On Friday, CPRC’s John Lott talked to Buck Sexton, who was substituting for Sean Hannity, about whether the polling of blacks about police really reflects what they really believe. The interview on Friday, December 19th went from 5:09 to 5:16 PM EDT.
John Lott’s newest piece at Fox News starts this way:
Do blacks trust police more than whites do? Given the anger over events in Ferguson and New York City, the very question seems absurd. But it is not. Behind the polls and demonstrations, there is evidence that blacks trust police at least as much as whites do.
The poll results are hardly surprising. A new Gallup poll confirms blacks place less confidence in police and the criminal justice system. Using survey data from 2006 through 2014, Gallup found:
— 31 percentage points more blacks than whites believe black males are more likely to go to prison than white males primarily because of discrimination (50 percent versus 19 percent).
— 7 percentage points more blacks believe the honesty and ethics of police are low/very low (17 percent versus 10 percent).
Similarly, a 2013 Pew Research Centersurvey reveals that 70 percent of blacks believed police treated whites better than blacks. By contrast, only 37 percent of whites agreed.
But what people say and what they do are often different. And there are both victims and criminals in black communities.
Victims may trust the police for the same reasons that criminals dislike them. Blacks are not a monolithic group: blacks who who have been through the criminal justice system as criminals could answer these questions quite differently than those who have relied on police as victims.
The polls don’t distinguish between these two groups. As Charles Barkley recently said: “[Police] are the only thing in the ghetto between this place being the wild, wild west.”
Most violent crime victims don’t report crimes to police. For example, only about half of rapes are reported to police. That has a lot to do with how victims believe they will be treated by the police. In the case of rape, victims who think that the police are unsympathetic to rape victims or are unlikely to solve the cases are even less likely to report rapes.
If black victims really believe police are racist, why would they report the crime to the police? Blacks victims don’t want other blacks locked up simply due to their race; they want the criminals who actually committed the crime punished. . . .
The article continues here.
The newest piece by John Lott at the Daily Caller starts this way:
These days, it isn’t even safe to get a cup of coffee. Australians just learned this the hard way. In the U.S., watching a movie can apparently be too dangerous. At least, terrorist threats by North Korea canceled the showing of “The Interview” in movie theaters.
With very little money, ISIS has managed to instill fear in countries around the world. Simply by using Internet posts, ISIS has encouraged “lone wolf” terrorists.
In May, four people were shot dead in an attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. In September, there were beheadings in Oklahoma and London. October proved even worse: a car attack in Quebec, a shooting in Ottawa, a hatchet assault in New York City, and a knife attack that left five dead at an Israeli synagogue. This is but a sample.
The Canadian government rushed to revamp its security agencies in the wake of the recent attack on Parliament. But lone attackers are unlikely to send incriminating emails that alert law enforcement. What do you do if security fails? How do we protect what seems like an infinite number of possible targets?.
The attacks in Brussels, Ottawa, and Sydney illustrate the limitations of preventive measures. In each case, the perpetrators had criminal histories that prevented them from legally buying a gun. Still, they all managed to obtain firearms. The Brussels killer, Mehdi Nemmouche, even obtained an illegal machine gun. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.
This past August the CPRC co-sponsored and organized a conference for Students for Concealed Carry. The first speaker was Taylor Woolrich. Her story is continuing to make a difference in explaining to people why it is important that stalking victims have the right to be able to defend themselves. From the BBC:
She’s fighting for the right to carry a weapon on campus, for a very personal reason.
For years she’s been stalked by a man she first came into contact with while waitressing at a cafe.
He would turn up to see her every day and began to track her down outside work. An emergency restraining order failed to deter him.
Things became even more terrifying when she moved across the country to study at Dartmouth college in New Hampshire.
“It wasn’t even on my mind, and then he contacted me via LinkedIn and used social media to continue to contact me – sent me various very frightening messages, making it very specific he knew where I was,” she says.
One summer, when she went home to California, he turned up at her parents’ doorstep. She says police found what they call a “rape kit” – rope tied as a slip-noose, gloves, duct-tape, flash light, and a sweatshirt – inside his car.
Taylor’s stalker is currently in jail. His sentence will soon be up. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.
Ohio Governor John Kasich seems very likely to sign legislation that will change the concealed carry law in Ohio, though the change will put Ohio more in line with other states. The bill was passed by massive veto proof votes in the state Senate (24-6) and House (72-21). The most significant change is in the amount of training, though it will mean that Ohio’s training requirements will still be much higher than the national average
- The number of training hours needed to obtain a concealed-carry permit would be reduced from 12 to 8, and at least two of those hours would have to consist of in-person training.;
- Scrap a rule that a concealed-carry permit applicant must be an Ohio resident for at least 45 days and a resident of the county for at least 30 days;
- Automatically recognize concealed handgun licenses issued by any state that recognizes Ohio’s licenses. Currently, such reciprocity only happens when the attorney general enters into a written agreement with another state;
- Make Ohio compliant with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, so anyone with a state handgun license doesn’t have to get an NICS check when they purchase a firearm;
- Prohibit concealed weapons licenses from being issued to people who hold a nonimmigrant visa or who have been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military; and
- Establish a six-month grace period to renew a concealed handgun license for members of the military, AmeriCorps, or the U.S. Foreign Service — as well as their immediate family members.
