You know John Lott already-- or should we say Mary Rosh? The guy's a joke. His research about concealed weapons has already been refuted many many times by many other sources, and yet, because he claims his studies say concealed weapons mean less crime, the gun lobby has given him a nice residence at one of their think tanks, and they continue to get him to act as a talking head.

So what does a discredited gun researcher like John Lott do when a real, acclaimed researcher named Steven Levitt publishes a best selling book that refutes Lott's data? Does he maybe do a new study that proves he's right, or maybe write in a professional journal why his evidence should stand? Nope, he sues to stop sales of the book.

A scholar known for his work on guns and crime filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, co-author of the best-seller "Freakonomics."

John Lott Jr. of Virginia, a former U. of C. visiting professor, alleges that Levitt defamed him in the book by claiming that other scholars had tried and failed to confirm Lott's conclusion that allowing people to carry concealed weapons reduces crime. Publishers Weekly ranked "Freakonomics" eighth this week for non-fiction hardcover books.

According to Levitt's book: "When other scholars have tried to replicate [Lott's] results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime."

Now, it would be one thing if Lott was really trying to protect his position. It would be one thing if he had a reputation, or any standing at all the academic community (as Levitt does), and was simply trying to protect that. But he's not just trying to refute Levitt's statement-- he's actually suing to say the opposite is true.

But according to Lott's lawsuit: "In fact, every time that an economist or other researcher has replicated Lott's research, he or she has confirmed Lott's conclusion."

Which is outrageously false. No serious researcher would ever make a blanket statement that says "every time" someone checks their results, they line up. And that's not even true, because we've personally seen research that refutes Lott's statements.

Of course, Lott tries to slime his way out of that as well.

Lott acknowledged in the suit that some scholars have disagreed with his conclusions. But he said those researchers used "different data or methods to analyze the relationship between gun-control laws and crime" and made no attempt to "replicate" Lott's work.

Know why no one can "replicate" Lott's work? Because in at least one of his studies, he claims he lost all of his data in a computer crash (even Michelle Malkin can't stand by this guy, and that's saying something).

Like we said, John Lott's a joke. We sure hope this lawsuit actually gets to a trial. Maybe, after the light of the court gets shined onto this case, even the gun lobby will see John Lott for what he really is: a discredited fraud.