Michael Bloomberg Demanded John Lott Interview Cut from Couric Gun Control Film

By AWR Hawkins

Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- Radio host John Cardillo claims that interview segments with noted gun scholar John Lott were included in the earliest version of Katie Couric’s gun control movie Under the Gun, but were taken out at Michael Bloomberg’s request following a private screening.

Cardillo is host of The John Cardillo Show, while Lott is an economist, gun rights author and president and founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

On May 16, Breitbart News reported that Couric’s gun control documentary left four hours of an interview with Lott on the cutting room floor. In an interview with The Guardiandirector Stephanie Soechtig explained their decision to omit the Lott interview in its entirety:

“[Lott’s] research has been criticized and largely discredited, and when we went to include it in the film, it felt like unnecessary real estate to put in the film, because we know his research has been debunked many times. We kept going back to the idea that we wanted to reserve the real estate in the film for the responsible gun owners.”

But Cardillo says his brother knows one of the individuals that financed the movie, and that that financier says portions of Lott’s interview were included in the earliest version of the movie, only to be taken out at Bloomberg’s request.

During his own live interview with Lott earlier this month, Cardillo said:

“I don’t know if you know this… I don’t know if we spoke about this, but my brother knows one of the financiers on the Katie Couric project — he was sort of an ancillary financier who’s actually pro-Second Amendment — and he told me your footage from that documentary was cut after a private [screening] between Katie Couric and Michael Bloomberg.”

Lott responded that he had not heard that. Cardillo then reiterated: “Yes. They were going to run it, and Bloomberg and Couric had a private screening and after that screening is when your footage was cut.”

Breitbart News spoke to Lott on Monday about Cardillo’s claims.

“Katie Couric and her staff interviewed me for almost six hours — two hours pre-interview and then almost four hours on tape — and what I found is that the filming that they did of me was used extensively in the movie, originally,” Lott told Breitbart News. “But Katie Couric did a private screening for Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg apparently insisted that anything from me be removed from the movie.”

Lott said he has grown accustomed to “Bloomberg’s people” canceling or shutting down his appearances when they have the opportunity to do so.

Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is the founder of the gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety.

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America's Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA's Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at [email protected] You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

  • 13 thoughts on “Michael Bloomberg Demanded John Lott Interview Cut from Couric Gun Control Film

    1. Bloomberg is a modern day fascist! You can’t manipulate minds and behavior if you’ve got an interview included in a propaganda film which is undermining your propaganda; you’ve got to cut that out.

    2. Someone who is doing a true documentary, would have included Lott and then included the supposed debunkers from the other side. Its called being fair. The fact that they stated – without proof – that Lott’s work has been debunked, shows their bias.

    3. Based on how he rolls and how tightly he holds the purse strings (look at how the demanding moms acquiesce to his beck and call) I conclude that he does not demand – or even ask – he orders his minions to do his will. Period.

    4. I think that it is most interesting Bloomberg uses the money he made from the Capitalist System in his attempts to destroy that system.
      He uses deceit and deception, not unlike CAIR and other Islamist organizations, to carry out his plans to disarm the People of the United States and destroy Our Constitution.
      He is actually no different than Himmler and the Nazis in his continued repeating of the “Big Lie” hoping that if he and his zombie minions repeat their anti-gun rhetoric long enough and loud enough, they might be believed.
      Bloomberg is despicable!

      1. Thanks Martin, we get a LOT more mileage out of pointing out how he rolls than calling him names and wishing for an early departure from this mortal coil. Those type of comments only fuel the image of ‘hate filled gun nuts’ that the left likes to use. Since I don’t actually know bloomie, I cannot verify that he is despicable but his tactics certainly are!

        1. You, sir, like to dish out the better than thou perspective HOWEVER you trample on other people’s First Amendment rights by saying we shouldn’t be saying what we are saying. Now do you find it necessary for me to put this in, say 4th grade language so you can understand what I am saying.

    5. When John Lott’s first book, “More Guns, Less Crime”, first came out, there was widespread acceptance among economists of his methodology, even though some questioned his conclusions. I’ve noticed that his work is “debunked” politically, but I’ve yet to see any convincing data to challenge him.

      Take the subject of a “mass shooting.” The federal government defines it as any time four or more people are shot. Drug wars, gang wars, drive-by shootings, etc. To me, and I think to most people, a mass shooting is more like San Bernardino, a random targeting. Lott’s definition is more like mine. So if you change the definition, you’ll probably reach a different result. Only politically does this call into question Lott’s results.

      1. Pete, I have to agree regarding the ‘debunking’ of Prof. Lott’s work. Seems to me that the ones who make that claim are all on the anti-gun side of the discussion. Not that they have a specific goal in mind or anything……………..that is shown by the ‘attacks’ on the conclusions – which don’t agree with theirs. AFAIK there has been no credible ‘debunking’ based on ‘flawed’ methodology. Also, IIRC, his original intent was not necessarily ‘pro-gun’ but came to the conclusions he did based on the actual evidence vice ‘feelings’.

      1. He needs to take Soros with him. Maybe they are butt buddies, or should be and give each other an incurable disease.
        Time to take out the trash.

    Leave a Comment 13 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *