The Mercury News (San Jose, California), Sunday, August 11, 2019; Los Angeles Daily News, Sunday, August 11, 2019; Orange County Register, Sunday, August 11, 2019; Daily Democrat (Woodland, California), Sunday, August 11, 2019; Riverside (California) Press Enterprise, Sunday, August 11, 2019; Redlands Daily Facts (Redlands, California), Sunday, August 11, 2019; San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Sunday, August 11, 2019, The Grunion (Long Beach, California), August 11, 2019
Dr. John Lott explained the problems with the FBI’s count of active shooter cases, but these reporters never explained the problems, such as with using Google news searches. Here is part of the articles.
The FBI’s active shooter data — which categorizes incidents based on the nature of the attack, not the number of casualties — differs from studies that define mass shootings in other ways, from three killed, four killed, or four or more shot and injured or killed. Gun law skeptics like John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, say the FBI’s active shooter data are flawed and disputes that incidents have increased. But even he agreed the number of people killed in these mass shootings has gone up dramatically.
According to the latest FBI figures, there were 884 total fatalities from 2000-2018. The deaths averaged about 28 a year from 2000 through 2009 and nearly 62 a year from 2010 through 2018. . . .Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center charted mass public shootings of four or more killed since 1998. That data shows a fairly consistent handful a year over that period, though the number of fatalities has risen sharply. . . .
Stanford University law professor and gun policy expert John Donohue III said the FBI’s compilation of active shooter incidents is about the best data available today tracking the type of public mass shooting incidents that have gripped the nation this summer. . . .
PBS News Hour, August 6, 2019
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 94 percent of these active shooter, active gun, and mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. . . .
Newsweek, August 7, 2019
This madness might be amusing were it not for the way public attitudes are being shaped by inaccurate reporting. The United States is not, for example, the world leader in mass shooters—as The New York Times and other news outlets have falsely reported based on a study that the Crime Prevention Research Center has shown to be badly flawed. Likewise, the repetition of the phrase “mass shootings” instead of “mass murder” keeps the focus on gun control and the Democrats rather than the sickness inside the two alleged killers. . . .
American Greatness, August 9, 2019, NewsMax, August 12, 2019
President Obama’s assertion on Monday that “No nation on earth comes near” the proportions of the mass violence problem of the United States is false. The Crime Prevention Research Center has made an exhaustive study of the incidence of mass killings, following the FBI definition excluding incidents that kill fewer than four people and gang fights over turf, or incidences of authentic guerrilla war. By these standards, covering from 1998 to 2015, and 53 attacks and 57 shooters within the United States and 2,354 attacks and over 4,800 shooters in the rest of the world, the U.S. accounts for 1.49 percent of the world’s killings, 2.2 percent of the attacks, and 1.15 percent of the public shooters, although the United States has 4.6 percent of the world’s total population. Out of the 97 countries rated, the United States ranked 64th in attacks and 65th in fatalities. And the other countries compared were not the world’s 96 least organized and civilized national jurisdictions.
Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and France, the first three very high standard of living countries, all have at least 25 percent more mass killings per capita than the United States. The other 96 countries as a group, including relatively very nonviolent countries such as Canada, Australia, and Singapore, have had a rate of increase in mass killings that is 291 percent higher than that of the United States. . . .
The gun-free zone theory has been a total failure. Ninety-eight percent of American mass public shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned, apart from in the hands of police. The Democrats’ customary solution is to federalize gun laws and impose restrictions. We might expect that this would generalize the results of heavily gun-regulated areas such as the open firing ranges of large virtual no-go areas in Chicago, Washington D.C., and the recently celebrated Baltimore. The new gun regulations in New Zealand following the recent Christchurch mosque shootings, which left 51 people dead, have resulted in almost total noncompliance. . . .
National Review, August 11, 2019
John Fund as this note:
Take proposed new background checks. “There is not one mass public shooting this century that would have been stopped had background checks on the private transfer of guns been in effect,” says John Lott, who heads the Crime Prevention Research Center and is the author of the book The War on Guns.
The existing background-check system frequently fails to approve guns for many people with a legitimate fear or a need for them for protection, Lott noted in an op-ed for the New York Times in 2018. Virtually all of the initial denials in gun purchases are mistakes, he observed.
Expanding the existing flawed background system would open the door to set up a national registration system for guns. Our Canadian neighbors to the north had an expensive and unworkable gun registry that they eventually shut down in 2012.
