Orange County Register, and The Press Enterprise (Riverside, California) Monday, May 23, 2016
• More gun control. Also pushed by Mr. Newsom, who is running for governor in 2018, this initiative, among other things, bans “possession of large-capacity magazines.” John Lott and other gun scholars have shown such bans do not cut crime. Such magazines already are illegal to purchase here. The initiative would make criminals of people who legally obtained such magazines prior to the state arbitrarily determining how many rounds are sufficient for one’s self-defense or other use. Criminals still could obtain them in other states. . . .
NewsOK (Oklahoma City), May 23, 2016
An academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists William Landes and John Lott at the University of Chicago and Yale concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. . . .
Washington Times, May 16, 2016
John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said even if the companies had started planning some of their moves in 2013 or 2014, the big effect probably wouldn’t be seen until later.
“People don’t simply move their companies,” Mr. Lott said. “You had these laws go into effect in 2013; there was a lot of discussion about it. Probably took the companies six, eight, 12 months to make a decision about whether they wanted to move, and then it would take a while for them to actually do it.” . . .
The Federalist Project, May 26, 2016
A new documentary film titled “Under the Gun” is being directed by Katie Couric with the aim of educating audiences about gun violence in America. There’s a major problem with this new film though.
It has purposefully left out critical testimony from the foremost experts on firearms, most notably Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. . . .
Science News, May 3, 2016
Critics of gun control laws think the matter is clear: Again and again studies show that gun control policies just don’t work, says economist John Lott, who has written extensively on the subject. Take background checks, he says, “Given that these laws are costly, you’d like to believe there’s some evidence that they produce a benefit.”
Webster acknowledges the divisive split in opinions. “The vast majority of people are on one side of the fence or the other,” he says. “They’ll point to a study that is convenient to their political arguments and call it a day.” . . .
The American Conservative, May 14, 2016 (also quoted in Legal Insurrection, May 25, 2016)
And even when the film gets its facts right, it often makes little attempt to explore both sides of an issue. While everyday gun owners and activists make numerous appearances—some flattering and some definitely not—pro-gun experts are sorely lacking. Gun-control advocates are well-represented by folks like Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Robyn Thomas of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Mark Follman of Mother Jones. Viewers are left believing that there are no similarly well-informed researchers and journalists on the right.
John Lott—the most well-known researcher on this issue who takes a pro-gun view—mentioned on Twitter last week that he was interviewed for about four hours for Under the Gun. He suspected his comments would be shortened to a few minutes; in fact he doesn’t appear at all. . . .
Breitbart, May 25, 2016
Breitbart News previously reported that Katie Couric omitted a four-hour interview that had been done with gun scholar John Lott Jr.The Guardian spoke with director Stephanie Soechtig regarding the decision to leave Lott out of the movie . . .
Media Research Center, May 30, 2016
On Sunday’s MediaBuzz on FNC, host Howard Kurtz devoted several minutes to the controversy around Katie Couric using a deceptively edited trailer for her pro-gun control documentary in which the trailer makes several pro-gun activists look dumbfounded and unable to answer a straightforward question. . . .
An examination of the interview also finds that she was dismissive of pro-gun activist and researcher John Lott’s work finding that too much gun control makes people less safe, branding his work “discredited.” . . .
Guns.com, May 23, 2016
. . . So can Trump actually ban gun-free zones? Yes and no, says John Lott, Jr., a pro-gun economist and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. Though there is controversy surrounding some of Lott’s findings, his work still serves as a basis for pro-gun arguments.
“Trump would need to get a bill passed by Congress,” Lott told Guns.com Monday. “I believe he said that he would do this as soon as he got into office, but it would take some time. He couldn’t do it right away and if Dems take control of the Senate there is no way he would accomplish it.” . . .
A 2015 Everytown for Gun Safety analysis of FBI data on shootings found that 71 percent of the 133 incidents between January 2009 and July 2015 took place in private residences. Only 38 of the shooting incidents occurred in public spaces and of those about 21 were in places concealed guns could be lawfully carried. Only 17, or 13 percent, of the shootings took place in public spaces considered “gun free,” the report found.
Of course, Lott’s website calls the Everytown report misleading and full of errors. Lott also takes issue with how the report “muddles” the mass shooting debate by including those incidents which occurred in public and private spaces.
“Anyone who has read the diaries or seen the statements of these mass public shooters knows how they explicitly target gun-free zones,” Lott told Guns.com. “They want to kill as many people as possible and they know that the faster a gun arrives at the scene the faster they will be stopped. Since 1950, almost 99 percent of the mass public shootings have taken place in areas where general citizens can’t have guns.”
Every town . . . has its own criticisms of the pro-gun lobby’s claims and even calls Lott out by name, saying his analysis of mass shooters’ intentions are way off.
“There is no legitimate evidence that mass shooters target so-called ‘gun-free zones’ – in fact, we’ve been tracking mass shootings since 2009 and found that only 13 percent have taken place in ‘gun-free zones,’” Ted Alcorn, research director of Everytown for Gun Safety, told Guns.com in an email. “What’s more compelling is that in 57 percent of mass shootings, the perpetrator killed a current or former intimate partner or family member.” . . .
World Net Daily and Breitbart, May 17, 2016
Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and a known gun scholar whose seminal work is More Guns, Less Crime.
On May 6, Lott tweeted that he had been “interviewed for 4 hours” for Couric’s film and he “bet” that four hours would be reduced to a “select few minutes” of actual screen time. The reduction happened alright. But instead of using those select few minutes, Couric and director Stephanie Soechtig cut Lott’s interview altogether. . . .
WMAL, May 17, 2016 (The quotes here are taken out of context. For the quote “You might be able to regulate how people carry, but you can’t ban people from carrying completely” I was explaining the decisions by Richard Posner and Antonin Scalia.
For the second time in Washington, a federal judge has ordered an injunction for the city to halt enforcement of its concealed-carry law, requiring those who apply to state a “good reason” that they would be allowed to carry a weapon in order to obtain a permit from D.C. police.
District Judge Richard Leon’s ruling effectively struck down the provision, stating the District’s gun-permitting system is likely unconstitutional.
The system was adapted by the District after its long-standing ban on carrying firearms in public was overturned at court order in 2014.
John Lott, the President of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said the law made police give out the permits arbitrarily.
“You might be able to regulate how people carry, but you can’t ban people from carrying completely,” Lott stated, “And that’s what they’ve done with the rule there.” . . .