John Lott writes [via Ammoland.com]
After over two hours of pre-interviews with Kristin Lazure, a Producer at Atlas Films, I was asked to travel to New York City to do an interview with Katie Couric for her new movie. As Kristin put it on July 14, 2015: “we are still very much interested in interviewing you to give the film greater balance.” During the pre-interviews, multiple times Kristin told me how much she appreciated my research and how important it was. Our interview in New York City was only supposed to last an hour, but ended up lasting almost 4 hours. Yet, none of the interview that I did was included in the movie . . .
Reviews of movie, such as one by Robert VerBruggen, noted the imbalance. The subheading of VerBruggen’s piece read: “documentary crosses the line from raising questions to avoiding dissent.”
“Lois Beckett with the Guardian (UK) newspaper raised this question:
Beckett: Most of the experts in your film are very strongly tilted towards gun control. Did you try to hear from researchers or experts who aren’t gun control advocates, who are more on the gun rights side?
Director Stephanie Soechtig: We spoke to Richard Feldman, who is a former lobbyist for the NRA.
We spoke to John Lott; he will be featured in a digital companion that we have. We did a great piece on him. He’s the originator of the idea that more guns equal less crime. His research has been criticized and largely discredited, and when we went to include it in the film, it felt like unnecessary real estate to put in the film, because we know his research has been debunked many times. We kept going back to the idea that we wanted to reserve the real estate in the film for the responsible gun owners. . . .”
Richard Feldman is listed as the one person who supports gun rights, but he is a strong gun control advocate. Calling him a “former lobbyist for the NRA” doesn’t mean that in the current discussion he provides balance.
Here is an interview that I did that explains in detail what happened. Wednesday, May, 18, 2016 from 6:00 to 6:08 PM.
——
About Crime Prevention Research Center
The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) is a research and education organization dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of guns, crime, and public safety; educating the public on the results of such research; and supporting other organizations, projects, and initiatives that are organized and operated for similar purposes. Visit: www.crimepreventionresearchcenter.org
Leftists can’t endure anything that challenges their narrative/lie. I would’ve been more surprised if they included any of it at all.
Criticized? Of course! Largely discredited?? Not so much…
My amazed thoughts exactly. I foolishly defended an open carrier in a friend’s FB thread (I know, I know) and when I presented the CDC report showing 500K DGUs a year, one commenter declared that Gary Kleck has been discredited. QED. What do you say to that? It’s a common tactic — keep digging and digging until you find one connection from the reliable source to the Koch Brothers or a conservative group, then all bets are off. So much for “data-driven.”
Not disproven — just discredited.
Credit involves belief (i.e., credulity), while proof requires objectively verifiable proof via facts. You and your ideas can be completely discredited and still be 100% right. Unfortunately, the emotional connotation of “discredited” is “untrustworthy and wrong,” and this emotional shortcut tends to block the logic circuits.
Couric and her ilk are experts at using these emotional shortcuts. It’s how the legacy media machine transforms its own biases into public reality.
Bottom line: the progressive left always lies (but you probably already knew that). They’re sneaky bastards (you probably knew that too).
Except that, Lott’s statistical analysis has been neither disproved nor discredited.
It contains elements of number 5 also:
“5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.”
In antigun speech discredited means not confirmatory to my rainbow dreams and victim self identification thru life choices
@Chip, we know that Lott’s research hasn’t been discredited — in fact, the simultaneous increase in gun sales and decrease in violent crime over the last 20 years means Lott’s thesis can’t be factually disproven — but if the progressive media is working on it.
They can’t disprove it, but if they repeat the claim that it’s been discredited often enough, that becomes the general public’s default assumption.
Straight out of the rules for disinformation:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
Yo wit, rule number 3;
“3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.”
“This tactic works especially well with a silent press…” and it works even better when the press (the Old Media establishment), rather than remaining silent, is the one employing it.
