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 % stated having the police “think about arresting violent, repeat criminals, and ending cashless bail to get repeat criminals off the road” could 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 properly.
Three out of 4 People now see by means of the façade provided to justify extra gun management (individuals 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 stated. “Whereas proponents of gun management typically argue that america’ mass taking pictures drawback stems immediately from Second Modification protections, they declare stricter gun legal guidelines modeled after different nations are the answer. Nevertheless, this narrative overlooks historic priority and doesn’t maintain up below nearer scrutiny of the info.”
The information launch cites information from the Crime Prevention Analysis Heart between 1998 and 2015 that stories of the 97 nations with recognized mass public shootings, “The U.S. ranks sixty fourth per capita in its price of assaults and sixty fifth in fatalities. Main European nations, equivalent to Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have a minimum of 25 % larger per capita homicide charges from mass public shootings.” . . .
Workers, “WA Supreme Courtroom 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 unbelievable 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 basic election. The query requested needed to do with what would do extra to assist struggle crime, quite than pin the subject to only so-called “gun violence.” The CPRC’s outcomes are in they usually inform an necessary story.
The CPRC commissioned a brand new survey by McLaughlin & Associates of 1,000 basic election American voters. Regardless of all of the claims about assist for gun management, solely 19% of voters suppose passing extra gun management will cut back crime, barely extra (21%) suppose stricter enforcement of present gun management. Taken collectively meaning 40% of voters suppose that gun management has one thing to do with lowering crime. Usually surveys solely give voters these two choices. However voters suppose arresting criminals and protecting them in jail is far more necessary with 54% of voters taking that stand.
Contemplating the outcomes of the survey, we’re a way more “regulation and order” kind of American. That’s in distinction to, as is famous in CPRC’s clarification 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 suppose that protecting criminals in jail is the best means to assist struggle crime over gun management is necessary. Would this imply that the identical individuals could be in favor of or not in favor of defunding the police? A pile of salient questions may very well be requested, if completed the fitting approach, and the solutions would greater than seemingly buck the narratives informed and pushed by progressive policymakers.
In CPRC’s methodology, they offered the query in a different way than a traditional binary, or both/or strategy. In arising with a comparability, CPRC quotes a latest Rasmussen survey. It was stated that the “survey [was] performed just about on the similar time (December 17-19) on an analogous set of voters and requested the query the standard approach.”
The Rasmussen survey requested the next query, “Which might do extra to scale 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 well-liked extra strictly imposing present legal guidelines, and 31% wished to go extra gun management legal guidelines– each percentages are a lot larger than when respondents have the choice of arresting criminals and protecting them in jail.”
One other query that Rasmussen requested was, “Police say a 15-year-old lady shot and killed two individuals and wounded six others at a faculty in Wisconsin this week. Would stricter gun management legal guidelines assist forestall shootings just like the latest one in Wisconsin?”
In response to that query, it was stated that fifty% of voters stated 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 Crimson 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 Crimson 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 Crimson 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—some extent typically used to justify Crimson Flag confiscations.
2. Excessive False Constructive 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 straightforward for an harmless particular person to be ensnared in an ERPO. He argues that such false positives dilute the main target away from actually harmful people, piling up authorized instances and losing sources.
3. No Actual Concentrate on Root Causes
One among 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 habits. Eradicating a firearm would possibly alter the technique of hurt, nevertheless it doesn’t resolve the underlying pathology that triggered the priority within the first place. . . .
Ryan Petty, “Crimson 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 12 months 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 12 months,” it states. “A significant explanation for the continual decline is that 29 states now have Constitutional Carry legal guidelines after Louisiana allowed permitless carry, efficient July 4, 2024.”
Almost half of the residents in america—46.8 % of the inhabitants or 157.6 million individuals—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 pattern 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 steadily within the Constitutional Carry states, though it’s clear that extra individuals are legally carrying,” in line with 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 price 13 instances larger 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 individuals, apparently, aren’t shopping for it. Actually, 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 necessary for lowering crime than gun management.
Now, for those who’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 individuals the choice of claiming “Lock up the criminals and maintain them off of the streets!” so, in fact, they offer a solution that the anti-2A zealots need.
Editor, “What People REALLY Suppose Will Scale back Crime,” Ready Gun House owners, December 25, 2024.
Congratulations to consultants 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 imagine gun management reduces crime.
Solely 19% of voters suppose passing extra gun management legal guidelines will make a distinction. One other 21% suppose stricter enforcement of present gun legal guidelines would possibly assist. Add these collectively, and simply 40% of voters tie crime discount to gun management in any respect.
So, what do most People truly need? Arrest the unhealthy guys and maintain them in jail. A strong 54% stated locking up criminals is the actual answer.
This survey additionally exposes a standard flaw in conventional polling. Normally, respondents solely get two choices: go extra gun legal guidelines or implement those we’ve got. However if you add the choice of truly holding criminals accountable, the main target shifts away from firearms completely.
Larry Z, “New Survey: People Don’t Suppose Gun Management Reduces Crime,” Weapons America, January 1, 2025.
Dr. Lott’s testimony reveals a disturbing pattern throughout the Nationwide Prompt Prison Background Verify System (NICS).
Regardless of the claimed supposed objective of stopping prohibited people from buying firearms, the system displays a major flaw—racial disparity within the denial charges of authorized firearm purchases. His analysis signifies that an amazing majority of preliminary denials, roughly 99%, are errors, disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black males because of 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 fitting to self-defense but additionally impose a expensive and sophisticated appeals course of, typically unaffordable to these affected. Dr. Lott proposes an easy answer: maintain the federal authorities to the identical stringent requirements non-public corporations should adhere to in conducting background checks. Such a transfer would drastically cut back errors and make sure that background checks serve their supposed objective with out infringing upon the rights of harmless residents.
Moreover, the dialogue ventured into the territory of pink flag legal guidelines, which have been touted as preventive measures towards potential threats. Nevertheless, 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 tackle the foundation of the issue and go away people with out vital therapy. . . .
Fredy Riehl, “Surprising Bias Uncovered: FBI NICS Background Checks Unfairly Denies Minority Gun Patrons!,” Ammoland, December 30, 2024.