As for “red flag” statutes that are ostensibly designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, the existing ones certainly aren’t crafted that way. Only one of the 17 states that currently have such laws even mentions the term “mental illness” in the statute. States that already have Baker Act statutes (which allow the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual) along with existing red-flag laws don’t even involve mental-health-care experts in deciding what to do with people whose gun applications are denied. How strange that the existing laws remove the normal role of mental-health-care professionals from the process. It’s as if a silent agenda that has little to real concern for safety is at work here. . . .
Washington Examiner, August 13, 2019
For example, a 1997 study by University of Chicago economist John Lott assessed county-level data from 1977 to 1992 to examine the relationship between concealed carry laws and violent crime. The study found that states with unrestricted concealed carry laws experienced 8.5% fewer murders and 5% fewer rapes than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. . . .
Ricochet, August 12 2019
Emminent Law Professor Richard Epstein notes:
It is also possible that the increase of legal guns in the United States has provided, as economist John Lott argued in More Guns, Less Crime, an additional layer of protection. . . .
NewsMax, August 13, 2019
Wrong. They do, and America ranks well down the list. The Crime Prevention Research Center analyzed the frequency of mass shootings, comparing the U.S. to European nations and Canada. America ranked twelfth. The CPRC also determined that of the 86 countries where mass shootings were identified, the U.S. ranked 56th in per capita rate of attacks, and 61st in mass public shooting rate. . . .
Texas Scorecard, August 9, 2019
But background checks may not be the answer, according to Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. In an op-ed published in The New York Times last year, Lott wrote that “[t]he background check system confuses the names of law-abiding individuals with those of criminals, resulting in thousands of ‘false positives’ every year.”
Lott also points out that from 2006 to 2010, there were over 370,000 denials of gun purchases from background checks. Of those, federal authorities only prosecuted 460 of them, with only 209 leading to convictions, and the number of prosecutions from state authorities was few.
“Why didn’t more of those denials lead to perjury prosecutions?” asks Lott. “According to my analysis, the reason is simple: A high percentage of cases are dropped because the applicant was wrongly denied clearance to buy a gun.”
Such facts lead one to question whether or not more background checks—or any harsher gun control measures on law-abiding citizens—is the appropriate response to these tragedies; moreover, whether elected officials should be so quick to embrace such measures comes into question, given the emotionally driven response to curtail civil and other constitutional protections. . . .
The Daily Wire, August 11, 2019
On Saturday, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) published her plan to combat gun violence on blogging site Medium.
The Daily Wire reported on the plan, noting that several of the measures being proposed by the presidential hopeful are rather controversial. Given the nature of the plan, we reached out to Dr. John R. Lott, economist and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), whose research in the field of gun violence is nearly unparalleled.
Here’s what he had to say about Warren’s article.
First, as a prelude to her gun control pitch, the senator from Massachusetts claims that once the auto industry began introducing features like seatbelts, airbags, etc, deaths related to car accidents dropped precipitously.
“Over fifty years, we reduced per-mile driving deaths by almost 80% and prevented 3.5 million automobile deaths. And we’re still at it,” Warren writes.
Lott thinks this logic is misleading, and that it’s important to understand why in the context of possible gun regulations:
It is pretty deceptive to claim that government regulations reduced motor vehicle deaths by 80%. Those deaths were falling much faster before the federal started regulating auto safety.
As indicated by the figures from my book, “The War on Guns”: 1) it is easy to see that cars were getting safer from the time the very first data was released in 1921, long before there were mandated federal safety regulations, and 2) when you look over the entire period, the rate at which car safety improved actually slowed down after the federal government started regulating car safety. The first seatbelts were introduced in 1950 by car companies that were figuring out on their own how to make cars safer. But the New York Times’ graph doesn’t show the even faster drop in vehicle deaths per-mile-traveled that occurred before 1946.
It is important to note that accidental deaths from all sources are falling over time. Companies are competing against each other to provide customers with safer products, and items such as seat belts, shatter proof glass, padded dashboards, and safety cages were just some of the many safety features adopted by car makers long before the federal government got involved in regulating auto safety.
Government regulations slowed down safety regulations for a simple reason: the government micromanaged how companies would meet those safety improvements. It isn’t just that the government mandated that car companies had to use airbags in their cars, it is that the government would tell the companies exactly how to make those bags and how to install them. That forced car companies to wait on installing these safety features until the federal government told the companies exactly how they wanted the product made and installed. If the companies didn’t wait, they may find themselves spending hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, only to find that they had to redesign everything and start all over. . . .