Over the last five years the number of new licenses issue were 315,478 (general data available here). Licenses renewed were 94,910. Presumably, 2014 was another year in which permits were issued at a high rate. Minus the number of permits revoked (1,832) gives you a total of 408,565 permits. The revocation rate for any reason was 0.4%.
The lower training require should significantly increase the number of permit holders. The current $55 fee appears unchanged, and it continues to be near the national average.
The number of states that Ohio will honor the permits from will also increase by 10 from 23 to 33.
Currently the state permits that Ohio honors is given here (23).
But soon all the states that honor Ohio’s permits will be the ones that Ohio honors (33).
The newly released Pew Research Center survey shows that 52 percent of Americans want to “protect the right of Americans to own guns” versus 46 percent who support “control of gun ownership.” As with a recent Gallup survey, most people think that guns make them safer. It also supports other polls by Gallup and CNN that show that opposition to more gun control has been increasing over time.
57 percent believe gun ownership “protects people from becoming victims of crime” versus 37 percent believe that it “puts people’s safety at risk.” Every group except Democrats as a whole view gun ownership positively. Black Americans view gun ownership as being more likely to protect people’s lives than cause harm by a 54 to 41 percent margin, but they strongly support gun control by a 60 to 34 percent margin. Women view gun ownership positively by a 51 to 43 percent margin, but again they strongly support gun control by a 54 to 43 percent margin.
The Christian Science Monitor noted:
The shift in views makes for grim reading for gun control advocates, who, according to Pew, have lost support among every demographic except Hispanics and liberal Democrats. City-dwellers, women, and blacks moved particularly hard toward a view put forth by pro-gun rights researcher John Lott: that an armed society is a polite society. . . .
The Orange County Register writes:
Economist and columnist John Lott seems to have said it best in the title of his book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” Using state, county and city crime data, Mr. Lott argued that more guns and looser gun laws raise the cost of committing crime because a would-be criminal is more likely to encounter someone with the means to protect himself or herself, and thus the criminal is less likely to risk being injured or killed in the effort.
Americans seem to be increasingly embracing this idea. . . .
Here is the audio of John Lott on the Lars Larson Show on Monday, December 8th, 2014 from 6:35 to 6:44 PM EST.
Here is the audio of John Lott on the Dennis Miller Show on Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 from 2:05 to 2:30 PM EST.
John Lott also appeared on the Sandy Rios Show on Wednesday, December 10th, 2014 from 8:47 to 9:00 AM EST.
John Lott’s newest piece starts this way:
With just one telephone call this year, Erik Wemple of the Washington Post was able to convince Media Matters to let me respond to their attacks on me in the comments section of their website — after they ignored my emails, telephone calls, numerous tweets and posts for seven years.
Media Matters purports to correct misinformation that the “conservative” media puts out, but, ironically, they have systematically hidden comments critical of their work from their readers. They have a blog where it appears that conservatives and others can respond, but they don’t tell their readers that they have regularly removed responses that they couldn’t answer.
I have been attacked in over 80 posts on Media Matters over the years. They have even criticized reporters from such places as the Washington Post and the New York Times just for interviewing me. They have described me as a “discredited gun researcher.” They have claimed “Gun Advocate John Lott Lashes out at Trayvon Martin’s Mother.” They say I’ve misrepresented Obama’s record on guns, what “assault weapons” are and the views of police on gun control. They have used doctored pictures of me and screen shots of posts.
Media Matters uses a hit-and-run strategy: Attack, and move on to the next attack. They never acknowledge responses, even those published in major media like the ones I’ve written for Fox News.
If Media Matters started engaging in debates, their readers would quickly learn that their criticisms of others involve mischaracterizations, carefully edited quotes and outright lies. Their unwillingness to post contrary comments says a lot about their inability to defend themselves.
A typical example was their March 20 post covering a piece I wrote for FoxNews.com on Vivek Murthy, President Obama’s nominee for surgeon general. Media Matters’ headline read: “On Obama’s Surgeon General Nominee, It’s Medical Experts Vs. Discredited Gun Zealots.” With 288 mainly positive comments on their post, Media Matters apparently worried that people might find the ones I posted with a link to the discussion on my website. So Media Matters simply removed my comments. . . . .
The piece continues here.
Kristin Tate has this article at Breitbart.com:
Media Matters has long advertised to the public a commitment to fighting misinformation on the internet, but lately the group seems to be creating misinformation of its own.
The nonprofit generally targets Republicans and is regularly cited by pundits and news outlets. More recently, the group engaged in what could best be called a smear campaign against John Lott, an economist, firearms researcher, and Founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center. For more than a decade, Lott has developed a unique public profile as an expert on guns and society, who combines advocacy with substantial data and academic rigor.
Media Matters has devoted 87 postings on Lott during a seven year span, with the objective of discrediting him personally and countering the guns rights movement. Making this situation interesting is that Media Matters, in its campaign against Lott, has apparently crossed the boundary from reporting misinformation to systematically generating it.
In seven years of writing about Lott and referring to his work, the organization prevented Lott from speaking out on his own behalf on the site, despite his consistent endeavors to do so. When Lott tried to leave comments on Media Matters articles, a site administrator deleted them. Other comments never got posted at all.
In one instance the site even deleted comments from Lott, in which he explained to Media Matters readers why his eyebrows are disfigured due to surgery he had when he was young.
Media Matters did not correct the commenting issue after Lott made repeated attempts to personally reach out to the group’s staff members. . . .
The rest of the article is continued here.