Bill, there you go again - trying to use reason on zombies. You should know better by now.

Consider John Lott. He's an academic who wrote a thick, dry-as-dust statistical tome whose title says it all: "More Guns, Less Crime." Lott gathers statistics from all over the world that convince him that more guns mean less violence. (Technically, a little less violence.)

OK. No non-statistician can even get through Lott's book, and only another statistician can check his figures, math, and deductive powers. The thesis sounds crazy, but lots of true things sound crazy.

Now check the reviews on Amazon. To put it mildly, people who seem to have some statistical training raise serious, serious questions about Lott's method. Yet the book gets four stars, because NRA types love the title.

And the tone of their own reviews is generally, "I know he's right 'cause I want to believe him. And if you think me an' John are wrong, you're a liberal asshole or a liberal liar!"

Without reading and minutely analyzing "More Guns, Less Crime," I can't judge the soundness of Lott's work. (Those who have, tend to be unconvinced.) But what could possibly create the effect?

If it's the fear that a victim might be packing a .45, as the zombies insist, then why isn't the decline in rapes and murders far greater? And wouldn't teargas/pepper spray work almost as well?

Are violent criminals really so prudent and well-informed that they don't strike if local gun-ownership statistics say a victim might be armed? Are they so stupid that they don't jump from behind, knife or gun in hand to neutralize the "equalizer"? When they rob liquor stores, don't they get the drop on the clerk, making sure he (or she) can't reach for his hogleg? And aren't they *more* likely to shoot him if he does?

But never mind my own skepticism. The real subject is knee-jerk zombies. For them - watch my lips - it's a theological debate.