More of the long piece that they had is available here.
Washington Free Beacon, August 20, 2019
“We identified two qualifying studies that estimated the effects of assault weapon bans on different violent crime outcomes,” the review said. “One found uncertain effects of such bans on total homicide rates (Lott, 2010); the other found a suggestive effect consistent with assault weapon bans decreasing firearm homicides (Gius, 2014). Considering the relative strengths of these studies, available evidence is inconclusive for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides.” . .
The experience of just two states, however, may not generalize. A research reviewfrom the Rockefeller Institute of Government found there were “not enough [red flag] laws and not enough changes over time to generate stable effect estimates.” Another review, published by John Lott and Carlisle E. Moody in the Social Science Research Network, found that red flag laws have “no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.”
Additionally, critics of the laws have expressed concerns that the evidentiary standard used for red flag laws may be too low. Initial confiscation requires only “reasonable suspicion.” Lott has claimed “when hearings occur weeks or a month later, about a third of these initial orders are overturned, but the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher. These laws make no provisions to cover legal costs, and many people facing these charges do not retain counsel.” In other words, at least some individuals are being wrongfully deprived of their constitutional rights and face a steep path to redress. . . .
Epoch Times, August 7, 2019
“Everyone wants to stop mass shooting, but let’s do something that’ll work. Red flag laws will cause more problems than they’ll solve,” Lott said. “I know a woman whose husband was murdered in front of her. She was being stalked, and her husband was killed by her stalker. She was depressed. If she knew that speaking to relatives could result in informing on her, she wouldn’t speak to anyone.”
“Police officers are frequently depressed because of horrors they see on the job. Do we really want to be in a position that LEOs [law enforcement officers] don’t want to talk about what they see on the job because they can lose their jobs and their guns as a result? This is like ‘Minority Report’ without the psychics,” Lott said, referring to the Hollywood movie about a system in which the government enforces “pre-crime.”
“The president focuses on mental illness, but ERPOs [Extreme Risk Protection Orders] don’t focus on mental illness,” Lott said. “The big thing here is to predict who’s going to commit crime. Criminal history. Male. Age,” Lott said. “In the past, you’ve had to have a criminal record for courts to remove your gun rights. Red flag laws stop rights with merely a complaint.” . . .
KTRH, August 5, 2019
“The notion that everyone is going to be able to monitor all of those posts is impossible,” Lott explained. “You’d have to know the location of the individual and get police to them before something happened.” . . .
The Blaze, August 15, 2019
A January 2019 study from the Crime Prevention Research Center on the efficacy of existing “red flag” confiscation policies in four states found that the laws “had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.” . . .
PJ Media, August 4, 2019
Sure, if you following conservative media, you’re probably aware of this. Townhall, The Daily Signal, Bearing Arms, FEE, The Washington Examiner, and others have all previously reported on how the myth that the United States leads the world in mass shootings is based on a deeply flawed study, which has been debunked by the Crime Prevention Research Center.
Yet, the myth remains alive and is sure to be regurgitated endlessly again.
The following video from John Stossel explains how the myth got started and why it’s bogus:
Many on the left have tried to delegitimize CPRC’s research. Snopes rated their claim as “mixed” but CPRC debunked their assessment here. Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker at The Washington Post, also suggests that CPRC’s research is misleading for including acts terrorism, which, he suggests, inflates the number of mass shooters abroad, however, if we excluded acts of terrorism from mass shootings, the El Paso shooting would not count as a mass shooting, as it is now being investigated as domestic terrorism. The Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooting, and the Las Vegas shooting were also considered domestic terrorism incidents. If those, and other similar incidents, don’t count as mass shootings but as terrorism, then we should be having a completely different discussion. . . .
PJ Media, August 4, 2019
Global News (Canada), August 8, 2019
Lankford’s findings have been criticized by researchers like John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Centre, whose work has been cited by pro-gun advocates.
In an email to Global News, Lott described Lankford’s findings as “flawed,” and criticized him for largely focusing on incidents with a single shooter.
In March, he and economics professor Carlisle Moody produced a critique of Lankford’s study taking issue with Lankford’s decision to exclude “almost all incidents of terrorism outside the U.S. and most of the cases where more than one shooter is involved.” . . .
Jackson Hole News & Guide Banner, August 14, 2019
Considering the evidence that the several anti-gun sources may have been inflating the statistics, we suggest you consult with Crime Prevention Research Center at CrimeResearch.org/data and download a spreadsheet of mass public shootings. . . .
The Red Bluff Daily News, August 12, 2019
Lastly, in spite of those misstating the fact, America is actually 56th out of nearly 90 countries for mass shootings per capita. We do not lead the world in mass killings. Criminologist Adam Lankford’s flawed omission of foreign shootings was corrected by the Crime Prevention Research Center to move America’s ranking from first to 56th. . . .
The Mercury, August 8, 2019
“Mass shootings don’t happen in other countries.” Wrong. Not only do they occur, but America ranks well down the list. The Crime Prevention Research Center analyzed the frequency of mass shootings, comparing the U.S. to European nations and Canada. America ranked 12th. The CPRC also determined that of the 86 countries where mass shootings were identified, the U.S. ranked 56th in per capita rate of attacks, and 61st in mass public shooting rate. Rebuttal: Solve the real problems. . . .
Corvallis Gazette-Times, August 14, 2019
One easy thing we can do: eliminate gun-free zones, which are actually free-fire zones. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 97.8% of mass shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones. This makes perfect sense. If you are going to commit mass murder, wouldn’t you prefer a location where your victims can’t fight back? . . .
Media Research Center, August 21, 2019
Astorino — who is also a CNN contributor — may have been understating his case since crime researcher John Lott has argued that none of the mass shootings that have targeted public places would have been stopped by expanding background checks to private purchases, which is what gun control advocates want.. . .
Media Research Center, August 8, 2019
UOL CHECK (Brazil), August 14, 2019
A UOL initiative for fact checking and clarification
O Washington Post fez em maio de 2018 a checagem de uma declaração do presidente Donald Trump que usava a mesma informação: ele afirmou que 98% dos ataques aconteceram em lugares onde as armas são proibidas. O jornal apontou que Trump se baseou em um estudo da organização Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). A página foi atualizada e no dia 13 de agosto apontava que 94% dos ataques desde 1950 aconteceram em “Gun-Free Zones”. Consultando o site Wayback Machine, no entanto, é possível ver que em maio deste ano o índice apontado era de 97,8%. . . .
The Washington Post checked in May 2018 for a statement by President Donald Trump that used the same information: He said 98% of the attacks took place in places where weapons are prohibited.
The newspaper pointed out that Trump was based on a study by the organization Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). The page was updated and on August 13 pointed out that 94% of attacks since 1950 have taken place in “Gun-Free Zones”. Looking at the Wayback Machine website, however, you can see that in May this year the index was 97.8%.
The Chronicle Herald (Halifax, NS, Canada), August 10, 2019
The availability of firearms has little to do with such a tragedy. On John Lott’s website (www.crimeresearch.org), you can find a category “comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries,” and view data listed/compiled by the Small Arms Survey (a civil-disarmament organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland), illustrating no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. . . .
The Trumpet, August 5, 2019
According to the National Review, John Lott, head of the Crime Prevention Research Center and author of More Guns, Less Crime, tweeted in March: “New Zealand killer’s manifesto says that he did attack to get more gun control/gun bans in New Zealand and the U.S., Killer was a socialist, environmentalist who hated capitalists and trade.” After this post, Twitter blocked Lott’s account without explanation. Lott later noted that the killer had even called himself an “eco-fascist” and had written, “The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.” Lott included a link to his website explaining further details about the killer’s views.
“Lott appealed to Twitter and asked for specifics,” National Review wrote. “He was informed he had lost his appeal, but Twitter officials still gave no reason for blocking his account. Off the record, a Twitter representative explained to me that their move likely resulted from the company having to comply with regulations that the New Zealand government imposed, banning publication of quotes from the Christchurch manifesto. But the Twitter representative did not explain why Twitter had not blocked left-wing tweets linking to avowedly racist quotes from the manifesto. Sounds like a PC [politically correct] double standard to me.” . . .
Conservative Review, August , 2019
In 1993, fewer than 30 percent of Americans lived in right-to-carry states; now that number has grown to 70 percent. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, there are now 17.25 million people who hold concealed carry permits, a 273 percent increase since 2007. Violent crime, including from gun homicides, got cut in halfwhile the number of guns owned has increased over 60 percent since the 1990s. While this doesn’t categorically prove that more guns equal less crime, it certainly refutes the thesis of the Left that more gun control is the answer. . . .
