CPRC in the News: New American, Bearing Arms, Shooting Illustrated, The Black Chronicle, American Handgunner, Ammoland, Guns America, and More
In the first poll, by McLaughlin & Associates (commissioned by John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center), only 19 percent (fewer than one in five voters) favored passing more gun control laws. A comforting and reassuring 54 percent said having the police “concentrate on arresting violent, repeat criminals, and ending cashless bail to get repeat criminals off the street” would be far more effective in reducing crime and gun violence. Another 21 percent added that “more strictly enforcing existing gun control laws” would help as well.
Three out of four Americans now see through the façade offered to justify more gun control (people control) laws. . . .
Bob Adlemann, “Few Americans Want More Gun Control Laws,” New American, December 30, 2024.
The Silent Majority Foundation pushed back on that argument in a news release emailed to The Center Square.
“Research indicates that 90% of mass shootings occur in so-called ‘gun-free zones,’” the news release said. “While proponents of gun control often argue that the United States’ mass shooting problem stems directly from Second Amendment protections, they claim stricter gun laws modeled after other countries are the solution. However, this narrative overlooks historical precedence and does not hold up under closer scrutiny of the data.”
The news release cites data from the Crime Prevention Research Center between 1998 and 2015 that reports of the 97 countries with identified mass public shootings, “The U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities. Major European countries, such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at least 25 percent higher per capita murder rates from mass public shootings.” . . .
The Crime Prevention Research Center has been conducting fantastic research for years. Not too long ago we covered CPRC’s 2024 “CCW Report.” They commissioned a survey earlier this month and questioned 1,000 Americans who participated in the general election. The question asked had to do with what would do more to help fight crime, rather than pin the topic to just so-called “gun violence.” The CPRC’s results are in and they tell an important story.
The CPRC commissioned a new survey by McLaughlin & Associates of 1,000 general election American voters. Despite all the claims about support for gun control, only 19% of voters think passing more gun control will reduce crime, slightly more (21%) think stricter enforcement of existing gun control. Taken together that means 40% of voters think that gun control has something to do with reducing crime. Normally surveys only give voters those two options. But voters think arresting criminals and keeping them in jail is much more important with 54% of voters taking that stand.
Considering the results of the survey, we’re looking at a much more “law and order” type of American. That’s in contrast to, as is noted in CPRC’s explanation that the “bias with the existing surveys, which limit answers to more gun control or enforcing gun control, is that they make it seem that the only options for reducing crime involve gun control.”
The 54% of respondents to the CPRC survey think that keeping criminals in jail is the most effective means to help fight crime over gun control is important. Would this mean that the same people would be in favor of or not in favor of defunding the police? A pile of salient questions could be asked, if done the right way, and the answers would more than likely buck the narratives told and pushed by progressive policymakers.
In CPRC’s methodology, they presented the question differently than a conventional binary, or either/or approach. In coming up with a comparison, CPRC quotes a recent Rasmussen survey. It was said that the “survey [was] conducted virtually at the same time (December 17-19) on a similar set of voters and asked the question the traditional way.”
The Rasmussen survey asked the following question, “Which would do more to reduce gun violence in America, passing new gun control laws or stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws?”
The results differed from CPRC’s as “56% of people preferred more strictly enforcing existing laws, and 31% wanted to pass more gun control laws– both percentages are much higher than when respondents have the option of arresting criminals and keeping them in jail.”
Another question that Rasmussen asked was, “Police say a 15-year-old girl shot and killed two people and wounded six others at a school in Wisconsin this week. Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the recent one in Wisconsin?”
In response to that question, it was said that 50% of voters said that stricter gun control would help prevent such events from occurring. The numbers in support of stricter gun control is up from a similar survey in 2023 after the Lewiston, Maine shooting, which was 44% at that time. . . .
Contrary to the claims of gun-control advocates, solid research—most notably from Dr. John Lott—reveals that Red Flag laws fail to deliver on their promise of reducing homicides and suicides. Even worse, they enable government overreach and erode core due process protections that stand between citizens and tyranny. . . .
In the public debate, one name stands out for methodical, data-driven analysis of firearms laws: Dr. John R. Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He has spent decades studying gun control measures and their real-world effects. When it comes to Red Flag laws, Dr. Lott’s findings are unequivocal.
1. No Significant Reduction in Homicide or Suicide
After examining data from states that have adopted Red Flag laws, Dr. Lott found no meaningful decrease in homicide or overall violent crime. The argument that removing firearms prevents potential mass shooters or domestic murderers just doesn’t bear out statistically. Moreover, his research also indicates these laws do not produce a statistically significant drop in suicides—a point often used to justify Red Flag confiscations.
2. High False Positive Rates
Dr. Lott has repeatedly highlighted the lack of protections against false or malicious reporting. Because the standard of evidence is so low, it’s easy for an innocent individual to be ensnared in an ERPO. He argues that such false positives dilute the focus away from truly dangerous individuals, piling up legal cases and wasting resources.
3. No Real Focus on Root Causes
One of Dr. Lott’s key points is that mental health crises and domestic violence issues don’t vanish just because a gun is confiscated. People struggling with severe depression, rage, or abusive tendencies need medical treatment, counseling, or law enforcement intervention that actually targets the behavior. Removing a firearm might alter the means of harm, but it doesn’t resolve the underlying pathology that triggered the concern in the first place. . . .
