Economist Lott presents storng evidence that gun ownership stops crime. How can this possibly be, asks the left-wingers. Because guns are a deterrent. While people who die from bullet wounds is not to be discounted or disregarded, many critics fail to ask: How many people use a weapon to deter a criminal, save their own lives and stop further criminal tragedy. According to Lott's analysis, guns are used as self-defense over 2 million times per year. That's TWO MILLION TIMES PER YEAR. So millions of people are not raped, assaulted or murdered. In fact, I tell people that guns are a deterrent. Since one can own a weapon in America under the 2nd Amendment Civil Rights, then the criminal must assume that a person might be armed. Hence, deterrence. In Washington D.C., the gun ban on our civil rights has deprive individuals of their own self-defense. As a result, criminals know that they - oh no! - might get shot for their criminal actions. Lott examines a whole host of important issues, including gun-control regulations-assault weapons bans, "one-gun-a-month", right-to-carry laws and more. The left-wing absurdities become apparent: If you create gun free school zones, then law abiding citizens won't bring weapons. But will criminal obey that kind of law? Probably not. Lott uses analysis, graphs and table to support his assertions. A very useful book to understand that your 2nd Amendment Civil Rights have a basis in stopping crime in society.

Michael Mandaville, Author: "Citizen Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways for Every American To Fight Terrorism"

Economist Lott presents storng evidence that gun ownership stops crime. How can this possibly be, asks the left-wingers. Because guns are a deterrent. While people who die from bullet wounds is not to be discounted or disregarded, many critics fail to ask: How many people use a weapon to deter a criminal, save their own lives and stop further criminal tragedy. According to Lott's analysis, guns are used as self-defense over 2 million times per year. That's TWO MILLION TIMES PER YEAR. So millions of people are not raped, assaulted or murdered. In fact, I tell people that guns are a deterrent. Since one can own a weapon in America under the 2nd Amendment Civil Rights, then the criminal must assume that a person might be armed. Hence, deterrence. In Washington D.C., the gun ban on our civil rights has deprive individuals of their own self-defense. As a result, criminals know that they - oh no! - might get shot for their criminal actions. Lott examines a whole host of important issues, including gun-control regulations-assault weapons bans, "one-gun-a-month", right-to-carry laws and more. The left-wing absurdities become apparent: If you create gun free school zones, then law abiding citizens won't bring weapons. But will criminal obey that kind of law? Probably not. Lott uses analysis, graphs and table to support his assertions. A very useful book to understand that your 2nd Amendment Civil Rights have a basis in stopping crime in society.

Michael Mandaville, Author: "Citizen Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways for Every American To Fight Terrorism"

The title of the book says it all. John Lott then proceeds to prove it. Control freaks, sociopaths, leftists, mama's boys, and girly men will hate this book. So to them I say -- Don't read it since it will only make you angry and force you to look at something from an empirical perspective rather than from your usual emotional perspective.

Thoughtful, intelligent bookworms will love it. This is serious stuff, not much humor here so if your looking for an easy, entertaining read -- look elsewhere. If you want the truth about guns and the people who use them -- this is the book.

It is rather contradictory to attack Dr. Lott who was taught at many academic institutions across the country for being biased when the negative reviewers themselves have a bias as well. That being said, it is almost intellectually dishonest to euphemistically bludgeon Dr. Lott for citing certain statistics when those statistics have yet to be disproved by the world of academia (NOTE). Some statistics are unfounded and not necessary yet some provide a certain insight into the nature of gun laws and their effect on crime rates. It is unfair to only cite outlandish statistics in your review when the valid ones do not appear in review. This, of course, indubitably proves the blind bias of the reviewer. Also, call me a radical but Lott's research methods have been praised by two Nobel prize winning Economists and his work being right wing in nature has made it impossible for him to get a job at a "proven" University. My final question is why do left wing research methods get a pass while right wing research methods are always so psuedo-intellectually scrutanized? A bias against guns perhaps?

NOTE: Though the findings of Lott's first book More Guns, Less Crime have come under fire the more politically correct academics have yet find any flaws in his research. Finally, the American Enterprise Institute is no less credible than the social sciences department at Brown, Cornell, or even Berkeley because the credibility of the peer review is solely based on the bias of the reviewer.

Excellent source of information no metter what your stance is concerning guns. Lots of well documented research to be found.

John R Lott is a true patriot and his book, 'The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong' should be included as part of the Bible. Every God-fearing American is duty-bound to heed Lott's warning about the liberal, jelly-back movement that is threatening to destroy the country's long-cherished freedoms. However, while I agree 100% with the author, there is a significant argument missing when he says that everything you've heard about gun control is wrong. It's an obvious point that we haven't heard and one that is intellectually unassailable; GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, BULLETS DO! Therefore, pass a law allowing everyone to own as many guns as they want; 10, 20, 100. Sell them in libraries, bookshops, gas stations, nightclubs and schools. Give them to children, psychopaths, teachers, social workers, prisoners and even terrorists. But at the same time, pass another law banning bullets. It's that simple. This revolution in social policy will not only silence the white ants in the White House, it will also show the rest of the world that Americans can solve problems that lesser minds find impossible to conquer.

This book is partly More Guns, Less Crime for Dummies. The other parts are how the media works against gun ownership, how the government works against gun ownership, and how these two things cost human lives.

It is a fun and easy read, and afterwards you will be a little more clever about how you view polls, statistics, and news in general.

If you can get past the numbers research then you'll benefit from this book. And, you'll never understand the evidence behind the truth about the benefits of gun possession versus the costs until you read it. The Bias Against Guns easily discredits those opposed to gun possession. Anti-gun folks don't tell the truth about the benefits of owning guns - John Lott does and proves it with advanced statistical analysis and research.

The proof that proves the benefits of gun possession is in this book.

