The problems with peer-review apply to all objects of study, not only crime and guns. This is why social science is leading all areas of science in dealing with those issues by focusing on training people correctly to begin with, removing publication biases, and rewarding good science (regardless of the outcome) instead of headline newsworthy crappy science. Social science has led the change to open science, including pre-registration of studies, open methods, open data, open code for all analyses, then open and public peer-review. Every single study (peer-reviewed, or not) needs to be fully vetted by people that have the skills to identify problems, whether it's a crime-related study or a cancer-related study. There are a lot of poor studies that make it out of peer-review. But there are lot of great studies that make it out too (or, aren't peer-reviewed in a traditional way, for example blogs that are publicly reviewed and edited into remarkable pieces of information because they are hammered into greatness by great scientists intensely critiquing each other). And guess what, some of the brightest science critics around have found major issues with Lott's studies, and Lott refuses to allow access to data or code (for independent analysis), and refuses to change things that are clearly wrong. In short, Lott isn't being scientific, and that's why he and much of his work have become a joke in the scientific community.