Ryan Petty, “Red Flag Laws: A Failure to Address Real Issues,” Bearing Arms, December 30, 2024.
A report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released on Nov. 29 indicates that for the second year in a row, the number Concealed Carry Permit holders in the United States fell. “The figure now stands at 21.46 million—a 1.8% drop since last year,” it states. “A major cause of the continuous decline is that 29 states now have Constitutional Carry laws after Louisiana allowed permitless carry, effective July 4, 2024.”
Nearly half of the citizens in the United States—46.8 percent of the population or 157.6 million people—live in states that now recognize Constitutional Carry. In all, 67.7 percent of the nation’s landmass allows some version of the permit-free carry for law-abiding citizens of age.
It’s a trend most in the industry anticipated as permits—good for a varying number of years, depending on the issuing state—come up for renewal. Citizens who don’t need the self-defense advantages of reciprocity when traveling to other states simply let them expire. The money saved is another incentive.
The number of carry permits nationwide hit an all-time high in 2022, with 22.01 million. In 2023 the figure came in at 21.46 million. “The main reason for the drop is that the number of permits declines gradually in the Constitutional Carry states, even though it is clear that more people are legally carrying,” according to the report, which was authored by CPRC’s James R. Lott, Carlisle E. Moody and Rujun Wang. . . .
A report based on data from the U.S. Department of Justice reveals illegal migrants on the Non-Detained Docket (NDD) have a homicide rate 13 times higher than the national average. Authored by Dr. John R. Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center, the analysis highlights significant financial and societal costs tied to crimes committed by this group. . . .
But the American people, apparently, aren’t buying it. In fact, they have some very different viewpoints on what will decrease crime. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) writes,
THE CPRC COMMISSIONED A NEW SURVEY BY MCLAUGHLIN & ASSOCIATES OF 1,000 GENERAL ELECTION AMERICAN VOTERS. DESPITE ALL THE CLAIMS ABOUT SUPPORT FOR GUN CONTROL, ONLY 19% OF VOTERS THINK PASSING MORE GUN CONTROL WILL REDUCE CRIME, SLIGHTLY MORE (21%) THINK STRICTER ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING GUN CONTROL. TAKEN TOGETHER THAT MEANS 40% OF VOTERS THINK THAT GUN CONTROL HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH REDUCING CRIME. NORMALLY SURVEYS ONLY GIVE VOTERS THOSE TWO OPTIONS. BUT VOTERS THINK ARRESTING CRIMINALS AND KEEPING THEM IN JAIL IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT WITH 54% OF VOTERS TAKING THAT STAND.
Imagine that. Locking criminals up is more important for reducing crime than gun control.
Now, if you’re wondering why so many polls that the legacy mainstream media quotes don’t give you that information, the CPRC has the answer to that question, too.
THE BIAS WITH THE EXISTING SURVEYS, WHICH LIMIT ANSWERS TO MORE GUN CONTROL OR ENFORCING GUN CONTROL, IS THAT THEY MAKE IT SEEM THAT THE ONLY OPTIONS FOR REDUCING CRIME INVOLVE GUN CONTROL.
In other words, other surveys don’t give people the option of saying “Lock up the criminals and keep them off of the streets!” so, of course, they give an answer that the anti-2A zealots want.
Editor, “What Americans REALLY Think Will Reduce Crime,” Prepared Gun Owners, December 25, 2024.
Congratulations to experts at The Chicago Tribune, Dr. John Lott and others, who did the work and showed how intensely localized crime is — gunfire happens in the bad parts of town. . . .
Alan Korwin, “THIS IS GOODBYE,” American Handgunner, December 30, 2024.
A new survey from McLaughlin & Associates, commissioned by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), reveals something the mainstream media won’t highlight: most Americans don’t believe gun control reduces crime.
Only 19% of voters think passing more gun control laws will make a difference. Another 21% think stricter enforcement of current gun laws might help. Add those together, and just 40% of voters tie crime reduction to gun control at all.
So, what do most Americans actually want? Arrest the bad guys and keep them in jail. A solid 54% said locking up criminals is the real solution.
This survey also exposes a common flaw in traditional polling. Usually, respondents only get two options: pass more gun laws or enforce the ones we have. But when you add the option of actually holding criminals accountable, the focus shifts away from firearms entirely.
Dr. Lott’s testimony reveals a disturbing trend within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Despite the claimed intended purpose of preventing prohibited individuals from acquiring firearms, the system exhibits a significant flaw—racial disparity in the denial rates of legal firearm purchases. His research indicates that an overwhelming majority of initial denials, approximately 99%, are errors, disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black males due to phonetic similarities in names within racial groups.
This revelation is particularly concerning as it suggests that law-abiding citizens are being unjustly prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights based on flawed data handling.
The errors in NICS background checks not only impede the right to self-defense but also impose a costly and complicated appeals process, often unaffordable to those affected. Dr. Lott proposes a straightforward solution: hold the federal government to the same stringent standards private companies must adhere to in conducting background checks. Such a move would drastically reduce errors and ensure that background checks serve their intended purpose without infringing upon the rights of innocent citizens.
Additionally, the discussion ventured into the territory of red flag laws, which have been touted as preventive measures against potential threats. However, Dr. Lott and Rep. Massie critique these laws for lacking comprehensive mental health evaluations and due process, arguing that they do not address the root of the problem and leave individuals without necessary treatment. . . .
