Within the first ballot, by McLaughlin & Associates (commissioned by John Lott’s Crime Prevention Analysis Heart), solely 19 % (fewer than one in 5 voters) favored passing extra gun management legal guidelines. A comforting and reassuring 54 % mentioned having the police “focus on arresting violent, repeat criminals, and ending cashless bail to get repeat criminals off the road” can be far simpler in lowering crime and gun violence. One other 21 % added that “extra strictly imposing present gun management legal guidelines” would assist as effectively.
Three out of 4 People now see by the façade provided to justify extra gun management (folks management) legal guidelines. . . .
Bob Adlemann, “Few People Need Extra Gun Management Legal guidelines,” New American, December 30, 2024.
The Silent Majority Basis pushed again on that argument in a information launch emailed to The Heart Sq..
“Analysis signifies that 90% of mass shootings happen in so-called ‘gun-free zones,’” the information launch mentioned. “Whereas proponents of gun management usually argue that america’ mass taking pictures drawback stems immediately from Second Modification protections, they declare stricter gun legal guidelines modeled after different international locations are the answer. Nonetheless, this narrative overlooks historic priority and doesn’t maintain up underneath nearer scrutiny of the info.”
The information launch cites information from the Crime Prevention Analysis Heart between 1998 and 2015 that experiences of the 97 international locations with recognized mass public shootings, “The U.S. ranks sixty fourth per capita in its fee of assaults and sixty fifth in fatalities. Main European international locations, akin to Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at the least 25 % greater per capita homicide charges from mass public shootings.” . . .
Workers, “WA Supreme Court docket to listen to high-capacity journal ban case later this month,” Black Chronicle Information Service, January 2, 2025.
The Crime Prevention Analysis Heart has been conducting incredible analysis for years. Not too way back we coated CPRC’s 2024 “CCW Report.” They commissioned a survey earlier this month and questioned 1,000 People who participated within the common election. The query requested needed to do with what would do extra to assist struggle crime, somewhat than pin the subject to only so-called “gun violence.” The CPRC’s outcomes are in they usually inform an vital story.
The CPRC commissioned a brand new survey by McLaughlin & Associates of 1,000 common election American voters. Regardless of all of the claims about assist for gun management, solely 19% of voters assume passing extra gun management will cut back crime, barely extra (21%) assume stricter enforcement of present gun management. Taken collectively which means 40% of voters assume that gun management has one thing to do with lowering crime. Usually surveys solely give voters these two choices. However voters assume arresting criminals and maintaining them in jail is rather more vital with 54% of voters taking that stand.
Contemplating the outcomes of the survey, we’re taking a look at a way more “regulation and order” kind of American. That’s in distinction to, as is famous in CPRC’s rationalization that the “bias with the prevailing surveys, which restrict solutions to extra gun management or imposing gun management, is that they make it appear that the one choices for lowering crime contain gun management.”
The 54% of respondents to the CPRC survey assume that maintaining criminals in jail is the best means to assist struggle crime over gun management is vital. Would this imply that the identical folks can be in favor of or not in favor of defunding the police? A pile of salient questions might be requested, if achieved the appropriate means, and the solutions would greater than seemingly buck the narratives informed and pushed by progressive policymakers.
In CPRC’s methodology, they introduced the query in another way than a standard binary, or both/or method. In developing with a comparability, CPRC quotes a current Rasmussen survey. It was mentioned that the “survey [was] performed nearly on the similar time (December 17-19) on an analogous set of voters and requested the query the standard means.”
The Rasmussen survey requested the next query, “Which might do extra to cut back gun violence in America, passing new gun management legal guidelines or stricter enforcement of present gun management legal guidelines?”
The outcomes differed from CPRC’s as “56% of individuals most popular extra strictly imposing present legal guidelines, and 31% needed to move extra gun management legal guidelines– each percentages are a lot greater than when respondents have the choice of arresting criminals and maintaining them in jail.”