Right wing, non-scholarly press. Then look at where Lott's critics publish--in scholarly journals and with academic presses.

Enough said.

Most of the news we see every day is favored toward showing the use of guns as bad. Whether this is because of a media plot to condition the public against guns, or because, in general, the people who work for the mainstream media are horrified by guns is not the point. What this book does is give us the other side of the debate, a side that needs to be heard.
Anyone who is caught by the day to day onslaught of the media bias against guns, but has an open mind and thinks they should have both sides of the story, should read this book. Anyone who instinctively knows that guns are the basis of all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and would like a better understanding of that, should read this book.
Anyone else, it will be a waste of your money.

Fans of this 'scholarly work' (if computerized number crunching and anecdotal evidence can be called scholarly) by a 'much-published academician' (if that is meaningful to you) would no doubt be disappointed to learn Lott has based crucial evidence upon a survey he conducted himself and then 'unfortunately lost all trace of' the data; that he & his family have taken it upon themselves in the past to write stellar reviews for his books on Amazon.com; that Lott has found it necessary to defend his work by using pseudonyms and fake personas ('Mary Rosh')--but why, when the numbers speak for themselves??

Certainly not in order to profit from the audacious frenzy a claim like 'unregistered assault weapons reduce crime' would inevitably create...

Please, read 'How to Lie With Statistics' instead. Heck, read Wikipedia's article on John Lott, which cites the New England Journal of Medicine's statement:

[Lott] finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws.'

Controversy is indeed delicious, and who can fault some guy for trying to drum up a little press--but clouding such a serious issue in which lives are at stake with fuzzy math is undoubtedly reprehensible.

You can either be persuaded about this author's ethos by a few dazzling blurbs by 'Nobel Prize winners of Economics' (a solid science to be sure), or by his own behavior in response to scepticism. As Jon Weiner's Op-Ed in the LA Times states concerning the Lott v. Levitt lawsuit:

Lott is not suing those who have said some of his pro-gun research was "invented," "faked" or "cooked." The lawsuit turns on the definition of "replicate," from the "Freakonomics" sentence about how other scholars have tried and failed to "replicate his results." Lott maintains "replicate" means "analyze the identical data in the way Lott did." Because nobody tried to do that, he argues, "Freakonomics" is wrong. Most people, however, understand "replicate" to mean something like "confirm." Lott's reputation has indeed been "seriously damaged" by critics, but only because they have described many apparent holes in his dubious research and misleading citations. Blocking the sale of a book based on a literal interpretation of a single word [is] outrageous.'

John R. Lott is a modern-day genius. His writing should earn him both the Nobel Prize for Peace AND the one for literature.

It's about time someone gave us the real story on gun crimes instead of the liberal slant we get from all the liberal news outlets. Obviously the previous reviewer who was in the military and speaks in favor of background checks has been misguided his own experience and these liberal media outlets.

Waiting periods make no sense at all, and I don't know who this Ronald Reagan guy is, but he sounds like a garden-variety lilly-livered liberal to me. Think about it. If you try to buy a handgun and you are forced to wait a week, there could be, by Mr. Lott's statistics, hundreds of crimes that you could have stopped by brandishing your piece. But those crimes happen, because you're stuck waiting because some liberal panzy named Reagan needed a background check law.

It's obvious, even to the most gun-scared leftist out there, everyone, even those who have not developed their full motor skills, should own a gun. Otherwise, how can you protect yourself!? It's NUMBERS people. If everyone has a gun, no one will get shot. Since gun owners are all expert marksmen, none of them would ever try to shoot a criminal and miss, thereby shooting an innocent bystander. After all, it's really easy to hit a moving target with a handgun. Heck, even you're a bad shot and you run out of bullets, you can easily peg your assailant on the head with the butt of your Magnum. If an innocent person gets shot, the statistics pale in comparison to how many would get shot it all of them didn't have guns.

John R. Lott is a modern-day genius. His writing should earn him both the Nobel Prize for Peace AND the one for literature.

It's about time someone gave us the real story on gun crimes instead of the liberal slant we get from all the liberal news outlets. Obviously the previous reviewer who was in the military and speaks in favor of background checks has been misguided his own experience and these liberal media outlets.

Waiting periods make no sense at all, and I don't know who this Ronald Reagan guy is, but he sounds like a garden-variety lilly-livered liberal to me. Think about it. If you try to buy a handgun and you are forced to wait a week, there could be, by Mr. Lott's statistics, hundreds of crimes that you could have stopped by brandishing your piece. But those crimes happen, because you're stuck waiting because some liberal panzy named Reagan needed a background check law.

It's obvious, even to the most gun-scared leftist out there, everyone, even those who have not developed their full motor skills, should own a gun. Otherwise, how can you protect yourself!? It's NUMBERS people. If everyone has a gun, no one will get shot. Since gun owners are all expert marksmen, none of them would ever try to shoot a criminal and miss, thereby shooting an innocent bystander. After all, it's really easy to hit a moving target with a handgun. Heck, even you're a bad shot and you run out of bullets, you can easily peg your assailant on the head with the butt of your Magnum. If an innocent person gets shot, the statistics pale in comparison to how many would get shot it all of them didn't have guns.

An excellent, factual read. I tried to pick apart the book, but Lott is far better a statistician than I, so his work holds up.

As stated elsewhere, the facts will drive the anti-gun zealots crazy. Along with facts, Lott uses sensible analysis. Contrary to what one "reviewer" wrote, you can, according to the rules of sampling theory use samples of 1000 to represent much larger populations! A small amount of experience with statistics will demonstrate that! That just shows the hysteria of the hoplophobes.

Now to the politics...

Harvard systematically discounts positive uses of guns in their biased analyses, yet no one accuses them of malfeasance.

