Texas recently passed legislation that allows people with concealed carry permits to legally carry on public college campuses, just as they are allowed to carry on most of the rest of the public land in Texas, including the State Capitol. This legislation follows a trend that has been occurring for several years. Eleven states now forbid public colleges and universities from banning the carry by licensed individuals, on campus property, with variations among the states. Michigan is currently considering such legislation to remove the bans on carry that have been imposed by numerous, unelected college administrations. John Lott was invited to testify before the legislature . . .
His testimony was absolutely devastating to those who wish to maintain infringements on the right to bear arms in Michigan. In the testimony, John Lott made three clear, unequivocal points.
1. People with concealed carry permits are an exceptionally law abiding and safe group. They are 5-6 times a law abiding as police officers. College age members of this group are as law abiding older members who have permits.
2. Permit holders have a record of exceptional safety inside school areas that were gun free zones, but which no longer ban permit holders.
3. Removing the ban on permit holders offers significant benefits. Gun free zones attract rampage killers. Of the rampage murders that fit the definition since 1950, all but two occurred in gun free zones. A Democrat legislator disputed that fact, John Lott responded and destroyed his allegation.
The video is a little over half an hour long. John Lott is a master of the facts and gives a brilliant presentation. It is well worth watching.
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included. Link to Gun Watch
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in states where no “permit” is required. I don’t think the “permit” is the reason most of the ordinary people who carry a gun don’t commit the crimes. I think it’s because most of us are ordinary people who have no desire to harm others. The piece of paper is irrelevant to that.
This is so true. I have, over the years before government permission slips were available, and in some locations since then (allegedly) carried concealed weapons in violation of the unconstitutional laws in place at those locations. To date I have never committed any crime with any of those (alleged) weapons other than the “mala prohibitum” legislation.
Is Lott really a reliable expert, though? Didn’t he get caught pretending to be a female reviewer of one of his books or something like that, and aren’t most of the things he talks about speculative? On the last point that’s understandable due to the political quagmire that makes collection of statistical data difficult in some areas.
Well, it didn’t take very long before someone who could not refute the actual data tries to attempt character assassination on the presenter of that data.
Yes, he posted a fake review of his book, but his data set is available for peer review, and his results have been researched by at least 12 other studies and essentially confirmed. He constantly updates his data set. So his results are more rigorous that anyone else.
He is still a reliable expert. Certainly much, much more so than the likes of ideological hacks like Hemenway and his ilk. Infinitely more so than academics like Michael Bellisiles, whose prizes were revoked, his tenure removed, his pensions cut, and was rightly fired from his cushy job for the hyper-partisan political hack piece “Arming America.” Clayton E. Cramer, historian and gun control opponent, won a prize himself for thoroughly debunking the book and discrediting its author.
To his credit, Lott at least admitted to the ruse, apologized profusely for it, and never repeated such deplorable behavior. Also, all of his data has always been available for peer-review, is constantly being updated, and his data his survived virtually intact through every round of peer review it has been put through.
“Also, all of his data has always been available for peer-review, is constantly being updated, and his data his survived virtually intact through every round of peer review it has been put through.”
And, significantly, found “intact” by many who would LOVE to discredit his data.
Lott’s work is as solid as it comes.
Bummer. Dr. Lott got quite a bit off track in regards to the Clackamas Town Center shooting. It is well documented that a CHL holder, more likely than not, stopped that shooting. It was not at a school.
Was he referring to the the Clackamas or the Umpqua shooting? For some reason, I thought it was the Umpqua shooting.
For some reason, as I understand it, Dr. Lott is still a Democrat. WTF? Other than that, I love this guy!
Governor Rick Snyder has already promised to veto the legislation. Unless a veto-proof majority saves it, my right to defend myself when I’m on a college campus will continue to be denied.
I don’t know if he’s up for re-election when the next gubernatorial election comes up, but if he is, I ain’t voting for him again.
Michigan limits governors to two terms and Snyder is already serving his second term. He cannot run in the next election.
Sadly, he still sounds like an economist. Perhaps he could take some speaking tips from a Southern preacher. 8>)
Hopkins’ resident gun-grabber thinks he debunked Lott’s testimony:
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/11/guns_everywhere_bill_goes_agai.html
Very unflattering camera angle for the hair impaired.
“A Democrat legislator disputed that fact, John Lott responded and destroyed his allegation.”
Of course, Prof. Lott did. He’s a thoroughgoing expert on this subject. He’d demolish any opposition, even if his own point were weak or possibly invalid. He’s just that good. Fortunately, he doesn’t need to outmaneuver the opposition with rhetoric or logical legerdemain, as facts and philosophy are already on his side. Still, with his command of the subject matter, he could easily baffle these dilettantes with B.S. if he wanted.
It’s a lot easier than constantly going out on different dates and getting disappointed. This way, you can talk to the person, and if you don’t like it, you’re not https://hookupguide.org/ obligated to do anything. You don’t have to continue writing to them, and you don’t have to waste your time going out with them if you don’t want to. You can use that time in searching for other, more compatible individuals.