The New American, May 6, 2019
John Lott’s latest study refutes claims by anti-gunners that the presence of firearms on school campuses increases the chances of gun violence. President of his Crime Prevention Research Center, Lott’s study answered two questions raised by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Giffords Law Center and others: 1) Does letting teachers carry a firearm on campus and in the classroom increase the chances of gun violence?; and 2) Does the presence of those teachers carrying legally deter mass shooters?
The study, released last month, found: “We don’t need to guess how the policy would work. There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns” since at least January 2000. Fears that a student might grab a firearm from a teacher and use it to commit gun violence are groundless as well, said Lott’s study: “Students obtaining teachers guns have not occurred at all.” Appropriately, Lott entitled his study: “Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe.”
On the other hand, shootings on campuses where teachers and staff are prohibited from carrying concealed have “increased significantly — doubling [in number] between 2001 and 2008 versus 2009 and 2018.” . . .
Washington Examiner, May 7, 2019
“The vast majority of guns in the United States are semi-automatic guns,” Lott said. “If they want to go and ban certain semi-automatic guns based on how they look rather than how they function, it’s not really obvious to me why anybody thinks that they’re going to have any particular impact on crime rates.”
Lott also argued that barriers to gun ownership such as licenses disproportionately harm individuals in minority and low-income communities, populations most likely to be victims of violent crime, who may be seeking to own guns for self-defense. . . .
Powerline, May 11, 2019
That the U.S. leads the world in mass shooting events, and that the cause is our liberal gun laws, are articles of faith on the Left. Barack Obama, for example, said:
The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world.
This belief, while pervasive in our culture, is untrue. John Lott and Michael Weisser explode the myth, while at the same time demolishing a widely-cited but bogus “study” by one Adam Lankford:
Lankford’s claim received coverage in hundreds of news stories all over the world. It still gets regular coverage. Purporting to cover all mass public shootings around the world from 1966 to 2012, Lankford claimed that the United States had 31 percent of public mass shooters despite having less than 5 percent of the population.
But this isn’t nearly correct. The whole episode should provide a cautionary tale of academic malpractice and how evidence is often cherry-picked and not questioned when it fits preconceived ideas.
Lankford’s study reported that over the 47 years there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. Lankford hasn’t released his list of shootings or even the number of cases by country or year. We and others, both in academia and the media, have asked Lankford for his list, only to be declined. He has also declined to provide lists of the news sources and languages he used to compile his list of cases. . . .
Ammoland, May 10, 2019
7 May decree. But riotimesonline.com gave this summation:
According to Bolsonaro, the main measures of the decree include:
- Permission for the rural gun-owner with legal possession of a firearm to use the weapon within the perimeter of their own property;
- Breaking of the monopoly on arms imports in Brazil;
- Permission for collectors, sport shooters and hunters (CSCs) to be able to travel between home and shooting site with the firearm and its ammunition;
- Armed Forces Veterans with ten years or more of experience will be entitled to bear firearms;
- The right to purchase up to 50 cartridges per year will go up to one thousand cartridges per year.
President Bolsonaro has been called the Trump of the Tropics, partly for his willingness to eschew political correctness and to speak bluntly and forcefully, and partly for his willingness to keep campaign promises.
Brazil has a major problem with homicides. As one of the more promising developing nations, Brazil has a very high homicide rate, and a total number of homicides that comprise about half of all reported homicides in the world. The high homicide rate and high number of homicides have happened in spite of extreme restrictions that have been placed on gun ownership, the carry of guns, and the ability of the population to use guns for self-defense.
The new government of President Jair Bolsonaro promised an end to the extreme gun laws. They looked to the United States, and wished to try a radically different tactic. Instead of forbidding people from defending themselves, the new government offered a different vision.
People would be able to legally have guns and use them to defend themselves from criminals.
The theory is largely in line with Professor John Lott’s thesis: More guns, Less crime.
It appears President Bolsonaro is committed to testing the thesis, though so far, few people will actually be able to carry guns on the street for self-defense. The framework has been laid for that effort. . . .
Inside Sources, May 6, 2019
“All this proposal proves is that Sen. Booker doesn’t know very much about guns, gun laws, and their impact,” said gun crime expert John R. Lott. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a pro-Second Amendment organization, and he told InsideSources that Booker’s licensing proposal is “a joke.”
In addition to the constitutional questions raised by Booker’s plan, Lott argues that the enforcement costs of federal interviews, gun tracking, etc. would be exorbitant and far outweigh any potential benefits. “If you spent the same time and money on police work directed at criminals, you’d save more lives.”
He also dismisses Booker’s claim that toy guns are more heavily regulated than firearms.
“Take New Jersey. To buy a gun in New Jersey you have to get a background check, you have to get a state gun license and then if you want to buy a handgun you have to get a specific permit to do that. I assume you don’t have to do the same to buy a toy–not yet, anyway.”
“You’d think Sen. Booker would at least have some passing familiarity with the laws in his own state,” Lott says. . . .