One of the more ridiculous comments is that you should not use a gun for self-defense because it could be taken away and used on you. The option is to use the phone and dial 911. That is illogically stupid and moronic. We are supposed to believe some nut will not hesitate to take away your gun-- when you could shoot him-- but he will not take away your phone. Duh.

Another reader says guns should be regulated like cars. Okay, fine, I will take your gun license as long as you aggree to follow the same rules as for cars. Namely: 1. Getting a license requires merely showing up and taking the eye test and written test, 2. Having the license means I can take my gun wherever I want to, like I can with my car, 3. I can own as many cars as I want so I should be able to own as many guns as I want, 4. I do not need a waiting period for a car, so I should not need one for a gun, 5. As long as my license is valid, I can borrow any gun from whoever is willing to let me- or loan mine, 6. It is no one's business how I store my car, fully gassed up and ready to go or not-- therefore it should not be their business if I store my gun ready for defense of myself or my loved ones. 7. Liberals cannot stop me from owning as powerful a gun as I want.

and 8. Since all car owners are not held responsible for all traffic injuries and fatalities everywhere, then you cannot blame all gun owners for all gun accidents and fatalities-- just those that actually did it.

Sounds fair, but gun control is not about fair, or even about guns, it is about control.

An excellent, factual read. I tried to pick apart the book, but Lott is far better a statistician than I, so his work holds up.

As stated elsewhere, the facts will drive the anti-gun zealots crazy. Along with facts, Lott uses sensible analysis. Contrary to what one "reviewer" wrote, you can, according to the rules of sampling theory use samples of 1000 to represent much larger populations! A small amount of experience with statistics will demonstrate that! That just shows the hysteria of the hoplophobes.

Now to the politics...

Harvard systematically discounts positive uses of guns in their biased analyses, yet no one accuses them of malfeasance.

One of the more ridiculous comments is that you should not use a gun for self-defense because it could be taken away and used on you. The option is to use the phone and dial 911. That is illogically stupid and moronic. We are supposed to believe some nut will not hesitate to take away your gun-- when you could shoot him-- but he will not take away your phone. Duh.

Another reader says guns should be regulated like cars. Okay, fine, I will take your gun license as long as you aggree to follow the same rules as for cars. Namely: 1. Getting a license requires merely showing up and taking the eye test and written test, 2. Having the license means I can take my gun wherever I want to, like I can with my car, 3. I can own as many cars as I want so I should be able to own as many guns as I want, 4. I do not need a waiting period for a car, so I should not need one for a gun, 5. As long as my license is valid, I can borrow any gun from whoever is willing to let me- or loan mine, 6. It is no one's business how I store my car, fully gassed up and ready to go or not-- therefore it should not be their business if I store my gun ready for defense of myself or my loved ones. 7. Liberals cannot stop me from owning as powerful a gun as I want.

and 8. Since all car owners are not held responsible for all traffic injuries and fatalities everywhere, then you cannot blame all gun owners for all gun accidents and fatalities-- just those that actually did it.

Sounds fair, but gun control is not about fair, or even about guns, it is about control.

"Too often, the debate over guns is a philosophical one, pitting the freedom of gun owners against the safety of everyone else," says economist Dr. John Lott in The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong.

But what if those two things are one and the same? What if, on average, privately-owned guns are far more likely to save lives or property than destroy them? And what if freedoms beyond simple ownership, such as concealed weapons permits, have the same effect?

Lott, using intense statistical methods, demonstrates in the book (a supplement to 1998's More Guns, Less Crime) that this is in fact the case. Systematically displaying the evidence and rebutting his critics, he makes his case convincingly and in a reasoned tone.

Though there have been criticisms of his methods, three Nobel Prize winners in Economics are quoted praising the book on its jacket, and no study has disproved his results (look to the National Academy of Sciences or the CDC for rigorous, government-funded attempts). Lott makes his data available to anyone who would like to study it, and of course anyone is free to undertake their own study.

Beyond rearticulating and updating the findings of More Guns, Less Crime, Lott uses this book to point out anti-gun bias in the media. While gun accidents and gun crime are often covered, he argues, one rarely sees coverage of defensive gun uses. Many citizens are lead to believe that such uses do not even take place.

In fact, Lott says, between 1.5 and 3.4 million defensive gun uses occur yearly (this estimate is based on survey data; estimates reported by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook in Evaluating Gun Policy put the number at less than a third of Lott's lower bound).

He presents some especially dramatic, often heroic case studies and explains that these highly newsworthy stories got little news coverage, while less interesting accidents and crimes get lots of it. He also provides several disturbing examples of times major news sources outright lied about defensive gun use.

The book is written in a clear, reasoned diction that makes for quick if not gripping reading. Some of the statistical methods detailed are difficult to comprehend, but the results are explained with an average reading audience in mind.

Depending on ones political leanings and preferred literary style, it can be either a disappointment compared to or a breath of fresh air from Ann Coulter's sarcasm and name-calling. Certainly, it is far easier to recommend to a left-winger than Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, but it is also a bit less entertaining and easy to understand.

In The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong, Lott provides an important, academic and unique viewpoint on guns and gun control. For those of all political persuasions, it provides information important to debates. The Bias Against Guns is a worthwhile, quick read.

"Too often, the debate over guns is a philosophical one, pitting the freedom of gun owners against the safety of everyone else," says economist Dr. John Lott in The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong.

But what if those two things are one and the same? What if, on average, privately-owned guns are far more likely to save lives or property than destroy them? And what if freedoms beyond simple ownership, such as concealed weapons permits, have the same effect?

Lott, using intense statistical methods, demonstrates in the book (a supplement to 1998's More Guns, Less Crime) that this is in fact the case. Systematically displaying the evidence and rebutting his critics, he makes his case convincingly and in a reasoned tone.

