John Lott, a well-known gun rights researcher and economist, has stirred debate with his assertion that law-abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms are more effective at stopping mass shootings than police officers. In a recent article published in The Federalist, Lott cited data from his Crime Prevention Research Center, claiming that between 2014 and 2023, armed civilians with concealed carry permits intervened in 51.5% of active shooter incidents nationwide, compared to 44.6% stopped by law enforcement. This statistic has fueled arguments from gun rights advocates like Mark Jones, a Buffalo, Wyoming resident and national director for Gun Owners of America (GOA), who sees it as validation of Wyoming’s decision to repeal its gun-free zones. Jones argues that Lott’s findings prove armed citizens act as a critical deterrent to violent crime, especially since mass shooters often target locations where they expect little resistance.
Wyoming’s repeal of gun-free zones, set to take effect on July 1, 2025, stems from years of legislative battles influenced by Lott’s research. His work, particularly his claim that up to 94% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, has been a rallying cry for Wyoming lawmakers and citizens pushing to eliminate these restrictions. Over multiple legislative sessions, bills targeting gun-free zones gained momentum, with Lott’s data frequently cited in hearings and public forums. The tipping point came with House Bill 172, introduced in early 2025. During a February 18 committee debate, Lott appeared via Zoom to defend his methodology but was cut off after exceeding the two-minute testimony limit. The bill passed both the House and Senate, and on February 27, Governor Mark Gordon allowed it to become law without his signature, though he sharply criticized it as an overreach by legislators seeking to consolidate power. Gordon’s reluctance reflects broader tensions in Wyoming, a state with a strong libertarian streak and a deep-rooted gun culture, where gun ownership is among the highest per capita in the U.S.
Lott’s influence extends beyond Wyoming. His 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime popularized the idea that armed civilians reduce crime rates, a theory that has shaped gun policy debates across the country. Jones, aligning with this view, insists that Wyoming’s move is not an anomaly but part of a growing recognition among states that armed citizens can thwart mass shooters and other criminals. He pointed to states like Texas and Tennessee, which have also loosened gun restrictions in recent years, as evidence of a shifting tide. Jones further argued that gun-control advocates distort mass shooting statistics by lumping in incidents like gang violence or drug-related shootouts, which he says skews the narrative. “When you focus on the real numbers,” he said, “it’s clear that good guys with guns save lives.”
In contrast, Devin Hughes, founder and president of GVPedia—a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit focused on gun violence research—challenges Lott’s conclusions as fundamentally flawed. Hughes accuses Lott of cherry-picking incidents where firearms were used defensively while ignoring cases where guns escalate violence or fail to prevent harm. According to Hughes’s analysis, armed civilians successfully stop only about 4% of mass shootings when a comprehensive dataset is considered, a stark contrast to Lott’s 51.5% figure. He attributes the surge in concealed carry permits—now issued in over 20 states without requiring extensive background checks or training—to a “disinformation campaign” by the gun lobby, including groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and GOA. Hughes argues that this push misleads the public into believing firearms enhance safety, when in reality, they often amplify risks.
Hughes paints a grim picture of an “arms race” fueled by widespread gun ownership. He contends that as more civilians carry weapons, criminals respond by arming themselves more heavily, increasing the potential for deadly encounters. This dynamic, he says, mirrors the escalation seen in urban gang conflicts, where both sides end up “armed to the teeth,” driving up bloodshed. Hughes also highlights a practical concern: unlike police officers, who undergo regular training in marksmanship, situational awareness, and de-escalation tactics, most concealed carry permit holders lack comparable preparation. “A civilian with a gun might mean well,” he said, “but without the skills to handle a chaotic, high-stakes situation, they’re as likely to make things worse as better.”
The clash between Lott and Hughes reflects a broader national divide over gun policy, intensified by high-profile mass shootings and rising violent crime rates in recent years. Wyoming, with its rural landscape and fiercely independent ethos, has become a testing ground for Lott’s theories, cheered by advocates like Jones who see the repeal of gun-free zones as a triumph for self-reliance. Critics, however, warn that the state risks becoming a case study in the perils of unchecked firearm proliferation. As the July 1 implementation date nears, both sides are gearing up for a real-world experiment that could shape the gun debate for years to come.
COMMENTARY:
Here’s a 15-paragraph commentary supporting John Lott’s research and perspective while critiquing anti-gun arguments, written in my own voice as an opinion piece. It reflects agreement with Lott’s findings and emphasizes why I believe he’s correct, while addressing and refuting the opposing view.
John Lott’s research on armed citizens stopping mass shootings is a breath of fresh air in a debate too often clouded by emotion and misinformation. His data showing that concealed carry permit holders intervened in 51.5% of active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, outpacing police at 44.6%, isn’t just a statistic—it’s a revelation. I agree with Lott because this evidence aligns with common sense: when law-abiding people are armed, they can act swiftly where police can’t always be. The idea that civilians can be the first line of defense isn’t fantasy; it’s reality backed by numbers.