One other query that Rasmussen requested was, “Police say a 15-year-old woman shot and killed two folks and wounded six others at a faculty in Wisconsin this week. Would stricter gun management legal guidelines assist forestall shootings just like the current one in Wisconsin?”
In response to that query, it was mentioned that fifty% of voters mentioned that stricter gun management would assist forestall such occasions from occurring. The numbers in assist of stricter gun management is up from an analogous survey in 2023 after the Lewiston, Maine taking pictures, which was 44% at the moment. . . .
John Petrolino, “Crime Prevention Analysis Heart’s Commissioned Survey on ‘Gun Violence’ Outcomes,” Bearing Arms, December 30, 2024.
Opposite to the claims of gun-control advocates, strong analysis—most notably from Dr. John Lott—reveals that Purple Flag legal guidelines fail to ship on their promise of lowering homicides and suicides. Even worse, they permit authorities overreach and erode core due course of protections that stand between residents and tyranny. . . .
Within the public debate, one title stands out for methodical, data-driven evaluation of firearms legal guidelines: Dr. John R. Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Analysis Heart. He has spent many years finding out gun management measures and their real-world results. In relation to Purple Flag legal guidelines, Dr. Lott’s findings are unequivocal.
1. No Important Discount in Murder or Suicide
After inspecting information from states which have adopted Purple Flag legal guidelines, Dr. Lott discovered no significant lower in murder or total violent crime. The argument that eradicating firearms prevents potential mass shooters or home murderers simply doesn’t bear out statistically. Furthermore, his analysis additionally signifies these legal guidelines don’t produce a statistically important drop in suicides—a degree usually used to justify Purple Flag confiscations.
2. Excessive False Optimistic Charges
Dr. Lott has repeatedly highlighted the dearth of protections towards false or malicious reporting. As a result of the usual of proof is so low, it’s simple for an harmless particular person to be ensnared in an ERPO. He argues that such false positives dilute the main focus away from really harmful people, piling up authorized instances and losing sources.
3. No Actual Give attention to Root Causes
Considered one of Dr. Lott’s key factors is that psychological well being crises and home violence points don’t vanish simply because a gun is confiscated. Individuals fighting extreme melancholy, rage, or abusive tendencies want medical therapy, counseling, or regulation enforcement intervention that really targets the conduct. Eradicating a firearm may alter the technique of hurt, however it doesn’t resolve the underlying pathology that triggered the priority within the first place. . . .
Ryan Petty, “Purple Flag Legal guidelines: A Failure to Deal with Actual Points,” Bearing Arms, December 30, 2024.
A report from the Crime Prevention Analysis Heart (CPRC) launched on Nov. 29 signifies that for the second yr in a row, the quantity Hid Carry Allow holders in america fell. “The determine now stands at 21.46 million—a 1.8% drop since final yr,” it states. “A serious reason for the continual decline is that 29 states now have Constitutional Carry legal guidelines after Louisiana allowed permitless carry, efficient July 4, 2024.”
Practically half of the residents in america—46.8 % of the inhabitants or 157.6 million folks—stay in states that now acknowledge Constitutional Carry. In all, 67.7 % of the nation’s landmass permits some model of the permit-free carry for law-abiding residents of age.
It’s a development most within the trade anticipated as permits—good for a various variety of years, relying on the issuing state—come up for renewal. Residents who don’t want the self-defense benefits of reciprocity when touring to different states merely allow them to expire. The cash saved is one other incentive.
The variety of carry permits nationwide hit an all-time excessive in 2022, with 22.01 million. In 2023 the determine got here in at 21.46 million. “The principle cause for the drop is that the variety of permits declines progressively within the Constitutional Carry states, though it’s clear that extra persons are legally carrying,” based on the report, which was authored by CPRC’s James R. Lott, Carlisle E. Moody and Rujun Wang. . . .