Though there have been criticisms of his methods, three Nobel Prize winners in Economics are quoted praising the book on its jacket, and no study has disproved his results (look to the National Academy of Sciences or the CDC for rigorous, government-funded attempts). Lott makes his data available to anyone who would like to study it, and of course anyone is free to undertake their own study.

Beyond rearticulating and updating the findings of More Guns, Less Crime, Lott uses this book to point out anti-gun bias in the media. While gun accidents and gun crime are often covered, he argues, one rarely sees coverage of defensive gun uses. Many citizens are lead to believe that such uses do not even take place.

In fact, Lott says, between 1.5 and 3.4 million defensive gun uses occur yearly (this estimate is based on survey data; estimates reported by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook in Evaluating Gun Policy put the number at less than a third of Lott's lower bound).

He presents some especially dramatic, often heroic case studies and explains that these highly newsworthy stories got little news coverage, while less interesting accidents and crimes get lots of it. He also provides several disturbing examples of times major news sources outright lied about defensive gun use.

The book is written in a clear, reasoned diction that makes for quick if not gripping reading. Some of the statistical methods detailed are difficult to comprehend, but the results are explained with an average reading audience in mind.

Depending on ones political leanings and preferred literary style, it can be either a disappointment compared to or a breath of fresh air from Ann Coulter's sarcasm and name-calling. Certainly, it is far easier to recommend to a left-winger than Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, but it is also a bit less entertaining and easy to understand.

In The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong, Lott provides an important, academic and unique viewpoint on guns and gun control. For those of all political persuasions, it provides information important to debates. The Bias Against Guns is a worthwhile, quick read.

This is a follow-up to his 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime", which showed that rising gun ownership was resulting in lower violent crime statistics. He proves with statistical facts that Gun Control laws do not reduce Gun Violence, but have increased gun crime every time they are tried. Since the 1998 book came out before 9/11 happened, he now talks about how gun ownership surged after 9/11, and that again gun crime has gone down (further proving his point). He also talks about how the public falsely believes that guns don't do any good, because the press never reports on stories where a gun in a citizen's hand saved lives. Everything has all the statistics to back his claims up. This book proves once again that the gun-grabbers argument is only based on emotion. Highly recommended!

This book does not talk about constitutional rights; it stays focused on gun crime statistics. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's civil right to own firearms, which scholars have proven time and again to be the true meaning of the amendment. Nobody educated disputes that meaning anymore. Yet someone in another review falsely tries to equate the right to own a gun to the right to own a car, which the constitution does not guarantee. Not only do law abiding American's have the freedom to own firearms, this book shows that when the good guys have guns, gun crime goes down.

This is a follow-up to his 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime", which showed that rising gun ownership was resulting in lower violent crime statistics. He proves with statistical facts that Gun Control laws do not reduce Gun Violence, but have increased gun crime every time they are tried. Since the 1998 book came out before 9/11 happened, he now talks about how gun ownership surged after 9/11, and that again gun crime has gone down (further proving his point). He also talks about how the public falsely believes that guns don't do any good, because the press never reports on stories where a gun in a citizen's hand saved lives. Everything has all the statistics to back his claims up. This book proves once again that the gun-grabbers argument is only based on emotion. Highly recommended!

This book does not talk about constitutional rights; it stays focused on gun crime statistics. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's civil right to own firearms, which scholars have proven time and again to be the true meaning of the amendment. Nobody educated disputes that meaning anymore. Yet someone in another review falsely tries to equate the right to own a gun to the right to own a car, which the constitution does not guarantee. Not only do law abiding American's have the freedom to own firearms, this book shows that when the good guys have guns, gun crime goes down.

I am not writing to comment upon the the book since I haven't read it, though I have heard of Dr. Lott's research. I am writing about a fascinating statistical anomaly in the "reviews" for this book.

Of the 29 reviews, 25 are very positive while 4 are very negative. (The polarization in the rating is expected given the polarizing nature of the subject.)

Of the 25 very positive reviews, 8 reviewers disguised their names while 17 included their names with their review. Of the very negative reviews, 4 of the 4 disguised their names and NONE included their name.

Why are the negative reviewers not identifying themselves? What are they hiding? Are they ashamed of thier opinion?

I'm retired after 22 years in military service and I own guns at home. I am not at all in favor of hand gun control, but this guy is just a crackpot. There is no fact he can't invent to support what he already believes.

There is nothing wrong with rational regulations for guns just like we have on cars. Unless you are the Unabomber and have some mental problem that makes you scared of the government there is no reason that we can't have a few minor checks to help keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I don't mind waiting a week to pick up a gun while they check my background. I leave the rest to a great American:

"It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun."

- Ronald Reagan *endorsing* the Brady handgun control bill, at a March 1991 event commemorating 10th anniversary of the assassination attempt.

It is refreshing to see real-world data being used to show real-world FACTS...that more law-abiding people carrying handguns, and allowed to own guns in general, lead to less crime - and less violent crimes being committed. Do NOT get caught up in the liberal and media biased - they want you to only believe what they believe - and THEY are WRONG! Not only does Lott prove how more legally-owned guns reduce crime, he debunks the scare tactics of anti-constitution anti-gunners who use mis-representation and lies to form opinions. Read this book to see the truth on gun ownership, and silly things like mandatory gun-locks & pistol 'fingerprinting' (what a waste of OUR money that is!), and ridiculous laws like the "assault gun ban", "waiting periods", "gun show loop-hole", "gun free zones", etc. that do NOTHING to reduce crime, that in fact raise crime rates - and only succede in taken away YOUR constitutional rights to self-defense...laws that actually make it easier for criminals to murder, rape, and rob without fear. Do not be a passive victim - arm yourself with the truth, and a good weapon, and train hard - the situation in this country at a time of war is not getting any better. As a former cop - I know the threats are real - and I know police can not always be there to defend you and your family. And mis-guided liberals are always poised to make it ever harder for YOU to live in freedom (read the new 'assault ban' which makes any semi-auto illegal), so now is the time to educate yourself. Why listen to hypocrites like Rosie who are anti-gun, but 'need' armed guards because THEY feel threatened, or Sarah Brady - who committed a felony by straw-purchasing a rifle and then giving it to her son? Why let liberal politicians like John Kerry or teddie Kennedy tell YOU what HE thinks is best for YOU and your family, when he doesn't even know the facts?
An easy read that shows there should be NO more doubts about all the benefits of gun ownership - less crime, legitimate self-defense uses, safety, etc. No more hype to play on the emotions of the less knowledgable - just the facts!

