The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know®

by Philip J. Cook, Kristin A. Goss

Even before the recent Newtown, CT massacre, gun violence and gun control has preoccupied public officals and legislators at all levels of government as well as powerful special interest groups for years.
Guns in America: What Everyone Needs to Know tours the issues that Americans debate when they talk about guns. The volume includes information on gun control pertaining to U.S. history, jurisprudence, cultural beliefs, political agendas, epidemiologcal data, criminology, law and regulation, and policy effectivness. Throughout, economist Philip J. Cook and political scientist Kristin Goss illustrate for readers which questions and issues are contentious and on which there is something approaching consensus. They answer basic questions like: Where do people acquire guns? Is gun violence rising or falling? Who is at risk for being shot? How much does gun violence cost? And tackle tougher ones such as: Do video games and the media contribute to gun violence? Why is the gun control movement relatively weak? Is it better to enforce the laws we have or enact new ones?
The answers to these questions will help the general reader to make sense of the volley of ideologically driven statistics and slogans that characterize our national conversation on firearms. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in getting a clear view of the highly polarizing topic of gun control.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Public Policy, Sociology, Audiobook

296 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2014

About the author

Philip Jackson Cook is the ITT/Terry Sanford Professor of Public Policy at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University in the United States. He also holds faculty appointments in Duke's departments of sociology, and economics.

Reviews

[tonia peckover · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is written in question and answer format covering a wide range of topics, so it's easy to pick up and put down. It's dry in places, as you'd expect, and there is some repetition of information due to the format, but overall this was a very helpful and informative book. I think it's fair to say the authors aren't necessarily NRA members, but they deal in statistics and analysis and the presentation was fair and unemotional. When you look at the gun laws actually on the books in the US it's clear that guns and gun ownership are not threatened in any meaningful way, despite the nonstop hysteria propaganda by the NRA and friends. It was sobering to read about the scope and organizational power of the Gun Rights lobby and the fear they generate in Congress. Probably most interesting to me was reading the history of guns and the rights and expectations of ownership in this country. (I think many people would be surprised to learn that guns were not allowed inside towns even in the West -you checked them in with the Sheriff when you entered town- and that Revolutionary-era citizens were subject to a form of gun registration and required to produce all their household guns on door-to-door inspections.) Also a lot of good information on suicide and domestic violence. Bottom line: guns don't increase crime, they increase death. In other words, everywhere a gun enters the picture the likelihood of death increases. Sobering statistics. Overall, a good book for trying to wade through the emotions and propaganda that arise around gun issues.

[Nadine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear for non-academic readers and a generally middle of the road approach to all of the conflicting information out there about guns. A good source of unbiased information in a conversational and easy to follow tone.

[Courtney Mosier Warren · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good basic level academic overview of what laws exist, how they function, and about guns in general. Relatively non-biased and focused most heavily on giving readers information.

[Jung]

Get informed about gun control.

In the wake of every incident of gun violence in the United States, voices from either side of the gun debate move to the center of the national conversation. Advocates for gun control point out that the scale and frequency of these incidents is unparalleled. No other first-world nation suffers attacks like these so regularly. A lack of legislation around firearms, they say, is to blame – and tighter controls are the only solution.

Meanwhile, the pro-gun lobby tells us that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” They argue that violent or disturbed individuals are the real problem – not the weapons they can access. They remind the nation that stricter controls on the use and possession of firearms would, in their view, infringe on the constitutional rights of US citizens to bear arms.

Emotive appeals and heated opinions have their place in what is an emotive and heated debate. But so, too, do statistics and facts. This book won’t add another voice to the debate or weigh in on the merits of each side’s viewpoints. It will, however, seek to provide a concise overview of how guns are used and regulated in the US – leaving you to form your own opinion.

Just a note before we get started: The Gun Debate was written in 2014, so it doesn’t account for more recent legislation.

---

The facts on firearms: their usage and possession

Let’s begin with some basic statistics on firearms and how they’re used – and misused – in the US.

First, who owns firearms, and what reasons do they give for owning them?

Among wealthy nations, the US has the highest incidence of firearm ownership. Thirty-five percent of households, and 25 percent of adults, own at least one firearm. The rate of firearm ownership has declined in recent years, but firearms sales haven’t. That’s because owners are increasingly likely to purchase more than one firearm in their lifetime. The top 20 percent of firearms owners possess ten or more firearms. In a 2013 survey, 48 percent of firearm owners cited self-protection as their primary reason for owning a firearm. 

