Al Villalobos, <ALV@qm.com>, writes:
> To continue on the subject of FACTS (remember those?) Prof. John Lott's
> work on the gun issue has been offered by the pro gun side as "the"
> definitive work on the subject.
> Can any anti-gunners offer any comparable, scientifically rigorous work to
> refute the evidence presented by the other side?
It's always good to check both sides of an issue. I went to Handgun Control's web site, www.handguncontrol.org, and typed Lott in the search box. Here are the first two hits:
Since its publication, researchers across the country have reviewed the Lott Study and reanalyzed Lott's data, and found its conclusions unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.
This study conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has concluded that Dr. Lott and the gun lobby have got it all wrong: allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime.
Presumably people interested in this issue will want to follow up and compare these studies with Lott's, to derive their own conclusions.