This book opened my eyes. There is no reason why crimes that were prevented with guns are never heard about. Read this book for the truth!

I wish we could get every policitican to read (and study) this book. Lott, a professor of economics, has done some top-notch research into the results of gun-ownership in the United States.

Common sense (much lacking in this country, I might add) would tell us that when you give people the tools (and the right) to protect themselves, crime will decrease. Lott's research supports this, but puts actual figures to the benefit of guns.

There is much empty rhetoric on each side of the gun (ownership) battle. Research such as this is important to show the truth about what's going on. Simple truth: Guns save lives. Yes, accidents happen. But far more lives are saved (and could be saved if ownership laws were loosened) each year than the comparative few that are lost. Lott's documents this. He also tells why some (flawed) studies fail to show a societal benefit in owning guns.

By trying to outlaw guns, and simply by making guns harder to purchase and own, anti-gun politicians and other hoplophobes have blood on their hands--blood of thousands of innocent victims who would not have been victimized had citizens not been denied the right to protect themselves.

This book would be easier to understand if I'd paid more attention in my Statistics class in college. . . there are a lot of statistical terms therein that were a bit over my head. But nonetheless, it was well worth reading.

I read his first book and had to read this one right away. A must read for someone interested in but on the fence on the emotional issue of gun control.

VERY REVEALING! I recommend!

This is by far one of the best books I have read on the subject. It dispells many if not all of the myths about gun control and why it doesn't work.

I am pro-gun and bought the book to keep up on the FACTS and not the fear mongering and speculation spouted by those against guns.

Buy it for an anti-gun friend. You may just turn them around.

I enjoyed reading this book. It was fascinating and easy to read. I thought I was reasonably familiar with the facts about guns and crime in the US, but this book by John Lott taught me more. Few writers approach these issues from the point of view of economics.

Lott makes a variety of points in this book that the public should think about: eg, media bias, the link -- or lack of one -- between guns and terrorism. I was particularly captivated by the section on multiple shootings. The idea that even if only a small number of people carry concealed handguns, in a crowd of people, the probability of their being one armed person can be surprisingly high.

It's a real challenge to talk about econometric models in a way the lay reader can understand. I think Lott does a good job at presenting very complex material in this book.

There is a lot of pseudo-research on guns and violence. People have to be constantly on guard against being misled. This is particularly true in Canada. John Lott's clear, logical presentation is a delight to read. This book will help readers in sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

John Lott is one of the few researchers who has made his data sets available to anyone who asked for them. Not all of his critics are as honest and open as he is.

I would recommend this book unhesitatingly to anyone. Anyone who hasn't already made up their mind will find something to think about in this book.

Lott has done an outstanding job with this book, bringing forth some very compelling information about the strangely biased reporting on firearms. He asks some questions that really need to be addressed by the media, and as with his last book, his case is quite solid with plenty of studies and examples. And thankfully, I found this book to be much more accessible than MGLC.

The information in this book is very hard, if at all possible, to refute. It goes way beyond the usual opinionated writings that are backed-up with nothing more than thin air. It has many charts such as bar charts and graph charts. Many of the charts are explained in detail in the text which at first I felt was duplication of effort. While it is duplication to an extent, it is duplication well worth going through. The text re-enforces charts and vice versa but more importantly...the text many times explains things in a way that a chart by itself cannot. For example, a chart may on the surface indicate an upward swing in some particular matter but the text can/will show the chart to be misleading if taken solely by itself and go on to show instead of an upward swing it is in fact a flatline or a downward movement. The reason I bring this up is that anti-gunners will and do use charts in just such a fashion, they do not give the broad picture which many times is needed when making decisions on such an important topic of guns. Get the book, you will be glad you did.

John Lott writes in a reasonably credible fashion. He's clearly got to an immense amounts of trouble to collect his data and his conclusion must make a lot of sense to a lot of people.

Unfortunately, I could not find the very most central part of his argument. Does CCW licensing lead to "More Guns" on the streets?

John Lott leaves the question unanswered. The answer might even be "No" - CCW laws lead to there being fewer guns on the street, in the hands of the law-abiding, than there were before!

Quite an interesting book.

Lott will really upset the leftists with his views.

But the point is.. It is the criminals who do the vast majority of killings with their guns.

Taking the guns away from law abiding citizens only makes it easier for the bad guys.

It is summer 2003 and the political heat is getting hotter as the Sept 1994 Assault weapon ban sunset is near. D Feinstein (D CA) is up in arms about getting assault weapons off the streets to save the children. so I do a bit of research. Come to find that they are not used in 90% of crimes, nor 30% nor even 3%. So why Ban and confiscate guns that arent used in Crime, and are (shown to) be used to deter crime? This book has that answer! .......Emotions.
Lott gets rid of the illogical rational of Newspapers, media and politicians and goes to REAL DATA that says more guns = less crime. Odd concept unless you are in Switzerland or Isreal. He shows newspapers reporting thousands of words on criminal gun usage in a negative way but what about gun-defense and protection cases, deterring crime, saving a life? Hardly any glamour in that. NYTimes amongst others casually omitting that type of data, is there an agenda?
Sure there are a lot of graph type data and studies in this book but that is only because the opposite side (anti-gun crowd) uses no real data or skews the data for their -emotional agenda against guns-. So although it may be tedious to read through at points (why it gets 4 instead of 5 stars), it serves a purpose and that purpose is so that it cannot be debunked or proven wrong. The pendelum swung to near gun-confiscation in CA in the 90s and registration in several stats for firearms, now it seems the Republicans are in power and the pendelum of fear and emotional hype is swinging back towards rationality and sanity.
this would be a great book for a case study or poly-sci class on a debate for gun control or safety/crime rates as it is empirical with information and not 'spun' up.

John R. Lott, Jr. is the chief academic of the gun lobby. His new research including this new book has been severly criticized by economists and public health professionals. Here are a just a few of the problems with Lott's research:

1. Lott ignores academic studies that disprove his point. For instance he claims there are only a small number of insignificant studies on the connection between gun control laws and suicide rate. There are a number of comprehensive studies that show stronger gun control laws lead to drops in suicide rates.

2. Lott gives misleading claims about accidental shooters, claiming they are mostly male criminals with violent and drunken pasts. This claim is based on an extremely survey of under 40 people completed in 1967. Lott thereby wrongly attempts to steer attention away from children who are accidentally shoot themselves and others with improperly stored firearms.

3. Lott states on page 76 that: "In the U.S. the states with the highest gun ownership rates also have by far the lowest violent crime rates." This claim is without as basis. Lott provides no source or citation and ignores the fact that there is extensive, academic literature illustrating the opposite conclusion that indeed states with higher gun ownership have higher violent crime rates. Lott is wrong, in fact more guns equal more crime.

4. The focus of Lott's book is largely about the benefits of self-defense gun use. Yet Lott ignores most of the self-defense gun use literature. For example, he does not even mention the three national telephone surveys focusing on self-defense gun use sponsored by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Moreover, he only discusses one of the thirty-plus empirical articles on gun issues produced by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and he gets that one completely wrong. Instead, Lott uses and skews data to reflect his pro-conceal carry agenda. He bases his assessment the levels of household gun ownership on data from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) annual phone surveys. The NORC data cannot legitimately been used this way. The NORC survey is not designed to representative of household gun ownership in even one state. Until recently, the NORC only has a sample of 1,500 people, which breaks down to about 30 people per state. For example, in North Dakota, all the survey respondents come from one county, and it is the same county in virtually every survey.

5. Lott's most infamous, false claim that guns used in self defense are only actually fired 2% of the time is based upon his own skewed surveys. Lott makes this claim to argue that merely the threat of a gun scares off most criminals. In contrast, nine published studies find that guns used in self-defense are fired between 21-67% of time. In addition, Lott's survey questions only 1,015 people, which is not a large enough sample to provide precise estimates of the percentage of self-defense gun users who merely brandish the firearm. This large difference between Lott's analysis and numerous other researchers' assessments points to the fact that Lott massages his research data to get the results he wants to find.

In his analyses, Lott virtually always uses complicated econometrics. For readers to accept the results neccesitates complete trust in Lott's integrity, that he will always conduct careful and competent research. Lott does not merit such trust.

Lott's lack of integrity extends not only to his research methods, but also to his personal conduct. Lott recently admitted to writing under the name "Mary Rosh." Lott used this pseudonym to defend his research and analysis in online message boards while claiming to be a former student of Lott. Most irresponsibly, Lott posted a 5-star review of his earlier book, More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com, which has since been removed. Lott's book is another example of skewed research and pro-gun agenda-driven analysis that is best described as complex statistical sleight of hand, masquerading as an academic, scientific study.

Gun Control has become a major political issue and usually a political weapon during election years. Whether you agree with gun control or agree that the second amendment has taken a real beating from the liberal groups, this book should provide a more in depth insight into why the things you read in the papers, see on TV and hear form some liberal politicians is not quite everything you need to know.

Having read the author other book "More Guns, Less Crime", I was intrigued by how well the author defends his positions on guns, gun control and gun lobbyists. I was even more impressed by the arguments and the facts to back them up this book contains.

What the author has done is take on the establishment and show that the media, the left and the PACs have distorted, obfuscated and demagogue the issues, leaving the people confused and in most cases scared.

As a parent I am concerned about the weapons and guns and this book is tremendously compelling, showing that banning, limiting, controlling of weapons, including automatic and assault, hasn't lowered or decreased crime, in fact the opposite has occurred.

Lott is very well researched and very well documented. He states his case with a great deal of confidence and after reading the text I find myself agreeing with just about everything. I found that the book confirms the statements "It is not the gun that does the damage, it the person using the gun." Overall - well done!

Dr. John R. Lott is primarily an economist who has held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale, Stanford, UCLA and other respected institutions of higher learning. He was also the chief economist of the United States Sentencing Commission in 1988-89. He is no lightweight in the field, and he knows how to interpret statistics. Not only statistics that he himself has gathered, but those for every county in the United States over a period of several years that were gathered by the United States government.

Using the government's own figures, he wrote "More Guns Less Crime," evaluating the violent crime results emanating from the 33 states with "must issue" concealed carry laws as opposed to those without. The "must issue" laws, in effect, insist that law-abiding citizens who pass certain requirements must be issued a concealed carry permit for a handgun, regardless of the local sheriff's feelings about gun-control or an armed populace.

His evaluation of the statistics? Those states without the "must issue" laws, many of whom forbid the law-abiding to carry the means of defending themselves regardless of the U.S. Constitution to the contrary, have a considerably higher rate of violent crime and shootings, and in effect because of their gun-control laws are costing their citizenry hundreds of lives, thousands of injuries, and millions in property loss and damage.

