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

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

4.0 11
by John R. Lott Jr., John R. Lott
     
 

View All Available Formats & Editions

"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

Overview

"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

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
Following up on his controversial study More Guns, Less Crime, economist Lott argues that widespread gun ownership prevents crime. He cites survey data and news reports to argue that the fear that victims might be armed strongly deters criminals, and that guns are used in self-defense or to ward off criminal threats about 2.3 million times a year. Because they impede law-abiding citizens' access to guns, even mild gun-control regulations-assault weapons bans, "one-gun-a-month" laws-actually increase crime, according to Lott, while right-to-carry laws lower crime and help prevent (or violently terminate) terrorist attacks and "rampage" shootings. Even measures to keep guns away from children, like "gun-free school zones" and "safe storage" laws that require guns to be locked away, are misguided because children need guns for self-defense (he cites news reports of kids as young as 11 gunning down criminals). The benefits of untrammeled gun availability are clear, Lott insists, and only the anti-gun bias and selective reporting by the media and government officials have kept this fact out of public consciousness. Lott supports his bold claims with elaborate statistical analyses that tease sometimes small effects out of the welter of factors that influence crime rates; there are lots of graphs and tables, and much space is devoted to scholarly discussions of statistical methodologies. Many readers will find these sections rough going, but Lott's provocative thesis is sure to stir interest among second-amendment stalwarts and gun-control supporters alike. (Mar.) Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information.

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9780895261144
Publisher:
Regnery Publishing
Publication date:
02/15/2003
Pages:
256
Product dimensions:
6.36(w) x 9.50(h) x 1.14(d)

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 laws....DC....to 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
awesome
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.