What do you think?
Rate this book
Control: Exposing the Truth about Guns
#1 bestselling author and popular radio and television host Glenn Beck shines a spotlight on today’s culture of violence and provides practical, timely, and fact-based answers to the most commonly heard gun-control arguments.
189 pages, Paperback
First published April 30, 2013
113 people are currently reading
973 people want to read
About the author
Glenn Beck
73 books1,081 followersGlenn Edward Lee Beck is one of America's leading radio and television personalities. His quick wit, candid opinions and engaging personality have made The Glenn Beck Program the third highest rated radio program in America and Glenn Beck, one of the most successful new shows on the Fox News Channel. His unique blend of modern-day storytelling and insightful views on current events allowed him to achieve the extraordinary feat of having #1 New York Times bestsellers in both fiction and non-fiction. Beck also stars in a live stage show and is the publisher of Fusion magazine.
Online, he is the editor of GlennBeck.com and the publisher of TheBlaze.com.
Beck is the author of six consecutive #1 New York Times Bestsellers including his latest book, the thriller The Overton Window. When The Christmas Sweater, his first novel, debuted at #1 on the fiction list, Beck became one of a handful of authors to write books that reached #1 on both the fiction and non-fiction NYT lists.
Online, he is the editor of GlennBeck.com and the publisher of TheBlaze.com.
Beck is the author of six consecutive #1 New York Times Bestsellers including his latest book, the thriller The Overton Window. When The Christmas Sweater, his first novel, debuted at #1 on the fiction list, Beck became one of a handful of authors to write books that reached #1 on both the fiction and non-fiction NYT lists.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews
January 21, 2021
This was written following the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting and was very much needed. Following the tragedy, over half of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll reported that they supported additional gun control laws. Keep in mind that this was the first time in decades it had been that high. The purpose of this book is to show that, contrary to popular belief, more guns does not equal more crime. In fact, more conceal carry permits actually reduce crime. The format of the book makes it readable for everyone.
May 7, 2013
Before I review this book I should tell you my stance on guns, so that you know any biases that color my opinion of the issue and therefore my opinion of the book.
I am not a gun person. I don't own a gun, and I don't particularly want one. However, I am a fan of the Bill of Rights. That makes me inclined to side with anyone who doesn't want the right of the people to keep and bear arms infringed.
Because I am not passionate about the gun issue, I'm not particularly well informed. I have seen lots of videos passed around Facebook of Piers Morgan and others making crazy claims about guns. Of course, they never cite anything, so I find myself wondering what is true and what isn't.
That's where this book comes in. In Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, Glenn Beck was accused of making Straw Man arguments. So to avoid that accusation, he refers to direct quotes made by various people about guns. Then he gives well footnoted answers to those arguments.
It's definitely a one sided piece. But, I appreciated that everything he said was documented with real polls and studies.
The book is divided into two parts, the first is a persuasive piece that attempts to show (quite effectively, in my opinion) that guns are not the problem.
The second is an essay about our culture, how we have created a culture that doesn't value life, and that culture is the problem. He ends with some proposed solutions to our culture problem.
You definitely need to read the book to get the full breadth of his argument, but here are just a few quotes I thought were poignant.
"[A]ll of the multiple-victim massacres in Western Europe, as well as all of those in the United States where at least three people died, have occurred in places where civilians cannot legally bring guns." p. 31
"[W]e found no statistical evidence of post-ban decreases in either the number of victims per gun homicide incident, the number of gun-shot wounds per victim, or the proportion of gunshot victims with multiple wounds. Nor did we find assault weapons to be over represented in a sample of mass murders involving guns." - excerpt from a 1997 study on the results of the 1994 assault weapons ban, p. 41
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effect on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban." - excerpt from same study, p. 42
"We must stop looking to assign blame to the choices we are offered - whether it's guns or large sodas or tanning beds - and instead take personal responsibility for our choice and our lives." p. 115
"To say that violent media consumption is not a risk factor for violent aggression later in life means that you are either ignorant, have a political agenda, or, like Stephen King, are looking for some way to make yourself feel better about your contributions to the crisis." p. 122
"Five hundred years of gunpowder combat. One hundred and fifty years of repeating firearms. Yet, despite it all, no one can find a single case, anywhere in the world, where a juvenile committed a multiple homicide in a school prior to 1975. Common sense tells us that maybe this isn't about the gun after all. Maybe it's about the person who holds it." p. 126
"This is not just a gun issue, It's also an issue of the kinds of communities that we're building." - Barack Obama p. 151
"[T]he way forward cannot be found in the halls of Congress, it can only be found in the rooms of our homes and the streets of our neighborhoods." p. 162
"When a child opens fire on another child, there's a hole in that child's heart that government can't fill. Only community and parents and teaches and clergy can fill that hole." - Barack Obama p. 162
I am not a gun person. I don't own a gun, and I don't particularly want one. However, I am a fan of the Bill of Rights. That makes me inclined to side with anyone who doesn't want the right of the people to keep and bear arms infringed.
Because I am not passionate about the gun issue, I'm not particularly well informed. I have seen lots of videos passed around Facebook of Piers Morgan and others making crazy claims about guns. Of course, they never cite anything, so I find myself wondering what is true and what isn't.
That's where this book comes in. In Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, Glenn Beck was accused of making Straw Man arguments. So to avoid that accusation, he refers to direct quotes made by various people about guns. Then he gives well footnoted answers to those arguments.
It's definitely a one sided piece. But, I appreciated that everything he said was documented with real polls and studies.
The book is divided into two parts, the first is a persuasive piece that attempts to show (quite effectively, in my opinion) that guns are not the problem.
The second is an essay about our culture, how we have created a culture that doesn't value life, and that culture is the problem. He ends with some proposed solutions to our culture problem.
You definitely need to read the book to get the full breadth of his argument, but here are just a few quotes I thought were poignant.
