Lott’s statistics are (with a small number of niggling exceptions) done perfectly. As a professional who looked carefully, I have been unable to find procedural errors or even confirmation bias in his work.
Judge a tree by its fruit.
There are a lot of places where people gather. The ones where mass shootings take place (virtually) all have one thing in common: they are gun free zones.
Peter Muckrakerovich is an idiot.
The other issues involve molly coddling a ghetto demographic that, thanks to Maxine Waters, Jesse carJackson and Al Pimpton, run absolutely wild. That particular demographic can't be expelled, incarcerated, shot, etc, without the usual suspects getting votes/cash off the crisis.
Also, thanks to 28 years of treasonous POTUS', we've got criminals flooding across our borders destroying the country.
Finally, and this is largely Jorge Busho's fault, we're inundated with raghead savages that are working to destroy Western Civilization.
All these are separate issues deserving their own study.
“It appears to be because John Lott conducts research that shows that more legally armed citizens reduce violent crime, and that gun free zones attract mass shootings.”
Don’t ever tell the truth today. Someone will get offended and have to retreat to their safe space and suck their thumb.
Gun shows! How many mass shootings happen there?
Now some shootings have happened in Gun shops and this is what will happen should that occur every time:
GRAPHIC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRQXNNXv0tU
Bkmk
What John Lott has said has been proven by statistical data. What statistical data does this man have to prove what he says?
Ping on my article about the hit piece at Pacific Standard.