Huffington Post on the claim that "there is absolutely no evidence" of net benefits of guns

From Mike Weisser at the Huffington Post:

The self-satisfied folks who really believe that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people,' simply refuse to accept the fact that if you pick up a gun, point it at someone else and pull the trigger, that the result is going to be very serious injuries or loss of life. There Is no other way, including running over someone with a car, that has such a devastating effect. The NRA gets around that problem by promoting, with an almost mystical reverence, the notion of using guns for self defense. John Lott's nonsense to the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence which proves that guns save more lives than they destroy. . . .

"Absolutely no evidence which [sic] proves guns save more lives than they destroy"?  Seriously?  There are four more refereed studies that have since showed that guns on net save lives, but this is a start (see the list available here).  Why is it that people want to ignore the academic work of so many other scholars?