American Thinker, August 4, 2019
Harris, in that hard-to-listen-to flat nasal tone of hers, talks of background checks and gun-dealers (not leftist mobs) being responsible for the cop shooting in Philadelphia (John Lott blows those out of the water), and O’Rourke blathers on in an inchoate string of claims and rages about his capacity to end all murders forever with his miraculous gun grab master plan. . . .
American Thinker, August 4, 2019
The El Paso killer, in a meandering, inchoate “manifesto” with a mix of pro- and anti-Trump ravings and negative words for Democrats, based a strange combination of hate for migrant surgers and weird obsessions with automation, was essentially rooted in greenie ideology, as John Lott notes here. . . .
New American, August 13, 2019
Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined with John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, to expose Colorado’s recently enacted red flag law. Under that law, “anyone at all can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before him is the statement of concern.”
Red flag laws have nothing to do with mental health. Only one of the 17 states now imposing red flag laws on their citizens even uses the term. Wrote Massie and Lott: “It’s about figuring out who is going to commit a crime (or suicide). This is the realm of science fiction.”
It’s also the theme of Steven Spielberg’s 2002 film Minority Report wherein three “precogs” predict the future criminal behaviors of suspects. As viewers will remember, it did not end well.
The Fourth Amendment requirement demanding “probable cause” has been almost completely ignored. As Massie and Lott noted, “Little certainty is needed. Initial confiscations often require just a ‘reasonable suspicion’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch.” In addition, red flag laws typically make no provisions to cover the legal costs incurred by the victim (not suspect) and so many charged will not be able to have an attorney assist them.
Finally, wrote Massie and Lott, “It has always been possible to take away someone’s guns but all 50 states have required testimony by a mental-health expert before a judge. Under red flag laws, however, expert testimony will no longer be used.” In addition, “Gun-control advocates argue that it’s essential not even to alert the person that his guns may be taken away. Hence, the 5 A.M. police raids.”
Red flag laws don’t work. That’s the conclusion Lott came to in a study he and a professor at the College of William and Mary published last December. After reviewing data from 1970 through 2017, they concluded that “Red flag laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.… These laws apparently do not save lives.” . . .
The Times-News (West Point, Georgia), August 6, 2019
By using FBI data and criteria related to mass public shootings, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows that 90 percent of mass public shootings between 1998 and June 2019 occurred in GFZs. I have been engaged in many debates, differences of opinion, and courtroom battles. But, to this day, I have yet to hear anyone present an explanation as to why GFZs keep Americans safe. Such an argument would be nonsense. . . .
Patheos, August 12, 2019
A very courageous figure in disputes about gun-control policy in the United States is Dr. John Lott, who is now an independent scholar but who previously taught at such institutions as the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and who was previously affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute:
Breitbart, August 18, 2019
John Lott, the gun violence expert who heads the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote in a New York Daily News column Thursday that Twitter recently locked the center’s account because the News article it tweeted contained quotes from the New Zealand mass killer, and that New Zealand and Australia have laws against sharing the manifestos of shooters.
“But none of these other accounts have been locked or had posts removed for linking to the article,” wrote Lott.
He said that a Twitter representative concluded that the only possible explanation was that someone “reported” the CPRC tweet, but that no one reported the other accounts’ tweets.
“It is scary that a government halfway around the world can censor completely accurate American political debates, effectively interfering in our democratic process,” Lott wrote.
“It is still scarier when this censorship is selectively applied to tweets by conservatives.” . . .
Breitbart, July 31, 2019
CPRC reports 21st mass shooters are not typically religious, “80 percent are at least 21 years of age,” and the majority of them–56 percent–views handguns as the weapon of choice for an attack.
Rifles alone have only been used in 13 percent of 21st century mass shootings. Shotguns alone have only been used in four percent.
Weigh popular Democrat gun control campaigns in light of these finding and it quickly becomes evident that gun control is not the solution to mass shootings.
For instance, one popular control is to raise the age for rifle purchases to 21 years of age. What good does this do when 80 percent of mass shooters are 21-year-old or older? . . .
Breitbart, July 30, 2019
On November 20, 2018, Breitbart News reported a Crime Prevention Research Center study showing that 97.8 percent of mass public attacks between 1950 and May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones. That is the great common thread among mass shooters, and it has nothing to do with race. . . .
