John Lott interview about gun crime.
A1F Daily: Last year, President Barack Obama claimed, “We are
the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence
erupt with this kind of frequency.” And that has become kind of a
rallying cry among anti-gun advocates. What does your research show?
John Lott: It is completely false. And Obama
repeated this claim many times. For example, last year he flatly
claimed: “It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even
close.”
To gun control advocates, if the U.S. would only adopt the types of
gun control laws that exist in other countries, this problem would
supposedly go away. Hillary Clinton made this explicit when she said
mass public shootings “are rooted in the much too readily available
weapons of mass killings, usually assault weapons.”
However, in just 2015, France—a country with one-fifth the population
of the United States—had more casualties from mass public shootings
than the U.S. had during the entire eight years of the Obama presidency
(532 versus 527). And, of course, mass public shootings in France have
occurred regularly over the years. All the weapons used in the 2015
France attacks were already illegal. The eight who attacked various
sites in Paris in November 2015 were armed with automatic AK-47s and
explosive suicide belts. The February 2015 Copenhagen attack was carried
out with an automatic M95 assault rifle. In the January 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo
and a kosher supermarket in Paris, the terrorists were armed with
automatic Kalashnikov rifles, a loaded M42 rocket launcher,
semi-automatic handguns, smoke grenades, Molotov cocktails, a hand
grenade and sticks of dynamite.
Mass public shootings are defined as four or more people killed in a
public place, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not
involving struggles over sovereignty. Using the traditional FBI
definition, the EU and the U.S. each experienced 25 mass shootings
during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency (January 2009 to
December 2015).
The rate at which people were killed was virtually the same: 0.083
per million people in the EU versus 0.089 per million people in the U.S.
But the injury rate in the EU was more than twice as high: 0.19 versus
0.087. The cases are listed in my book, The War on Guns, so people can check each case themselves.
If you compare the U.S. to individual countries in Europe over the
same period, the U.S. had the 11th highest fatality rate. Because of
Anders Breivik’s 2011 attack at a summer camp, Norway had the top
spot—1.9 per million people per year. This rate was 21 times higher than
that of the U.S. But other advanced countries such as France,
Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic also came in above
the U.S.
Looking only at the frequency of attacks—as Obama seems wont to
do—while still adjusting for population, the U.S. came in 12th, with
0.078 per million people.
Compared to the rest of the world, moreover, the U.S. and Europe are
quite safe from mass public shootings. In Russia and elsewhere,
struggles over sovereignty have led to a large number of devastating
attacks. For instance, the 2004 Beslan school siege—carried out in the
name of Chechen independence—claimed 385 lives.
Since 1970, all but one of the 20 worst mass public shootings and 45
of the worst 50 cases occurred outside the United States. Again, I list
the cases in my book so people can check all the cases up through March
2016.
A1F: Do you think those who oppose gun ownership know these facts, or are they simply misled?
Lott: Several things are happening here. Part of the
problem is the media simply don’t give the same coverage to most mass
public shootings in Europe that they give to attacks in the U.S. Part of
it is also that people don’t adjust for population differences across
countries. You can’t compare the U.S. with more than 320 million people
with other countries that may only have 4 million or 8 million people.
As just noted, even France has only a fifth of the U.S. population.
Unfortunately, there is a third problem. There has been clear fraud
and complete incompetence in this area. The study that has gotten the
most media coverage is by Adam Lankford. He reportedly covers the years
1966 to 2012 and claims: “Despite [the U.S.] having less than 5 percent
of the global population, it had 31 percent of global public mass
shooters.”
His claims got uncritical coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today,
Associated Press, “PBS Newshour,” NPR, “ABC Evening News,” Fox News,
and many hundreds of other outlets. In fact, many prominent outlets have
covered the claim repeatedly. It has even received coverage in
countries like Australia, Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Canada, China,
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, India, Iran, Mexico, Peru, Sweden, Turkey,
UK, Vietnam and Cuba.
But when Lankford’s study got massive uncritical media attention he
only shared the paper with reporters, and he required that they didn’t
share it with researchers. Despite the wide publicity given to his
findings, he repeatedly turned down my requests to see his paper. On
Dec. 1, 2015, the Washington Post’s Michelle Lee wrote me: “I
do have a copy but [Lankford] asked that I not distribute it or post it
online before it's formally published. You can contact him and request,
maybe now that his study is being discussed he might be more open to
share?” But I contacted Lankford both before and after Lee’s email—he
declined to provide either the paper or his data.
I finally obtained a copy of Lankford’s paper when it was published
at the end of January 2016 —more than five months after it originally
started getting news attention. Incredibly, even after his paper was
published Lankford still refused to let me look at his list of mass
public shootings from other countries. All I wanted was a list similar
to what I have provided in my book.
At first, I simply hoped that Lankford had discovered some previously
unknown way of collecting these cases. But his paper provides very
little specific information, not even telling us the number of shootings
in more than four foreign countries. No breakdown is provided by
continent. It is hard to believe that Lankford even has such
information, but there is no way of checking his data and seeing what
cases he has missed.
People shouldn’t trust a researcher who refuses to share even the
most basic information behind his research. The fact that he is
unwilling to let anyone check his work shows a bad conscience.
A1F: How much affect does it have on the debate when someone
like Obama makes such a statement and the media don’t even check to see
if it is true?
Lott: For the president of the United States to keep
repeating this claim over and over again in public—and for the media to
give massive coverage reporting Adam Lankford’s work without
interviewing any critics of it—these things surely have an impact on the
debate. I frequently hear reporters and legislators repeat these
claims. I have a list of mass public shootings in other countries with
strict gun control available so that those advocating gun control can
check the cases themselves and see how many are occurring around the
rest of the world.
A1F: What do you think is the most important thing people should understand about this topic?
Lott: The most important thing is how these mass
public shooters pick targets where they know that victims can’t defend
themselves. Over 98 percent of the mass public shootings in the U.S.
since at least 1950 have occurred in “gun-free zones,” places where
general citizens aren’t allowed to defend themselves. All the mass
public shootings in Europe and Canada have occurred in these gun-free
zones.
It is hard to ignore the explicit statements made by
these killers when they have explained why they have picked the targets
that they have. These killers pick places where people won’t have guns
to protect themselves and others.
Last year, a young ISIS sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the
largest churches in Detroit. An FBI wire recorded him explaining why he
had targeted the church: “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus
people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the
news.” Fortunately, that ISIS sympathizer ended up being only a would-be
shooter. But, during the last couple of years, shooters have made
similar statements after attacking a church in Charleston, S.C., a movie
theater in Aurora, Colo., and a sorority house in Santa Barbara,
Calif.
Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but they have an
extremely difficult time stopping terrorist attacks. A uniformed officer
might as well be wearing a neon sign saying, “Shoot me first.” But with
concealed permit holders possibly being present, terrorists have a much
more difficult job when they reveal themselves. Consequently, police
officers can breath easier.
A1F: Given these facts, what do you think is the most important thing people should do?
Lott: People need to make sure that they are
informed. Getting rid of gun-free zones is extremely important. I would
argue that it is the most important legislation to get passed as quickly
as possible. Whether it is gun-free zones on college campuses or
government buildings, gun control advocates claim disasters will occur
if people are allowed to carry concealed handguns. But gun control
advocates greatest fear is that these gun-free zones actually will be
eliminated and people will find out that the gun control advocates’
claims never happen.
For other important information dealing with gun control and the Second Amendment, check out John Lott’s newest book, The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. You can order The War On Guns directly from Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com.
