Rating: 
Summary: Will Drive The Anti-Gunners Crazy!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: STATISTICS FOR THE STATISTICIAN
Review: 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?
Rating: 
Summary: A thoughtful, provocative book
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Explains a alot!
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Invaluable study of the real effects of gun-ownership
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: No basis in reality
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The facts on gun control, and more readable this time
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The truth at last - read and LEARN!
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic Read - Facts Over Fear On The Gun Control Debate
Review: 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."
| 