People of all ages, genders, and backgrounds own firearms in the US. But, according to surveys, the typical firearm owner tends to be male and middle-aged. And there are other patterns, too. Someone who has grown up around firearms is three times more likely to own a firearm than someone who hasn’t. Firearm owners usually fall into middle and upper income brackets – likely because a firearm is an expensive purchase. Typically, there’s a higher rate of firearm ownership in rural areas than urban ones. The wide open spaces of some rural areas are well suited for hunting and other shooting sports, which may account for the prevalence of firearm ownership in these communities. Roughly 6 percent of Americans engage in hunting – a small decline from the mid ’90s when 7.4 percent of Americans were involved in the sport.

At this point, you might be picturing someone heading out into the woods with a rifle over their shoulder. Which leads us to the next important question: What types of firearms do Americans actually own, and why?

Civilian firearms fall into one of two basic categories. Long guns like rifles and shotguns have barrels that can reach up to 30 inches in length, and they’re designed to be fired from the shoulder. Handguns, by contrast, can be held in one hand and fired. These days, most firearms are repeaters – meaning they don’t need to be reloaded after each shot is fired. Instead, a magazine holding several rounds of ammunition is inserted into the firearm. Magazines can typically carry between 3 and 30 rounds of ammunition. Some magazines have much higher capacity – up to 100 rounds, for instance.

Long guns are best suited for hunting, while handguns are best suited for self-protection. In cases of criminal misuse, it’s been found that handguns are more likely to be used than long guns.

Civilian firearms that share key features with military-grade combat weapons, like the capacity to hold a large magazine, are classed as assault weapons. In 1994, the Supreme Court instituted a partial federal ban on assault weapons; the sale of new assault weapons was prohibited, and a number of assault weapon models were recalled. But in 2004, the federal ban was lifted in accordance with the sunset provision – which means a law is automatically terminated after a fixed period of time if it hasn't received legislative approval. Now it’s up to individual states to regulate the sale and possession of assault weapons. Consequently, the ownership of assault weapons varies from state to state.

Finally, we have to ask a pretty critical question: How many deaths do firearms cause? After all, if this issue weren’t a matter of life and death, it’s unlikely that it would be discussed as passionately as it is in American culture today. 

The authors found that among wealthy nations outside of war zones, the US reports the highest incidence of firearm-related fatalities every year. Firearms account for approximately 30,000 deaths annually.

Let’s put this into perspective. In the 30 years between 1984 and 2014, approximately one million Americans died from firearm-related fatalities. That’s a higher number of fatalities than all of the previous combat deaths in US history combined.

---

The benefits of firearms

The debate around firearms is complex – and emotionally charged. Some US citizens might describe themselves as pro-gun but make exceptions to their stance when it comes to particular issues around the usage and ownership of firearms. Some US citizens who describe themselves as anti-gun might find themselves in that same position.

With the caveat that individual attitudes to gun policy may be far more nuanced, let’s get into some of the broad arguments used by each side of the debate. 

To begin with, what’s the case against tightening – or even for relaxing – current restrictions on firearm use?

The right to own and operate a firearm is protected in the US constitution; the Second Amendment states that all citizens have the right to bear arms. There’s no additional information on whether or how that right should be regulated. About half of Americans believe that the strict regulation of firearms impinges on this Second Amendment right.

Connected to a belief in the fundamental right to bear arms is the belief that everyone is entitled to defend themselves with a firearm. In 2008, in the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment explicitly encompasses the right to bear arms in self-defense. 

Firearm owners report feeling safer knowing they can effectively defend themselves, their family, and their property in the event of a home invasion. Every year, approximately one in every 3,500 firearm-owning households uses a firearm in this exact scenario.

Research shows that in an assault, firearms are indeed the most effective form of self-defense – but only marginally. A survey of attack victims found that only 2.4 percent of people who retaliated against their assailant with a firearm went on to suffer further injury. This number rose to 3.6 percent for those who retaliated without any weapon. 

Some firearm owners believe that neighborhoods where a high proportion of households own a firearm are less attractive to criminals – that the prospect of being shot while carrying out a home invasion or assault is a strong deterrent to criminals. Neighborhoods with high rates of firearm ownership should, therefore, be safer. But there’s no research to back up this idea. Preliminary studies have actually found the opposite: such neighborhoods are more likely to be targeted by burglars, maybe because firearms have a high resale value and a thriving black market.

