On Wednesday, March 6th John Lott appeared on the Greg Garrison radio show from 9:35 to 10 AM to discuss how Michael Bloomberg pushing false information about guns. The audio is available here.
An op-ed in the New York Times last Friday by Greg Hampikian (February 27), a biology professor at Boise State University, raised the standard fears about letting permitted concealed handguns on college campuses.
I have had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil. Since I carry a pen to lecture, I did not feel outgunned; and because there are no working sharpeners in the lecture hall, the most they could get off is a single point. But now that we’ll all be packing heat, I would like legal instruction in the rules of classroom engagement. . . .
Ignore, for example, the lame argument that some drunken frat boys will fire their weapons in violation of best practices. This view is based on stereotypical depictions of drunken frat boys, a group whose dignity no one seems willing to defend.
The problem, of course, is not that drunken frat boys will be armed; it is that they are drunken frat boys. Arming them is clearly not the issue. They would cause damage with or without guns. I would point out that urinating against a building or firing a few rounds into a sorority house are both violations of the same honor code. . . .
CPRC sent in the following letter to the Times.
Dear Letters Editor:
Greg Hampikian’s article criticizing Idaho’s push to adopt a concealed carry was all emotion and no facts (“When May I Shoot a Student?” 2/27). His speculation about wild shootouts by concealed carry permit holders totally ignores actual experience.
There is already evidence from the many states that allowed concealed carry on campuses. Other states, such as Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin, mandate that permit holders can carry on university property. Twenty-two other states leave the decision up to the individual universities.
Yet, no “disgruntled” or “drunken” students have caused the problems Hampikian worries about in any of these states.
The about 11.5 million current concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In fact, they lose their permits for firearm violations at hundredths or thousandths of one percentage point. There is no evidence that they behave differently on school property.
John R. Lott, Jr.
Crime Prevention Research Center
The irony here is that the arguments being provided Hampikian really don’t have anything to do with 21 year olds carrying permitted concealed handguns. Undoubtedly, the opposition would be the same to professors or staff being able to carry handguns.
The audio of John Lott’s interview on Coast-to-Coast AM with George Noory is available here. Lott was in the news segment for 3 minutes to discuss the Obama administration implementing his executive orders on background checks.
The Brady Law stops law-abiding Americans, not criminals, from getting guns. John Lott’s piece at Investor’s Business Daily starts this way:
Last Friday marked the 20th anniversary of the so-called Brady Law, a federal gun control in honor of James Brady, Ronald Reagan’s former press secretary who was wounded in John Hinckley’s assassination attempt.
Since it requires background checks on all guns purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers, gun control advocates celebrated the law’s purported effectiveness.
The description by the Capitol newspaper The Hill was typical: “The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which took effect 20 years ago Friday, has blocked more than 2 million firearm sales, preventing ‘countless’ killings and other crimes, gun control advocates said at an event to mark the anniversary … .”
On Friday, the Brady Campaign claimed that half those blocked from purchasing a gun — over 1 million — were felons.
Impressive numbers. But, alas, both are gross exaggerations. . . .
The audio from Sunday, February 23, 2014 on their Sunday Morning Newsmakers show is available here.
John Lott’s newest piece at Fox News starts this way:
If we are to believe the mainstream media, the powerful NRA has used its political muscle to keep people ignorant of how guns impact our safety. They are supposedly to blame for the elimination of firearms research. This is all a result of a 1996 amendment to the federal budget stating “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
Thus last month, ABC News reported: “In 1996 the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to pull millions of dollars out of government-funded firearms research. This has resulted in essentially a 17 year moratorium on major studies about gun injuries.”
The Washington Post worried: “[Academics] were forced to stop their work at the point of a gun — or at least at the insistence of National Rifle Association.” Thousands of news reports have made the same assertions over the last 13 months.
Nice story line, but a new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows none of this is true. The amendment didn’t ban federal research. Indeed, to the contrary, federal funded research, which was never an important part of the total, actually increased since then. . . .
The rest of the piece is available here.
The CPRC is proud to release a new study available here.
Here is part of a news story on the report from Fox News:
The Crime Prevention Research Center study examined how a 1996 decision by Congress to strip funding for firearms research actually impacted the world of academia. To hear national media outlets tell it, the decision led to a drought in research from 1996 to 2013 — when such funding was once again allowed. Stories from The Washington Post, NBC News, Reuters and other outlets all have claimed that Washington, with the backing of the National Rifle Association, basically banned gun studies during that period.
Far from it, the study claims. “Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased,” the authors wrote.
The study shows the number of firearms-related journal articles published every year, after hitting 69 in 1996, rarely dipped below 60 and even spiked to 121 last year.
The report challenges not only the media narrative but also the notion that researchers need a constant flow of federal money in order to thrive. . . .
The rest of the Fox News story is available here.
Breitbart’s Big Government had a discussion available here.
CPRC’s president, John Lott, has been on Piers Morgan’s CNN show many times. With Morgan’s announcement yesterday that his show was being cancelled, John Lott wrote a piece for the National Review Online. The piece starts this way:
The ratings for the coveted 9 p.m. time slot were abysmal, dropping last week to just 270,000 viewers — about one-eighth of what Fox News’s Megyn Kelly got in the same time slot.
Some, such as Variety magazine, have speculated that the low ratings are due to Morgan’s single-minded push for gun control. That might have something to do with it, but much more is going on.
In all the thousands of television and radio interviews that I have done over the years, my appearances on Morgan’s show have generated more immediate e-mails than any other show that I have ever been on.
The response made one thing immediately obvious: Only the most diehard gun-control advocates watched his show. But even some of them were unwilling to listen to his abuse. . . .
You can continue reading the piece here.
Powerline blog references the National Review piece here.
Erik Wemple over at the Washington Post has his own useful discussion of what happened to Piers Morgan’s show and the discussion is fairly similar to what Lott wrote. In another piece, Wemple noted: “The National Rifle Association doesn’t need hold a press conference to explain itself. Gun companies needn’t deploy lobbyists. All they need to do is show up on Morgan’s show, where he’ll surely transform them into sympathetic figures.”
UPDATE: Quite amusingly, Piers’ Representative respond to Eddie Scarry about Lott’s op-ed at National Review this way:
“For the record… That’s ridiculous. Just ridiculous,” Morgan’s rep told us in an email when asked to comment on Lott’s piece. As for the part about Morgan remarking on Lott’s eyebrows: “No comment,” said his rep. . . .
Scarry noted that this response was not very clear. Here is his description of the email exchange that he had with Scarry’s:
I asked for her to comment on the piece, including the “eyebrows” part. She responded “for the record… that’s ridiculous.”
I sent a follow up email to her asking if she can be more clear or elaborate. She sent an email nearly unintelligible about it being “off the record” (despite having said “for the record”) and then she said she had “no comment” on the eyebrows bit. . . .