"[A]ll of the multiple-victim massacres in Western Europe, as well as all of those in the United States where at least three people died, have occurred in places where civilians cannot legally bring guns." p. 31
"[W]e found no statistical evidence of post-ban decreases in either the number of victims per gun homicide incident, the number of gun-shot wounds per victim, or the proportion of gunshot victims with multiple wounds. Nor did we find assault weapons to be over represented in a sample of mass murders involving guns." - excerpt from a 1997 study on the results of the 1994 assault weapons ban, p. 41
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effect on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban." - excerpt from same study, p. 42
"We must stop looking to assign blame to the choices we are offered - whether it's guns or large sodas or tanning beds - and instead take personal responsibility for our choice and our lives." p. 115
"To say that violent media consumption is not a risk factor for violent aggression later in life means that you are either ignorant, have a political agenda, or, like Stephen King, are looking for some way to make yourself feel better about your contributions to the crisis." p. 122
"Five hundred years of gunpowder combat. One hundred and fifty years of repeating firearms. Yet, despite it all, no one can find a single case, anywhere in the world, where a juvenile committed a multiple homicide in a school prior to 1975. Common sense tells us that maybe this isn't about the gun after all. Maybe it's about the person who holds it." p. 126
"This is not just a gun issue, It's also an issue of the kinds of communities that we're building." - Barack Obama p. 151
"[T]he way forward cannot be found in the halls of Congress, it can only be found in the rooms of our homes and the streets of our neighborhoods." p. 162
"When a child opens fire on another child, there's a hole in that child's heart that government can't fill. Only community and parents and teaches and clergy can fill that hole." - Barack Obama p. 162
May 24, 2013
After a study came out about gun crime rates falling, I made a bet with a guy that the numbers would actually go back up with the record breaking sales of firearms recently. He let me borrow this book to help me understand why he's so sure he'll win. I admit, there's a possibility I will lose this one (we'll have to wait a while to find out). I'm still unclear as to why the rates fall - I guess it's like having amateur police presence?
While the data Glenn Beck presents is plausible (and I could have done without the smug remarks to his competition), I have not been converted to being a gun rights supporter.
I'll get right to my main point:
His use of the term "controllists" is really unnecessary and insulting for the people who are trying to come up with a solution. He may think it's a big agenda to try and disarm citizens so the government can conduct sinister plans but it seems to me that if these mass shootings involving children never happened - this issue would never have been discussed. These are grieving parents who manage to pull it together long enough to ask lawmakers do something so other parents don't have to go through the pain they're going through. We OWE it to them to at least listen to the people who suffer the consequences of the second amendment.
The thing that really bugs me about this gun debate though is the real intentions behind it all. If you really feel unsafe without a gun in your home, if it's THAT important to you (which it must be, since thousands of innocent people die every year so you can be prepared on the chance of a home invasion or rape), fine, I can live with it. But it seems like the majority of conservatives oppose gun control merely because of a principle, the idea that the government is taking too much control. It sounds like they're doing exactly what they accuse the liberals of doing - putting their political agenda first.
Also, I'm leery of being so fundamental when it comes documents created many, many generations ago (is owning a gun really a *God given* right? Sorry, don't think so). It kind of undermines our own abilities. Aren't we smart enough to know how to run our society? Aren't our children in the future? I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: "The earth belongs to the living generation."
Most of his arguments involve discrediting the statistics that support gun control advocates. I agree, statistics are complicated and can be manipulated and are - at best - an estimate of what the real picture looks like. There are so many factors that influence crime it's really hard to pick out one element and decide how it affects everything.
Really, in my view, crime is a small part of the problem with guns. It's the accidents and suicides that concern me most. There's a part where he talks about guns and domestic violence and how women shouldn't be marrying criminals; all but saying it's their own fault that they're killed. He brushes off tragic incidents by using a really small percentage numbers.
I DO agree with him about violent video games (though somehow people in Japan and China are exposed to the same stuff America is and they avoid the problems we have). I agree that we need to enforce the laws that we currently have (but, inevitably, Glenn, it's gonna take funding from those hated taxes that nobody wants to pay). I'd be happy with trained armed officer presence in our schools too - but it seems unlikely to happen without spending more money.
And it would be awesome if all parents had the means, the ability to raise their children in loving homes. I'd love for you, Glenn, to take that challenge while working minimum wage as a single parent in a neighborhood where drug deals go down on the corner down the street. But I guess that's their choice, right? And not your problem.
While the data Glenn Beck presents is plausible (and I could have done without the smug remarks to his competition), I have not been converted to being a gun rights supporter.
I'll get right to my main point:
His use of the term "controllists" is really unnecessary and insulting for the people who are trying to come up with a solution. He may think it's a big agenda to try and disarm citizens so the government can conduct sinister plans but it seems to me that if these mass shootings involving children never happened - this issue would never have been discussed. These are grieving parents who manage to pull it together long enough to ask lawmakers do something so other parents don't have to go through the pain they're going through. We OWE it to them to at least listen to the people who suffer the consequences of the second amendment.
The thing that really bugs me about this gun debate though is the real intentions behind it all. If you really feel unsafe without a gun in your home, if it's THAT important to you (which it must be, since thousands of innocent people die every year so you can be prepared on the chance of a home invasion or rape), fine, I can live with it. But it seems like the majority of conservatives oppose gun control merely because of a principle, the idea that the government is taking too much control. It sounds like they're doing exactly what they accuse the liberals of doing - putting their political agenda first.
Also, I'm leery of being so fundamental when it comes documents created many, many generations ago (is owning a gun really a *God given* right? Sorry, don't think so). It kind of undermines our own abilities. Aren't we smart enough to know how to run our society? Aren't our children in the future? I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: "The earth belongs to the living generation."
Most of his arguments involve discrediting the statistics that support gun control advocates. I agree, statistics are complicated and can be manipulated and are - at best - an estimate of what the real picture looks like. There are so many factors that influence crime it's really hard to pick out one element and decide how it affects everything.
