WSJ’s Fearmongering Doesn’t Survive
Contact With Evidence
Real Clear Wire,
by
John R. Lott Jr.
Original Article
Posted By: Hazymac,
12/17/2025 7:40:40 AM
Legally armed civilians, we’re told, pose a major danger. They shoot innocent bystanders, justifiably kill others whenever they personally believe “force is reasonably necessary,” and rely on racist self-defense laws.
At least these concerns are the case in several recent news articles in the Wall Street Journal. On Monday, with the story on the front page of the Journal, reporter Mark Maremont continued his attacks on people legally carrying concealed handguns. His article presents four stories from 2021 to the present where citizens who used a gun in self-defense accidentally shot a bystander.
But with more than 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year, almost 21 million permit holders,
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Mizz Fixxit 12/17/2025 8:07:22 AM (No. 2042382)
No gun control advocate stands a chance in a debate with John Lott Jr.
10 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
bpl40 12/17/2025 8:09:04 AM (No. 2042383)
Just as the Founding Fathers began made their intentions clear by enunciating certain principles "to be self evident", we need to make certain things clear 250 years later.
One, CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
Two, lawfully armed citizens are NOT a threat to society.
Three, If something requires heavy government subsidy to be "affordable", then it is NOT affordable.
17 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 12/17/2025 8:39:34 AM (No. 2042405)
I always ask gun-control proponents: What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? You wouldn’t believe some of the nonsensical responses I’ve received. Sometimes all I get is a blank stare and “uhhhh….”
13 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
walcb 12/17/2025 8:52:21 AM (No. 2042413)
Facts are not relevant to a liberal.
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
philsner 12/17/2025 9:06:03 AM (No. 2042419)
Liberals do not care about "public safety". When it comes to reality and facts, they are completely and deliberately ignorant. Their pronouncements and beliefs NEVER improve anyone's life.
6 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Mass Minority 12/17/2025 9:13:35 AM (No. 2042426)
This reminds me of a poorly thought out 60 minutes hit piece from 30 years ago. 60 minutes did a deep dive into one of the big Pizza chains " reckless" delivery drivers. Clearly implying that the companies less than 30 minute delivery forced their drivers to speed, run stop signs and red lights and wreak mayhem on our roads.
They cornered the CEO and hit him with their gotcha question
Your drivers were involved in xxx accidents last year and there were Y fatalities. What is your response.
The Ceo was genius, and had numbers. He answered "I think those are amazing numbers. On any given night we have over 150,000 drivers on the road logging over millions of miles per year. Our accident and fatality rate is less than 25% of the national average per mile driven. I think we are doing a pretty good job training our drivers.
It was quite satisfying to see the 60 minutes clowns face collapse as his whole snide argument simply evaporated.
7 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Kafka2 12/17/2025 9:39:00 AM (No. 2042445)
The article makes an excellent case that there are less dead bodies when people are permitted to defend themselves.
7 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
mc squared 12/17/2025 9:56:10 AM (No. 2042454)
The article underestimates the number of people who can legally carry by quoting the number of licenses issued. Many states have dropped the requirement obtain a CCW, although it's still a good idea especially when traveling.
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
felixcat 12/17/2025 10:24:59 AM (No. 2042473)
Liberals - only focus on the armed citizen who discharges his/her weapon but never the criminal with his ill-gotten handgun.
7 people like this.
Re #9: Precisely. The left focuses on "the gun" because it doesn't want to focus on the people who misuse them. One need only look at the very low rates of prosecution and imprisonment of persons arrested for violations of the "gun control laws" currently on the books. Unless an illegal weapon is used for self-defense, there is relatively little interest in prosecuting these violations (except in combination with "more serious" offenses) -- and not just among "Soros prosecutors."
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
DVC 12/17/2025 10:48:37 AM (No. 2042494)
I once spent several hours with Mr. Lott, one on one, discussing his research, his background, etc. A very interesting guy, smart and would never have become such a gun rights guy without the vicious, hateful, over the top attacks that he got when he dared to 'touch the third rail' of political discussion.
He was a little known Economics professor in Chicago, and in a class on statistical processes and data gathering, he had for years assigned students to research certain topics, gather information and arrange it using statistical methods to make a point about the topic.
He noted that when he assigned "gun control' to be studied and data gathered, he got vicious, hateful attacks on what he saw as just another topic to assign to students. The more they attacked, the more interested he became. He was never an NRA member, didn't own a gun and the more they attacked, the harder he looked. And he found a gold mine of suppressed and repressed information, and it seems to have totally become his most successful topic. Interesting guy, and we all need to listen. He's totally honest and factual.
7 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Hazymac"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)