Why the Gun-Control Crowd Loathes John Lott

Acujeff

NES Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
1,241
Likes
1,373
Location
Boston
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Why the Gun-Control Crowd Loathes John Lott
by FRANK MINITER, February 15, 2023
The gun-control groups find the research from John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, so inconvenient to their ambitions that they’ve spent years doing all they can to disparage, delegitimize and cancel him.

So we thought we’d ask him about it.

In this interview, he explains why gun-control groups, and so many in today’s mainstream media, call him a “debunked researcher” and “gun-rights advocate,” as if he’s an activist, not a serious economist and researcher.

Lott then explains why the data he digs up scares gun-control groups so much—hint: the truth pulls the fake floor out of their entire agenda.

Lott then gives the details on his latest research on concealed-carry and he details surprising numbers on how often armed citizens actually stop bad guys.

Video Interview at:
 
Gun control (read "people control") freaks cannot deal with facts. They've tried to refute his findings from day one.
 
Why the Gun-Control Crowd Loathes John Lott
by FRANK MINITER, February 15, 2023
The gun-control groups find the research from John Lott, founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, so inconvenient to their ambitions that they’ve spent years doing all they can to disparage, delegitimize and cancel him.

So we thought we’d ask him about it.

In this interview, he explains why gun-control groups, and so many in today’s mainstream media, call him a “debunked researcher” and “gun-rights advocate,” as if he’s an activist, not a serious economist and researcher.

Lott then explains why the data he digs up scares gun-control groups so much—hint: the truth pulls the fake floor out of their entire agenda.

Lott then gives the details on his latest research on concealed-carry and he details surprising numbers on how often armed citizens actually stop bad guys.

Video Interview at:

I'll watch it because of the topic, but for the love of god, could media stop posting article in video?

I can scan a print article in about 5 seconds for the gist of it and decide if I'm even interested in reading it through.

Video?
 
As long as he's still called to testify in State and Federal committees, he's still getting the job done. At least, as well as can be done. Most of the job is having expert testimony that legislators can point to in justifying their vote.
 
As long as he's still called to testify in State and Federal committees, he's still getting the job done. At least, as well as can be done. Most of the job is having expert testimony that legislators can point to in justifying their vote.
Yes, I agree that he's been instrumental in pushing our agenda. No arguments there.

However, I frequently deal with anti's who are as smart as we are and can recognize bs studies and statistics as easily as we can. So, in order to not have my only argument to fall back on being "Cuz John Lott says so" (or even "Shall Not Be Infringed") ... Can anyone point to what part of his work is actually legitimate and aligns with the numbers that, say, the FBI and CDC produce ?

Given recent events I think starting a discussion on something that demonstrates/proves Constitutional Carry doesn't lead to more crime (possibly even decreases it)... ?
 
It is also about collectivism vs individuality.

Suppose that a switch to all self driving cars would decrease the average auto accident rate, however, a driver with training and above average skill not using auto drive technology could reduce their risk to below average, but since many bad drivers would opt for non-automated control, the average number of accidents for persons using self driving cars would go up.

The collectivist point would be "you have no right to reduce your personal risk at the expense of others who choose not to develop skills to reduce their risk as well", whereas an individualist view would be "the government does not have the right to demand to prohibit you from reducing your personal risk at the expense of those choosing not to take personal risk reduction steps, except, of course for government officials and important people"

Was Eli the mall guy (and those near him) safer because he was armed? Beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would the net body count increase or decrease if only criminals and govt officials were allowed to be armed? Less clear, and each side can quote "obvious" statistics that their viewpoint prevails. But, it is not necessary for the average to not increase to make allowing individual personal risk reduction a reasonable public policy.

Gun control is like removing advanced courses in public schools to bring everyone to an equal level of helplessness.
 
Back
Top Bottom