Really, in my view, crime is a small part of the problem with guns. It's the accidents and suicides that concern me most. There's a part where he talks about guns and domestic violence and how women shouldn't be marrying criminals; all but saying it's their own fault that they're killed. He brushes off tragic incidents by using a really small percentage numbers.
I DO agree with him about violent video games (though somehow people in Japan and China are exposed to the same stuff America is and they avoid the problems we have). I agree that we need to enforce the laws that we currently have (but, inevitably, Glenn, it's gonna take funding from those hated taxes that nobody wants to pay). I'd be happy with trained armed officer presence in our schools too - but it seems unlikely to happen without spending more money.
And it would be awesome if all parents had the means, the ability to raise their children in loving homes. I'd love for you, Glenn, to take that challenge while working minimum wage as a single parent in a neighborhood where drug deals go down on the corner down the street. But I guess that's their choice, right? And not your problem.
May 5, 2013
Glen Beck has written a book about gun control. He makes some good points, but, as happens when you let someone ramble without interruption, he makes some weak points and opens himself up to criticism, mainly my bringing opposing points of view to light of which the reader may not have already known. The first part of the book is tedious, and sometimes unreadable. He makes a good point about a lot of the problems with society being cause by violence in entertainment media, but as usual, he does not really offer any particular viable solution. His attempt at humor is childish and immature, and his book is filled with personal attacks on others. I'm particularly curious as to why he dedicated his book to Martin Luther King, Jr. He calls people who advocate gun control "controllists," and continues that in his normal fashion throughout the book. He describes his book, however, as a "handbook [that] gives everyone who cares about the Second Amendment the indisputable facts they need to reclaim the debate, defeat the fear, and take back their natural rights." In other words, he tells you what your opinion should be, and tells you how to argue with others about it, because most people don't know why they think what they do. They just know that they need to be against gun control. Also, of all the conservative issues to write about, he publishes this book in a relatively inexpensive format. Glen Beck is the controllist, and he's dangerous. Remember that I said this.
March 12, 2014
This is a clearly written, concise, occasionally funny book on refuting the claims of Gun Control supporters. Every time I read a book by Glenn Beck, I'm impressed by his writing style - it isn't condescending, nor over-the-top dramatic.
The first part of the book lists common arguments used by the gun control crowd, and debunks them. The second part offers a possible explanation for mass killings in the U.S., with a plea to parents to pay attention to their children and communities. Put simply, the problem isn't the gun - the problem is the person holding it.
The only issue I have with books like this is that it's preaching to the choir. The author is a well-known conservative radio/TV host with a large fan base, so that may scare away moderate liberals. Regardless, it was an enjoyable, relatively easy read that I will recommend to friends and family.
The first part of the book lists common arguments used by the gun control crowd, and debunks them. The second part offers a possible explanation for mass killings in the U.S., with a plea to parents to pay attention to their children and communities. Put simply, the problem isn't the gun - the problem is the person holding it.
The only issue I have with books like this is that it's preaching to the choir. The author is a well-known conservative radio/TV host with a large fan base, so that may scare away moderate liberals. Regardless, it was an enjoyable, relatively easy read that I will recommend to friends and family.
May 9, 2013
I liked it, the beginning really caught my attention. I grew up around guns and I was never quite sure why people are so scared of them. People die all the time from everything imaginable. I mean heeellllooo people who have ever seen the show a 1000 ways to die. Shit happens. People die. There is a time stamp on everyone of us. Once the American people wake up and realize that safety is all in your head. We are allowing our government to control us with fear. I believe in the US Constitution and what it stood for. If we want to remain free, then quit giving away our rights.
July 17, 2013
Glenn Beck's CONTROL is presented in two parts. The first part, which deals with the issue of gun control, is eye-opening, and even his more extreme arguments come across as well-reasoned and convincing. Of course, Beck has his detractors, and you'll easily find people who claim this book is full of "lies," or who present the logical argument that Beck's facts are wrong because he doesn't know what it feels like to lose a kid to gun violence. The more sophisticated arguments against this book are made by those who question the validity of Beck's statistics, but even that just comes across to me as nothing more than partisan smear tactics.
The second part of the book, though, sorta loses me, mostly because Beck fails to properly define his argument. Beck talks about the subversive effects of violent video games, movies, and television programs, but I was often at a loss as to what kind of violence he was referring to--I mean, are we talking TOM & JERRY here, or just stuff like the SAW franchise? For example, Glenn cites WORLD OF WARCRAFT as being another one of those "violent video games," but to label it that way feels rather disingenuous to me. Nor do I think movies like THE AVENGERS should be considered "violent" in a derogatory way, as Beck seems to believe they should. Or perhaps he simply means they are too violent for very young children, in which case I would agree. Whichever the case, Beck doesn't make his point clearly enough. He mostly just seems to be claiming that violence in general is bad in a general sort of way--something I don't think is a newsflash to anyone, nor do I think it a concept necessitating an entire section of a book in order to explore it.
The second part of the book, though, sorta loses me, mostly because Beck fails to properly define his argument. Beck talks about the subversive effects of violent video games, movies, and television programs, but I was often at a loss as to what kind of violence he was referring to--I mean, are we talking TOM & JERRY here, or just stuff like the SAW franchise? For example, Glenn cites WORLD OF WARCRAFT as being another one of those "violent video games," but to label it that way feels rather disingenuous to me. Nor do I think movies like THE AVENGERS should be considered "violent" in a derogatory way, as Beck seems to believe they should. Or perhaps he simply means they are too violent for very young children, in which case I would agree. Whichever the case, Beck doesn't make his point clearly enough. He mostly just seems to be claiming that violence in general is bad in a general sort of way--something I don't think is a newsflash to anyone, nor do I think it a concept necessitating an entire section of a book in order to explore it.