That “explanation” claiming that Lott has been “debunked” can only be characterized accurately as “cravenly dishonest”.
I’ve followed the VCDL over the years. You don’t cross them. Couric crossed them.
To steal a line from “The Outlaw Josey Wales”: “Hell’s coming to breakfast, little lady.”
You are exactly right!
Robert, Dan, et al, have you covered what they did to the VCDL footage? Far more unethical than what they did with Lott. I hope Van Cleave & co. clean Couric’s clock.
It’s making the rounds in places like Townhall, Hotair, Reason, and presumably others.
Preaching to the choir, as people who read conservatarian news outlets already don’t trust people like Couric, but if it gets big enough in the alternative media, the Old Media might eventually feel the heat and pick up on it.
Fox News has it, for what it’s worth.
An update on this:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/06/09/signature-significance-katie-couric-regrets-the-deceptive-editing-of-her-anti-gun-documentary-but-isnt-going-to-fix-it
does it surprise any of you that dishonesty and invincible ignorance are foundations of the anti-gun movement?
Anytime a liberal disagrees with the facts, those facts are thereby “discredited”.
I missed it. Where and when was this “debunked?”
It’s not debunked or discredited. You just can’t assume causation from correlation. Of course, since we have more guns and less crime, you CAN debunk the “more guns = more crime” theory.
Of course an NRA goon is an anti-constitutionalist. We’re talking about an organization that endorsed the NFA and GCA and wrote the LEOPA for opponents to pass.
Why people still support it over the GOA I’ll never know.
You forgot the instant background check, which they still brag about. After all, it keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.
Background checks are unconstitutional infringements on the Second Amendment. They don’t even have the redeeming feature of being effective at preventing felons from obtaining firearms.
That said, which is to say, that abundantly conceded, the political reality at the time was that federal firearm purchase waiting periods were going to happen. The NRA pushed for and got, with a Dem House, Senate, and Whitehouse, the much loathed instant background checks as a compromise to the original federal waiting periods. You’re welcome.
It’s ignorance, tribal-mindedness, and a misguided yearning to be an “only one who gets it” iconoclast that drives these endless internecine attacks on the NRA.
Tell ya what, bright boys: how ’bout you get off your butts and go build a five million member, multi-million dollar powerhouse 2A organization of your own? Show ’em how it’s done, will you?
As the man sang in the song: You say you have a real solution? Well….we’d all love to hear the plan.
This.
If this were true, I’d actually have no problem with it. The problem is, that’s not what they themselves say happened. They don’t say “when they wanted a two week waiting period, we managed to hold them to an instant check. Not ideal, but it was the best we could do at the time.”? No. They brag about the check, period. They LIKE the instant check. They brag about how they pushed for it, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. That stance is very problematic if only because “criminals” includes every conviction on a bullshit felony charge (such as having a gun in the Post Office parking lot) you can imagine.
Your interpretation of why they brag about it is you reading what you hope they mean, into what they’re actually saying.
I can understand not choosing to die on a certain hill at a certain time. But this isn’t an example of it.
that man, singing in that song, is dead from a gunshot wound.
Over, no. As well as, yes.
You cannot vote for the Board of the NRA unless you’re a Life Member.
Vote for the people are un-FUDD… I just made that word up.
“You cannot vote for the Board of the NRA unless you’re a Life Member. ”
I think that statement is false.
I believe that you can be a regular member but there is a time requirement (2 or 3 years?).
Can someone else back me up on this?
Five years consecutive or life
I stand corrected then. Still have to be a member though.
Wow, FOUR HOURS and he didn’t say a single thing that those shitstains could take out of context to make us look bad.
That’s gotta be a record, and my hat’s off to John Lott for knowing how to talk to those weasels.
That is an awesome way to think about it.
Debunked?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Rosetta Stone really ought to come out with a Newspeak edition.
