The War on Guns Quotes

Rate this book
Clear rating
The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies by John R. Lott Jr.
117 ratings, 4.32 average rating, 16 reviews
The War on Guns Quotes Showing 1-30 of 91
“Former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard wrote in the New York Times in 2013, “[T]here is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996.”2 But the impact of Australia’s gun buyback in 1996–97 is a lot less obvious than most might think. The buyback resulted in more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, reducing gun ownership from 3.2 to 2.2 million guns. But since then there has been a steady increase in the number of privately owned guns. By 2010, the total number of privately owned guns was back to the 1996 level.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“The world recoiled in horror in 2012 when 20 Connecticut schoolchildren and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. . . . The weapon was a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle adapted from its original role as a battlefield weapon. The AR-15, which is designed to inflict maximum casualties with rapid bursts, should never have been available for purchase by civilians (emphasis added).1 —New York Times editorial, March 4, 2016 Assault weapons were banned for 10 years until Congress, in bipartisan obeisance to the gun lobby, let the law lapse in 2004. As a result, gun manufacturers have been allowed to sell all manner of war weaponry to civilians, including the super destructive .50-caliber sniper rifle. . . .(emphasis added)2 —New York Times editorial, December 11, 2015 [James Holmes the Aurora, Colorado Batman Movie Theater Shooter] also bought bulletproof vests and other tactical gear” (emphasis added).3 —New York Times, July 22, 2012 It is hard to debate guns if you don’t know much about the subject. But it is probably not too surprising that gun control advocates who live in New York City know very little about guns. Semi-automatic guns don’t fire “rapid bursts” of bullets. The New York Times might be fearful of .50-caliber sniper rifles, but these bolt-action .50-caliber rifles were never covered by the federal assault weapons ban. “Urban assault vests” may sound like they are bulletproof, but they are made of nylon. These are just a few of the many errors that the New York Times made.4 If it really believes that it has a strong case, it wouldn’t feel the need to constantly hype its claims. What distinguishes the New York Times is that it doesn’t bother running corrections for these errors.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“The Batman movie theater killer, James Holmes, initially considered attacking an airport. In his diary, which was released in 2015, he explained his decision against targeting the airport because of “substantial security.”23 He then selected the only theater within twenty minutes of his apartment that banned permitted concealed handguns.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“I was at the University of Chicago Law School when Obama was a part-time lecturer. He told me in 1996, “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.” I am not surprised at many of the rules he’s trying to implement, often in underhanded ways.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Obama has even sought to prohibit gun purchases by Social Security recipients who have trouble managing their finances. The push is for these individuals to be classified as “mentally defective.” Some 4.2 million Social Security recipients could be affected”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“it might be time to correct some of the massive flaws in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The biggest problem is that virtually everyone who is stopped from buying a gun is a false-positive. This means that someone is stopped from buying a gun just because his name resembles that of someone who is on the government’s list of prohibited people.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Democrats are unwilling to admit that their gun control regulations are disarming poor Americans. President Obama characterizes Voter ID laws that offer free IDs as “voter suppression laws,”31 but sees no irony in imposing much greater inconveniences and costs on prospective gun owners.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“It is very hard to look at the raw data on firearm suicides and homicides and see any benefits from Australia’s gun buyback. In 2004, the U.S. National Research Council released a report reaching this same conclusion: “It is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.”10 Australia’s buyback program was only one experiment, and we can’t account for all of the other factors that may have come into play. The solution is then to look across many different states or countries and try to discern overall patterns. The U.S. data is clear: laws that restrict gun ownership adversely affect people’s safety. Police are extremely important in reducing crime—my research indicates that they are the single most important factor. But police themselves understand that they almost always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has occurred. Behaving passively is definitely not the safest course of action to take.