The News (Tullahoma, Tennessee), May 12, 2019
The Crime Prevention Research Center looked at every single shooting on school property over that 18-year period. None of the possible concerns many people have raised about teachers carrying firearms have occurred. In fact, there was not a single instance where someone was wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass shooting, between 6 a.m. and midnight, at any school that permitted staff to carry guns.
In contrast, the number of people killed in “gun-free” schools increased significantly – the number of shootings in the nine years between 2009 and 2018 was double that of the nine years between 2001 and 2008. . . . .
KTSA Radio, May 10, 2019
Lars brings on Dr. John Lott to discuss the school shooting in Colorado at the STEM School Highlands Ranch. Shooters across the country are taking advantage of vulnerable people in vulnerable situations. The question that still remains, is it time to start arming our teachers? . . .
Yahoo! News, April 26, 2019
Democrats will gain support by pushing felon voter rights. That doesn’t make it right.
“It looks as if almost all felons are Democrats. Felons are not just like everyone else — they are even more likely to vote Democratic than was previously believed. This guarantees that some Democratic supporters will continue in their efforts to get felons to the polls. If Democrats fight for and achieve felon enfranchisement, they can count on having an even more loyal voting bloc. … Democrats’ desire to let felons vote is understandable. But criminals shouldn’t cast deciding votes that overrule the policy preferences of law-abiding Americans.” — John R. Lott Jr., . . .
Daily Caller, April 30, 2019
John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is skeptical that studying gun violence can reduce the problem. “The idea behind the $50 million in research funding is to have medical professionals apply tools they developed to study cancer, heart disease and other diseases and use them to study crime, accidental death and suicide. But to state the obvious, gun violence and diseases are two very different things,” he said in a Fox News op-ed.
“It’s important to take effective measures to deal with this problem and not simply take actions that sound appealing but won’t really save lives.” . . .
Breitbart, April 16, 2019
Feinstein did not mention that the Virginia Tech attack occurred in a gun-free zone, just like the attacks on Sandy Hook Elementary, Umpqua Community College, and the Parkland high school. Nor did she address Crime Prevention Research Center figures showing that 97.8 percent of mass shootings in the U.S. between 1950 and May 2018 occurred in a gun-free zone. Instead, it is full steam ahead in pursuit of more gun control rather than fighting to give law-abiding citizens better access to firearms for self-defense. . . .
Breitbart, April 11, 2019
While Democrats use mass shootings as a platform for more gun laws, the ugly truth is such shootings will continue until we repeal laws that create the target-rich areas known as gun-free zones. Gun-free zones present attackers with a setting in which they can confidently shoot innocents without fear of armed resistance. In other words, they deal out ultimate harm to others without fear of facing any harm themselves. Therefore, it not surprising that 97.8 percent of mass shootings in the U.S. between 1950 and May 2018 occurred in a gun-free zone, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. . . .
Daily Republic (Solano County, California), April 7, 2019
He wrote that “national surveys” suggested that “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” . . .
The Panther (Chapman University), April 28, 2019
Gun-free zones have become fashionable. Schools display gun-free zone signs as badges of honor when in reality, they’re targets. From 1950 to 2018, 97.8 percent of mass shootings in the United States occurred in gun-free zones, according to a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), leaving the occupants with one option: to wait minutes until the police arrive at the scene. . . .
New American, April xx, 2019
Pineandlakes Echo Journal (Duluth, Minnesota), April 11, 2019
NRA-ILA, April 29, 2019
But research by economist John Lott reveals the most predictable outcome of raising fees for firearm-related permits, licenses, and mandatory training is simply to suppress the number of people who lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights. Because fewer people can afford to participate in lawful gun markets, moreover, the promised funding for anti-violence initiatives never materializes. Meanwhile, the costs of policing low-income neighborhoods where law-abiding residents are disarmed may well increase. . . .
Ammoland, April 9, 2019
So despite “Stand Your Ground” not being part of George Zimmerman’s defense in the Trayvon Martin case, Wonder pledged to boycott states that have such laws. That’s despite, per economist, author and Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott’s testimony before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee, the reality that:
“Poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. The laws make it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can’t be there fast enough. Therefore, rules that make self-defense more difficult disproportionately impact blacks. Blacks may make up 16.6 percent of Florida’s population but account for 31 percent of the state’s defendants invoking the Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are actually acquitted 8 percentage points more frequently than whites who use this very same defense.”
Ammoland, April 13, 2019
For years after his study’s release to the media in 2015, the New York Times and Washington Post regularly cited his claim. That is, the press cited it up until I released our research last fall — at that point they stopped mentioning it. Despite years of media attention, Lankford kept refusing to release his list of mass public shootings (our video on Lankford’s work is available here).
This past week, Carl Moody, our research director, and I published our paper on Adam Lankford’s false claims in a journal. Thankfully, our publication finally forced Lankford to release what he claims is his list of cases. And as we suspected, there was a good reason that Lankford hid his list from the media and other researchers. Get ready for round 2 soon. . . .
0 Comments