I searched for John Lott and came upon this CONCEALED HANDGUN FRAUD: EXPOSING JOHN LOTT which can be found here
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott.
And this admission from Lott that he invented an internet fan of his work
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8884-2003Jan31.
However, you won’t find it on his website. The document was dates 31 Jan 2003. His blog starts at Feb 2003.
Quoting from the Washington Post means I may have to return my NeoCon T-shirt, but the truth justifies it.
Lott also admitted to having his son post a positve review of his book on Amazon. Yes, his morals, courage and academic standards set a new low.
lsu_nonleg, the Constitution may be one your “most sacred texts” but you change frequently.
Amendment I though Amendment X constitute what is known as the Bill of Rights where you’ll find the Amendment II, reading: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The “well regulated militia” being the first thought discarded when people want their muscats, assault rifles and ‘cop killer’ bullets. I am sure these weapons are absolutely necessary in day-to-day life in New Jersey if your hobby happens to be shooting cops through bulletproof vests. Can anyone possibly justify their sale? I await a strong defence on spurius grounds.
Sorry about that last bit, I really don’t want to take this thread off track. No, wait, too late.
But back to lsu_nonleg. At last count the sacred text had undergone 27 amendments, notably including Amendment XVIII that brought in prohibition and the Amendment XXI that took it away (control Z or Liquid Paper having yet to be invented).
And I’m not making fun of it, so calm down. The fact that it has been changed indicates a willingness of your Founding Fathers to allow the document to move with the times. A rock-solid constitution is useless; yours isn’t. Maybe there is some relevance about moving with the times when discussing gun laws? Let’s discuss! (Incidentally, the quality of your Constitution is acknolweged is well known, it even served as part of the inspiration for the Australian Constitution.)
Loose Tool, I could go elsewhere but this is happening here. I’ve checked out almost all the pages of the old threads you referenced and it’s interesting that the same people are making many of the same points here, including quoting that fraud Lott. I wasn’t in those debates, but I am definitely in this one. Do I expect people to change their mind? No - but hopefully posters will refer to better data than that which was fabricated. I may even change my mind (it happens, not often, but it happens). Maybe the fact that data had to be fabricated indicates a problem in finding factual (dare I say, bulletproof?) data to support your cause.
hedo, “a concealed handgun in the hands of a competent person is extremely effective against assailants. It is also a postive and proven deterent.” Well, it can’t be a deterrent if it’s concealed. The whole basis of deterrence is knowing that a threat exists (hence, during the Cold War, mutually assurred destruction was a deterrence as the threat of annihilation was ever present).
This is fun and continues to be fun. Speak again soon.
Love, Dave