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“In January 2016, President Obama held a town hall event on CNN to explain his newest push for gun control. Rape victim Kimberly Corban had this exchange with Obama:33 Corban: As a survivor of rape, and now a mother to two small children—you know, it seems like being able to purchase a firearm of my choosing, and being able to carry that wherever my—me and my family are—it seems like my basic responsibility as a parent at this point. I have been unspeakably victimized once already, and I refuse to let that happen again to myself or my kids. So why can’t your administration see that these restrictions that you’re putting to make it harder for me to own a gun, or harder for me to take that where I need to be is actually just making my kids and I less safe? Obama: . . . I just want to repeat that there’s nothing that we’ve proposed that would make it harder for you to purchase a firearm. . . . Obama’s response was clearly false. Washington D.C.’s expanded background checks impose a $125 cost to privately transferring ownership of a gun.34 These background checks cost less in some states, but even a sixty dollar fee can make the difference for less affluent Americans.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Even Senator Bernie Sanders recognized the possible consequences of such action. “What you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America,” he said with some hyperbole in a presidential debate with Clinton.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“To do just that, Bill Landes (University of Chicago Law School) and I collected data on all multiple victim public shootings in all the United States from 1977 to 1999.7 We examined thirteen different gun control policies including: waiting periods, registration, background checks, bans on assault weapons and other guns, the death penalty, and harsher penalties for committing a crime with a firearm. But only one policy reduced the number and severity of mass public shootings: allowing victims to defend themselves with permitted concealed handguns.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Hillary and Senator Murphy may claim that they care about the poor, but poor people in the highest-crime areas are the most likely to be priced out of owning guns for protection.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“There is a clear consensus among economists about self-defense, gun-free zones, firearms and suicide, and concealed handgun laws. Among North American economists:          •    Eighty-eight percent say that guns are more frequently “used in self-defense than they are used in the commission of crime.”          •    Ninety-one percent believe that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.”          •    Seventy-two percent do not agree that “a gun in the home causes an increase in the risk of suicide.”          •    Ninety-one percent say that “concealed handgun permit holders are much more law-abiding than the typical American.”          •    Eighty-one percent say that permitted concealed handguns lower the murder rate. After including all those who have published worldwide, these percentages fall by between three and eight percentage points. But the numbers are still quite high, and largely mirror the literature surveys on concealed carry laws.15”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“In 2004, the U.S. National Research Council released a report reaching this same conclusion: “It is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“But it is probably not too surprising that gun control advocates who live in New York City know very little about guns. Semi-automatic guns don’t fire “rapid bursts” of bullets. The New York Times might be fearful of .50-caliber sniper rifles, but these bolt-action .50-caliber rifles were never covered by the federal assault weapons ban. “Urban assault vests” may sound like they are bulletproof, but they are made of nylon. These are just a few of the many errors that the New York Times made.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Maybe this doctor should have asked about the family bathtubs instead of the family guns. Because, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 346 children under age five drowned in bathtubs between 2006 and 2010.2 By contrast, only ninety-four children under five died from accidental gunshots over the same period.3 That is a difference of nearly a factor of four. In fact, more children under five died from drowning in bathtubs than children under ten or even under fifteen from accidental gun shots (167 and 291 respectively).”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“What we do find is that fatalities and injuries from mass public shootings increased in states after they imposed background checks on private transfers. States with background checks on private transfers tended to have relatively low rates of murders and injuries from mass public shootings before the passage of background checks on private transfers, and these rates became relatively high afterwards.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“As to the “super destructive .50-caliber sniper rifle,” not only does the New York Times editorial get the law wrong, but it somehow neglects to mention that these guns have never been used to murder anyone, let alone used in the mass shootings that the editorial was discussing.7 Part of the reason for them not being used in crimes is that these guns are extremely expensive (at least $4,000), big, and very heavy (nearly four feet long and weighing twenty-seven pounds).”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“When it comes to television advertising, Michael Bloomberg out-spends the NRA and all other self-defense groups by 6.3 to one. The money produces political attack ads that accuse supporters of right-to-carry on college campuses of “allowing criminals to carry hidden, loaded guns in our schools.