In the op-ed, published by the New York Post, Lott explained that there are two ways of examining occurrences of violent crime: One is the measure of those crimes reported to police and the other is the measure of those crimes which were not reported. . . .
Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott explained that there are “two measures that the Department of Justice puts out on crime.” For example, in 2021, the FBI reported only 387 crimes committed per 100,000 people. The following year, the agency only reported 380.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people. However, data contradicts this number.
National Crime Victimization data found that violent crime increased by 42 percent in 2022. . . . [much more on Dr. Lott’s work discussed there]
Sarah Arnold, “Democrats Are Wrong, Violent Crime Is Not Declining,” Townhall, September 8, 2024.
What’s more, the federal government has numbers that back up the claim that good guys with guns save lives. However, as John Lott notes over at The Federalist, the feds are hiding them from us. . . .
Now, 35 percent isn’t a massive number, but we need to remember that a lot of active shootings are happening in places where there are issues with law-abiding citizens being armed. . . .
And this is interesting because Lott wrote this well before the events in Winder. . . .
Law Enforcement Collapse Masks Rising Crime Rates. John Lott exposes the mistaken perceptions created when Democrats and the media rely on reported rather than actual crimes.
Case nine is essentially an overview of schools nationwide that have armed and trained their faculties. None of those have yet had a mass murder, either. Professor John Lott, a master researcher in the field of armed self-defense, said as much in an article he co-authored for the Washington Times with Rep. Thomas Massie. . . .
In a recent analysis published in the New York Post, Professor John Lott, president of the acclaimed Crime Prevention Research Center, sharply critiques the way the Democratic Party and its allies in the media manipulate crime statistics to paint a misleading picture of safety under their leadership.
Lott points out that despite claims by prominent Democrats like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg that crime went up under President Trump and fell under President Biden, the data tells a different story. Contrary to their assertions, violent crime actually fell by 17% during President Trump’s term, but soared by 43% under President Biden between 2020 and 2022. This stark reality is something that many media outlets and Democratic politicians seem keen to obscure. In fact, they outright lie about it it would appear.
The crux of Lott’s argument lies in the discrepancy between the two major crime data sources in the U.S.: the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The FBI data, which relies on crimes reported to police, shows a decline in violent crime since 2020. However, the NCVS, which surveys individuals directly about their experiences with crime, shows a dramatic increase in violent crime, with a staggering 42.4% rise in 2022 alone.
Lott highlights that this divergence is not just a statistical anomaly but reflects a deeper issue: the collapse of effective law enforcement across many American cities. For instance, arrest rates for reported violent crimes have plummeted, with cities like New York seeing a drop from 44% pre-pandemic to just 20% in 2022. This means that fewer criminals are being held accountable, not being arrested and charged in the first place, so it looks like crime is actually going down. This leads to a vicious cycle where victims increasingly believe there is no point in reporting crimes.
This breakdown in law enforcement is further exacerbated by the significant reduction in police staffing due to budget cuts, retirements and rampant demoralization of rank and file police officers in departments across the country following the “defund the police” movement, which many Democratic politicians, including Harris and Walz, supported. In some areas, police no longer respond to non-emergency calls, leaving victims to fend for themselves. Consequently, the FBI’s crime data, which relies on police reports, is becoming less reliable. There has also been a drop in police departments even reporting data to the FBI, which also accounts for less crime being counted. Meanwhile, the NCVS data paints a much more alarming picture of the true state of crime in the U.S.
Lott’s analysis warns that relying on the FBI’s data, as many Democratic officials do, conveniently downplays the severity of the crime problem. This selective use of data is a tactic to soft-pedal the reality of rising crime, allowing the Democratic Party to avoid accountability for the consequences of their policies. Even worse, it allows them to pedal progressive policies to an unwitting public; polices that actually make our communities less safe, such as releasing criminals and some illegals back on the streets.