Some pro-gun advocates go even further. They argue that carrying a firearm in public is an act of civic responsibility: if private citizens can carry a concealed firearm, they’re able to intervene in – and potentially prevent – all kinds of criminal activity, from petty theft to homicide. It’s been possible to test this hypothesis to some degree. Many US states eased restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm in the 1980s and ’90s. Did this lead to a reduction in overall crime? Some studies appear to support it. The economists John Lott and David Mustard reported that these states went on to experience reduced rates of homicide and some other crimes. However, other researchers haven’t been able to replicate these numbers.

Many US citizens who are broadly in favor of firearm ownership do feel that there should be strict regulations around who can carry a firearm in public, and under what circumstances. Organizations like the NRA – the National Rifle Association – adopt a more extreme position through the slippery slope argument. They state that any tightening of restrictions will lead to a slippery slope of escalating federal control over firearm ownership, which will ultimately mean that all private firearms are confiscated. This scenario, they point out, would be unconstitutional according to the Second Amendment.

To fully understand this debate, it’s important to note that US culture connects firearms with freedom. Some US citizens believe an armed citizenry is a crucial element to a functioning democracy. If the government holds a monopoly on firearms, who can hold that government to account? What’s to stop that government from transforming into a totalitarian state? Historically, armed US civilians have stood up to the government – over 200 years ago, a civilian militia helped overthrow British rule and assert US independence. 

This event apparently still looms large in the US imagination. In a 2013 survey, 44 percent of Republican respondents stated that America may need an armed revolution to preserve freedom in the short-term future. 

---

The cost of firearms

Now let’s look at some of the central arguments for tightening restrictions on the possession and use of firearms.

The most compelling argument for firearm restrictions is the loss of life. Let’s look at one year as an example. In 2010, there were 31,672 firearms deaths. Roughly one-third were deaths by homicide, and two-thirds were deaths by suicide. There were 606 accidental killings. Emergency rooms treated another 73,404 nonfatal firearm injuries. 

Would those death and injury rates be the same if firearms were less accessible and people were forced to use other, less regulated weapons? Taking away firearms certainly doesn’t eliminate harmful, violent, or criminal impulses within a society. But it’s clear that firearms intensify violence. And it’s hard to deny the facts related to this. 

First of all, firearms don’t require much skill or effort to operate, but they’re lethal. Domestic disputes often escalate when someone brings out a firearm. Fatalities are three times more likely to occur during a holdup at gunpoint than a holdup at knifepoint. Suicide attempts don't often end in death – but they're 80 percent more likely to when a firearm is used. In other words, heated, violent, or desperate situations are a lot more likely to end with a death if a firearm is involved. Furthermore, firearms can facilitate violent crimes – such as robbery or assault – without being fired.

Then there’s the form of violent crime uniquely facilitated in the US by ready access to firearms: the mass shooting. It’s difficult to find firm statistics on the prevalence of mass shootings in the US because the definition of what constitutes a mass shooting differs from state to state. Generally speaking, a mass shooting occurs when an attacker uses a firearm to shoot four or more victims. Between 1980 and 2010, there were anywhere from 18 to 27 mass shootings a year in the US; annual fatalities ranged from 45 to 122 victims. 

There’s been an upward trend in mass shootings that occur in a public space, like a school or religious institution. Throughout the mid 2000s, roughly one public mass shooting took place per year. That number later climbed to three or four mass shootings per year. In 2012, the number increased to six. And these numbers have only gone up since. 

Advocates for stricter firearms control point out that the lack of a federal ban facilitates relatively easy access to assault weapons favored by mass shooters – even in states where assault weapons are banned. They also note that current licensing regulations and background check procedures do too little to identify and stop potential perpetrators of mass shootings. 

Finally, gun-control advocates argue that the widespread possession and use of firearms erode living standards and damage communities. In regions with high rates of firearm-related violence, businesses perform poorly and property values have declined. Tax dollars that could be spent on improving local communities are instead allocated toward efforts to curb firearm use and treat casualties.

---

The current legislation

Firearm restrictions in the US are shaped by America’s federalist system, where power is constitutionally divided between the federal government and the state governments. In practice, this means that while some national laws restrict the possession, sale, and use of firearms, each US state regulates firearms differently.

At the federal level, minors, convicted felons, and individuals deemed to be a risk are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The sale and purchase of machine guns is banned. And civilians aren’t allowed to carry firearms on planes or in federal buildings.