Anyone surprised? Couric(SEE: SouthPark Bono episode) lost her high paying gig and is trying to stay left-relevant. Airhead. You ain’t cute any more old lady…
I’ll leave this here:
https://youtu.be/4QSlSYeNBkI
…beautiful.
There is also an interview that Couric had edited to give her a different perspective.
They should have never interviewed him to begin with. He is a discredited scholar who manipulated data to fit his position. While he was trying to support the right side in doing so, his “research” has actually hurt those supporting the Second Amendment by giving anti-gunners the ability to point the finger and say those of us that support the 2nd are basing our views on false premises.
The reality is simple: we don’t need him. The Second Amendment is based on the very simplest of rights: the right to defend the lives of ourselves and our families and the right to live. Every animal that I have every heard of will try to defend its life and try to survive.
Frankie: “He is a discredited scholar who manipulated data to fit his position.” Discredited scholar? He did a dumb thing in trying to promote his work, yes. “Manipulated data?” don’t think so. Please provide some documentation of that.
Have you read his book, “More Guns, Less Crime?” I have
I’ll bet you have not even read the man’s book, let alone his scholarly papers. I don’t believe, either, that you have the requisite training in statistical analysis to debunk his work yourself nor to assess the work of others who’ve published on this same topic.
So what are you really saying here? Just that you don’t like what the man’s research reveals? Well. That you don’t like it does not lessen its value or verity.
Frankie should have never posted to begin with. Frankie a discredited poster who manipulates words to fit his position. While he was trying to support the second amendment, in doing so, his “post” has actually hurt those trying to discredit the Second Amendment by giving Second Amendment supporters the ability to point the finger and say those of us that are against the 2nd are basing our views on false premises.
See? I can do it too.
What about Kopel? He is to Second Amendment research what John Williams is to movie scores. Doing a documentary on guns without covering Kopel is like doing a documentary on pizza without covering pepperoni.
Perhaps one shouldn’t go in and provide cover for the anti-gunners to hide behind so they can pretend that they’re being balanced when you know they’re just going to cut everything.
Lott discredited? Huh? The last fifteen years of advancing state concealed carry and open carry policies and their results have validated beyond doubt Lott’s data and conclusions.
FACTS:
1. Pro-gun states have higher murder and suicide rates than states with strict gun control.
2. A gun in the home is 5x more likely to be used to used in a homicide or suicide against yourself or a loved
one than saving a life.
3. The only reason strict gun control states have “gun crime” is because firearms have been illegally imported
from states with lax laws which again have higher murder and suicide rates than strict states.
4. The NRA was responsible for providing illegal weapons to both the charlie hebdo and nov paris attackers.
5. There have been NO cases of a civilian stopping a crime or mass shooting with a firearm EVER!
6. Most of the country’s gun violence is caused by individuals with ties to anti-government right wing groups!
John Lott’s studies and research have been heavily debunked many times by both domestic and foreign research groups.
Please come back to reality
He forgot to include the /sarc tags. “NRA provided the weapons in the Paris attacks” LOL
I don’t think he’s being sarcastic because I’ve seen this statement elsewhere.
It appears to stem from the fact that one of the pistols used in Paris, reportedly a Century Arms M92, at one time belonged to an FFL dealer in Florida who has “close ties to the NRA”.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-paris-terror-attack-linked-florida-dealer-article-1.2462573
Wilson–as with other early “news” reports, that claim was later “discredited” in the sense of “proved false.” There was an error in the serial number that lead to the mistake, according to later reports.
If only your grasp of reality were as strong as your copy-and-paste game.
its a little difficult to choose, but i think number 4 was my favorite. youre quite hilarious, friend.
Same here on #4. That’s the one where his crazy train of thought goes completely off the rails.
I’m absolutely certain that Wayne LaPierre still has the DHL confirmation slip, signed “Da Turrurists”. LOL!
I like #6. Inner city street gangs are defiantly very right wing.
