Posted on 07/30/2015 10:08:59 AM PDT by rktman
When you watch the news after the latest big shooting, there's a good chance you'll come across John Lott. The 57-year-old economist has made more than 100 media appearances over the past two years, from friendly conversations on Fox News to heated debates on MSNBC and CNN. After nine churchgoers were gunned down in Charleston, South Carolina, he went on Sean Hannity's show and criticized President Obama for spreading "clearly false" information about gun violence. Following the recent mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, his op-ed asking "Why should we make it easy for killers to attack our military?" was among the most popular articles on the Fox News site. After an interview with Lott in the wake of the movie theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham gushed, "He knows more about guns and the Second Amendment than pretty much anyone I know."
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
Well, he is. When John Lott speaks, people on both sides of the issue should listen.
One side mostly knows the facts. The other side——screw a bunch of facts. It must be settled science that more guns=more shootings. Right?
Love the headline!! LOL
Well, responsible firearms owners can also cite works from David Kopel or Gary Kleck or James Wright or Peter Rossi or Don Kates. These authors have over the years written very thoughtful and well researched books and articles that seriously contradict and challenge the fundamental assumptions anti gunners still hold onto.
I always laugh when my lib uncle sources his arguments from Mother Jones or Huffington Post.
Back in the 80s, my father in law’s sister was an uber New Dealer. Whereas he was a staunch Reagan capitalist. She gave him a subscription to Mother Jones apparently thinking that would convert him. ha ha ha ha
I disagree with Lott on a fundamental level.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate his work. He skewers the myths of the gun grabbers in a very effective manner.
But in my mind, statistical arguments are irrelevant to fundamental rights. Each and every individual would have an inalienable right to keep and bear, even if it did cause increased violent crime.
I like it that Lott has proven that it doesn’t, and I like that he’s shown that the gun banners are raving moonbats, but fundamental rights are not subject to utilitarian considerations.
Ping
John Lott doesn’t justify guns everywhere he validates them.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t justify gun everywhere either it ratifies them.
My inalienable right to bear arms is justified by my Creator.
I agree. Fighting with gun grabbers over what is even the truth is pointless and distracting and gives them legitimacy they don’t deserve. They want to win, and like any good communist, the ends justify the means, and they will lie and slander and just make up stuff in order to win.
Summed up, when confronted with the plea for “reasonable” gun control, the answer should be; ‘ “Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.” ‘
Mother Jones, another left-wing agitprop zombie mag from the `70s, like Rolling Stone.
Wselcome to Mother Jones’ Cavalcade of Character Assassination. Today’s victim: John Lott.
When you can’t dispute the message, defame the messenger.
Here in Kansas we are ending our first month of Constitutional carry. The blood in the street turned out to be liberal Kool-Aid.
I think I have learned the most devastating thing thing you can do to a liberal’s argument is to laugh at them. They try to belittle us gun rights types, but they don’t have reality to back them up like we do, which is why we usually default to trying to explain the truth. They don’t have anything but their feelings based arguments, which are quite fragile.
I have also wondered if Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals was based on some projection on their part as to what is most devastating to liberal arguments in particular. Answering a lib with reason and fact gives them way too much credit.
Demonize, objectify, expose their stupidity. Silly stupid useful idiot hippies trying to make us sheep Marxists.
If a relative, get them some of this for Christmas; http://shop.tacticalshit.com/liberal-tears-gun-oil-6oz
Those who were attempting to falsify Lott's work deliberately ignored any use of a defensive firearm that did not meet that criteria.
To that end, they ignored any use of a defensive firearm where its mere presence prevented a crime from being completed, and also ignored any use of a defensive firearm that prevented the initiation of any crime by scaring off the potential perpetrators. All of these instances were ignored and/or discounted in the studies that supposedly invalidated Lott's work on defensive uses of firearms by the public. Only those defensive uses of firearms where the criminal was killed, or in some studies only those perpetrators who were wounded, and captured and later convicted of a crime, were included.
Those studies excluded instances where perpetrators were later exonerated or did not go to trial, concluding that no crime took place, and therefor could not have been defended against by a firearm. All other defensive uses were systematically excluded as defensive uses of firearms as irrelevant. They were, to say the least, completely dishonest studies, designed to elicit the results they wanted.
Lucky for us we’ve been informed that self defense gun usage NEVER EVER EVER happens. :>}
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.