| impertinence said: Getting your facts from John Lott is like getting your fair and balanced Nintendo news from Seece, yes. Because John Lott is not so much an expert as a partisan hack. Anyway, what you should be doing is look at a claim as the one you originally made and think "Wow, that's pretty definitive information, perhaps I should check these numbers for myself". If you did you'll find within 10 minutes of looking around that there are many more then 2 "gun free zone" mass shootings committed in the USA the last 50 years. John Lott is a man with books to sell, his research is most likely financed by the NRA and other gun lobbyists and has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar before making claims about gun crime that were completely bogus and fabricated. Using John Lott as an expert to prove your point proves nothing other than that you will latch onto anything that supports what you want to believe without spending a seconds effort acctually trying to verify the accuracy of anything. |
That's... specifically not true.
His research is still academically considered to be the most authortative and cited as such... still holding sadly holding the most credible mass gun violence research out there specifically because no side ever takes it up straight down the middle.
He has his bias, but his methods have so far been the best, the big differnece between major gun reports on gun violence and the prevention of crime basically differeng between "Self reporting of stopping a crime" and "Self reporting of stopping a crime after you've been stabbed or shot first."
For example the National Academy of Science vaguely supported Lott's study over opposing studies. Deeming neither really great, but agreeing with Lott's conclusion on right to carry lowering murders, and saying outside that, it has no effect on any crimes.
Your fighting against the accepted science with nothing more then a naked claim at bias that's never held any merit.
