[jmf552]

Everyone here should know the name John Lott as the source of most of the reliable pro-gun statistics we have. The video below is from a year ago, but I hadn't see it and hadn't heard some key statistics he presented. One thing I was amazed about is this guy's credentials. He is not just some loose cannon researcher putting out biased statistics. He has been a prof at multiple big-time universities and is a consultant to DOJ and other government entities. In the video he presents some great information on why the media does not cover gun issues in a balanced fashion, and gives many concrete examples.

What I focused on though, was a few stats he presented that I guess I should have known, but really stunned me.

• About 95% of Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) only involve brandishing. No shots fired. I did not think it was that high. My thought is that hopefully in most of those cases, the sight of the gun alone solved the situation.
• Only about 1% of DGUs involve someone getting injured or killed. So by elimination, I took that to mean in 4% of DGUs, so one in five of the DGUs where shots are actually fired, nobody gets hit. My thought is that hopefully in most of those cases, the shots alone solved the situation. But I also think it highlights the need for training.
• 92% of violent crime does not involve firearms. This highlighted to me the idiocy of the left only focusing on the 8% that does. Again, I did not realize it was as high as 92%.
• The government brags about NICS preventing 3.8 million criminals from getting guns since its inception. Lott says that what they fail to say is what they really mean is they rejected 3.8 million applications, but about 99% of those were in error. I found out on the GAO site that the GAO says that only a very tiny percentage of rejections are ever prosecuted. The GAO says that the main reason is that it is not worth LE's time to pursue. I doubt that. I think it is because most of the time, there is an error and they have no case.
• Lott compared two states next to each other, IL and IN. One under Dem control, one under Republican control. The whole IL permitting process to carry runs about $450. Only about 3% of people in IL have permits. IN does not charge for permits unless you want a lifetime permit. About 20% of people in IN have permits. In IL, the permits are disproportionately held by middle- and upper-income white males. In IN, permit holders are much more diverse in terms of race, gender and economic situation. He said this dichotomy is typical of states with restrictive vs non-restrictive carry laws, even though SCOTUS says we all should have the right to carry.

Anyhow that's what I found interesting.

 

[SlowPoke Rodriguez]

How old is this data?

 

[OneGunTX]

Thank you for sharing. This is good information.

 

[jmf552]

How old is this data?

You'd have to ask Lott. He presented it as current on the attached video, which was a year ago. My guess is that the data is from 2021. He tends to use stats that cover calendar years. Since the video was done in 2022, that would be the last year that was closed out. But I doubt there are huge swings year to year in that kind of data.

 

[GpTom]

Statistics don't show the real picture. The reason why more whites in Illinois have carry permits than any other race isn't because we are the only one carrying weapons. We as whites are the only ones who are coughing up the $450 for the permit. The rest of the population carry without a permit because they don't spend a lot of money just to be legal.
Yes Illinois would have more llegal permit holders if it didn't cost as much to get that permit. I have argued for a long time that the man who is supporting a large family on a smaller income can't afford to take advantage of his second amendment rights in Illinois.

 

[jmf552]

Statistics don't show the real picture. The reason why more whites in Illinois have carry permits than any other race isn't because we are the only one carrying weapons. We as whites are the only ones who are coughing up the $450 for the permit. The rest of the population carry without a permit because they don't spend a lot of money just to be legal.
Yes Illinois would have more llegal permit holders if it didn't cost as much to get that permit. I have argued for a long time that the man who is supporting a large family on a smaller income can't afford to take advantage of his second amendment rights in Illinois.

That is exactly the argument that Lott was trying to prove with his stats in the video. FWIW, I just turned my non-res IL permit back in to the state police. It was expiring and I no longer travel to IL and I didn't want to spend the $300 to renew it.

 

[Hoganbeg]

The MSM has been ignoring John Lott for a long time now much to our detriment as a well-informed republic.

 

[NECCdude]

Interesting that a web search brings up articles that discredit Lott while others are praising him. It doesn't surprise me since a lot of people will only accept stuff that goes along with their beliefs. I'm going to look at the articles more closely and decide for myself who is believable.

 

[Tenncvol]

Some time ago, I was reading an article about defensive use of firearms, and the author inserted the word "debunked" in front of his name. Of course no reason for added word, but antis dont play fair.

 

[Cornhusker95]

Didnt he play safety for the 49ers in the Joe Montana era?

 

[jmf552]

Some other interesting stats from Lott's website, all current as of the end of 2022:

• The number of CC permits is 22.01 million – a 2.3% increase since last year
• Women made up 29.2% of permit holders in the 15 states that provide data by gender
• Twenty-five states have adopted Constitutional Carry for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these Constitutional Carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry.
• 8.5% of American adults have permits. Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 10.2% of adults have a permit.

 

[Bad Bob]

How old is this data?

 

[gasmitty]

Statistics don't show the real picture. The reason why more whites in Illinois have carry permits than any other race isn't because we are the only one carrying weapons. We as whites are the only ones who are coughing up the $450 for the permit. The rest of the population carry without a permit because they don't spend a lot of money just to be legal.
Yes Illinois would have more llegal permit holders if it didn't cost as much to get that permit. I have argued for a long time that the man who is supporting a large family on a smaller income can't afford to take advantage of his second amendment rights in Illinois.

You touched on an issue that dates back to the "ban Saturday Night Specials" push of the late 20th century. So-called Saturday Night Specials were essentially junk guns, cheaply made or old and abused. The SNS "problem" pretty much collapsed under its own weight since the "antis" began to understand that junk guns proliferated in high-crime areas because the people living in those areas couldn't afford better hardware. Pursuing that particular anti-gun strategy penalized the "economically disadvantaged" who were typically racial minorities in urban areas. Of course that didn't deter the antis, they just changed their marketing approach to use other catchy terms like "gun violence."

 

[Havok]

Sounds about right. To the point about the left focusing on the 8% of crime, they are not trying to reduce crime. They want MORE crime. I believe it was also Lott who said that guns are used more often in defense from crimes than the commission of them.

 

[Bad Bob]

You touched on an issue that dates back to the "ban Saturday Night Specials" push of the late 20th century. So-called Saturday Night Specials were essentially junk guns, cheaply made or old and abused. The SNS "problem" pretty much collapsed under its own weight since the "antis" began to understand that junk guns proliferated in high-crime areas because the people living in those areas couldn't afford better hardware. Pursuing that particular anti-gun strategy penalized the "economically disadvantaged" who were typically racial minorities in urban areas. Of course that didn't deter the antis, they just changed their marketing approach to use other catchy terms like "gun violence."

I was a street cop when the thugs made the shift from SNS to Glocks.... It was not a fun time.

 

[DownInTheDark]

I was a street cop when the thugs made the shift from SNS to Glocks.... It was not a fun time.

Nowadays on the not so mean streets of Eastern Montana, its usually an M&P Shield, or Taurus. Can't say I've come across a Hi-Point yet.

 

[wvtire]

Didnt he play safety for the 49ers in the Joe Montana era?

I think that was Ronnie.

 

[Glock2201]

Statistics don't show the real picture. The reason why more whites in Illinois have carry permits than any other race isn't because we are the only one carrying weapons. We as whites are the only ones who are coughing up the $450 for the permit. The rest of the population carry without a permit because they don't spend a lot of money just to be legal.
Yes Illinois would have more llegal permit holders if it didn't cost as much to get that permit. I have argued for a long time that the man who is supporting a large family on a smaller income can't afford to take advantage of his second amendment rights in Illinois.

$450 for a permit? That is crazy and you are right that it only means a lot of people are carrying without it. How long is it before you have to renew the permit?

 

[Cornhusker95]

I think that was Ronnie.

Lol...i cant believe nobody caught that earlier

 

[jmf552]

$450 for a permit? That is crazy and you are right that it only means a lot of people are carrying without it. How long is it before you have to renew the permit?

IL permits are good for five years. The actual fee for the permit is $250 resident and $300 non-res. But residents need to first get a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) before they can apply for the carry permit and you have to pay for that. Then both res and non res have to go through a day long course that is classroom in the morning and range time in the afternoon. I think the $450 is everything you going to spend beginning to end. You even have to take some training when you renew.

My IL non-res expires this month and I just turned it in and told them I am not renewing. I no longer travel through IL and it is isn't work the cost and hassle.