Is John Lott...

[Theophylact]

...the Michael Bellesiles of the pro-gun side?

[Atomic Rooster]

All that hub-bub about one sentence in his book. I guess since that's all their squabbling about, the rest of the book must be accurate. Hmmm...

[aviax]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster
All that hub-bub about one sentence in his book. I guess since that's all their squabbling about, the rest of the book must be accurate. Hmmm...

Well, that's like saying, 'Clinton lied in one civil suit. I guess everything else he said was the truth.'

[Atomic Rooster]

Not really. Slick Willy lied about most everything.

[Knothead]

LOL, A.R.!

Well, the "gun-grabbers" lost face with Bellesiles, so naturally, they need to attack a "pro-gun" guy.

And statistics natch, is where they attack....

From Mark Twain: hopefully I remember this right...
"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

[aldtech]

If you swim with the sharks, you're a shark. If you lie about one thing, what else do you lie about? To me, all politicians on the national level are liars about one thing or another. Yeah Clinton lied but name me one president that didn’t lie. Do not get me wrong, our democratic process is the best in the world but our politicians and two party system could use a change.

For all you “cold, dead hands” gun totters out there, what is so wrong with registering guns and background checks? It does not mean that you can not have guns. I personally think that if you want a gun, get one. I don’t care if Joe Snuffy or Sally May has a gun as long as it is registered. And if someone gets a hold of it and uses it for a crime that person along with the gun owner should be prosecuted. If you can’t lock up or control you guns then you don’t need to have one.

Live Free Or Die

AL

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by aldtech
And if someone gets a hold of it and uses it for a crime that person along with the gun owner should be prosecuted.

So if someone breaks into my house, steals my "registered" gun, and kills someone with it, I should be held accountable too?

[daveleau]

Wow! At first, I started reading and thinking that this was sad about John Lott. I thought it was going to be bad since Lott's book is one of the most popular books since it is an unbiased view backing gun rights. (He did not own a gun until after writing the book.)

...Then I actually read the article.

They are so obviously trying to find any little thing they can to take down this book. Is their only qualm with a poll he took on page 3? What about the other hundreds and hundreds of statistics he took that he referenced? This is a small sentence in the introduction. Are we going to call each sentence into question individually, or is that all you've got? In regards to that one sentence, why should we believe this reporter? Where is HIS proof? It is lacking completely.

Also, why should we doubt that John Lott's sons wrote the review on Amazon? Why is it a big deal regardless? Who cares who wrote a review on a book seller's site?

MSNBC (Timothy Noah) is trying his hardest to use a discredited professor and people's shock derived by that to discredit a great scholar from Yale. When he gets real evidence about a problem, I will listen with ears wide open.

When I started reading this article, I was disappointed because my "believe the media" reaction was high. But I do not think I have ever seen such a shallow or blatant attempt to discredit a man for political reasons in all my life!

I think I will email this to Mr Noah as well. I hope he gets tons of hate mail because of this blatant attempt to slander an author who thinks differently than himself.

[aldtech]

AR

Bottom line yes. If some one wants the responsibility of owning a gun then they should be held completely responsible for it. Yes I would agree that there would/should be allowances where it can be proven that the gun was secured properly and removed from the premises through extreme measures, but just a trigger lock does not cut it. I think you know what I mean. The comment of responsibility is mainly targeted against people who own guns and are reckless with their security and their kids or friends get a hold of it and shoot/kill somebody with it either through accident or intent.

Thanks,

AL

[daveleau]

That would be irresponsible. It rarely happens, though. More kids die in swimming pools than by accidental gun shots.

Arguing about the raping of the Constitution by removing our gun rights is something that is getting tiresome. Not because I don't believe in the absolute right to own firearms, but because so many are pure lemmings when it comes to listening to the media. The media should be likened to the pied piper. If you remember correctly, the pied piper led all of the impressionable children to their deaths. The media is heavy into anti-gun rhetoric. If the ONLY place that you get your information is from the news (paper or TV), then you can consider yourself being one of those that is being led to the river to be drowned (by the pied piper). Break loose from the media noose (lol yes, you can call me Jesse if you want lol). Think for yourself. If you read about gun control from some pro-gun people and some from anti-gun people and still have the anti-gun beliefs; good for you! At least you are no longer ignorant. But the fact that so many have no clue as to what the gun rights side has to say except for what they hear from their anti-gun brethren, leaves these people in the sheep/ lemming category. You know nothing but what others tell you to think.