September 21, 2017
This was disappointing. Though Beck got his name alone on the front cover, large portions of it were written by the other writers credited on the inside page. Consequently it's of variable quality and you can tell the parts he wrote. Snarky and doesn't always go to the root of the objection to a particular anti-gun talking point...the right that preexists the US Constitution. Nowadays it's not enough any more just to say "It's in the Constitution." We need to explain why. There were similar issues as well.
Being familiar with the work and writings of Grossman and Lott, I can easily tell the parts written by them. They are by far the more mature, level, and persuasive sections of the book. Quite damning actually. Step by step, they destroy the points they were tasked with in the book. But then you run back into one of Glenn's (I presume) sections. Pot-shots at Rachel Maddow's ratings and other unnecessary jibes take this from a book I had hoped to give to friends from the Left, but now is only good to rile the team. And what good is that really? Don't we have enough of that?
He had a chance to speak to the public but only spoke to the choir.
Three stars for truth, but two off for partisanship and attitude. I continually found myself wishing I could rewrite the book with the same writers, but sharpen his sections logically and verbally and republish it without his name on it. Unfortunate. It had potential. We need real polemics, not red meat. He had both, but the ratio was off.
Being familiar with the work and writings of Grossman and Lott, I can easily tell the parts written by them. They are by far the more mature, level, and persuasive sections of the book. Quite damning actually. Step by step, they destroy the points they were tasked with in the book. But then you run back into one of Glenn's (I presume) sections. Pot-shots at Rachel Maddow's ratings and other unnecessary jibes take this from a book I had hoped to give to friends from the Left, but now is only good to rile the team. And what good is that really? Don't we have enough of that?
He had a chance to speak to the public but only spoke to the choir.
Three stars for truth, but two off for partisanship and attitude. I continually found myself wishing I could rewrite the book with the same writers, but sharpen his sections logically and verbally and republish it without his name on it. Unfortunate. It had potential. We need real polemics, not red meat. He had both, but the ratio was off.
May 1, 2013
A good, quick rebuttal to a lot of the arguments that you hear nowadays regarding gun control. Only four stars, though, because I think you really do need the footnotes in the back so you're not quoting Glenn Beck, but you can go to original sources, check on his work, and come to your own conclusion. The audio version, while super handy (I wouldn't have finished this so quickly without it), doesn't and can't include the footnotes.
Oh, and apparently the reader for the version that I have (Audible) had an earlier version of the text than what's in print, as he keeps referring to the perpetrators of mass killings as "shooters", something that the text version of the book specifically calls out as a misnomer and avoids.
Oh, and apparently the reader for the version that I have (Audible) had an earlier version of the text than what's in print, as he keeps referring to the perpetrators of mass killings as "shooters", something that the text version of the book specifically calls out as a misnomer and avoids.
May 18, 2017
Just about what I expect out of Beck. I was actually counting on this book being more factual than opininated. This book didn't give me anything new that I hadn't already read in some of his other works. It made reading this tedious and redundent, but I agree that this is an important topic. Eventually it will be challenged and addressed and passed. I can surmise that most likely it will be done when an act of nature has torn up a good portion of the country, and everyone's attention is diverted. A clue to all aspiring politicos. CRIMINALS DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR LAWS, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CRIMINALS TO BEGIN WITH! MORONS!
Laws are hampering good people from protecting themselves, and setting up the nation for a police state.
Laws are hampering good people from protecting themselves, and setting up the nation for a police state.
June 20, 2016
Beck writes about the battle of gun control in America. Advocates blame the guns for violence instead of people. He attempts to debunk myths about guns and cites numerous statistics. Control is a good read about an issue dividing the country.
December 31, 2015
Finished Glenn Beck's control. Some of the quotes by others made me have heart palpitations several times. Good grief. Surprisingly i see his viewpoint and for the most part agree.
America has a serious "person problem ". This country has and is surviving on the push of violence in movies and video games, it's no longer learning to shoot a rifle at target practice, as it's become learning to entertain yourself by virtually shooting another human on a game.
It's scary and before too long it'll only get worse.
America has a serious "person problem ". This country has and is surviving on the push of violence in movies and video games, it's no longer learning to shoot a rifle at target practice, as it's become learning to entertain yourself by virtually shooting another human on a game.
It's scary and before too long it'll only get worse.
August 11, 2016
While I disagree with Beck's politics pretty much across the board, I enjoyed this book (almost in spite of myself). I take everything e says or writes with a grain of salt, and while he committed some of the same failures of logic here that he accuses others of doing, he also makes some good points.
May 24, 2013
I have now read both Steven King's book Guns (anti-gun) and this book (pro-gun).
Neither are great works of literature.
I think this one is better argued than King's.
It rambles a bit, but covers the issues.
For those who are truly interested in the topic, the best (but most detailed and researched) book in my opinion remain those by John Lott's books on the subject.
Neither are great works of literature.
I think this one is better argued than King's.
It rambles a bit, but covers the issues.
For those who are truly interested in the topic, the best (but most detailed and researched) book in my opinion remain those by John Lott's books on the subject.
May 23, 2013
Glenn does not hold aback many punches with this one. Lots of examples with links to the source.
February 20, 2019
I never read non-fiction this quickly. EVER. But this book was that compelling and was written in a very readable style. It also has no chapters, so I just keep reading and reading :)
Beck takes quotes from the media and politicians and then shows how they are false. Often, the people have been misinformed or misunderstood the data they are referring to. But quite often, you have to wonder if they just don't care.
For the most part, Beck does a good job not attacking people. He gives them the benefit of the doubt and talks about why he disagrees with their statements but not attacking the person. He even points out times where he and someone DO agree. I appreciated that.
Truth is not subjective, contrary to popular belief. Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't make it true. Beck pulls out a LOT of data in this little book. Sometimes it seemed like a bit much, but it's needed. For some odd reason, those of us who hold the views expressed in this book are required to have reams of evidence for our beliefs, while those who disagree aren't.