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Despite the continual calls for expanded background checks after mass public shootings, there is no evidence that background checks on private transfers of guns would have prevented any of the attacks. Nor is there any statistical evidence that indicates that these mass public shootings are rarer in states with background checks on private transfers. What we do find is that fatalities and injuries from mass public shootings increased in states after they imposed background checks on private transfers. States with background checks on private transfers tended to have relatively low rates of murders and injuries from mass public shootings before the passage of background checks on private transfers, and these rates became relatively high afterwards. Clearly, there is no evidence that these laws lower mass public shootings. There are real costs of expanding background checks to private transfers. In particular, the fees on private transfers reduce gun ownership, particularly among law-abiding poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas and who benefit the most from protecting themselves; they will be the ones most likely priced out of owning guns for protection. Without some benefits in terms of either reduced crime or mass public shootings, it is hard to see how these rules pass any type of cost-benefit test.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“In a study that I did on the years 1995–2001, I found that children under ten were involved in an average of only nine such shootings per year.7 Overwhelmingly, the shooters are adult males with alcohol addictions, suspended or revoked driver’s licenses, and a record of arrests for violent crimes.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“No matter how you look at it, Obama is wrong in saying that America leads the world in mass public shootings. It is wrong even when we look at mass public shootings as they are traditionally defined: four or more deaths in a public place. Many European countries actually have higher rates of death from mass public shootings. It is simply a matter of adjusting for America’s much larger population. Norway, after all, only has a population of 5 million people.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“Many gun control academics use language that is hardly scholarly, attacking academics they disagree with as being paid off by the “execrable NRA.” They claim that “gun sellers call the shots at the NRA.”5 They accuse others of having “blood on [their] hands” or being a “blight on democracy.” Apparently, finding evidence of defensive gun uses brings “harm to the democratic process.”6 There are other less obvious claims that are just as outrageous. No, the United States isn’t unique in terms of mass public shootings or homicides. No, gun bans don’t make people safer. Background checks on private transfers haven’t stopped mass public shootings or any other type of crime in the U.S. or other countries. Background checks are racist. And there are real problems with background checks that harm the most vulnerable. Gun control advocates have it backwards when they claim that gun makers have something to learn about how to reduce accidents from looking at government regulation of cars.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“But the fact is that it’s virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining the magazines they want. Magazines, large or small, are trivially easy to make. They are just boxes with springs, and can be made with the most simple tools. The advent of 3D printers has made them even easier to make. There’s no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines holding more than ten bullets. Even the left-leaning Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“For all the emphasis on assault weapons, 68 percent of mass public shootings did not involve any long guns (Figure 2). Eighty-four percent of shootings involved handguns, 24 percent rifles, and 20 percent shotguns (more than one type of weapon can be used in an attack). FIGURE 2”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“in Canada, Hawaii, Chicago, or Washington, D.C., police are unable to point to a single instance of gun registration aiding the investigation of a violent crime. In a 2013 deposition, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that the department could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”1 The idea behind a registry is that guns left at a crime scene can be used to trace back to the criminals. Unfortunately, guns are very rarely left at the scene of the crime. Those that are left behind are virtually never registered—criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind guns registered to them. In the few cases where registered guns were left at the scene, the criminal had usually been killed or seriously injured. Canada keeps some of the most thorough data on gun registration. From 2003 to 2009, a weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the country’s 1,314 firearm homicides. Of these identified weapons, only about a quarter were registered. Roughly half of these registered guns were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just sixty-two cases—4.7 percent of all firearm homicides—was the gun identified as being registered to the accused. Since most Canadian homicides are not committed with a gun, these sixty-two cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides. From 2003 to 2009, there were only sixty-two cases—just nine a year—where registration made any conceivable difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. Despite a handgun registry in effect since 1934, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case. No more successful was the long-gun registry that started in 1997 and cost Canadians $2.7 billion before being scrapped. In February 2000, I testified before the Hawaii State Senate joint hearing between the Judiciary and Transportation committees on changes that were being proposed to the state gun registration laws.2 I suggested two questions to the state senators: (1) how many crimes had been solved by their current registration and licensing system, and (2) how much time did it currently take police to register guns? The Honolulu police chief was notified in advance about those questions to give him time to research them. He told the committee that he could not point to any