the blogosphere agree on at present is that the Lott saga should not become a “reverse Bellesiles”. However, this has been interpreted in two different ways. One interpretation is that the pro-gun side should not copy the mistakes of those on the other side who defended Bellesiles even when it became clear he was indefensible. The other is that Lott’s offences are not comparable with those of Bellesiles.

In the early stages of the debate it was possible to hold both views simultaneously, favoring fair investigation of the charge that Lott had fabricated a survey, while maintaining the stance of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. All this changed with the near-simultaneous emergence of the key ‘defence witness’, David Gross, and the exposure of Lott’s Internet ‘sock puppet’, Mary Rosh. (You can read the whole saga, as reported by Tim Lambert, here).

A number of gun rights supporters, led by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, took the second approach, treating Gross’s evidence as closing the case against Lott, and dismissing the Rosh exposure as ‘not news’. This approach is looking steadily more and more untenable as more is learnt about both Gross and Lott/Rosh. Given the obviousness of the symmetry – lost data, a series of steadily more incredible explanations, and a gradual expansion of the scope of the problem, all that is required for a reverse Bellesiles is a group of supporters unwilling to accept the truth, and, so far at least, Reynolds is providing the leadership for this group.

On the other hand, Mary’s defrocking was itself a victory for the first approach, since the observation that Rosh and Lott shared the same IP address was made by Julian Sanchez, a staff writer at the libertarian Cato Institute and supporter of gun rights. Quite a few others have followed a similar approach, most recently Michelle Malkin.

The end result is in fact a further symmetry with the Bellesiles affair, with some diehard defenders standing by Lott, while others recognise that even the most charitable interpretation of the facts cannot rehabilitate his scholarship.

One final symmetry. Even if Bellesiles’ research had stood up to scrutiny, it would have represented little more than a footnote in the debate about gun policy. Who really cares whether American gun culture developed before or after the Civil War? Similarly, straightforward calculations of numbers and probabilities suggest that the impact of concealed carry laws is going to be primarily symbolic, at least in the short run. There aren’t enough extra guns involved to either deter or cause a great many crimes.

And a footnote. I’ve been very critical of the Cato Institute in the past, most notably when they danced to the Republican tune by relabelling social security privatization as social security choice or ‘personal accounts’. So I’m glad to observe that, as with other groups, there’s good as well as bad at Cato. Julian Sanchez has certainly demonstrated his personal integrity on the Lott issue. And this little aside

Doubtless opponents of privatiz… [cough], ahem, personal accounts could come up with their own list of countervailing considerations.

suggests that he would prefer to argue the issue on the merits, rather than relying on dubious rhetorical ploys.

Update (11/2/03) Julian Sanchez has written to offer ‘a quick mini-defense’ of the Republican & Cato name change, discussing the way the political debate evolved. He makes some good points I think ‘partial privatisation’ is the only short and reasonably accurate description of what’s being proposed.