Lott’s claim that 94% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones further cements his case. I see this as undeniable proof that killers seek out soft targets—places where they know resistance will be minimal. Wyoming’s repeal of gun-free zones, effective July 1, 2025, is a bold step in the right direction, and Lott’s work gives it a solid foundation. I’m convinced he’s right because these zones don’t deter criminals; they invite them, advertising vulnerability like a neon sign.
Anti-gun advocates like Devin Hughes argue that Lott’s research is flawed, cherry-picking incidents to inflate his numbers. I find this critique laughably weak. Hughes claims armed citizens only stop 4% of mass shootings, but his broader definition—lumping in gang shootouts and road rage—muddies the waters. Lott focuses on active shooter scenarios, the kind that terrify communities, and that’s where his 51.5% shines. The anti-gun crowd’s attempt to dilute this with irrelevant data reeks of desperation.
I’m particularly struck by how Lott’s findings in More Guns, Less Crime resonate with real-world outcomes. States with higher concealed carry rates often see lower violent crime—Wyoming’s gun-friendly culture is a testament to this. I agree with him because the logic is straightforward: criminals hesitate when they know their victims might fight back. Anti-gun folks ignore this deterrence effect, clinging to a fantasy where disarming the good guys somehow stops the bad ones.
Hughes and his ilk push the “arms race” narrative, warning that more guns mean more bloodshed. I think this is nonsense. Criminals don’t arm up because citizens carry; they’re already armed because they’re criminals. The idea that law-abiding people with permits escalate violence is a baseless scare tactic. Lott’s data shows these citizens end threats, not start them—51.5% isn’t a fluke, it’s a pattern.
Another anti-gun argument I reject is the training gap. Hughes moans that civilians lack police-level skills in shooting and de-escalation. I say: so what? A concealed carrier doesn’t need to be a SWAT officer to stop a shooter—pointing and firing in a crisis isn’t rocket science. Lott’s stats prove these civilians succeed, often faster than police who arrive minutes later. The anti-gun obsession with professional training overlooks the raw courage and instinct of ordinary people.
Wyoming’s repeal of gun-free zones, backed by Lott’s research, feels like a victory for reason. I agree with him that these zones are magnets for mayhem—94% isn’t a coincidence, it’s a warning. Anti-gun advocates claim this repeal will unleash chaos, but where’s their evidence? They lean on vague fears, while Lott brings hard numbers. I’d rather trust data than dread.
The anti-gun crowd loves to paint firearms as the problem, not the solution. I find this myopic. Lott shows that armed citizens aren’t escalating danger—they’re neutralizing it. Hughes’s 4% figure might sound damning, but it’s a distortion, ignoring context. I side with Lott because his focus on active shootings cuts through the noise, revealing who really stops these tragedies.
Lott’s detractors accuse him of bias, saying he’s a gun lobby shill. I call foul. His work stands on its own—decades of data, not dogma. Anti-gun groups like GVPedia, Hughes’s outfit, have their own agenda, cherry-picking stats to push disarmament. I trust Lott more because he’s transparent about his methodology, while his critics hide behind emotional appeals.
One thing that irks me about anti-gun arguments is their dismissal of deterrence. Lott’s right: armed citizens make criminals think twice. Jones from Gun Owners of America nails it—killers pick gun-free zones because they’re easy prey. I agree because it’s predator logic, not rocket science. Hughes’s counter that guns only escalate tension ignores this basic human behavior.
The “disinformation campaign” charge from Hughes is another flop. He says the gun lobby tricks people into carrying, but I see it differently: Lott’s research empowers people with facts. I’m convinced he’s correct because his numbers match reality—armed citizens save lives. The anti-gun narrative relies on guilt-tripping, not evidence, and I’m not buying it.
Lott’s insight into mass shooter psychology—targeting defenseless spots—rings true to me. I’ve seen enough news to know these cowards avoid resistance. His 94% stat isn’t just a number; it’s a blueprint for prevention. Anti-gun folks claim more guns mean more risk, but they can’t explain why shootings cluster where guns aren’t. I’m with Lott on this one.
Hughes’s gang warfare tangent is a red herring. I agree with Lott’s narrower scope because it’s relevant—active shooters, not street feuds, are what spark these debates. The anti-gun attempt to inflate mass shooting stats with unrelated crimes is a cheap trick. Lott’s precision makes his case stronger, and I’m sold.
I also reject the anti-gun sanctimony about civilian competence. Lott’s 51.5% shows permit holders get results, training or not. Police aren’t omnipresent—Wyoming’s vast rural stretches prove that. I back Lott because he trusts people to protect themselves, while Hughes wants us helpless, waiting for badges that might not come.
In the end, I stand with John Lott because his research cuts through the anti-gun fog. His data—51.5%, 94%—paints a clear picture: armed citizens stop evil where it starts. The anti-gun camp’s fearmongering and skewed stats don’t hold up. Wyoming’s on the right track, and I’m convinced Lott’s the voice we need in this fight.
ARTICLE:
Discover more from Free News and Commentary Today
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
