The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You'Ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong [Hardcover]

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.

I read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" last year. The first 50-100 pages or so were pretty interesting - then he just got bogged down in statistic after statistic, which if I was an academic statistician, the book would be inclined to hold my attention (as a personal aside, I totally understand and can read statistics, but reading chart after chart, at least for me, slows down the flow and continuity of the book). It was still a worthwhile, recommended read, from the perspective of being able to adequately support one's assertions with cold, hard evidence.

The Bias Against Guns was advertised as a "less scholarly" version of More Guns Less Crime, which doesn't matter to me, since I enjoy reading academic tomes as a general rule. But hearing that it was more of a layman's book, to me, indicated that the statistical presence would not be as heavy. But again, after about 50 or so pages, it started getting pretty bogged down in charts (which is fine if you want to look at page after page of very detailed and intricate charts and graphs).

That being said, I gleaned many important perspectives about the media's portrayal of gun-related news stories. Heck, I recently saw this in action, in Canada, where a very liberal TV station had a "documentary" on replica guns and the amount of liberties they took with trying to make an airsoft gun function like a real one (ie. the woman reported pretended to recoil the airsoft pistol, though as we all know, there is no recoil in airsoft). To the non-gun enthusiast, they would be left with a different impression.

In Canada, guns are highly regulated, and for those who criticize books like Lott's, you obviously have never seen what happens when the gun control folks get a hold of the politicians' ears. My local gunshop is stocking less and less. There are some guns that folks in the U.S. can buy fairly easily that I not only need to get an additional license to buy, but I then need to get a transport licence to take it home and the only place I can then transport it (with another transport licence) is to an authorized range. It's such a hassle that I don't even bother applying for the restricted licence.

I appreciate an academic, like Lott, who can make a reasoned argument for responsible gun ownership and concealed carry, using evidence and supporting documentation in the process. It is really hard to provide a plausible counter-argument if one does not take as much care as Lott did to collect as much supporting evidence as he did - I own a lot of gun books (mostly pro-gun, but to balance it out own a few anti-gun tomes), and I have not seen an anti-gun book that is as meticulously detailed in its footnoting and reference structure as Lott's. As a resource, this book is valuable for any gun enthusiast as a future reference, should people ask you about what evidence is there for such-and-such statistic. It's hard to argue against hard evidence, and Lott delivers it in spades.

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!