This letter wasn’t published, but it was sent to the Boston Globe after an op-ed by Comedy Central’s Jordan Klepper claiming support for background checks on private sales of guns. The piece also makes bizarre attacks on gun owner’s “masculinity.”
…Dear Letters Editor:Jordan Klepper’s op-ed greatly exaggerates the level of support for more gun control and ascribes small-minded motivations to opponents of more regulations (“Bringing a stat to the gun debate,” Opinion, June 11).
The Wall Street Journal ran a lead letter that extensively discussed the Crime Prevention Research Center’s work. The letter appeared as follows:
…Regarding James P. O’Neill and Cyrus R. Vance Jr.’s “Don’t Mess With New York’s Gun Laws” (op-ed, March 24): The authors say that “more than 230 concealed-carry permit holders in various states have been convicted of .
How law-abiding are concealed handgun permit holders, Letters that we submitted, Media Discussion on CPRC
On March 10th, Rachael Joseph, the Director of Outreach for Protect Minnesota and who works with Bloomberg’s Everytown, had a piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune attacking Dr. John Lott. The piece was supposedly about Lott’s op-ed on Stand Your Ground laws, the Bloomberg group’s letter never actually takes issue with any of the points raised in Lott’s piece. …
attacks by gun control advocates, Letters that we submitted, op-ed, Response to critics
On January 10, 2017, the New York Times had an article claiming that both the public and their selective experts favored more gun control. From their article:
…The academics in our panel — many of the country’s best empirical researchers on gun policy — were far more likely than the general public to support gun control.
As we have previously discussed, the Associated Press used our research on state capitols that allow people to carry firearms. Here is the letter that we sent into the Washington Post:
…Dear Letters Editor:
Your article grossly exaggerates the risks of concealed handguns being carried in state legislative buildings (“Gun-friendly statehouses see occasional reckless conduct,” January 14).
Once again the New York Times is citing bogus data from the Violence Policy Center (VPC) (January 12, 2017).
…The grim truth is that concealed-carry permit holders are rarely involved in stopping crime. But people with permits have been responsible for more than 900 deaths that did not involve self-defense over the last decade, according to the Violence Policy Center.
How law-abiding are concealed handgun permit holders, Letters that we submitted, Violence Policy Center
Once again the New York Times is citing bogus data from the Violence Policy Center (VPC).
…But since 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have been responsible for at least 898 deaths not involving self-defense, according to the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group. This includes 29 mass shootings by permit holders who killed 139 people.
How law-abiding are concealed handgun permit holders, Letters that we submitted, Violence Policy Center
Dr. John Lott had a letter in the Washington Post responding to a piece in the previous Sunday’s paper by Daniel Webster and Ronald Daniels. The letter is as follows:
…In their Oct. 23 Sunday Opinion essay, “Guns on campus only invite tragedies,” Daniel Webster and Ronald Daniels claimed that letting college students carry guns for protection is a “recipe for tragedy.”
Permit holders commit firearms-related violations at a lower rate than even the very low rate for police officers.
This letter wasn’t published, but it was sent to the New York Times after their article on a new Center for American Progress Claiming that gun laws reduce crime.
…Dear Letters Editor:
The Times incorrectly describes a study as showing that gun control laws reduce violence (“Gun-Control Groups Push Growing Evidence That Laws Reduce Violence,” October 11th).
The New York Times is well know for its bias, but here is yet another example of the Times making a claim that is clearly false. In an article titled “Rarity of Tulsa Shooting: Female Officers Are Almost Never Involved,” they claim:
…Research on the subject has ranged from being inconclusive to showing that the opposite is true — that women are less likely to use force, even controlling for their relatively low representation among police forces.
