Skip to comments.AMERICA'S MOST FEARED ECONOMIST ... Ann Coulter
Posted on 05/02/2013 1:40:13 AM PDT by Rummyfan
You can tell the conservatives liberals fear most because they start being automatically referred to as "discredited." Ask Sen. Ted Cruz. But no one is called "discredited" by liberals more often than the inestimable economist John Lott, author of the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.
Lott's economic analysis of the effect of concealed-carry laws on violent crime is the most thoroughly vetted study in the history of economics, perhaps in the history of the world.
Some nut Dutch professor produces dozens of gag studies purportedly finding that thinking about red meat makes people selfish and that litter leads to racism -- and no one bothers to see if he even administered questionnaires before drawing these grand conclusions about humanity.
But Lott's decades-long studies of concealed-carry laws have been probed, poked and re-examined dozens of times. (Most of all by Lott himself, who has continuously re-run the numbers controlling for thousands of factors.)
Tellingly, Lott immediately makes all his underlying data and computer analyses available to critics -- unlike, say, the critics. He has sent his data and work to 120 researchers around the world. By now, there have been 29 peer-reviewed studies of Lott's work on the effect of concealed-carry laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at anncoulter.com ...
Hoplophobes continue to dismiss Lott’s work without any counter-argument.
Same with Gary Kleck.
Yet they repeat quotes from the faulty, debunked Kellerman study as gospel.
Good post by Anne Coulter
I still don’t like conceal and carry. Honestly if someone is armed then they should have to openly carry the piece on the hip. It would help me to know not to aggravate
Sorry Help me to know WHO not to aggravate
I agree! I’d rather not know and additionally prefer that someone bent on causing havoc doesn’t know either.
Aggravating would not make me pull out my weapon..... only a hostile, life- threatening action. I would hope you dont walk around picking and choosing who to aggravate. Why cant people simply be courteous instead. There are not many things worth killing or dying for. Maybe concealed carry will return civilized behavior..... but it doesnt sound like it. Ammo is too valuable to waste on nasty people, save it for criminals. Let the nasty folks just stand there and look like spoiled brats trying to start something.
Good to see more prominent conservatives back, and celebrate, John R. Lott.
I think the point is not to aggravate anyone.
An armed society is a polite society.
Nope. It's only sensible to treat everyone you meet with respect.
An armed society is a polite society.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I think concealed carry is good for civilians who want to exercise their 2A rights discretely. Uniformed police carry openly and are easily distinguished. Yet there are some law enforcement officers that are plain clothes and carry discretely. I believe, for most scenarios, concealed carry is best for the general public.
Should we require martial art experts, because their hands are considered to be lethal weapons, to wear arm bands or otherwise display some evidence of their training?
I believe freedom to chose is a good thing. There are many reasons both for and against open carry and concealed carry.
As I carry more for political reasons than for individual defense (though both are important), I prefer open carry most of the time.
Sometimes I do both at the same time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.