Over the course of the past century, Congress has passed several key gun laws.

In 1934, the National Firearms Act required fully automatic weapons to be registered – and taxed at a higher rate than other firearms. Four years later, the Federal Firearms Act required firearms dealers to be licensed. The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted the sales of firearms across state lines and prohibited felons from purchasing firearms. In 1986, the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act rolled back some of these earlier restrictions, making it easier for firearms to be purchased out of state. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Prevention Act required licensed dealers to perform a background check for every firearm purchase. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which has since expired, banned the sale and manufacture of new assault weapons. And in 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act prohibited the sale of firearms to individuals convicted of domestic abuse.

It falls to the states to augment federal restrictions. Each state must legislate how firearms licenses are issued and renewed; who can obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm; how sales of assault weapons are regulated; what background checks must be carried out before someone can purchase – or, in the case of private dealers, sell – firearms; and what criminal penalties the misuse of firearms attracts. 

Nearly every US state protects the right to bear arms within their own state constitution. And every state permits licensed individuals to carry concealed firearms – although the requirements for obtaining such a license vary wildly across the country. 

Although the federal ban on assault weapons has expired, seven US states maintain some form of assault weapons ban. In the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, three of those states – New York, Maryland, and Connecticut – expanded the range of their bans. Gun rights advocates have challenged the legality of various state bans. 

Some gun rights advocates argue that the current legislation places unconstitutional limitations on the purchase and use of firearms. Others oppose the introduction of new legislation, arguing that the current controls simply need to be more effectively enforced. Here, they may find a common cause with some gun control advocates, who believe that current laws aren’t properly policed. However, many gun control advocates would like to see the current controls extend further, ideally at a federal level.

Outside of committed lobbying groups, public opinion in the US points to broad support for stricter firearms legislation. Ninety percent of Americans either support the current legislation or think it should be stricter, and 83 percent support expanded background checks. On the other hand, support for gun rights is rising – in 1993, 34 percent of surveyed Americans believed protecting the rights of firearm owners was more important than controlling the possession of firearms. By 2012, that percentage had jumped to 49 percent. 

This complex and even contradictory snapshot of public opinion reflects the complexity of the way firearms are – and aren’t – controlled across the US. 

At the start, we shared a number: 30,000. As of 2014, that was the approximate number of US citizens who lost their lives to firearms every year. This is roughly the same amount of deaths caused by motor vehicle incidents or by abusing prescription medication. Neither cars nor pain medication are banned in the USA, but a number of successful initiatives have been adopted to improve road safety and clamp down on the overprescription of opiates. 

As with car travel or pain medication, firearm ownership comes with risks and benefits. The question is whether current policies pose an unacceptable level of risk to the public or are too strict for firearm owners to enjoy the benefits – and whether any policy will satisfactorily bring these risks and benefits into balance.

---

The gun control debate is one of the most polarizing discussions in the US. Gun-rights advocates maintain that the right to bear arms is a crucial civil liberty, that everyone should be able to use a firearm in self-defense, and that firearms have recreational value. Gun-control advocates argue that none of these perceived benefits should outweigh the significant and irreversible cost that firearms have to human life.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know? by Phillip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss

“The Gun Debate” takes a look at this hot-button issue in an engaging question-and-answer format. Economist Phillip J. Cook and political scientist Kristin A.Goss team up to provide readers with a fair and even-handed analysis of the gun debate from a number of angles and perspectives. This immersive 294-page book includes the following twelve chapters: 1. America and Its Guns, 2. The Value of Guns for Self-Protection and Combating Tyranny, 3. The Costs of Gun Violence, 4. Causes of Gun Violence, 5. Manufacture and Marketing of Guns, 6. How America Regulates Firearms, 7. Effectiveness of Firearms Policy, 8. Guns and Gun Control in History, 9. Public Opinion and Political Party Positions on Guns, 10. The Gun Rights Movement, 11. The Gun Control Movement, and 12. What Sorts of Gun Policies Might Be Politically Acceptable Going Forward?.

