Guns in Arizona

The Arizona Republic published one of the most biased articles you're likely to find. Of course they pretend to be presenting a balanced description of both sides of the argument. No one was fooled.

Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA with expertise on gun-related issues, points to a 2005 paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that could not discern any significant impact on violence from eight types of gun-control laws.
"We don't have any reliable studies on the subject," he said. "It does seem pretty clear that the possible impact of any (gun-related) laws is going to be modest in either direction."

Now, as if that whopper from Volokh isn't enough, they go on to cite John Lott.
What's your opinion? Is it fair to say that there's been so much research on the subject of guns that both sides can support their argument and then quote Eugene saying "the possible impact of any (gun-related) laws is going to be modest in either direction?"
It sounds like biased double-talk to me. What do you think?
Please leave a comment.