This is an update of Kleck's earlier book, "Point Blank", which won the Michael J. Hindelang Award in 1993. The award is given by the American Society of Criminology annually for a book published during the previous two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to research in criminology.

Even if you disagree with Kleck's conclusions, "Targeting Guns" is an essential addition to your library if you are interested in the issue of gun control. No other book gives such a detailed and comprehensive overview of the research that has been done on this subject.

This is an update of Kleck's earlier book, "Point Blank", which won the Michael J. Hindelang Award in 1993. The award is given by the American Society of Criminology annually for a book published during the previous two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to research in criminology.

Even if you disagree with Kleck's conclusions, "Targeting Guns" is an essential addition to your library if you are interested in the issue of gun control. No other book gives such a detailed and comprehensive overview of the research that has been done on this subject.

Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is, by his own admission, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic Party candidates.

He must be an awful disappointment to many of his fellow liberals.

Because, you see, in addition to being all those other things, he is also a criminologist and professor at Florida State University; a scientist who believes empirical evidence and research are more important than dogmatic ideology.

In Targeting Guns, he deomnstrates that the best available empirical evidence is that attempts at gun control legislation are, by and large, either futile, or self-defeating.

In this closely reasoned, scholarly work, Kleck debunks many of the myths of gun control, and concludes that, for the most part, the political rationale for gun control--and the majority of gun control legislation--is seriously flawed. To reach these conclusions, Kleck looks closely at the links between guns, violence, suicide, and gun control, and sums up the relevant research in these areas.

Kleck describes the central--and seemingly commonsensical--rationale for gun control, which is that disarming people will be beneficial, because guns are dangerous, and their use elevates the possibility that a victim of violence will die. He then painstakingly shows why this rationale rests on a simplified and ultimately incorrect assumption about the role of weaponry in violence. He shows why this role is so much more complex than some assume, as well as showing the beneficial aspects of gun ownership among the general populace.

Kleck concludes by suggesting some commonsense gun control measures that DO appear to work in reducing violent crime, or at least, ARMED violent crime by reducing criminal access to guns.

Targeting guns is not, unfortunately, easily accessible by a general audience, but Kleck has done his best to make it so. Nevertheless, it is heavily footnoted, and the text is often broken up by a variety of data tables. The issue of gun control is quite complex, and resists being broken down into easily digestible morsels. But those who make the effort will be rewarded, and at the very least, be encouraged to think more rationally about this somewhat divisive and emotional issue.

The importance of that cannot be overstated.

Kleck has but together quite a useful overview of the research on guns. I liked the detailed discussions of the existing literature, and, as a nonacademic, I did not find it too difficult to read. ...

On the survey data, I wish that Kleck would have dealt more with the survey data about offensive gun use. I also wish that he could explain why his survey data does not imply a net benefit from using guns.

My only real complaint on the quality of the writing is that too much of the book is such and such shows this and such and such shows that and .... This is fine if the book is to serve as a reference source. It is not too thrilling to have to read through.

Without a doubt the single best book on the issue of gun control. Of paramount importance is Dr. Kleck's superb presentation of the methodology of analyzing gun control. This book not only presents the facts (which are impeccably researched and presented), but goes beyond them to question and examine issues of causality and the social mechanisms that underlie the statistics. For example, Dr. Kleck looks into the critical question of the association between guns and violence: do more guns cause more violence or does more violence cause more people to acquire guns? (Before readers of Dr. Lott castigate me, between 1963 and 1971 both the national gun stock and national firearms death rate doubled. Dr. Kleck asks which is the chicken and which the egg.) Another example is the counter intuitive result that firearms sentencing enhancement laws result in less time served - because, as it turns out, those are the first charges plea-bargained away. Again and again Dr, Kleck challenges the conventional wisdom and shows that the simplistic associations favored by both sides of the debate fail to stand up under the careful scrutiny of scientific analysis.

Since pro-control literature dominates in the media, (especially in the health advocacy forum), it is only logical that the majority of the studies impeached by Dr. Kleck's research should be of a pro-control tilt. For example, Targeting Guns points up the abysmal failure of the medical literature (e.g., Journal of American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) to meet even the lowest standards for scholarly research, and exposes what amounts to intentional fraud on the part of pro-control "health advocates". The section highlighting the solid association between substance abuse (both alcohol and drugs) and firearms abuse leaves one wondering why this vital information hasn't gotten more attention from the media, the health profession, and ultimately, the policy leaders in government. After reading this book I can well understand the frustration of the anti-control groups over the misrepresentation, misdirection, and blatant lies permeating pro-control arguments and policy recommendations.

In the end, even the staunchest partisans of either side of the debate should read this book, if not for its conclusions, then for its eye-opening view of how social science should be practiced as just that: a science.