Man Sagi, “Anticipated Decline in Carry Permits Continues as Constitutional Carry Grows,” Taking pictures Illustrated. December 26, 2024.
A report based mostly on information from the U.S. Division of Justice reveals unlawful migrants on the Non-Detained Docket (NDD) have a murder fee 13 instances greater than the nationwide common. Authored by Dr. John R. Lott of the Crime Prevention Analysis Heart, the evaluation highlights important monetary and societal prices tied to crimes dedicated by this group. . . .
Editor, “Unlawful Migrants Exterior Detention Linked To Excessive Murder Charges,” Republican Watch, December 26, 2024.
However the American folks, apparently, aren’t shopping for it. In actual fact, they’ve some very totally different viewpoints on what is going to lower crime. The Crime Prevention Analysis Heart (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.
Think about that. Locking criminals up is extra vital for lowering crime than gun management.
Now, should you’re questioning why so many polls that the legacy mainstream media quotes don’t offer you that info, the CPRC has the reply to that query, 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 different phrases, different surveys don’t give folks the choice of claiming “Lock up the criminals and maintain them off of the streets!” so, after all, they offer a solution that the anti-2A zealots need.
Editor, “What People REALLY Assume Will Cut back Crime,” Ready Gun Homeowners, December 25, 2024.
Congratulations to specialists at The Chicago Tribune, Dr. John Lott and others, who did the work and confirmed how intensely localized crime is — gunfire occurs within the unhealthy elements of city. . . .
Alan Korwin, “THIS IS GOODBYE,” American Handgunner, December 30, 2024.
A brand new survey from McLaughlin & Associates, commissioned by the Crime Prevention Analysis Heart (CPRC), reveals one thing the mainstream media received’t spotlight: most People don’t consider gun management reduces crime.
Solely 19% of voters assume passing extra gun management legal guidelines will make a distinction. One other 21% assume stricter enforcement of present gun legal guidelines may assist. Add these collectively, and simply 40% of voters tie crime discount to gun management in any respect.
So, what do most People really need? Arrest the unhealthy guys and maintain them in jail. A strong 54% mentioned locking up criminals is the true resolution.
This survey additionally exposes a standard flaw in conventional polling. Often, respondents solely get two choices: move extra gun legal guidelines or implement those we’ve. However while you add the choice of truly holding criminals accountable, the main focus shifts away from firearms totally.
Larry Z, “New Survey: People Don’t Assume Gun Management Reduces Crime,” Weapons America, January 1, 2025.
Dr. Lott’s testimony reveals a disturbing development inside the Nationwide Prompt Felony Background Test System (NICS).
Regardless of the claimed meant objective of stopping prohibited people from buying firearms, the system reveals a big flaw—racial disparity within the denial charges of authorized firearm purchases. His analysis signifies that an awesome majority of preliminary denials, roughly 99%, are errors, disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black males attributable to phonetic similarities in names inside racial teams.
This revelation is especially regarding because it means that law-abiding residents are being unjustly prevented from exercising their Second Modification rights based mostly on flawed information dealing with.
The errors in NICS background checks not solely impede the appropriate to self-defense but additionally impose a pricey and sophisticated appeals course of, usually unaffordable to these affected. Dr. Lott proposes an easy resolution: maintain the federal authorities to the identical stringent requirements personal corporations should adhere to in conducting background checks. Such a transfer would drastically cut back errors and make sure that background checks serve their meant objective with out infringing upon the rights of harmless residents.
Moreover, the dialogue ventured into the territory of crimson flag legal guidelines, which have been touted as preventive measures towards potential threats. Nonetheless, Dr. Lott and Rep. Massie critique these legal guidelines for missing complete psychological well being evaluations and due course of, arguing that they don’t deal with the foundation of the issue and depart people with out vital therapy. . . .
Fredy Riehl, “Stunning Bias Uncovered: FBI NICS Background Checks Unfairly Denies Minority Gun Patrons!,” Ammoland, December 30, 2024.