At times, Beck's voice became a little sarcastic. I appreciate and understand that, but I think it hinders people who might read this book who disagree with him. I certainly don't want to read a book of a viewpoint I disagree with and feel like I'm being ridiculed. It wasn't a lot, nor was it meant to be insulting I think, but I do think it could hurt the discussion.
Back to the data, he quoted A LOT from a guy named John Lott. Maybe it's just me, but there's something odd when you are getting that much information from one guy. Maybe he really is THE leading expert in his field. Okay, great, but again, I think it might look a little fishy or be off-putting to dissenters reading your book.
This book is for the staunch "2A-er" who needs the tools and information to have discussions with family and friends, for the person who wants to hear the "other side" to what is said in political debates and on the media, and for the "gun safety" people who want to try and understand why some people are opposed to measures that would seem to make everyone safer.
"We kill them when they're young. We kill them when they're old. And we've just got to stop this." - Mayor Michael Bloomberg (pg 28) I want to ask him about that quote in reference to another polarizing and controversial topic.
Asking police officers about gun control measures (2007): 67 percent said they opposed tighter gun control because the "law would only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens". (pg 104)
The Second Amendment, like all of our rights, is reliant on a moral and virtuous people. Without that, nothing else matters. Man cannot rule himself if... moral sentiment is missing. (pg 115)
I just read another book (Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes) that talked briefly about the difference between our Western values of individualism and non-Western cultures value on community. I thought it quite interesting then, these last two quotes:
"Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime. [I have] studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a 'culture of support', rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings." Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain.
"[T]his is not just a gun issue. It's also an issue of the kinds of communities that we're building". President Barack Obama during a trip to Chicago (pg 151)
Beck takes quotes from the media and politicians and then shows how they are false. Often, the people have been misinformed or misunderstood the data they are referring to. But quite often, you have to wonder if they just don't care.
For the most part, Beck does a good job not attacking people. He gives them the benefit of the doubt and talks about why he disagrees with their statements but not attacking the person. He even points out times where he and someone DO agree. I appreciated that.
Truth is not subjective, contrary to popular belief. Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't make it true. Beck pulls out a LOT of data in this little book. Sometimes it seemed like a bit much, but it's needed. For some odd reason, those of us who hold the views expressed in this book are required to have reams of evidence for our beliefs, while those who disagree aren't.
At times, Beck's voice became a little sarcastic. I appreciate and understand that, but I think it hinders people who might read this book who disagree with him. I certainly don't want to read a book of a viewpoint I disagree with and feel like I'm being ridiculed. It wasn't a lot, nor was it meant to be insulting I think, but I do think it could hurt the discussion.
Back to the data, he quoted A LOT from a guy named John Lott. Maybe it's just me, but there's something odd when you are getting that much information from one guy. Maybe he really is THE leading expert in his field. Okay, great, but again, I think it might look a little fishy or be off-putting to dissenters reading your book.
This book is for the staunch "2A-er" who needs the tools and information to have discussions with family and friends, for the person who wants to hear the "other side" to what is said in political debates and on the media, and for the "gun safety" people who want to try and understand why some people are opposed to measures that would seem to make everyone safer.
"We kill them when they're young. We kill them when they're old. And we've just got to stop this." - Mayor Michael Bloomberg (pg 28) I want to ask him about that quote in reference to another polarizing and controversial topic.
Asking police officers about gun control measures (2007): 67 percent said they opposed tighter gun control because the "law would only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens". (pg 104)
The Second Amendment, like all of our rights, is reliant on a moral and virtuous people. Without that, nothing else matters. Man cannot rule himself if... moral sentiment is missing. (pg 115)
I just read another book (Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes) that talked briefly about the difference between our Western values of individualism and non-Western cultures value on community. I thought it quite interesting then, these last two quotes:
"Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime. [I have] studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a 'culture of support', rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings." Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain.
"[T]his is not just a gun issue. It's also an issue of the kinds of communities that we're building". President Barack Obama during a trip to Chicago (pg 151)
February 16, 2016
A would-be mass killer enters a shopping mall and begins shooting. A civilian with a permit to carry a concealed firearm draws his pistol and approaches the killer. Seeing the pistol, the killer turns his own gun on himself and ends it. The armed citizen never does fire his pistol, but other people in the mall that might have become further victims of the killer are spared. (See the third from last paragraph below for a possible explanation of the killer 19s behavior.)
This is just one of the many examples that advocates of 1Ccommon sense 1D gun control ignore and even claim never occur. One of the ways they get around it is by compiling only incidents in which four or more people are murdered by a gun-toting killer. But when someone else on the scene has a gun, there are apt to be fewer than four victims. Gun control advocates not only take advantage of this in compiling their statistics, but even when there is a case in which a gunman did kill four people before being stopped by an armed citizen, they ignore that case, too.
Glenn Beck 19s 1CControl 1D provides statistics of his own as well as many anecdotes similar to the one above, citing locations, dates, and the names of the armed heroes. But he refuses to name the killers because so many of them wanted to become famous, and Beck won 19t give them the satisfaction 14even posthumously.
Also, quoting representative statements from politicians and pundits who advocate gun control, Beck argues against each contention with facts and a reasoned argument that seems very persuasive. When gun control advocates ridicule second amendment advocates by asserting that no one wants to take away their right to bear arms, Beck cites examples of gun control advocates who do state the desire to take all guns away from private citizens. Sometimes, it is the very individual who says that no one wants to take away all guns who, on another occasion, has expressed the desire and intention to take away all guns. (Maybe they have multiple personalities and don 19t know what their alters have said.)
