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.