John Lott says, on page 13 of this, his new book, "My role as an economist is not to consider whether Americans have a 'right' to own guns, to keep them unlocked, to sell them at gun shows, to carry guns with them wherever they go, and so on. My only objective is to study the measurable effect that gun laws have on incidents of violence, and to let the facts speak for themselves."

And this he does, very effectively.

In "Bias Against Guns" he does an admirable job of demonstrating how the press and television virtually always report shootings of children nationally, although such events (as he shows) are extremnely rare--for example, whereas 34 children under the age of six were accidentally shot in one year, in the entire nation, 43 were drowned in 5-gallon buckets!

He also looks at multiple shootings, where two or more people are shot by the same perpetrator, as in schools, restaurants, shopping malls and other public venues--acts of terrorism included. IN this he looks not only at the United States, but also at Israel where such events are every day occurrences, and how the Israelis handle the problem, and how best to deter such events.

As he points out, the media almost never report any of the 2,500,000 cases where firearms are used for defense against criminal attack and dangerous animals.

As he says, brandishing a gun and thereby causing an attacker to flee is not news. When man bites dog, that is news but when dog bites man--a much more frequent event--that is NOT news.

Not only the press, but the government also--particularly under the administration of Bill Clinton--spent millions on advertising campaigns vilifying firearms and using spurious
and misleading facts and figures. Polling organizations word their public polls in such a way that it seems the public is in favor of gun control, whereas the opposite is true. Never do they ask the question,"Does private possession of firearms, on balance, create more good than harm?"

And the latter, according to the statistics, is exactly the case. On balance, guns among the population do more good and stop far more violence from occurring than they cause.

The gun-control advocates, especially including the media, tend to use emotion-laden individual cases to make their point, but as Lott points out, the only responsible way to judge the situation, in a population of 275 million, is through the statistical approach, and to do a cost/benefit analysis. In the case of privately owned firearms, the benefits hugely outnumber the the cost in lives, pain, and property. Furthermore, privately owned firearms are the only clear, effective deterrent to crime--more than longer, tougher sentencing laws, capital punishment, and certainly more than gun-control which has never worked, anywhere.

This is a fine book, and as with his last,"More Guns Less Crime," is worth your time if you have an open mind. If, however, you have your mind made up that gun-control is the only answer to all of our problems of violence and you view any other side as "gun culture" propaganda, then you should pass on this one. It will give you ulcers.

Joseph "Joe" Pierre,

author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance

Get your hands on this book. Lott does for the media coverage of guns what Goldberg's and Coulter's books on media bias in general. If anything, his discussion is more convincing since he has actually counted up the different types of stories and isn't simply relying on the annecdotal discussion found in the other books. His book is also broader, with him looking at how the anti-gun agenda is pushed through everything from polling to government reports. He also explodes myths about the risks of having guns in the home and shows that the media bias of exaggerating those risks actually puts people's lives in danger.

Once I started reading it I couldn't put it down.

I'm wondering if the person who was confused by the statistics in the book is one of the ignorant and naive?

Good, detailed statistics clarify rather than obscure facts. The more detail a statistic contains, the more difficult it becomes to misunderstand it.

If you read it then you find it difficult to be able to argue the logic Mr. Lott presents in this book. From the beginning of the book Lott looks at how the media show their bias on guns, how polls on gun control are misleading, the facts needed but not gathered for the most accurate gun statistics, and how the facts about guns and children have been displayed in a misleading way. That information is just in the first hundred pages. All of this was conveniantly left out by the person calling this book all lies, who probably only read peices if any of the book and acts entirely on emotion instead of fact as their review was somewhat vulgar and obviously full of emotion. If you are a logical, rational and open minded human being the facts of this book will appeal to you.

John Lott's 1st book, "More Guns, Less Crime," was an eye-opening look into what the science shows about the presence of guns in society and clearly illustrated the benefits of armed, law abiding citizens. His latest book, "The Bias Against Guns," expands further into media and governmental bias on the issue of guns and he debunks many of the "common sense" proposals for gun regulation; showing that these proposals actually increase crime while having no effect on accidental gun deaths.

Dr. Lott is a brilliant economist and he approaches his subject with a detached and unemotional, scientific process. In "The Bias Against Guns," he takes the reader through the progression of verifying findings and considering alternate explanations. The result is a thoroughly convincing work that argues for gun policy based upon dispassionate science instead of vitriolic and emotional claims made by the media and some in government.

Part I of "The Bias Against Guns" is a careful analysis of how government and the media have unfairly framed the gun control argument to show only the costs of guns in our society. Liberal media and government have - for many decades - systemically and purposefully ignored the benefits of gun ownership in America and around the world. Many people who view themselves as clear-minded independent thinkers will be shocked when they read this section of the book. An open-minded appraisal will reveal that a distaste and fear of guns is far less rational than a fear of automobiles, or, for that matter, five gallon buckets. Guns, cars and buckets are tools that have costs (dangers) and benefits. Part I of "The Bias Against Guns" shows clearly how the media and the government have advanced a one-sided, costs-only view of guns in our society.

Part II of "The Bias Against Guns" is a detailed, scientific evaluation of many different gun control measures. In his previous book, John Lott largely restricted his research to the costs and benefits of laws permitting ordinary citizens to carry concealed handguns. In "The Bias Against Guns," Lott evaluates laws such as safe storage requirements, the effects of gun control on multiple victim public shootings, "gun free" zones, bans on "assault weapons" and restrictions on gun shows. Again, Lott's dispassionate analysis gives these issues very fair treatment, evaluating all possible explanations for his findings. The results are sometimes surprising but always based upon scientific evidence and not emotional presuppositions.

