. . . Despite oodles of data showing that defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur quite frequently, the gun control crowd insists on deceptively claiming that these situations rarely arise, which means people should not have the right to keep and bear arms. But John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, who has been on the front lines in the battle for gun rights, has debunked their claims once again.
In a conversation with the Washington Times, Lott pointed out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has downplayed the percentage of shootings that end with a “good guy with a gun” using their firearm to save lives. The FBI has long held that only 4.4 percent of active shooting incidents are stopped by civilians using guns. However, Lott suggested the percentage is much higher: 34.4 percent.
The report notes that whenever there is a situation in which an armed civilian stops an active shooting, news agencies “are quick to point to the FBI’s findings as evidence that it’s a rarity.” The author points out that the Bureau’s data has also “been used in court cases” and in “debates on Capitol Hill and in state assemblies.”
However, Lott characterizes the Bureau’s numbers as “garbage and “distorted by shoddy work.”
“They should be embarrassed,” he told the Washington Times. . . . [this is just a small fraction of the piece]
Since his inauguration, Mr. Bragg has overseen a significant increase in crime rates in Manhattan. According to data from the Crime Prevention Research Center, Mr. Bragg declined to prosecute 35 percent of the the seven “major felonies” — murder, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, grand larceny, and grand larceny auto — that were brought to him by investigators.
The fact is, most people who are polled in these anti-gun surveys don’t fully understand what a Universal Background Check is, or that they’re actually Universal Registration Checks.
According to a survey of 1,000 people done by the Crime Prevention Research Center, 86% say they support background checks on all gun sales or transfers, but as soon as they’re asked follow-up questions which explain how this would look as policy, support starts to drop.
For example, when survey participants were asked a question with context on how the law would affect them, 44% now say they oppose Universal Background Checks, and only 42% say they support them.
Universal Background Checks don’t stop crime or criminals, instead they limit the ability of law-abiding citizens from being able to innocently transfer firearms to each other. . . .
The Crime Research Prevention Center found that prosecutors have been less like to prosecute felonies and less likely to pursue jail sentences for misdemeanors under Bragg. . . .
Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, wrote for Real Clear Politics: “Few seem to realize that stabilizing braces for pistols were originally designed to allow wounded and disabled veterans who may have lost the use of part of their hand to hold handguns. They are essentially a strap attached to the gun. Disabled individuals are often viewed as easy targets by criminals, and stabilizers make it easier to defend themselves.”
He cites Rick Cicero, a disabled veteran who lost his right arm and leg in an explosion while serving in Afghanistan 13 years ago.
“If they take this away, they’re violating their own law because this is designed and employed for people like me,” Cicero told Spectrum News 9 after the DOJ proposed the rule in 2021.
Cicero, who teaches fellow injured veterans on how to shoot again, added that “the most important thing to me about this brace, this whole aspect, is another avenue of getting injured veterans out of the house.”
According to Dr. Lott, the two instances that Biden cited to garner support for the new ATF policy weren’t even valid examples of braces being used to better commit a crime.
“All this started after President Biden cited a crime in 2021 in Colorado – where a shooter used a pistol stabilizing brace when attacking shoppers in a grocery store – to justify calling for classifying such brace-affixed pistols as machine guns,” Lott wrote. “Ahmed Al Alwi murdered 10 people at close range in a Boulder, Colo. grocery store. A previous shooting in 2019 by Connor Betts, in Dayton, Ohio, also involved a pistol brace. These are the only two cases of their kind and, more importantly, neither of them had any difficulty holding their guns and all their shots were fired at a short distance. There is no evidence that the brace made any difference in their ability to carry out the attacks. And there has been no surge in crime by the disabled or others using these braces.” . . .
According to research done by John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, dozens of cases where a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun are missing from the FBI’s statistics, which Lott says has fueled a false narrative that rarely do good guys with guns stop shootings.
If anything, these knee-jerk reactions — these supposed “gun control” efforts — turn innocent citizens into sitting ducks. “When places adopt stricter gun control laws, there tends to be an increase in violent crime,” explained scholar John Lott.
His research at the Crime Prevention Research Center found that “every place in the world that’s banned, either all guns or all handguns has seen an increase in murder.” Domestically, “over 94% of the successful mass public shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1950 have taken place in areas where citizens weren’t allowed to … have guns.” . . .
But what does the evidence say about “gun-free zones”?
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “gun-free zones” (areas where guns are prohibited) have been the target of more than 98% of all mass shootings. This staggering number is why such designated areas are often referred to as “soft targets,” meaning unprotected and vulnerable.
“According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone,” reports The Blaze. “In fact, as Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. noted in October 2015, only two mass shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in an area where citizens were not prohibited from carrying a gun.”. . .
The local Fox station in DC picked up the story from its coverage by Fox News.
Murders in the U.S. are becoming increasingly concentrated in densely populated urban centers in just a handful of counties, according to a newly released report.
Some 73% of all murders in the U.S. took place in just 5% of counties while 52% of all counties reported no murders at all, according to a Crime Prevention Research Center study published this week and provided to Fox News Digital.
“Murders in the United States occur in very small areas, and that concentration has increased since 2014,” the study stated. “The concentration in 2020 is now greater than in 2010.”