Positives:
1. Well written and researched topic.
2. The fascinating hot-button topic of gun debate.
3. Even and fair-handed treatment backed by solid research.
4. Effective use of the question-and-answer format to cover the gun debate from many angles. Each chapter covers a topic and with a series of questions and answers the authors summarize their conclusions. “In sum, the threat of gun violence degrades the quality of life in affected communities. Reducing gun violence would have tangible societal value.”
5. Limited but effective use of charts and tables.
6. The authors’ cautious approach should be applauded; it recognizes the limitations of the research and makes reasonable conclusions. “The bottom line is that no one knows how many firearms are in private hands in the United States. Based on the calculations presented above, a range of 200 to 300 million seems reasonable.”
7. Some eye-opening facts. “No state requires that a rifle or shotgun buyer have any training or pass a test on gun safety.” “The group of states with high gun ownership had more than four times as times as many gun suicides as the states with low gun ownership.”
8. Provocative questions with surprising answers. “Do Burglars Avoid Neighborhoods Where Residents Keep Guns in the Home? In fact, they found that greater gun prevalence caused an increase in the residential burglary rate.”
9. Fascinating facts presented a table of notable mass shootings outside the United States.
10. An excellent chapter on the causes of gun violence. “The strong finding that emerges from this research is that gun use intensifies violence, making it more likely that the victim of an assault or robbery will die. The positive effect is on the murder rate, not on the overall violent-crime rate. In other words: More guns, more deaths.”
11. So how do criminals obtain their guns? Find out.
12. A look at the Second Amendment, what gun controls are unconstitutional and what laws are lawful.
13. A timeline of federal gun policy.
14. Gun legislation around the world including the requirements for gun ownership.
15. A look at stand-your-ground laws. “Two recent studies by economists at Texas A&M and at Georgia State University conclude that stand-your-ground laws do not result in a reduction in rates of assault, robbery, or rape—and have the costly effect of increasing homicide rates.”
16. The effectiveness of gun laws. “The old bumper sticker says, ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ Perhaps a more accurate statement is ‘When guns are scarce, outlaws will use less lethal weapons.’”
17. An interesting look at the gun culture in America. The two-tiered system, “Historically, legislatures and courts observed what amounted to a two-tiered system: Guns kept for public purposes, namely collective defense through militia service, enjoyed the highest level of constitutional protections (they could not be sold to pay taxes owed, for example), while those intended for private purposes, such as hunting or self-defense, were subject to state powers to promote public safety and health.”
18. The gun divide by politics. The gun rights movement vs the gun control movements. “In short, the gun lobby succeeds in part because its structure mirrors that of government.” “Gun rights supporters are passionate, relentless, single-issue voters who will stop at nothing to prevent passage of stronger gun laws.”
19. A look at tenable gun policies.
20. Notes and references included.

Negatives:
1. I would have added a section on the most popular weapons used in America and why.
2. I also would have added a section on politicians voting records as it relates to gun debate issues.
3. Light on supplementary materials. What’s included is good but this topic warrants more.
4. Those on the political right will claim there is bias against their position but I found the material to be fair.
5. The book is ambitious and covers many topics but it does so at a price, the lack of depth.
In summary, the book succeeds in covering many topics of interest in the gun debate. The question-and-answer format worked well and provides readers with a handy reference. A few missed opportunities aside keeps the book from attaining a five-star score but overall it’s a useful book. I recommend it!

Further recommendations that cover both sides of the debate: “Guns (Kindle Single)” by Stephen King, “More Guns, Less Crime” by John R. Lott, “Gunfight” by Adam Winkler, “Updated Evidence and Policy Developments in Reducing Gun Violence in America” by Daniel Webster, “The Second Amendment” by Michael Waldman, “Reducing Gun Violence in America” by Michael Bloomberg, “Living with Guns” by Craig Whitney, and “Gunfight” by Adam Winkler.

[Michael Boukidis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really excellent book for getting the basic facts on every aspect of the gun debate. Written in a question-and-answer format and taking a neutral tone, the author presents a plethora of evidence on what feels like every question ever asked about guns in America. It does not dive too deeply into the weeds on any particular subject, but rather provides a summary answer to every aspect of each question and earnestly striving to simply present the facts without showing favor to any one side in particular. All in all, a fantastic starting point for anyone interested in educating themselves on the gun debate.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Impeccably researched and fair-minded

Guns are one of several topics that are very polarized along political lines. This book somehow managed to present each side without pandering or disrespecting either one. Yet, it wasn't an emotionless presentation of information either. Everything is covered from gun culture in America to strategies of both sides of the gun issue. There was also a lot of technical information about guns themselves. I highly recommend reading this book and drawing your own conclusions.