One of the remarkable points that Beck makes is that even though we are seeing a rash of reports of mass shootings, especially by killers using rifles, these types of shootings are actually statistically rare and becoming fewer with every passing year. Somehow, the shock of having someone kill school children or theater-goers is so sensational that it makes it seem as if this kind of crime is epidemic. (I don 19t recall that Beck says so, but there is likely to be a copycat aspect that has made these types of shootings cluster together in time.) Yet the number of firearm deaths each year is almost entirely due to handguns while those that are due to rifles are few. This is no comfort, of course, if you or a loved one happen to be among the statistically rare victims of mass killers toting so-called military-style assault rifles (more accurately, military-style, assault-style rifles since they are not, in fact, either military or assault rifles but sports rifles made to look like military assault rifles). Still, neither does it make any sense 14common or otherwise 14to make a sweeping, special federal law to address no more than one or two percent of all murder weapons 14especially if the proposed law can be shown not to address the problem at all.
The above line of argument is what takes up the first part of Beck 19s book. The second part argues that violent video games are more of a proximate cause of mass shootings than is the availability of guns. This is also a persuasive argument, not to say that I am entirely persuaded. Among the curious factoids that support some sort of a societal cause rather than one related to the availability of guns, is that before 1975, when guns were as available as they ever have been, there were no public school shootings by students like what we 19ve seen since that year. Why did this phenomenon start in the last quarter of the twentieth century, not earlier? Another factoid more specifically suggestive of the video game thesis is that quite a number of the recent mass killers were dedicated video game players. This fact explains a couple of the significant components of their crimes. One is that many of them re-loaded their weapons before entering each new room so that they were fully loaded each time they confronted a new group of victims. Beck cites an expert who says that this technique 14which made these killers more effective killing machines and less vulnerable to an unarmed citizen who might stop them while they were reloading 14is generally unknown to all except policemen, soldiers, and video gamers.
Another factor that seems to be due to the influence of video gaming on these mass killers is that they view their attacks as if they were playing a game in which they achieve points for each victim they kill. One of the corollaries of this sick imposition of game rules on reality is that, because in a video game whoever kills a high scorer wins all of his points, if a policeman 14or, in the case of the mall shooter I described at the top of this review, an armed civilian 14kills the mass killer, he loses all of his points; but, if the killer commits suicide, he retains his points. This probably explains why the killer in my opening example killed himself rather than risk shooting it out with the armed man who was approaching him.
A topical book is blessed and cursed by being topical. Some of the material cited in 1CControl 1D is as recent as 2012. Not outdated, yet; but it will be some day, and then this book might become outdated because it does not include any facts after 2012. It will certainly be outdated if the gun control debate changes drastically or goes away entirely. On the other hand, the unlikelihood of this debate falling by the wayside is extreme. Even if it cools down for now, gun control will be back as a controversy sooner than we might expect. When it does return, the arguments in this book will still be at least useful. Any argument in favor of gun control ought to have to refute Beck 19s twin case against gun control and for video games as a precipitating cause of extreme gun violence. BTW, Beck does not think that outright banning of video games is necessarily a solution, but instead argues for better parental control of children 19s game playing. Many parents are unaware of how violent video games are and the low threshold for mayhem and murder reflected by game rating systems.
As always, a Glenn Beck book is a team effort into which we can at best presume that Beck himself had some input but where much of the research and writing was done by others. Beck takes primary credit as author but notes the names of other contributors without always specifying the extent of their roles.
This is just one of the many examples that advocates of 1Ccommon sense 1D gun control ignore and even claim never occur. One of the ways they get around it is by compiling only incidents in which four or more people are murdered by a gun-toting killer. But when someone else on the scene has a gun, there are apt to be fewer than four victims. Gun control advocates not only take advantage of this in compiling their statistics, but even when there is a case in which a gunman did kill four people before being stopped by an armed citizen, they ignore that case, too.
Glenn Beck 19s 1CControl 1D provides statistics of his own as well as many anecdotes similar to the one above, citing locations, dates, and the names of the armed heroes. But he refuses to name the killers because so many of them wanted to become famous, and Beck won 19t give them the satisfaction 14even posthumously.
Also, quoting representative statements from politicians and pundits who advocate gun control, Beck argues against each contention with facts and a reasoned argument that seems very persuasive. When gun control advocates ridicule second amendment advocates by asserting that no one wants to take away their right to bear arms, Beck cites examples of gun control advocates who do state the desire to take all guns away from private citizens. Sometimes, it is the very individual who says that no one wants to take away all guns who, on another occasion, has expressed the desire and intention to take away all guns. (Maybe they have multiple personalities and don 19t know what their alters have said.)
One of the remarkable points that Beck makes is that even though we are seeing a rash of reports of mass shootings, especially by killers using rifles, these types of shootings are actually statistically rare and becoming fewer with every passing year. Somehow, the shock of having someone kill school children or theater-goers is so sensational that it makes it seem as if this kind of crime is epidemic. (I don 19t recall that Beck says so, but there is likely to be a copycat aspect that has made these types of shootings cluster together in time.) Yet the number of firearm deaths each year is almost entirely due to handguns while those that are due to rifles are few. This is no comfort, of course, if you or a loved one happen to be among the statistically rare victims of mass killers toting so-called military-style assault rifles (more accurately, military-style, assault-style rifles since they are not, in fact, either military or assault rifles but sports rifles made to look like military assault rifles). Still, neither does it make any sense 14common or otherwise 14to make a sweeping, special federal law to address no more than one or two percent of all murder weapons 14especially if the proposed law can be shown not to address the problem at all.
