A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) on concealed carry in the U.S. reveals that 46.8 percent of Americans now live in “Constitutional Carry” states—there are 29 of them—where no license or permit is required, while Congress is mulling H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and anti-gunners are in a panic.
The report was prepared by John R. Lott, CPRC founder and CEO; Carlisle E. Moody, College of William & Mary – Department of Economics and CPRC associate, and Rujun Wang. . . .
A brand-new analysis from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows that concealed carry permit holders have declined for the third year in a row. And for anyone who doesn’t understand the broader trend, that headline might look like fewer people are choosing to carry firearms.
But that assumption couldn’t be more wrong.
Across the United States, more people are carrying than ever… they’re just no longer required to ask the government for permission first. . . .
As John R. Lott, Jr. wrote about these policies a few months back, “this isn’t rocket science. The research is clear that if you want to reduce crime, you need to make it risky for criminals to commit crime. Higher arrest and conviction rates as well as longer prison terms matter. Just as making it possible for people to defend themselves also makes a difference.” . . .
J.B. Shurk, “Trump Targets Democrat-Enabled Crime,” American Thinker, December 10, 2025.
The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has just released its 2025 Concealed Carry report, and while the numbers are down, the figure is deceiving because of the increase of permitless carry in 29 states.
The report acknowledges the number of permit holders fell by 0.59 million, for an estimated total of 20.88 million citizens who are licensed to carry. But the CPRC quickly notes, “The primary reason for the decrease is that permit numbers tend to drop gradually in Constitutional Carry states, even though it is evident that more people are legally carrying.”
Among the findings: . . .
That’s the all-too-familiar “Only Ones” elitism, a term coined when DEA Agent Lee Paige told a classroom full of school children he was “the only one professional enough” to carry a gun and then shot himself in the foot while holstering it. Keep in mind that credible evidence confirms that police have higher suicide rates than the general public, and per the Crime Prevention Research Center, “permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers.” . . .
“Many of these attackers may be crazy, but none are stupid,” says John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. “They know that the more victims they kill, the more coverage they’ll get. That’s why they target places where no one can fight back.”
Far from making people safer, “gun-free” zones make it much more likely that only the attacker will be armed. According to the CPRC, it’s no accident that 92% of mass public shootings occur in gun-free zones where civilians aren’t allowed to carry firearms. The Nashville Covenant School murderer even admitted to avoiding another site because it had too much security. “There was another location that was mentioned, but because of a threat assessment by the suspect of too much security, they decided not to,” said Nashville Police Chief John Drake.
More than 21 million people hold concealed-carry permits, and in the 29 states where some type of constitutional carry is the law, no permit is required. Yet these armed citizens can’t legally carry in “gun-free” zones. . . .
Staff, “Opening Salvo | “Gun-Free” Zones Attract Murderers,” December 9, 2025.
Thanks to John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), we’ve known for decades that more guns lead to less crime. Now, President Trump is demonstrating this. In addition to cracking down on violent D.C. criminals, the Trump administration’s other focus in the District was to speed up the processing of concealed-carry permit applications. . . .
Saying that gun rights are civil rights shouldn’t be controversial. After all, most of what we term as civil liberties are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, from freedom of speech and religion to protection against illegal search and seizure, and many others. The Second Amendment is smack dab in the middle of all of those. Saying the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right isn’t controversial; it’s obvious.
But some people can’t seem to wrap their gray matter around that.
Among them are some critics of the Department of Justice actually treating gun rights like civil rights, and John Lott has some words for those folks. . . . [Long quote from Lott]
The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) reports that armed citizens intervene in roughly 36% of mass shootings. By contrast, FBI data suggest interventions occur in only 3 to 4% of cases.
What explains this massive gap? Methodology. The FBI counts only formally recognized active shooter incidents, leaving out countless smaller-scale attacks or interventions that never make it into federal reports. Media coverage is inconsistent and many defensive actions simply go unreported.
Another complicating factor is gun-free zones. These areas are meant to reduce violence but they often leave potential victims defenseless while trained citizens outside these zones may be ready to act. Ignoring this policy effect skews the conversation about how and when defensive gun use occurs. . . ..
The study, which may be read here, was done by Dr. John R. Lott, founder and CEO, and Carlisle E. Moody, at the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). Spanning 38 pages, including notes, the Lott/Moody report explains, “Since 2000, the FBI has tracked active shooting cases, defined as an event where one or more individuals attempt to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings tied to robberies, gang violence, or other crimes. An active shooting could be as simple as a single shot fired at a lone human target, even if the shooter misses, to a mass shooting with many casualties.
“Yet,” the report continues, “while this data has been collected by the FBI, there have been no studies by the FBI nor academics that systematically examined these data or police performance in stopping these attacks. In this paper, we compare police with the alternative: civilians who have permitted concealed handguns.”
CPRC released the updated report Nov. 16 with this explanation: “The FBI tracks active shooting cases—where individuals attempt to kill people in public places, excluding those tied to robberies or gang violence. This study is the first to systematically compare how uniformed police and civilians with concealed handgun permits perform in stopping these attacks. We find that civilians with permits reduce the number of victims killed, the number wounded, and the total number of casualties more than responding police officers do.” . . .
