Gents, many of you on both sides of the aisle may harbor a distaste for Ann Coulter, but her column this week is near and dear to all our hearts: concealed carry.  Specifically, she provides an in-depth rundown of the common complaints against John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime and shows exactly why they're all full of baloney.  Say what you will about Coulter, this column is a must-read for the informed concealed carry activist.  Several times I've almost been taken in by anti-gunners claiming that Lott's study has been debunked.  In fact it has not--not by any stretch of the imagination.  It hasn't even really been called into question.

Average readers hear that Lott has been "discredited" and assume that there must have been some debate they didn't see. To the contrary, the leading source for the claim that Lott's research doesn't hold up, left-wing zealot Donohue, has been scheduled to debate Lott, one-on-one, at the University of Chicago twice back in 2005. Both times, Donohue canceled at the last minute.

Donohue accuses Lott of libel for pointing this out. Suggestion for Mr. Donohue: Instead of writing columns insisting you've been libeled, wouldn't it be better just to agree to a debate? It's been eight years!

Link to the article America's Most Feared Economist

Nice.
That's exactly what "discredited" means.

Thanks.  A good read for sure.  I've heard folks mention this, but had not read the book (s) or any articles giving me the background.

Thanks.  A good read for sure.  I've heard folks mention this, but had not read the book (s) or any articles giving me the background.

Gun grabbers desperately want to make Lott's work into tainted fruit by constantly claiming he's a kook, and the run-of-the-mill anti-gunners that you and I might talk to like to believe it.  It's useful to have the number of studies supporting/dissenting his work at the front of one's brain in such cases.