Testifying before the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee on Gun-free zones

23 May , 2017  

Pennsylvania House State Government Committee – at the invitation of the committee’s chair, Representative Daryl Metcalfe, Dr. John Lott discussed the issue of gun free zones in schools before a well-attended hearing by state representatives.  Because of comments during the hearing by Democrat Representative Mary Jo Daley, Dr. Lott offered to debate whoever she was able to convince to participate.


11 Responses

  1. Joe Vickers says:

    Your objective reasoning and ability not to be lead by red-herrings, or answer questions that are not relevant/hypothetical, convinces me greatly that I should donate to you. You would be a great guest to have on the cable networks when they are discussing such topics. The opponents of more frequent gun-free-zones seemed to try to use non-nonsensical arguments. Such as the first gentlemen who tried to get to say that you talking about gun-free-zones is somehow mutually exclusive from talking about concealed-carry permits; when the subjects are intrinsically linked. That is gun-free-zones are places where concealed-carry permits are not allowed; as such, it was bizarre to see someone try and conflate the subjects as unrelated. And the later opponent who posed the topic of a shooting in her neighborhood ( I would love to know how defines “her neighborhood” by the way), also seemed to try and get to you comment on something you were not talking about. We are talking about gun-free zones, not crime in general. I do in some ways wish you would have pointed out to them the obvious absurdity of the arguments they proposed. But seeing as you were not there to point out the logical fallacies of arguments, I understand that you simply re-addressed your previous statements, that all we can truly know about this subject comes from empirical data. Unless we are talking about philosophy, empirical data is the only evidence we have (especially in deciding public policy).

    Still I hope if you do go back and debate their “expert”, that you point our the flaws in their argument, or its irrelevance to the topic being discussed. I feel like they got too much of a free-pass when raising such points.

    • Joe Vickers says:

      Sorry I didn’t proof-read well enough… I am missing some punctuation that is creating grammatical errors.

    • johnrlott says:

      Thank you very much, Joe. I greatly appreciate your support. My guess is that a debate will never be set up. It is extremely difficult to get people on the other side to debate.

    • Ray Ficara says:

      Dr. Lott has a LONG history of televised appearances most notably on Fox News where he is a frequent contributor.

      • Joe Vickers says:

        That is great to hear; and indeed google has shown me many of these. Thanks again to Doctor Lott.

  2. Victor S. Lawson says:

    I used to have sympathy for the families and the people killed and injured in “gun free zone” areas until it dawned on me none of those people killed or injured had any way to protect themselves and if not prevent the crime from happening, at least be able to reduce the number of people killed and injured had any law abiding citizen been armed. And it occurred to me “gun free zones” are pretty stupid laws passed by pretty stupid politicians and if people are going to elect pretty stupid politicians that won’t allow them to protect themselves, then they must NOT care that their loved ones can be mowed down without a chance to defend themselves. Ergo, I have NO sympathy if you elect morons that take away your right to protect yourself and your loved ones and they are killed or injured in a “gun FREE zone”. You don’t want something like that to happen? Elect smart politicians.

  3. Dan Mackey says:

    Rep. Bradford presented a series of hypothetical situation starting with the 3 protesters and suggested that they could have been carrying guns and potentially presenting a threat to everyone’s safety in that room. When Dr. Lott responded with facts effectively shooting down Bradford’s argument, Bradford deflected to other fear-driven hypothetical situations where huge tragedies could have occurred with concealed carry permit-holders. Again, the facts presented by Dr. Lott show that these situations HAVE NOT occurred with Concealed Carry permit-holders. These types of fear-driven hypothetical arguments have been used for decades to try to derail individuals 2nd Amendment Right to possess firearms; all with no basis in fact as Dr. Lott showed in his presentation. In fact Dr. Lott’s presentation clearly showed (with facts) that Concealed Carry permit-holders are less likely to violate existing gun laws than police officers. The problem is that people see the fictionalization of guns in movies and tv shows where; guns never seem to run out of ammunition, guns appear out of nowhere, massive and unrealistic shootouts occur with police or other groups of criminals/citizens, people who can dodge bullets (in slow-motion), and guns that either kill with one shot or don’t kill with multiple shots in vital areas of the anatomy…and they see this nonsense so often that they believe it to be truth. All of this movie and tv stuff is fiction created using special video effects; and has nothing to do with truth. Anyone who has had practical experience and training with firearms knows the difference. The unfortunate truth in this type of scenario is that the people who believe what they see about guns in movies, on tv or the internet have little to no actual training or experience shooting guns. Because if they did have this training or experience they would know (like those of us who do) how laughably ridiculous the movie and tv guns truly are. The same is true regarding the anti-gun arguments; they are all hypothetical (fictitious) situations created to stir up fear in order to sway opinion. Hypothetical because the facts, as recorded by government agencies such as the FBI and the Dept. of Justice (among others), refute their fictional hypotheses. Dr. Lott showed that the majority of all mass shootings occurred in the anti-gun created “Gun Free Zones”; also known as “Victim Zones.” As Pres. Ryan (a former Marine) discussed, the protesters at the beginning of this video did their level best to deny Dr. Lott his 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech. This seems to be the standard tactic of those who oppose those who support the 2nd Amendment. These protesters preach about being tolerant and reasonable, yet they shout down or otherwise obstruct those who’s viewpoints are different from their own.

