Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong / Edition 1

Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong / Edition 1

4.0 11
by John R. Lott

ISBN-10: 0895261146

ISBN-13: 2900895261143

Pub. Date: 02/15/2003

Publisher: Regnery Publishing

In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth. With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns…  See more details below


In his bestselling classic, More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott proved that guns make us safer. Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth. With irrefutable evidence, Lott shoots gun critics down and gives you the information you need to win arguments with those who want to ban guns. In The Bias Against Guns, you'll learn: How Diane Sawyer, Dan Rather, Charlie Gibson, and other TV talking heads promote gun control in the guise of "news". The clever way reporters and the New York Times "spike" pro-gun facts. The trick government statisticians use to "cook" data for the anti-gun lobby (and how pollsters do the same). The sleight of hand that gun-controllers use to grab your taxpayer dollars for their agenda. Why bicycles, water buckets, and playing football are more dangerous to children than guns. How to cut crime -- by giving citizens the right to carry concealed weapons. Why Britain -- which recently banned handguns -- now has a violent crime rate double that of America's. The fallacy of "safe storage" laws. Why "assault weapons bans" and "gun show" regulations are counterproductive. Want the facts? John Lott has them. And with The Bias Against Guns you'll learn how to arm yourself and your neighbors against liberals who would rather confiscate your guns than fight crime.

Read More

Product Details

Regnery Publishing
Publication date:
Edition description:
New Edition

Table of Contents

Part IThe Pervasive Bias
Introduction: Why Almost Everything You've Ever Heard About Gun Control Contains Bias3
Chapter 1The Good and the Bad15
Chapter 2The Media on Guns23
Chapter 3How the Government Works Against Gun Ownership49
Chapter 4The Shifting Debate: Terrorism, Gun Control Abroad, and Children61
Part IIExamining the Evidence
Chapter 5Evaluating Evidence on Guns: How and How Not to Do It89
Chapter 6Acts of Terror with Guns: Multiple Victim Shootings97
Chapter 7Guns at Home: To Lock or Not to Lock137
Chapter 8Do Gun Shows and Assault Weapons Increase Crime?191
Chapter 9Conclusion223
Appendix 1Some Recent Evidence on Guns and Crime227
Appendix 2Other Measures of Gun Ownership245
Appendix 3Supplemental Tables for Chapters 6, 7, and 8261

Read More

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network


Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >

The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong 4 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 11 reviews.
CasimerStawicki More than 1 year ago
Dr. Lott has written a painstakingly accurate accounting if how main stream media sway public opinion. Omitted statements, truncated data, inaccurate conclusions, and skewed questioning are exposed for what they are "outright lies". Written for general consumption but well footnoted for academic follow up. Interesting to me who read the reviews before reading the work. This book is discounted as inaccurate by only those who have not read it.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book points out all the facts that any anti-gunner doesn't want you to know. He points out how more right-to-carry laws prevent a large number of violent crimes from taking place. He also rebutes the arguement that safe storage laws prevent gun violence. Mr. Lott has the stats to back up all his arguements. Gun Control advocates should read this book to see the fallacy of their arguements.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I havn't even read the book yet but any book that is pro gun is got to be great, I've heard ALOT of Great things about this book. A must buy!!!
Guest More than 1 year ago
That they offer no evidence that Gun ownership doesn't reduce violent crime. I wonder if Saddam allowed gun ownership rights. However every study concerning violent crime in non firearm-right nation, do they count the murders of the citizens of that nation by thier govt. toward that nations violent crime numbers. Unless those who died at the hands of an goverment where the victims of US policy. Any law enforcement misbehavior is a violent crime in the U.S. In Cuba, govt. abuse is not even allowed to be reported, However, every study reported shows Cuba as having a lower violent crime rate than the US. The Second Amendment is there to protect the existance of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is truly a call to arms to moniter this govt of the people, by the people, for the people.
Rhett_Butler More than 1 year ago
There's no one better on the subject than John Lott, Jr.! First he's a scientist and he maintains that objectivity and accuracy throughout the book. The ONLY shortcoming this book has is that it is getting "long in the tooth". It's time for an update. Otherwise I think that detractors will start claiming that the information is no longer applicable.
Muttdad More than 1 year ago
Lott presents the 'other side' of the firearm issue pointing out the blatant bias of the media. There is ample evidence that guns have stopped attacks, robberies and assaults. Unfortunately the bulk of the book is reams of data supporting that. After a while this gets tiring to plow through and you're saying, OK, OK, I get the point. I don't understand why he did so much research to make a statement.
Redmoon More than 1 year ago
If Laws prevented crimes then we would all be perfectly safe. Until there is a police officer standing on my front porch and one escorting me every where I go, I will have to protect myself. A reasonable person only has to look at the cities with the strictest gun understand how taking away 2nd amendment freedoms endangers the citizens.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I'm writing a term paper for school and the topic I chose is gun control. It's a problem-solution paper and my stance is that gun control is the problem and there's too much of it. I believe in our 2nd Amendment right as long as it's not taken for granted and used responsibly. So my point is, is the information in his book any good to helping my point of view? Does it have any solutions to gun control or ways to go about it? I'm looking at this as a resource I could cite and use for my paper. I'd appreciate some help and feedback. Thanks!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
guitaoist3 More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
John Lott's 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 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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.