Yeah all those rightwing republican gangs in baltimore are ruining the place lol
This IS a joke right? Maybe you forgot the /sarc tag?
WalMart is having a sale on Tinfoil… just sayin. You obviously go through a lot.
1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Hilariously wrong
5. Wrong
6. Wrong
But… If 3 were to be right:
Just make importation of guns legal. Then there would be no illegal importation and the ONLY reason for gun crime would be completely eliminated. ergo: no more gun crime.
Bwahaha, man, that’s a good one, especially where you call those statements “facts”.
Ah, you had me going there for a minute
Mr. “Debunking the Lies”, you claim that Dr. Lott’s work has been debunked. I’m prepared to argue with the allegations put forth by fanatic ideologues such as Tim Lambert and David Hemenway, both men less interested in the truth than in reiterating accusations addressed years ago.
Since you don’t care for Dr. Lott, perhaps you’d be willing consider research from other reputable sources. If not, then admit you’re not interested in facts that don’t match your blinkered worldview…
Regarding “Fact” 1 – This one is popular with such reputable journals as “Mother Jones”. Unfortunately, numerous studies contradict your claim. As one example, Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694) has an article that. “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
Regarding “Fact” 2 – Originating with Dr. Arthur Kellermann, that claim has been repeatedly, thoroughly debunked. His argument defined defensive gun use as only those times a gun is used to shoot AND KILL a criminal, a definition that excludes over 98 percent of defensive uses. After looking at Kellermann’s work, Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately termed his claims “nonsensical.” (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)
Regarding “Fact” 3 – Great Britain has had strict gun control for decades, yet their rate of gun crimes is much higher than when they first instituted their gun bans. In the absence of inconvenient neighboring states without gun control, how do you explain this?
Regarding “Fact” 4 – Grabbing at straws, aren’t you? I’d debunk that, but I couldn’t even find a reputable source when I tried to research the claim.
Regarding “Fact” 5 – Do a little research, instead of uncritically swallowing the BS Moms Against Guns and Bloomberg feed you. If you want facts, try “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”, by Davi Barker (available online). His research clearly shows that an armed civilian response reduces overall death tolls from spree killers.
Regarding “Fact” 6 – You’re making crap up this time. FBI statistics clearly show that criminal gang violence is the most significant source of gun violence in the US. While such gangs are likely to be “anti-government”, their typical political leanings tend toward the Democratic Party. Similarly, the vast majority of mass shooters actually come from left-wing backgrounds. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has the numbers disproving your claim.
Best reply yet, well done, James!!
Your numbered list isn’t facts.
Please explain Vermont. A state with no gun control and one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
Source? That sounds like a CSGV statistic. Definitely not my home, and I’m not a statistic. Also, my guns in my home are for more than just “saving lives.” Same as my kitchen knives, baseball bats, etc. Hey let me give a random ridiculous statistic. Kitchen knives in the home are 5x more likely to be used in suicide attempts than homes that don’t have them. Kitchen knives in the home are also 5x more likely to be used in homicide or suicide attempts than saving lives. See? It’s just ridiculous.
Is this like that Hillary Clinton – Bernie Sanders thing, where all the guns in New York come from all those criminals in Vermont? You know, with Vermont having one of the lowest crime rates in the US and all.
Also, and more importantly, are you saying that guns cause crime??? Because, that goes perfectly with the spoons make people fat meme. So the people pulling the triggers, they are not the cause of the crime? The gun is?
Tin foil hat conspiracy theorist nonsense. I beg you. I’m begging. Give me a reputable source on this.
TTAG hosts an article titled “defensive gun use of the day.” Pretty much every day. This is a small fraction of guns used defensively. Furthermore, there is likely a great many cases where guns are used defensively without firing a shot and no report is filed. I’m going to call this what it is. An outright lie. Here you go troll:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/
Also. If cops use guns defensively, regular people do too.
