So the unbiased Media Matters doesn't like Lott. Ok, that's fine. Nothing in your article or post disputes anything in the study posted. In fact, the only thing it really goes on about is some quote Lott made verbally about 99% of permit requester are from law abiding citizens. I don't see that claim anywhere in the study I posted at all. You could, I suppose, try to debate the information presented in the study. Or you could just do what you're doing now - which really isn't anything.
I think it shows a special kind of...courage, not to mention faith, to go on believing someone who has lied in the past, about the very same subject, willing to say whatever needs to be said, essentially falsifying statistics, to support a desired conclusion.
Everyone on the planet has lied in the past. Hell, by your criteria, Hillary Clinton should be the least trusted person on Earth and all of her followers - like yourself - are extremely courageous and show incredible faith. I prefer to go after the statements to find the flaw. The worst liar can still claim things that are true. Regardless, you have chosen to ignore the study and all of it's information, and focus on the fact that Media Matters (which I'm sure has been truthful it's entire existence and is thus exempt from your above thesis about courage and faith) pointed out a flaw in one of the statements of one of the individuals who took part in the study. So that, in your eyes, means the entire study is flawed, despite having no proof of the contrary. Well done!
Lott's "organization" has proven itself to falsify statistics. Now you want to "debate" their latest batch of "statistics" at face? Are you on medication?
Lott's one statement has been proven false. Who knows why he said it? Maybe he intentionally lied, maybe he got caught up in his narrative and said something he knew to be untrue and couldn't stop himself. The organization you showed disproving Lott's statement (which again, is not included anywhere in the study) has also been accused of "bending the truth" in a partisan way in the past. So what? I'm not saying the statement they are making about Lott's incorrectly statement is wrong because of that. I'm looking at the statement they made on it's own merits and agreeing - they are correct in asserting that 99% of permit requests are most definitely not done by law abiding citizens (as that statement was made). You fail to provide any proof countering any of the statements made in the study, but think that an example where the head of the organization made an incorrect statement immediately invalidates what is otherwise based in fact with references. That's a cheap, and emotional response which is biased in your narrative - and that's OK. The Liberal answer to gun control has always been about emotion and never really about factual data. So I understand why you are bound by the restrictions you are. I'll be happy to change my mind on the study if, and that's a big if, you can show any flaw in the study's methodology.
Hillary has been proven to be a liar. It is absolute indisputable fact that she is a liar. It has also been proven that Bill is a liar. Also, indisputable fact.
There's that irony thing again. You are to gun studies what jem is to so-called Intelligent Design. He has "studies," too. Should I devote my time to disproving his hysteria as well -- a hysteria copiously supported either by bogus "scientists" with agendas or his complete lack of comprehension?
That was unfortunate. But it was about a matter that was none of the nation's business and had nothing to do with the business of running the country. The Crime Prevention Research Center lied on matters pertaining to the very subject it was formed to "research." Spot the difference.