Reclaim the Net, August 18, 2019
Australia’s and New Zealand’s often draconian laws on content and information dissemination are once again affecting internet users in America. But the latest case also revealed some of the inner workings at Twitter, suggesting a political and ideological bias.
John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) first had his personal Twitter account blocked, followed by that of his organization – when it linked to an article published in the New York Daily News, that he had penned after the first ban.
Lott, who describes himself as a conservative, is a leading gun crime and statistics expert, and the offending tweet had to do with the true ideology espoused by the New Zealand mosque shooter.
In the March tweet, Lott said that the killer, contrary to popular belief, is a socialist and environmentalist who hates capitalism. And this can be deduced from the shooter’s manifesto.
When asked why they decided to block the CPRC account, Twitter said they do not allow linking to content “that includes excerpts of manifestos of mass shooters” – and this is “due to the safety of Twitter users and regulations abroad.” . . .
Ammoland, August 15, 2019
This article is an updated version of the article published in January of 2017. Since then, the CDC corrected the number of fatal firearm accidents for 2014, the error being found and pointed out by Dr. John Lott. . . .
In 2014, the CDC record shows a coding error. The number was stated as 586, but John Lott, who detected the error and informed the CDC, said the number should be no more than 486. The actual number corrected by the CDC, has been determined to be 461. That is the lowest number and the lowest rate on record for the United States. The rate is .14 per 100,000 population. . . .
Ammoland, July 31, 2019
His manifesto has been banned in New Zealand. John Lott, a prestigious American academic who has been critical of restrictive gun control schemes, was banned from twitter when he referenced that fact.
Ammoland, August 7, 2019
These pro-gun websites need the support of gun owners to exist. Without us, they would not be able to survive. Each one does an immeasurable amount of good in preserving our rights. Please visit each one and subscribe to their email lists as it is the only way they can keep in touch with you and not have big-tech shadowban them out of view.
Crime Prevention Research Center: www.crimeresearch.org
Anti-gunners hate this group with a passion that alone is a reason to support them. The only tool we have is facts, and I’ll be honest. I use his data for a lot of my articles.
When you hear that the U.S. has the most mass shooting and that we are a crazed gun culture, the proof that this is a lie comes from Dr. John Lott. (The U.S. ranks 11th in mass shooting among industrialized nations and 64th overall, here is the link.)
Ammoland, July 31, 2019
The scene of the shooting is in a county where, according to researcher and author John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, average citizens have a difficult time obtaining a concealed carry permit. Lott said Santa Clara County has only 113 active carry permits in a population with some 1.5 million adults. But even if more people had permits, they would have been unable to carry at the Garlic Festival because of the firearms prohibition. . . .
America’s 2st Freedom, August 21, 2019
Actually, John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), determined: “There was no decrease in either the total number of papers or pages devoted to firearms research.” Lott surveyed the research and found that “since 2011 firearms research in medical journals has increased more than five-fold, as former New York City Mayor and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg has poured untold tens of millions of dollars into the effort.” . . .
“I have been an academic for most of my life and can’t fathom how one could legitimately spend that much money on the small studies that mostly just crunch government-gathered data,” says Lott. “But no one seems to worry whether this federal research money—money taken from the pockets of American taxpayers—is being wasted or used for a blatant political purpose.”
All this gun-research money from the government (as well as from wealthy people such as Bloomberg and from many left-leaning foundations) is going overwhelmingly to public-health researchers who have a bias against our right to bear arms. “These researchers cherry-pick research to focus on particular states in particular years. If 20 states have passed a law, why look at just one?” Lott asked rhetorically. “Obviously, to find the result that best supports the preconceived advocacy agenda of researchers.”
Some of the examples of this data-mining the CRPC found included a claim that a Connecticut gun-licensing law caused a 40-percent drop in the state’s homicide rate when the homicide rates fell nationally by 32 percent at the same time. “If the period of study had been one year longer or one year shorter, the national drop would have been much larger,” said Lott. In another example, to exaggerate risks that households with guns face, the CRPC found that researchers lumped gang fights involving “children” 18 and 19 years of age into data on guns in peoples’ homes.
In an attempt to treat gun ownership like a disease—and therefore to ban or further restrict access to guns—this research misses what actually causes the violence. “Over 50 percent of murders occur in just 2 percent of the counties and even in those counties it is mainly in very small areas of about 10 blocks,” says Lott. “Obviously, the problem causing a great deal of violence is drug gangs. If you are going to solve the problem you have to reduce the profits those gangs get from selling drugs.” . . .