  4. Jim McNamara says:

    Mass shootings share a common denominator. They take place in gun-free zones. Since 1950, over 98% of public mass shootings in the U.S. took place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. No one can cite an example of a mass shooting occurring at a police station, law enforcement seminar, shooting range, or NRA convention. The term gun-free zone is merely a deceptive illusion of safety. The evidence is in. The gun-free zone is not danger-free, but rather a victim-zone. The gun-free zone is a failed experiment that has convincingly proved that gun-free zones are murder magnets that provide the mass shooter with soft targets consisting of unarmed victims. The errant premise that a gun-free zone is free of guns is absurd. The only person safe in a gun-free zone is the shooter. Gun-free zones are human hunting preserves that promote rather than prevent mass shootings. Incident after tragic incident, a mentally ill, homicidal madman has deliberately selected a gun-free zone to make a final violent statement … to ascend from disaffected loser to stature of worldwide notoriety. How many mass shootings must there be, and how much bloodshed and death must occur before supporters of gun-free zones finally conclude that gun-free zones are certified killing fields for maniacal, opportunistic predators?

    I encourage the myopic visionary, in favor of gun-free-zones, to muster the testicular fortitude and stand by their convictions. Erect a large sign prominently displayed in front of their house that reads, “ATTENTION CRIMINALS, we fully support gun bans. Our home is a gun-free zone. All residents of our household are unarmed!” Be sure to focus flood lights on the sign at night so the criminal element will not overlook an opportunity after the sun sets. Be forewarned, however, that a neighbor who exercises his or her constitutional right to own a firearm, out of respect for your opinion, may be reluctant to use their firearm in your defense.

  5. Jim McNamara says:

    ree zones was excellent, as usual. I was particularly annoyed by the line of questioning by one member of the committee that was purely based on “what if” speculation which he erroneously referred to as “practical reality”. His scenario, as presented, was merely hypothetical conjecture, unsubstantiated by the empirical data amassed. This mini-debate essentially boiled down to what might happen vs what does happen. I would loved to have had the opportunity to field these questions and turn the tables. Since the questioner has a fondness for the hypothetical, I would have engage him in his chosen arena of conjecture as follows. If the protesters were illegally armed in the gun-free building, and no committee members were armed, would you feel safe? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the building was not a gun-free zone and some of committee members were concealed cary permit holders. If the protesters were armed, would you not feel safer if some of the concealed carry permit owners exercised their right to carry? Although not mentioned, it is reasonable to assume, that the very content of this presentation was such that the protesters would not have been concealed carry permit holders. From all this, one can only conclude that in the gun-free building, the protesters, if armed, would be illegally armed and committee members would be unarmed potential victims unable to defend themselves. End of debate!

  6. Jim McNamara says:

    OOPS … I initially posted this to the wrong spot, so I will attempt to repost here.

    John’s presentation before the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee Hearing on gun free zones was excellent, as usual. I was particularly annoyed by the line of questioning by one member of the committee that was purely based on “what if” speculation which he erroneously referred to as “practical reality”. His scenario, as presented, was merely hypothetical conjecture, unsubstantiated by the empirical data amassed. This mini-debate essentially boiled down to what might happen vs what does happen. I would loved to have had the opportunity to field these questions and turn the tables. Since the questioner has a fondness for the hypothetical, I would have engage him in his chosen arena of conjecture as follows. If the protesters were illegally armed in the gun-free building, and no committee members were armed, would you feel safe? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the building was not a gun-free zone and some of committee members were concealed cary permit holders. If the protesters were armed, would you not feel safer if some of the concealed carry permit owners exercised their right to carry? Although not mentioned, it is reasonable to assume, that the very content of this presentation was such that the protesters would not have been concealed carry permit holders. From all this, one can only conclude that in the gun-free building, the protesters, if armed, would be illegally armed and committee members would be unarmed potential victims unable to defend themselves. End of debate!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *