"While Lott has the statistics to back up this supposition, some social scientists claim that introducing fire arms into a crime situation makes it likely that someone is going to get killed or maimed.
Gotta love it. The statistics back up Lott, but the social scientists "feel" that someone is going to get hurt. So in other words, they would prefer the citizens to be unarmed and depend upon the good will of those robbing or raping them. And these people are running around loose?
And then we have . . .
"Opponents of gun rights counter that ordinary people cannot be trusted with fire arms and that only licensed and trained law enforcement should have them."
The most asinine statement in the article. We've all seen the results of gross incompetence by enough officers to belie the "one in a million" excuse. It also exposes the liberal mindset that you are too dumb to protect yourself and need the authorities to protect you, even though they can't be everywhere at once.
You read that article where Deputy Dawg somewhere shot up a litter of kittens and mother cat the other day? Kids saw it.