If you are a proponent of law-abiding citizens owning guns, you will find much in "The Bias Against Guns" that will support your point of view. If you are among the many Americans that are more afraid of having a gun in your home than a car in your garage, I strongly urge you to read John Lott's latest book. You will come away convinced that our nations gun policy should be based upon what the science of the matter reports and not the liberal media's version of "common sense."

Many controversial topics pit beliefs and emotions against one another, with facts thrown in as a legitimizing afterthought. In his new book, "The Bias Against Guns," John Lott does not use sparse facts to bolster an emotional appeal on gun-control, but follows the careful development and analysis of data to reach measured conclusions. The only emotional demand the author makes is the restrained appeal to judge the data, analysis methods and facts rather than to make knee-jerk conclusions about the relationship between gun ownership, crime, self-defense, multiple shootings, gun-lock, gun-free zone, and conceal carry weapons laws. Although Lott starts out well in an attempt to make his methods accessible, this casual reader became buried in the logic paths, surrogate data methods and analytical techniques used to conduct valid research. Sadly, the simple data gathering methods and analysis that many gun-control authors employ, while more straight-forward to understand, also leads to false conclusions, as Lott demonstrates. The vast majority will have to wait while academics have at Lott's latest work. While the technical failings of Michael Bellesiles' "Arming of America" have lead to his academic censure and halt in publication of the book in little more than 2 years, John Lott's first book "More Guns, Less Crime" is going strong five years after publication. Not without his academic detractors ...the long-term survival of Lott's work and publication of this second installment in his continuing research bears out broad acceptance of his conclusions.

As a professor of statistics, I laughed out loud when I read an earlier reviewer write: "I can't believe John Lott has a doctorate and gets away with such flawed research. He 'randomnly' called a little over 1000 people and made a conclusion for the entire nation. Can't do it with such a small sample."

Flawed research? What an intellectual ignoramus! Not only can't he spell 'randomly' correctly, he doesn't understand anything about statistics. He puts randomly in quotes when even a beginning student in statistics recognizes that this is REQUIRED if sample information is to be credible and representative of the population being sampled.

And if 1,000 people aren't enough to draw a conclusion about the entire population, Mr. Einstein, how does the Gallup Poll forecast national elections with an accuracy of +/- 3% by talking with only 1,100 people?

The only thing flawed here is the reviewer's obvious anti-gun bias.

Like most closed-minded individuals, this reviewer proves himself to be Invincibly Ignorant

For like members of the Flat Earth Society, no matter how many facts and arguments against their positions they encounter, they simply refuse to admit that they might be wrong. Instead, they resort to name calling and character assassination.

I have read the book and find Dr. Lott's data and conclusions extremely compelling. I recommend this book to anyone that is open to the truth about the bogus intellectual underpinnings of the gun-control movement in America.

Like Zorro armed with a sharp intellect and the rapier of mathematics, John Lott shreds ,again, all cover of all the anti-gunners claims and so called research, leaving them stark naked. "The Bias Against Guns" throws down the gauntlet and asks; "shall we have at it again?" to the anti-gunners.
Point, set and match to John R. Lott Jr.

he speaks the truth with numbers that can't be argued with rational thought. If you want the truth about Gun Laws and thier effectiveness and the bias of the media then this books for you.

If you want the facts on gun control, Lott's two books, "The Bias Against Guns" and "More Guns, Less Crime" are the way to go. Of the two, this later work is perhaps easier to aborb and the better choice for the lay reader. Lott's evidence is especially compelling in the current climate of terrorism threats as we determine how best to protect a free society, (whether through creation of an impossibly large police force that can be in all places at all times, or through empowerment of law abiding citizens to take increased accountability for self protection and as a deterrent to crime in their communities.)

You will undoubtedly see some reviewers give this five stars and some only one. The one star reviewers will not include any factual refutation of the arguments that Mr. Lott presents. His research is simply sound, and this soundness is not changed by the shrill personal attacks by the gun control crowd.

I have taken off one star from this review because of occasional redundant sections that remind the reader of Yogi Berra's deja vu maxim. Perhaps a stricter editor might have improved the flow a bit!

This book has been endorsed by three Nobel prize winning economists. Lott's research will be the standard source material for the gun policy debate for years to come.

I can't believe John Lott has a doctorate and gets away with such flawed research. He "randomnly" called a little over 1000 people and made a conclusion for the entire nation. Can't do it with such a small sample. ... Lott uses statistics to confuse the naive and ignorant. Plus, he attempts to explain how the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan by confiscating firearms, yet never mentions the nation was and still is awash in guns. ...
Lott uses "lies, damn lies, and statistics" to support his bias towards gun control laws and movements. Don't waste your time with this trash. ...

Even for a cynic such as myself, Lott's documentation of how the media and the government distort our perceptions of guns is amazing. The research that went into this book is impressive. He documents not only the imbalance in newscoverage but also how the media actually makes news to discredit guns. He shows how government studies systematically measure only the bad things that happen with guns and never discuss the benefits.

"If you want the truth the anti-gunners don't want you to know... you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns." --Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes

"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"As a gun-toting rock 'n' roll star all my life, I have lived firsthand the outrageous media and Hollywood bias against good guys with guns forever. I laugh in their face. John Lott is my academic hero." --Ted Nugent, recording artist and author of Kill It & Grill It and Gods, Guns, & Rock 'n' Roll

"[Lott] marshals unimpeachable evidence on how the anti-gun crusade, driven by sins of omission and commission, might actually be costing many more lives than it saves. You'll want to have this intellectual ammunition." --Walter E. Williams, economist and syndicated columnist

"John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

Most impressively he also provides all his data to people who what to recheck the work that he has done on the benefits of keeping guns in the home as well as his work on gun shows, concealed handgun laws, one-gun-a-month rules, and "assault weapons" bans. The web site is noted in the book as (...).