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two social scientists tell you everything you need to know about the effect of guns and various gun control policies. I used to be firmly pro-gun (and before reading this I was still leaning that way) believing it was a reliable way to increase personal and society-wide safety. I only ever encountered embarrassing arguments and analysis by pro-control or ban figures. This book showed me that my understanding was still pretty surface-level, and I now see that guns don't make anyone safer - quite the opposite. There are few books that have changed my mind as much as this one. I recommend it to anyone, in any country, who cares about gun policy.

[Synthia Salomon · Rating 4 out of 5]

13 hours ago, President Biden tweeted his determination to ban assault weapons in this country saying he did it once and he’s determined to do it again.

Read this book if you want to better understand the current system of gun control. The Gun Debate (2014) conveys a clear picture of how firearms are bought, sold, used, and policed in the US. It lists and fact-checks a number of key arguments used by both pro and anti-gun campaigners in the ongoing debate about the parameters of gun control across the country.

[Rui · Rating 5 out of 5]

To me, this book is a thorough thesis regarding everything related to guns in the united states. I love the framework of cost-benefit analysis. As economists, the author approached the controversial debate about gun no different than cigarettes, cars, etc. They bring joys and pains. But as the authors noted in the very end, seeking the right balance between risks and benefits is the true aspiration of this book.

[Greg 11 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful. Data driven with illuminating commentary from the writers. Cook and Goss thoroughly address the main points of contention regarding the gun debate. However, they seem to find more traction when commenting on the position of the gun control side of the debate. That being said, this only happens on occasion because they generally stick to the statistics and avoid aspects of the debate that require opinion.

[Douglas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cook and Goss have arranged the content of this book in a question-and-answer format, so it is easy to follow the development and find information on a particular issue. The treatment is balanced, with attention to both gun rights and gun control perspectives. One should look at this book as a primer in the current gun debate.

[Atif Taj · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is the comprehensive look at the gun debate from several angles. It is pessimistic yet meticulous. Gun control party will never achieve their objectives. They are not passionate enough. They are not financially strong enough. They are not politically active enough. On the top of all, they are not savvy enough to disturb the basic tenet of US democracy: individual liberty.

[Adrian Kidd · Rating 3 out of 5]

Guns don’t kill people but they sure make it a whole lot easier. Extremely informative, if not a little dry in places. As a non American I remain perplexed as to why a society would not only fail to better a regulate such an obvious social ill but instead be progressively dismantling the minimal safe guards that do currently exist. 3.5 stars.

[Elsie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent primer on the gun debate in America. Done in a question and answer format, I learned a lot of vital information. For anyone who just wants the history and the facts of the debate, it's a must read.

[Tammi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good information but still seemed a bit one-sided.

[Cari Molin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very in depth book outlining guns and gun control in the United States.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on the issue of 2A rights.

[Tim Knowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A reasonably balanced look at both sides of the gun argument.

[Ryan McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sensed a slight pro-gun control bias here, but overall a really impartial summary of both sides of this contentious debate. Highly recommended for anyone trying to make up their mind.

[Josh Laventis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of good information but felt it could have been organized in a more cohesive manner. At times, felt like a series of related essays rather than a book.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative. arguments are nuanced. A balanced view

[Kirt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the blinkist abridgement

[Lizzie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of current stats on gun related violence, crime and protection. A must read if you are a gun owner or if you are thinking about getting guns.

[Jibz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good intro into gun debate, simple is, simple as.

[Marae · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible analysis of the gun issue in America with no clear bias either way! Depressing to read just how much of a hold the NRA has on our government but an important fact to know. History of gun ownership in America was also very informative.

[Alan Cook · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whether you are pro guns, pro gun control, somewhere in between, or don't care just as long as you or your loved ones don't get shot, this book may be of interest to you. It asks many questions about gun violence and control, and answers them based on (gasp) scientific research, not just prejudices. It should be required reading for all politicians. Full disclosure: My brother is one of the authors, but he writes in an interesting and readable manner.

[Pamela Ferguson · Rating 4 out of 5]

well written in q and a format. it's an ole boys club out there in the gun industry. thank you for many references to spousal abuse and suicide with guns. the nra is the bully in the sandbox and has the money, membership, muscle to strike down gun control legislation when it weakly appears. there is a lack of strong organized anti-gun, pro-control groups. well written.

[Sue · Rating 2 out of 5]

By the time these statistics came in, they were already outdated; and to quote numbers from 1999 (almost 20 years ago), well I'd say these numbers are history.

I guess hindsight's 20/20. May as well have included why they had guns in the cowboy days, and what those statistics were.

[Chuck · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and evenhanded.