What really bugs me is that way Barnes and others will argue against concealed carry by saying "I don't think it's a good idea", "That's the last thing we need", "We have enough road rage problems now", "Clearly the last thing we need is more people walking around with hidden weapons", etc. These statements are made as if they are self-evident truths, nd for some reason, nobody calls them on it.
Whether concealed carrry has mostly good or mostly bad effects is an empirical question, a matter of observation and evidence, not a matter of thin-air opinion and feelings. And, fortunately, we have some pretty good data that bear on the issue. John Lott's studies are there for all to see, evaluate, criticize, comment on. If you think he's pulling a fast one, he'll even make his raw data available so you can do your own analysis. By all accounts, his methods and conclusions seem to be rock solid.
So why do these people constantly get away with making assertions that are directly contradicted by the best available evidence? Hatch, Sessions, et al. had a perfect chance to call Barnes on this bluff, but they let him get away with it yet again. I don't get it.
Whether concealed carrry has mostly good or mostly bad effects is an empirical question, a matter of observation and evidence, not a matter of thin-air opinion and feelings. And, fortunately, we have some pretty good data that bear on the issue. John Lott's studies are there for all to see, evaluate, criticize, comment on. If you think he's pulling a fast one, he'll even make his raw data available so you can do your own analysis. By all accounts, his methods and conclusions seem to be rock solid.
So why do these people constantly get away with making assertions that are directly contradicted by the best available evidence? Hatch, Sessions, et al. had a perfect chance to call Barnes on this bluff, but they let him get away with it yet again. I don't get it.