The vast majority of crimes are inner city gang related. Your comment is 100% troll garbage.
Show me. Debunk it.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-05-01.html
5. No instances of a civilian stopping a crime with a firearm, EVER??? Lol. Admit it, either you’re trolling relentlessly or you’re insane.
Or BOTH. Don’t discount that possibility…
“Discredited”?
“Debunked”?
You’d almost think she was talking about that pathological liar Michael Bellesiles, who wrote the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” of gun control, “Arming America”.
So Shady Carwreck, one of the world’s most dishonest “journalists” (redundant, I know) manipulated the video, deleted Lott’s interview and somebody is surprised by that?
Why?
The MSM is a viper’s nest. If you get near it, there will be venom.
I just made a tinfoil hat and started reading the “debunking the lies post” and in awhile…..it all made sense!
Again with the feelings, it’s all about the feelings.
Anyone gone through this movie yet and done a play by play of what’s been debunked in it? It sounds like Katie is running around using debunked statistics maybe she should omit her self from the whole movie as well.
Discredited??? How do they explain a 50 percent drop in homicides at the same time more than 80 percent of states became shall issue, and gun ownership more than doubled?
If they analyzed his data like Couric analyzed her data, the analysts are largely suspect. They have a way if disregarding data that diesn’t support their point of view.
The worst part of it all is America’s Attention Deficit. The MSM will plug the BS documentary, and people will take her words for gospel. Very few will ever bother with the tidbits of the behind the/deleted scenes stuff on the DVD, as they will have confirmed what the MSM wants them to believe in the Main Feature. After all Fast and Furious didn’t really happen, nor was it engineered by the White House, because guns are really bad. Now look at these really cool videos of kittens and puppies…………………
I think a guys as smart and experienced as Lott would know – NEVER do a “preinterview” Live only or bite me.
If Katie, or other “journalist”, were at all competent they could conduct a live interview couldn’t they? Lake a list of questions, ask them and listen.
This wasn’t broadcast, so no, that’d be rather difficult.
Yep, discredited! Why? Cause Katie says so. Pardon me if I don’t take her word for it. She could trade on her own credit, except she has discredited herself frequently and thoroughly!
Yet another statist wanting us to take their word for something because they think they have the moral high ground. Unfortunately for them they have yet to be able to demonstrate anything but an emotional attachment to their position, as if that would somehow move me. Guess I will now be ranked by them as some heartless beast that is only moved by rational argument, solid statistics, and real provable fact, that is a burden I can handle.
In the Internet age, where facts are fairly easy to find if you dig hard enough, why do the Progressives think that they can get away with lying? Eventually, it is going to catch up to them, and the longer they do it with impunity, the more severe the punishment will be when the populace tires of it.
I will politely presume that debunking_the_lies was being sarcastic. Even so, such is the contention of the arrogant ones. Does anyone have a link to a source that (1) lists some of the antis’ claims, (2) shows why they are wrong or misleading, and (3) links to source statistics.
I’ve at times done some research in the past, and can usually find the answers, but it would nice to have the Lott-specific stuff available in one spot (such as the “Facts About Guns” tab on this website.
Does anyone really expect anything serious from Katie Couric? Or honest?
NBC is anti-gun. Simple as that.
Nothing
But
Commies
?
More “Under the Gun” shenanigans from Couric and Co.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/audio-shows-katie-couric-gun-documentary-deceptively-edited-interview-pro-gun-activists/
Just BTW, the link provided for the assertion about Feldman does not support the claim.
From watching Feldman, I;d say he’s a strong supporter of very narrow gun control — he flat out points out that almost no law for “gun control” has had any appreciable effect on criminals.
Well, Ms. Couric & Company’s performance is of a piece with other attempts to rejigger Yahoo, under the current, soon to be ex-leadership.
There’s a huge unwinding of the 3rd party understanding of this, which nets out to: “In over one’s head has no gender.” Neither does forgery in a documentary.