crimes that had been solved by registration, and he estimated that his officers spent over 50,000 hours each year on registering guns. But those aren’t the only failings of gun registration. Ballistic fingerprinting was all the rage fifteen years ago. This process requires keeping a database of the markings that a particular gun makes on a bullet—its unique fingerprint, so to speak. Maryland led the way in ballistic investigation, and New York soon followed. The days of criminal gun use were supposedly numbered. It didn’t work.3 Registering guns’ ballistic fingerprints never solved a single crime. New York scrapped its program in 2012.4 In November 2015, Maryland announced it would be doing the same.5 But the programs were costly. Between 2000 and 2004, Maryland spent at least $2.5 million setting up and operating its computer database.6 In New York, the total cost of the program was about $40 million.7 Whether one is talking about D.C., Canada, or these other jurisdictions, think of all the other police activities that this money could have funded. How many more police officers could have been hired? How many more crimes could have been solved? A 2005 Maryland State Police report labeled the operation “ineffective and expensive.”8 These programs didn’t work.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“On December 10, 1998, Daley had organized a conference with four other mayors to discuss suing the gun makers. Because of my book More Guns, Less Crime, which argued that Daley’s gun laws did more harm than good, reporters from the local CBS and Fox stations who were already at the conference asked me to meet them to talk about the lawsuits. I had originally planned to arrive after the mayors had finished their post-conference presentations. But the mayors were running behind schedule when I arrived, so CBS reporter Mike Flannery suggested that I attend the presentations. That way, I could better answer any questions that he might have. The presentations were followed by a question-and-answer period with press, some students, and others in the audience. When the audience started yelling questions, I raised my hand in an attempt to get called on. At that point a woman walked over to me and asked me if I was John Lott from the University of Chicago. I said that I was, and she informed me that I was not allowed to ask any questions. No explanation was given. Some audience members took notice.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“After the phone call from Daley, the University of Chicago presented me with my two termination options. I wrote back to Dean Fischel—whom I believed I had been on good terms with—that I was “stunned and shocked at being requested to resign.” I told him that I had gone to the conference simply to answer reporters’ questions about my research. I asked him whether, if I took the second option, I could still talk about my book and other research. Fischel responded, “I cannot give you a specific answer to your questions.” He noted, “With respect [to] damage to your reputation, many think you have only yourself to blame by winding up in a public confrontation at the mayor’s press conference.” He added in a later email: “If you cannot make yourself for all practical purposes invisible (at least in terms of any mention of the university), you should resign.” I took the second option and completely stopped talking to the media for over three months.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“The infamous 2015 Charleston, South Carolina church shooting was originally going to be a college shooting. But Dylann Roof changed plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies
“I ran into similar, though less dramatic events after moving to Yale Law School, where I spent two years as a Senior Research Scholar. Hawaii’s two Democratic U.S. Senators once contacted the law school to complain about testimony that I gave before the Hawaii state legislature. They blamed me for somehow single-handedly scuttling the new gun registration laws that were being considered. The associate dean of the law school called me up about the complaints and grilled me about my testimony. I am certain that neither of these incidents would have occurred if I had been on the other side the gun debate. Over the years, many academics have told me that they would have studied gun control if not for fear of damage to their careers. They didn’t want to run the risk of coming out on the wrong side of the debate. From my experience, that is understandable. Eventually, I was forced out of academia. There is only an abundance of funding for those researchers who support gun control. There is a war on guns. Just like with any war there are real casualties. Police are probably the single most important factor in reducing crime, but police themselves understand that they almost always show up at the crime scene after the crime has been committed. When the police can’t be there, guns are by far the most effective way for people to protect themselves from criminals. And the most vulnerable people are the ones who benefit the most from being able to protect themselves: women and the elderly, people who are relatively weaker physically, as well as poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas—the most likely victims of violent crime. When gun control advocates can’t simply ban guns outright, they impose high fees and taxes on guns. When the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, had their handgun ban struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge in March 2016, they passed a $1,000 excise tax on guns—a tax they hoped would serve as a model for the rest of the U.S.8 I hope that this book provides the ammunition people need for some of the major battles ahead. We must fight to keep people safe.”
John R. Lott Jr., The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies

« previous 1 3 4