Lott’s findings underscore the importance of scrutinizing the data and narratives pushed by those who seek to impose more restrictive gun laws, limit the effectiveness of our police departments and turn criminals loose on the streets to commit more crimes. The disconnect between reported crime and actual victimization serves as a reminder that protecting one’s right to self-defense is more critical than ever, especially in an environment where the government’s ability to ensure public safety is increasingly in question.
For the complete editorial by Lott, visit the New York Post.
. . . We’ve talked aplenty about Walz and his wrongheaded ideas, but John Lott decided to do a bit more over at The Federalist. He absolutely dismantles Walz and his claims on guns.
Let’s start with his claims regarding the CDC being prohibited from doing research. . . .
Lott points out that the CDC did plenty of gun research during that time.
Now, was it a lie or was Walz simply wrong? After all, I consider it a lie when someone knows it’s false but pushes it anyway, whereas someone who believes what they’re saying is merely wrong. Walz saw the same media reports we all did, but his politics could well have led him to take the claims at face value. It’s entirely possible he was just incorrect.
But considering some of his other nonsense, I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s remember that concealed carry permits, even in the most permissible states in the nation, involve a criminal background check that insures the individual isn’t a prohibited person. Anyone with a permit is someone who has never been convicted of any serious crime or even some misdemeanors. They’re generally as close to a model citizen as you’re going to find, which is born out by the research Lott cites.
Walz just doesn’t like the fact that we can carry guns.
There’s more that Lott destroys, but I can’t really get into it because of fair use rules. I invite you to go and read the rest, especially the stupidity about universal background checks.
Tom Knighton, “John Lott Dismantle’s Walz’s Anti-Gun Claims,” Bearing Arms, August 14, 2024
Gun-related statistics generated by federal agencies have become suspect. In some cases, simple searches of media reports for certain types of crime shows, for example, that the FBI’s official data has holes in it. In some cases, it appears to be heavily biased; for example, the number of “active shooters” stopped by armed citizens turns out to be much higher than the FBI data lets on. If the FBI would take so-called “gun-free zones” from the equation, they’d have to report that, when good citizens can go armed, they often do stop murderers.
For answers as to what’s happening within these agencies, we asked John Lott, the noted crime researcher and the founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
As you’ll see in this video, his answers—from when he worked with the Department of Justice for the Trump administration to his research with his nonprofit—are astounding.
And this is important, as the mainstream media likes to use federal statistics as hooks for their one-sided gun-control narratives; as a result, this spin impacts public opinion, which can influence policy.
In this video interview, Lott talks about his time working as a senior adviser for research and statistics at the Office of Justice Programs—a Department of Justice division that doles out about $5 billion in grants each year—and about his research into crime and gun ownership. Lott has a lot to say about the statistics these agencies publish.
To support his claims, Trump cited John Lott, president of the CPRC and author of More Guns, Less Crime. Lott explained in an interview on NewsMax2 that there are two primary measures of crime: the FBI’s data on reported crimes and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization data, which includes both reported and unreported crimes. . . .
In a press conference this past Tuesday, President Trump read from two of the Crime Prevention Center Research Center’s newest research reports. One report shows how violent crime fell by 17 percent during the Trump administration and then soared by 43 percent under Biden. The second report shows how law enforcement in the U.S. has collapsed. We show how the drop in arrest rates over the last few years from 2020 to 2022 is without precedent, and that is particularly true for the largest cities. . . .
Statistics show that criminals target “gun-free” zones, particularly when they expect a large number of disarmed people in attendance. In fact, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, a staggering 94% of U.S. mass-murder attempts have taken place in “gun-free” zones since 1950. (Even if you accept a much lower number claimed by gun-control activists, it should be obvious that you don’t want to openly assert that your location is a “soft target” since no one will be able to defend themselves or others.) . . .
Staff, “NRA Community Shield And School Shield,” America’s 1st Freedom, September 4, 2024.