The report comes as a violent crime wave that ballooned in 2020 still rages in some parts of the country.
“Murder isn’t a nationwide problem,” the study found. “It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas and even in those counties murders are concentrated in small areas inside them, and any solution must reduce those murders.” . . .
In the wake of two deadly mass shootings just days apart from one another in California, one might think it would be a time to pause and reflect a bit. After all, these happened in the most gun-controlled state in the nation. Maybe gun control itself should be re-examined.
Measures already in place include background checks on all transfers of firearms, “red flag” gun confiscation laws, and an assault weapon ban. Even if Biden’s ideal background check law had been in effect and perfectly enforced, it wouldn’t have stopped one mass public shooting this century.
Biden exaggerated the support for his background check proposals. The surveys he cites compress long, complicated proposals into one-sentence summaries. But when people are told that these laws would turn someone into a felon just for temporarily lending a handgun to a woman who is being threatened by a stalker, survey respondents answer that they oppose the regulation.
I won’t copy and paste the whole thing for obvious reasons, but I suggest you go and read the whole thing yourself. However, I do have to say that I’ve noted the issues with the surveys as well. It’s easy to get support for very broad, one-sentence policy suggestions. What tends to happen is that when the rubber meets the road, people start getting twitchy with the details.
It’s why universal background checks supposedly have such broad support yet fail when they’re up for a vote as they have in numerous states. As noted, people like the overall idea, but not the details.
Lott basically rips Biden’s proposals apart in a far more general sense as well.
However, it wasn’t just about universal background checks. Of particular interest is this bit here: . . . [More available here]
Dr. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA and is a frequent commentator on Fox News and other cable news outlets, where he is a vocal supporter of safe and legal gun ownership, concealed carry, and use. His eight books include More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns. His Board of Directors include Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and our favorite Michigan rocker, hunter, and gun owner, Ted Nugent.
Dr. Lott was kind enough to provide answers to my three questions (which have been edited for length). I asked him about the Congress passing the national CCW reciprocity bill (which he thinks President Trump will sign if it gets to his desk). I asked him about how or if CCW holders should help protect police officers who are being threatened or outgunned in our streets. And finally, he addressed my concerns – that many of us have – of terrorism coming to our shores and how we can help stop mass attackers who target our schools, workplaces, and public gatherings.
Will the Congress enact a national CCW permit reciprocity law this year? Is it safe to assume President Trump will sign it? How will this improve CCW carry in this country? Any hidden obstacles or challenges in this bill?
“Yes, everything that President Trump has done so far confirms that he would keep his promise and sign such a bill if it gets to his desk. And the bill will easily pass the House, where it currently has 200 co-sponsors. But the Senate is a different story, as Democrats have already promised a filibuster. With all 52 Republicans supporting the bill and six Democrats having voted for the bill when it previously came up in 2013, there should be 58 votes, two short of the 60 required to end a filibuster. There are also seven other Democratic Senators from states that already recognize permits from at least 48 other states. Thus they already essentially have complete reciprocity in their states, and they realize that there have been no problems associated with it.”
“There is extreme pressure being put on Democrats to oppose the bill, and Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) has already announced that he has changed his position and will now oppose it. Unless voters put at least as much pressure on their Senators, it is unlikely that Democrats will let the reciprocity bill even get a vote in the Senate.”
How should CCW holders help police in a life-threatening incident, if at all? We’ve seen situations where CCW holders actually saved officers’ lives, using deadly force. As both the number of gun owners increases and with CCW permit holders now at over 15 million, how does law enforcement want us to support them in mass shooter attacks, acts of terrorism, or events where it appears an officer is outgunned or in danger of being killed?
What does the growing concern of both mass attackers/active shooters and also Islamic terrorism coming here mean to CCW holders? How can we help the federal, state, and local governments protect our country from these emerging threats?
“Mass killers keep targeting gun-free zones, places where general citizens aren’t able to defend themselves. More than 98 percent of the mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred where citizens haven’t been able to defend themselves.”
“Police are very important, but they virtually always arrive after the attack has occurred and they have an extremely difficult job stopping terrorists — having a uniform is often akin to wearing a neon sign saying ‘shoot me first.’ The presence of concealed handgun permit holders actually make the job of the police easier, as the killers have to worry that they will reveal their location if they start shooting the police officer who is on guard.”
“Just look at the explicit statements made by recent shooters. This spring, a young ISIS sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the largest churches in Detroit. An FBI wiretap recorded him explaining why he had targeted the church: ‘It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news.’ Fortunately, that ISIS sympathizer ended up being only a would-be shooter. But, during the last couple of years, shooters have made similar statements after attacking a church in Charleston, S.C., a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and a sorority house in Santa Barbara. It ought to be common sense — even the most ardent gun-control advocates would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their homes. The question is why put up these signs elsewhere.”
For more information about John Lott and his organization, go to the Crime Prevention Research Center at www.crimeresearch.org
Mercedes Perez crashed her car into another car on a San Antonio street in 2021 and then jumped out with a gun and blazed away at neighbors who came out of their homes to see what happened. She killed one man, the car’s owner, and wounded his wife and son before another neighbor heard the shooting. He grabbed his gun and ran to the scene, where he killed Perez with a shot to the neck. John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said it’s a case of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