The above line of argument is what takes up the first part of Beck 19s book. The second part argues that violent video games are more of a proximate cause of mass shootings than is the availability of guns. This is also a persuasive argument, not to say that I am entirely persuaded. Among the curious factoids that support some sort of a societal cause rather than one related to the availability of guns, is that before 1975, when guns were as available as they ever have been, there were no public school shootings by students like what we 19ve seen since that year. Why did this phenomenon start in the last quarter of the twentieth century, not earlier? Another factoid more specifically suggestive of the video game thesis is that quite a number of the recent mass killers were dedicated video game players. This fact explains a couple of the significant components of their crimes. One is that many of them re-loaded their weapons before entering each new room so that they were fully loaded each time they confronted a new group of victims. Beck cites an expert who says that this technique 14which made these killers more effective killing machines and less vulnerable to an unarmed citizen who might stop them while they were reloading 14is generally unknown to all except policemen, soldiers, and video gamers.
Another factor that seems to be due to the influence of video gaming on these mass killers is that they view their attacks as if they were playing a game in which they achieve points for each victim they kill. One of the corollaries of this sick imposition of game rules on reality is that, because in a video game whoever kills a high scorer wins all of his points, if a policeman 14or, in the case of the mall shooter I described at the top of this review, an armed civilian 14kills the mass killer, he loses all of his points; but, if the killer commits suicide, he retains his points. This probably explains why the killer in my opening example killed himself rather than risk shooting it out with the armed man who was approaching him.
A topical book is blessed and cursed by being topical. Some of the material cited in 1CControl 1D is as recent as 2012. Not outdated, yet; but it will be some day, and then this book might become outdated because it does not include any facts after 2012. It will certainly be outdated if the gun control debate changes drastically or goes away entirely. On the other hand, the unlikelihood of this debate falling by the wayside is extreme. Even if it cools down for now, gun control will be back as a controversy sooner than we might expect. When it does return, the arguments in this book will still be at least useful. Any argument in favor of gun control ought to have to refute Beck 19s twin case against gun control and for video games as a precipitating cause of extreme gun violence. BTW, Beck does not think that outright banning of video games is necessarily a solution, but instead argues for better parental control of children 19s game playing. Many parents are unaware of how violent video games are and the low threshold for mayhem and murder reflected by game rating systems.
As always, a Glenn Beck book is a team effort into which we can at best presume that Beck himself had some input but where much of the research and writing was done by others. Beck takes primary credit as author but notes the names of other contributors without always specifying the extent of their roles.
March 19, 2019
Where to start. That is what I believe Glenn Beck was thinking when he started this novel. It is one big argument against gun control with no real start middle or end. For me when I read this book it seemed like a large dump of information and facts that you the reader had to organize yourself. Let me tell you I am the last person to want to half to organize my own things, much less organize other people's thinking. Now I don't want you to get the wrong idea that I don't like Glenn Beck because I do. I watch him almost everyday on his tv program The Blaze TV. He is a great speaker and explainer when he has thee mike. He is probably one of the smartest political minds of our time. I just believe this book needed better organization to help the reader through it. Glenn is a man of facts and are there facts to be found in this book. He has a solid 10 pages in back with all of his sources he used to write the book and all the information inside it. You won't find that in just any book. There were a few grammatical errors in his writing, a few more than I would of liked to have seen. I know this is meant to be the "budget" version to be shared with friends and family but at least take the time to proof read your writing. I know if my English teacher were to read this she would have thrown it across the room after the first 30 pages. The information in the book itself is good. No its great! Just do not expect a really exciting novel because with all the facts being thrown around, it can get dry at times. If you enjoyed this book, I would recommend the next in the lineup, It is about Islam. I have read this book and it contains the same amount of facts as this book but is organized so much better. In the end, I would recommend this book to anyone looking to stock up on facts for their next debate or want to simply be informed about the issue.
November 30, 2019
He starts out with some bogus stuff about people killed knives don't focus on the knife but on the person and how we shouldn't make common-sense gun laws because then the people with the agenda will take it to the extreme and then before you even know it, all of the guns are gone, the military is is running a coup operation and now you can't fight back... cuase you know. Guns.
Then he straightens up and starts talking like an adult and using good data to back up his points which he didn't do very well in the beginning. I found it difficult to believe all of his claims (even the ones backed up with what seemed like sound data) because of instances where he cited Switzerland as a state where gun ownership is higher than most any country and their homicide rate is lower than ours in America. He fails to tell his readers that the entire country has a law against keeping ammunition inside their homes, but he does remember to tell us that it isn't uncommon to see people on motorcycles with guns slung over their shoulders and that nobody is scared because they are just good people and guns aren't bad. So, yeah, a little tainted.
He has 2 good points though:
-We as a country don't enforce many of the gun control laws that are already in place, so people can sensibly be frustrated about all the excitement to put more restrictive gun control into legislation.
-The problem that we could focus on more is the violence culture that we have created through our media and video games which lead to violence in a lot of areas of life. I totally agree we could get more good done if we figured that part out somehow.
Then he straightens up and starts talking like an adult and using good data to back up his points which he didn't do very well in the beginning. I found it difficult to believe all of his claims (even the ones backed up with what seemed like sound data) because of instances where he cited Switzerland as a state where gun ownership is higher than most any country and their homicide rate is lower than ours in America. He fails to tell his readers that the entire country has a law against keeping ammunition inside their homes, but he does remember to tell us that it isn't uncommon to see people on motorcycles with guns slung over their shoulders and that nobody is scared because they are just good people and guns aren't bad. So, yeah, a little tainted.
He has 2 good points though:
-We as a country don't enforce many of the gun control laws that are already in place, so people can sensibly be frustrated about all the excitement to put more restrictive gun control into legislation.
-The problem that we could focus on more is the violence culture that we have created through our media and video games which lead to violence in a lot of areas of life. I totally agree we could get more good done if we figured that part out somehow.
May 9, 2020
"Control" by Glenn Beck provides a good and concise argument against gun control. While the book has a conservative slant, he gives evidence and accounts to back up his argument. In the first part of the book, Beck goes through several liberal arguments in favor of gun control. One argument is that guns will not save citizens from a tyrannical government that has tanks and military equipment. However, Beck provides facts, arguments, and data to rebut this argument. In the second part of the book, Beck goes through the issues of video game and media violence. Personally, this was the most interesting portion of the book. In this section, Beck asserts that video game and media violence are causing more mass shootings. While I will continue to research this theory, the amount of mass shooters that played violent video games was staggering such as the Newtown shooter. In this instance, the shooter, Adam Lanza, was motivated by a violent computer game involving murder. Overall, while I must research the accuracy of Beck's facts and evidence, the book provides a good way to begin a discussion about guns and violence in the United States.
July 17, 2018
Good, sensible rebuttal against the emotion-driven, often false argument for gun-control. I like how Beck takes specific quotes from well-known gun-control advocates (Piers Morgan, Rachel Maddow, Mayor Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Stephen King--by the way, don't get me started on King's hypocrisy weighing in on this issue) and explains the flaws in their arguments. Beck uses lots of facts, lots of statistics, and the end of the book is an index of references for where he got those facts and statistics. (As a college English professor who is always asking my students, "Where's your back-up for your claim?" the "works cited" portion of Beck's book pleases me.) The best part of "Control" is the end, where Beck moves from rebuttal to his own argument: that violence in media (tv, movies, books, and video games) plays a big role in the cavalier taking of human life, yet few people try to control the consumption of these things.
April 20, 2018
Read the first half at least. Incredibly researched and thorough take down of the left's position and ignorance on guns. The shorter second half is more opinion oriented and Glenn decides to talk about video games, which he clearly isn't as informed about compared to guns. Do video games have zero affect on violent behavior? I wouldn't say that. But I also wouldn't say it's a significant factor. There's a reason most school shooters played video games: because most teenage boys play video games. The evidence to suggest there's a correlation is thin. But look at some other facts: most school shooters were on some form of heavy medication and most school shooters grew up without fathers. This is the real heart of the problem. Not guns, not video games, but a failure in parenting and an abuse of prescription medications.
June 10, 2022
Full of statistics, facts, and confirmed news stories that exposes gun myths and the attempt to disarm Americans and by-pass the Second Amendment.
Those who want to impose their gun fears on others should read this book -- it's eye-opening.
As recent and historical events have shown, just passing new gun laws doesn't prevent gun crime. Only by addressing the issues that lead to violence can we hope to stem the tide (and taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the way)
Are you willing to give up your car because your neighbor killed someone while drunk driving?
Are you willing to give up your kitchen knives because a neighbor used one to kill their spouse?
Then why should law abiding gun owners give up their protection because an evil person used his gun to kill others?
Those who want to impose their gun fears on others should read this book -- it's eye-opening.
As recent and historical events have shown, just passing new gun laws doesn't prevent gun crime. Only by addressing the issues that lead to violence can we hope to stem the tide (and taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the way)
Are you willing to give up your car because your neighbor killed someone while drunk driving?
Are you willing to give up your kitchen knives because a neighbor used one to kill their spouse?
Then why should law abiding gun owners give up their protection because an evil person used his gun to kill others?
November 5, 2025
Beck is warning all Americans that there is a massive effort underway to control the citizens of America and gun control is one of their main agenda items. This book should be mandatory reading for all legislatures and citizens. Beck uses direct quotes to shoot down, rebut, all of their arguments why gun control should be implemented. The controlling party uses sophistry and rhetoric to sway the populace to their side regardless of the truth of what they say. My life in the practice of law and in speech and debate, the tools of politicians, has taught me to distrust most of what lawyers and politicians say. With discernment, I can tell when a professional positions is being put forth as opposed to the simple truth of a matter. I urge all to think through the posturing and realize that our freedom depends upon our keeping somewhat aloof from the controlling interests of government.
November 6, 2018
I may agree with his stance on gun ownership but I do not agree on his delivery tactics. The overarching feel of this book is negative and condescending to the other news networks, and specific individuals at said networks, that don’t share his opinion. He takes the opportunity he has to educate others as a platform to slam others. Not my style. I don’t like to hear things like that that and I certainly don’t want to waste my precious reading time in it. To degrade someone else in order to build your own argument seems to be a sign of a weak argument. Just share facts, supported by data. BOOM, debate success!
April 13, 2019
Superb book. While gun control zealots make wild statements Glenn Beck uses actual facts, insight, scientifically validated facts learned from studies using empirical data collected with sound research methodology. He used nothing from the NRA who is falsely and routinely demonized by gun control advocates as a dark, evil and dangerous organization Another impressive book written in a very easy to read format with the bluster and SWAG - Stupid Wild Ass Guesses of the draconian mob who vilify guns and their law abiding owners. Great book!!!
January 7, 2025
This book was rambly, but a different take for me. There were some interesting facts, but there were some instances where he lost me. Specifically about the following (regarding women and gun safety, that they are more likely to be killed when there is a gun in the home). Pg 74
“In that case, women shouldn’t be fearful of a gun in the home; they should be fearful of dating or marrying men with criminal records.”
“Murders of wives by their husbands by any means are thankfully, relatively rare….”
That is false-and highly dangerous rhetoric.
Hence the 3 stars.
“In that case, women shouldn’t be fearful of a gun in the home; they should be fearful of dating or marrying men with criminal records.”
“Murders of wives by their husbands by any means are thankfully, relatively rare….”
That is false-and highly dangerous rhetoric.
Hence the 3 stars.
August 19, 2018
I've thought both sides of the gun control debate had valid points, but after reading this I'm almost certain that banning guns is wrong. I would be very interested to read an equally persuasive book for gun control to compare.
December 10, 2021
This is a great book for people who are interested in gun violence. Whether you are for or against gun control we all agree that we want fewer innocent people killed and this book does a great job outlining myths and offering solutions. This is data driven and refrains from theorizing.
January 6, 2025
I totally agree with this book. It may be a little out dated but still the concept is true. He didn't mention getting families in church. A firm relationship with Jesus will help eliminate these tragedies from happening and fix our families.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews