What do you think?
Rate this book
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics.
“Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data…If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof.”—Peter Coy, Business Week
“By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control…Lott's book could hardly be more timely… A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review
“His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match… This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date.”—Public Choice
“For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come.”—Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News
“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal
“John Lott documents how far ‘politically correct’ vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue.”—Milton Friedman
“Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data…If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof.”—Peter Coy, Business Week
“By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control…Lott's book could hardly be more timely… A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”—John O. McGinnis, National Review
“His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match… This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date.”—Public Choice
“For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come.”—Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News
“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates.”—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal
“John Lott documents how far ‘politically correct’ vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue.”—Milton Friedman
321 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
204 people are currently reading
1768 people want to read
About the author
John R. Lott Jr.
21 books50 followersJohn Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is an American economist and political commentator. Lott was formerly employed at various academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. He is currently a Fox News opinion contributor. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
started-and-not-finished
November 3, 2008One of my sons-in-law is an Aussie, and shares the currently (though not historically) typical British/Canadian/Australian horror of civilian gun ownership, and particularly of civilian gun use in self-defense. Since my views on the subject are very dissimilar, we have some interesting discussions. :-) (As Christians, we both would prefer a world where nobody owned weapons, nor wanted or needed any --but that's unfortunately not the case in the world we're stuck with.) When the library where I work discarded this edition in favor of the recent new one, I took it to give to him, but decided to read it first.
My decision not to finish reading the book wasn't based on any disparagement of Lott's methodology or conclusions; on the contrary, I think that in its way, it's a solid contribution to the ongoing debate about "gun control," at least for those middle-ground folks for whom the debate isn't about moral first principles, but a pragmatic one about the perceived balances of social benefits and social costs. Obviously, to those who regard lethal self-defense as morally wrong, and/or as an existential threat to the existence of State and social order, preventing it is a moral duty, just as the prevention of cannibalism would be, regardless of any nutritional benefits that might be claimed for it. But for those who don't view lethal self- defense as a priori morally equivalent to cannibalism, the conclusions of this study are important empirical evidence bearing on the social benefits of civilian gun ownership -- which is why I departed here from my normal practice of not writing any "review" of a book I haven't read completely.
However, while most people would enjoy a drink of cool water from a well, few enjoy chewing on the rope tied to the bucket. The conclusions of many landmark statistical studies may be likened to a bracing drink of healthy clear water for policymakers and citizens, but the technical mathematical operations of the study and data analysis have more in common with the rope and bucket; and a heavy dose of the latter is what's offered here along with the conclusions. Lott is a Univ. of Chicago social scientist steeped in the rigorous statistical method of the modern academic world, and writing largely for that milieu; he was determined to make the study and analysis methodologically impeccable. He succeeded in that; by the canons of social science, his work is impervious to objective criticism for the most part, which is what makes it valuable as a policy resource. As a book for lay people, however, it also makes it deadly dull, heavy reading; what I read left me glassy-eyed. If you're a Math major specializing in statistical method, who just loves page after page of tables and graphs and would look forward to an appendix explaining "statistical significance" and "regression coefficients," then I could confidently recommend this book to you. If you're more like the rest of us, I wouldn't!
My decision not to finish reading the book wasn't based on any disparagement of Lott's methodology or conclusions; on the contrary, I think that in its way, it's a solid contribution to the ongoing debate about "gun control," at least for those middle-ground folks for whom the debate isn't about moral first principles, but a pragmatic one about the perceived balances of social benefits and social costs. Obviously, to those who regard lethal self-defense as morally wrong, and/or as an existential threat to the existence of State and social order, preventing it is a moral duty, just as the prevention of cannibalism would be, regardless of any nutritional benefits that might be claimed for it. But for those who don't view lethal self- defense as a priori morally equivalent to cannibalism, the conclusions of this study are important empirical evidence bearing on the social benefits of civilian gun ownership -- which is why I departed here from my normal practice of not writing any "review" of a book I haven't read completely.
However, while most people would enjoy a drink of cool water from a well, few enjoy chewing on the rope tied to the bucket. The conclusions of many landmark statistical studies may be likened to a bracing drink of healthy clear water for policymakers and citizens, but the technical mathematical operations of the study and data analysis have more in common with the rope and bucket; and a heavy dose of the latter is what's offered here along with the conclusions. Lott is a Univ. of Chicago social scientist steeped in the rigorous statistical method of the modern academic world, and writing largely for that milieu; he was determined to make the study and analysis methodologically impeccable. He succeeded in that; by the canons of social science, his work is impervious to objective criticism for the most part, which is what makes it valuable as a policy resource. As a book for lay people, however, it also makes it deadly dull, heavy reading; what I read left me glassy-eyed. If you're a Math major specializing in statistical method, who just loves page after page of tables and graphs and would look forward to an appendix explaining "statistical significance" and "regression coefficients," then I could confidently recommend this book to you. If you're more like the rest of us, I wouldn't!
February 14, 2017
Consider two books: Arming America and More Guns Less Crime. Published in 1999 and 1998 respectively the former attracted the ire of the gun lobby the latter seduced it but both are a remarkable couple in that neither is at all factual.
Arming America relied on probate records and information that very likely skewed by location, and era. But the main thesis of the book that American gun ownership is a more recent invention remains intact-unproven but intact. Arming America never made any claim to being a book of public policy, only popular history which is remarkable then considering the outrage it produced.
More Guns Less Crime however is far far more damaging.
The book was based upon an article that he had previously written and both article and book had the sole intent of influencing public policy. In that they were successful. Concealed carry is law nearly everywhere based upon Lott's evidence stating that more guns will reduce crime.
Of course intuition would tell you that that's the opposite of what one would expect. More guns by definition would seemingly turn any minor disagreement or crime into a worse crime.
Yes and no.
Yes, your intuition is correct. More guns increases crime:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S07...
http://www.livescience.com/1216-homic...
But despite these studies and your intuition the answer is still no.
How?
Simple, you create your own survey, answer those surveys to prove your initial point, "lose" said surveys which likely never existed in the first place, and then post as fictional people online defending this same survey!
The beauty part is that unlike Arming America in this with the NRA behind the author instead of in front lies become fact and bad ideas become bad policy.
Arming America relied on probate records and information that very likely skewed by location, and era. But the main thesis of the book that American gun ownership is a more recent invention remains intact-unproven but intact. Arming America never made any claim to being a book of public policy, only popular history which is remarkable then considering the outrage it produced.
More Guns Less Crime however is far far more damaging.
The book was based upon an article that he had previously written and both article and book had the sole intent of influencing public policy. In that they were successful. Concealed carry is law nearly everywhere based upon Lott's evidence stating that more guns will reduce crime.
Of course intuition would tell you that that's the opposite of what one would expect. More guns by definition would seemingly turn any minor disagreement or crime into a worse crime.
Yes and no.
Yes, your intuition is correct. More guns increases crime:
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S07...
http://www.livescience.com/1216-homic...
But despite these studies and your intuition the answer is still no.
How?
Simple, you create your own survey, answer those surveys to prove your initial point, "lose" said surveys which likely never existed in the first place, and then post as fictional people online defending this same survey!
The beauty part is that unlike Arming America in this with the NRA behind the author instead of in front lies become fact and bad ideas become bad policy.
January 30, 2016
While there will always be people who are opposed to, or in favor of, gun control, I found this book to be a compelling argument in favor of increasing gun ownership and allowing the average citizen to carry a gun if they wish. Those who know me know that I am strongly against gun control, on both philosophical and practical grounds, but I also found Lott's work compelling from a professional and methodological perspective. Certainly there are some flaws...I've never seen a research study that was perfect, but that is no reason to discard it whole cloth. Indeed, this study has since been supported by others taking alternative approaches to the same question.
March 18, 2008
This is a great book if you wish to look into the rationale of conservative propagandists. The author in no way contrasts the statistics to other developed countries and utilizes the statistics that represent the minority of gun related defenses.
June 23, 2022
"بينما كنت في رحلة للإدلاء بشهادتي أمام مجلس شيوخ نبراسكا ، كشف لي جون هاكسبي - وهو صحفي تلفزيوني تابع لشبكة سي بي إس في أوماها - بشكل خاص تجربة مخيفة واجهها في صيف عام 1995 أثناء زيارته في ولاية أريزونا. حوالي الساعة 10 صباحًا ، أثناء ركوب السيارة مع شقيقه على عجلة القيادة ، توقفوا عند إشارة المرور الحمراء. ظهر رجل يحمل "سكين جزار" وفتح باب الركاب ، ولكن بينما كان يتجه نحو جون ، استدار المهاجم فجأة وهرب. عندما التفت يوحنا إلى أخيه ، رأى أنَّ أخاه يمسك بيده بندقية .."هل يخاف المجرمون من مواطن يحترم القانون ويحمل مسدسًا؟ ربما لم يتم الإبلاغ عن معظم حالات تخويف مجرم من قبل مواطن مسلَّح، لكنني رأيت مجرمًا كان خائفًا جدًا من امرأة مسلَّحة تبلغ من العمر سبعين عامًا لدرجة أنَّه في ذعره ليهرب ، استدار وركض في الحائط! (كان مشغولاً بمحاولة ركل بابها ، عندما فتحت ستارة ووجهت مسدساً نحوه) . يكشف المجرمون الأمريكيون المدانون في استطلاعات الرأي أنهم قلقون بشأن الضحايا المسلحين أكثر من خوفهم من الاصطدام بالشرطة"
هكذا يقول لنا جون لوت في مقدمة كتابه، طبيعة هذه الدراسة تخلق لها ناقديها ممن يعيشون في إطار فلسفة الدولة الحديثة عن الهيمنة المطلقة والقوة التي لا حدود لها، لقد قال أستاذ القانون جون دونوهيو أنه يمكن أن يكون هناك "دم ملطخ بأيدي لوت " لأن هذا البحث ربما تسبب في تبنِّي الدول لقوانين الحق في حمل السلاح، لكن بما أنَّ الكتاب يعتمد على الإحصائيات والبيانات وتحديث هذه البيانات أيضًا كما جاء في نهاية الكتاب، فتبدو مناداة البعض بتلك السيطرة المطلقة للدولة على السلاح ليست هي الحل الرادع والفعّال لعدم وقوع الجرائم.
في مقدّمة الكتاب يذكر المؤلف أنّ ثقافة المجتمع الأمريكي هي ثقافة السلاح، ويعرض لنماذج متنوعة فرّ فيها المجرم عند تيقنه من وجود سلاح مع الضحية، يعتمد جون لوت كثيرًا على الإحصائيات، فهو يدع البيانات تقول، تقول كلَّ شئ .. مثلًا ماذا تقول البيانات عن نسبة امتلاك السلاح الخفي بين الأمريكيين؟ وماذا تقول البيانات عن نسبة وقوع الجريمة في ظل التسليح المدني للأفراد؟ قد تبدو ما تقوله البيانات صادمًا، فتصاعد نسبة امتلاك الأمريكان للسلاح الخفي ودور ذلك في تقليل الجريمة ربما لا يستسيغه البعض، لكنها هي الحقيقة كما تعرضها الرسوم الإحصائية التي توجد بغزارة في الكتاب .
الدراسة قد تبدو مملة لما احتوتها من بيانات، لكن هذه البيانات مهمة حيث تقوم على دراسة ثلاثة آلاف مقاطعة على مدار ١٥ عامًا، إنَّ لوت يؤكِّد لنا من خلال ذلك بأنَّ حيازة المسدس المخفي تؤدي إلى جرائم أقل، عليك هنا النظر مرة بعد المرة إلى إحصائيات لوت، صحيح لا تملك كقارئ التيقن من صدق تلك الإحصائيات ولا تملك الوسيلة لذلك، لكن ما يجعلنا نثق فيها هو عدم الطعن فيها من ناقدي الكتاب أنفسهم، إنَّ أهم نتيجة يخرج بها القارئ من تلك الإحصائيات أن امتلاك المسدس الخفي يمنع السرقة والاغتصاب والقتل، يقدّم ذلك لوت كحقيقة إحصائية.
مثل تلك الحقائق لا تعبأ بها الدولة التي وفق لوت تسن تشريعات لمنع وصول الناس إلى السلاح، مما يحد من الحماية التي يحصل عليها عامة الناس، لقد جابه لوت ذلك بالمنهج الإحصائي الصارم، قد لا يُعجب هذا القارئ الذي لا يميل للعلوم الرياضية والأرقام، لكن ماذا يفعل لوت وهو يجابه الثقافة العامة التي طرحتها الدولة حتى استقرَّ في الوعي الجمعي كشئ من البدهيات! لندع الأرقام تتكلم.. هذا هو دليل الكتاب على فرضيته التي لن تقبل بها الدولة أبدًا، الطرح بالنهاية مثير للجدل والنقاش، لكن وأنت تقرأ هذه الدراسة ضع في مخيلتك دائمًا صورة البلطجي والمجرم الذي يزهق أرواح العزَّل من الناس قبل أن تلحقهم الشرطة، في الغالب الشرطة لا تمنع جريمة، ولا العقوبات قادرة على منعها، ففكرة إفلات المجرم بجريمته هي مما يُمنِّي بها المجرم نفسه، ومن هنا يأتي قول لوت أنّ المجرم يخشى المواطن المسلَّح أكثر من خشيته من الشرطة .. الأمر يحتاج لرغبة صادقة من الجميع وفتح باب النقاش الفعلي والجاد حول كيفية حماية المجتمع ولاسيما النساء أمام حوادث العنف المتكررة من قبل مجنون مسلّح أو بلطجي يرفع سكين.
#قراءة_2022
هكذا يقول لنا جون لوت في مقدمة كتابه، طبيعة هذه الدراسة تخلق لها ناقديها ممن يعيشون في إطار فلسفة الدولة الحديثة عن الهيمنة المطلقة والقوة التي لا حدود لها، لقد قال أستاذ القانون جون دونوهيو أنه يمكن أن يكون هناك "دم ملطخ بأيدي لوت " لأن هذا البحث ربما تسبب في تبنِّي الدول لقوانين الحق في حمل السلاح، لكن بما أنَّ الكتاب يعتمد على الإحصائيات والبيانات وتحديث هذه البيانات أيضًا كما جاء في نهاية الكتاب، فتبدو مناداة البعض بتلك السيطرة المطلقة للدولة على السلاح ليست هي الحل الرادع والفعّال لعدم وقوع الجرائم.
في مقدّمة الكتاب يذكر المؤلف أنّ ثقافة المجتمع الأمريكي هي ثقافة السلاح، ويعرض لنماذج متنوعة فرّ فيها المجرم عند تيقنه من وجود سلاح مع الضحية، يعتمد جون لوت كثيرًا على الإحصائيات، فهو يدع البيانات تقول، تقول كلَّ شئ .. مثلًا ماذا تقول البيانات عن نسبة امتلاك السلاح الخفي بين الأمريكيين؟ وماذا تقول البيانات عن نسبة وقوع الجريمة في ظل التسليح المدني للأفراد؟ قد تبدو ما تقوله البيانات صادمًا، فتصاعد نسبة امتلاك الأمريكان للسلاح الخفي ودور ذلك في تقليل الجريمة ربما لا يستسيغه البعض، لكنها هي الحقيقة كما تعرضها الرسوم الإحصائية التي توجد بغزارة في الكتاب .
الدراسة قد تبدو مملة لما احتوتها من بيانات، لكن هذه البيانات مهمة حيث تقوم على دراسة ثلاثة آلاف مقاطعة على مدار ١٥ عامًا، إنَّ لوت يؤكِّد لنا من خلال ذلك بأنَّ حيازة المسدس المخفي تؤدي إلى جرائم أقل، عليك هنا النظر مرة بعد المرة إلى إحصائيات لوت، صحيح لا تملك كقارئ التيقن من صدق تلك الإحصائيات ولا تملك الوسيلة لذلك، لكن ما يجعلنا نثق فيها هو عدم الطعن فيها من ناقدي الكتاب أنفسهم، إنَّ أهم نتيجة يخرج بها القارئ من تلك الإحصائيات أن امتلاك المسدس الخفي يمنع السرقة والاغتصاب والقتل، يقدّم ذلك لوت كحقيقة إحصائية.
مثل تلك الحقائق لا تعبأ بها الدولة التي وفق لوت تسن تشريعات لمنع وصول الناس إلى السلاح، مما يحد من الحماية التي يحصل عليها عامة الناس، لقد جابه لوت ذلك بالمنهج الإحصائي الصارم، قد لا يُعجب هذا القارئ الذي لا يميل للعلوم الرياضية والأرقام، لكن ماذا يفعل لوت وهو يجابه الثقافة العامة التي طرحتها الدولة حتى استقرَّ في الوعي الجمعي كشئ من البدهيات! لندع الأرقام تتكلم.. هذا هو دليل الكتاب على فرضيته التي لن تقبل بها الدولة أبدًا، الطرح بالنهاية مثير للجدل والنقاش، لكن وأنت تقرأ هذه الدراسة ضع في مخيلتك دائمًا صورة البلطجي والمجرم الذي يزهق أرواح العزَّل من الناس قبل أن تلحقهم الشرطة، في الغالب الشرطة لا تمنع جريمة، ولا العقوبات قادرة على منعها، ففكرة إفلات المجرم بجريمته هي مما يُمنِّي بها المجرم نفسه، ومن هنا يأتي قول لوت أنّ المجرم يخشى المواطن المسلَّح أكثر من خشيته من الشرطة .. الأمر يحتاج لرغبة صادقة من الجميع وفتح باب النقاش الفعلي والجاد حول كيفية حماية المجتمع ولاسيما النساء أمام حوادث العنف المتكررة من قبل مجنون مسلّح أو بلطجي يرفع سكين.
#قراءة_2022
January 29, 2020
This book suggests it is is a "research", when actual research:
"Right-to-carry handgun laws trigger a 13% to 15% increase in violent crime a decade after the typical state adopts them, suggests a new statistical analysis of 33 US states." source
References to other research papers.
And:
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives
So, this book seems intelligent, but misses basics of rules of statistics.
"Right-to-carry handgun laws trigger a 13% to 15% increase in violent crime a decade after the typical state adopts them, suggests a new statistical analysis of 33 US states." source
References to other research papers.
And:
Review of More Than 130 Studies Provides Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Saves Lives
So, this book seems intelligent, but misses basics of rules of statistics.
March 1, 2018
I didn't actually finish reading this book. First, because the writing is academic style, which made it a bit tedious. And second, because I found other sources discrediting the research claims in this book.
November 3, 2015
A leitura deste livro não poderia ter sido realizada em momento mais propício: quando se acirram os debates sobre o PL 3277/2012 (http://www.camara.gov.br/proposicoesW...) que visa diminuir os absurdos perpretados contra a liberdade dos Brasileiros e contra um PEBLISCITO realizado onde 2/3 (64%) da população votou CONTRA as proibições. Tudo isso com peso total de tota a mídia em favor do desarmamento.
Nesta abrangente pesquisa que coletou mais de 20 anos de dados americanos sobre criminalidade (FBI, informações diretas de condados e outras fontes) sobre todos os estados, condados e cidades americanas, o Doutor Lott mostrou como as leis não descriminatórias (onde basta preencher alguns requisitos legais para PORTAR uma arma de fogo) DIMINUÍRAM todas as categorias de crimes violentos (assassinato, estupros, assalto a mão armada, entre outros) assim que foram postas em prática. A análise dos dados é tão profunda que pode deixar o leitor cansado.
Ele observou muitas variáveis que são tomadas como importantes nesse debate como liberação dos portes, renda per capita, desemprego, dureza das leis, investimento em polícia e muitas outras variáveis estudadas pelos criminologistas.
As conclusões?
1 - Quais são as pessoas que mais se beneficiam das liberações: NEGROS, POBRES e MULHERES. Simplesmente porque essas são as principais vítimas. No caso de mulheres a diminuição dos estupros é a mais impressionante. E para terem noção de como as propagandas (de desarmamento) são efetivas em criar medo nessa população, eles são os que são mais favoráveis ao desarmamento (sendo os mais prejudicados).
2 - Que as pessoas que obtém uma licença são as maiores cumpridoras das leis. No pior caso registrado em um estado, apenas 0.6% das pessoas tiveram as licenças cassadas e isso, na maioria das vezes, por motivos não relacionado as armas em si, mas problemas com pagamento de pensão e multas de trânsito.
3 - Que a medida que as vendas de armas aumentavam, a criminalidade diminuia com ritmo mais forte.
4 - Que as cidades grandes eram os lugares onde a liberação das armais reduzia mais os crimes (e eram os lugares mais restritivos de possuir armas).
5 - Que os assassinatos em massa DIMINUÍRAM (ao contrário do que os desarmamentitas tentam vender) e que o número de vítimas totais por evento diminuíram porque quando um atentado acontecia, existia uma pessoa armada no local que abatia o atirador
É por isso que o direito ao porte de armas sempre foi negado para escravos, dissidentes e qualquer pessoa que estivesse na presença de um governo (ou pessoas) opressor.
Atualmente, é praticamente impossível tentar se provar através de números e pesquisas nos EUA que mais armas sequer mantém a quantidade de crimes no mesmo nível. Sempre declinam. Mesmo as pesquisas encomendadas pelo Obama (esquerdista com forte inclinação pelas proibições de armas) mostraram que as armas estão diminuindo a criminalidade americana ano após ano.
Dentro desse tema, pretendo estudar outros países que aplicaram leis desarmamentistas como Inglaterra e Austrália.
"No momento em que o governo e os bandidos tiverem a propriedade total das armas, estes decidirão de quem serão as outras propriedades"
Nesta abrangente pesquisa que coletou mais de 20 anos de dados americanos sobre criminalidade (FBI, informações diretas de condados e outras fontes) sobre todos os estados, condados e cidades americanas, o Doutor Lott mostrou como as leis não descriminatórias (onde basta preencher alguns requisitos legais para PORTAR uma arma de fogo) DIMINUÍRAM todas as categorias de crimes violentos (assassinato, estupros, assalto a mão armada, entre outros) assim que foram postas em prática. A análise dos dados é tão profunda que pode deixar o leitor cansado.
Ele observou muitas variáveis que são tomadas como importantes nesse debate como liberação dos portes, renda per capita, desemprego, dureza das leis, investimento em polícia e muitas outras variáveis estudadas pelos criminologistas.
As conclusões?
1 - Quais são as pessoas que mais se beneficiam das liberações: NEGROS, POBRES e MULHERES. Simplesmente porque essas são as principais vítimas. No caso de mulheres a diminuição dos estupros é a mais impressionante. E para terem noção de como as propagandas (de desarmamento) são efetivas em criar medo nessa população, eles são os que são mais favoráveis ao desarmamento (sendo os mais prejudicados).
2 - Que as pessoas que obtém uma licença são as maiores cumpridoras das leis. No pior caso registrado em um estado, apenas 0.6% das pessoas tiveram as licenças cassadas e isso, na maioria das vezes, por motivos não relacionado as armas em si, mas problemas com pagamento de pensão e multas de trânsito.
3 - Que a medida que as vendas de armas aumentavam, a criminalidade diminuia com ritmo mais forte.
4 - Que as cidades grandes eram os lugares onde a liberação das armais reduzia mais os crimes (e eram os lugares mais restritivos de possuir armas).
5 - Que os assassinatos em massa DIMINUÍRAM (ao contrário do que os desarmamentitas tentam vender) e que o número de vítimas totais por evento diminuíram porque quando um atentado acontecia, existia uma pessoa armada no local que abatia o atirador
É por isso que o direito ao porte de armas sempre foi negado para escravos, dissidentes e qualquer pessoa que estivesse na presença de um governo (ou pessoas) opressor.
Atualmente, é praticamente impossível tentar se provar através de números e pesquisas nos EUA que mais armas sequer mantém a quantidade de crimes no mesmo nível. Sempre declinam. Mesmo as pesquisas encomendadas pelo Obama (esquerdista com forte inclinação pelas proibições de armas) mostraram que as armas estão diminuindo a criminalidade americana ano após ano.
Dentro desse tema, pretendo estudar outros países que aplicaram leis desarmamentistas como Inglaterra e Austrália.
"No momento em que o governo e os bandidos tiverem a propriedade total das armas, estes decidirão de quem serão as outras propriedades"
January 21, 2016
Absolutely incredible. Without doubt the most in depth statistical analysis of concealed carry guns and their relation to crime.
Amongst many excellent points that are the result of careful scholarship, 3 main points are made very obvious to the reader by the end of this empirical study:
1. Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding (permit holders commit murders at 1/182nd the rate of the general population). Therefore, permit holders are much more trustworthy to not commit murders than non permit holders
2. Concealed handguns without a doubt deter violent crime including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. This is a statistical fact, and contrary anecdotal evidence is exactly that: anecdote. Opening all states to non-discretionary laws could decreased annual murders by 1500 and rapes by 5000. In 1996, 17 children aged 5 and under died as a result of accidental firearm use. In that same year, 40 children under age 5 drowned in 5 gallon buckets and 80 in the bathtub. The use of firearms in defense greatly out ways the accidental deaths or misuse of such firearms: firearms are used defensively between 760,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the United States.
3. Making legislation to prevent people from having access to guns, including supposed "gun show loopholes" (that don't exist anymore although they are constantly referred to in the media) , limit the use of defensive weapons by law abiding citizens. A survey of 20000 inmates in state prisons demonstrated that 0.7% of guns used in illegal activity were acquired from a gun show, and 1.2% were from a flea market. However, 40% of guns were acquired from family members and an additional 39% were acquired from the streets or from illegal activity. While the closing of acquisition loopholes lowered the amount of gun shows by 24%, which limits the protection the general public gets from access to protection from firearms.
FINAL NOTICE: Michael Storandt should not read this book because he would find it boring and complain there are too many facts in the book.
Amongst many excellent points that are the result of careful scholarship, 3 main points are made very obvious to the reader by the end of this empirical study:
1. Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law abiding (permit holders commit murders at 1/182nd the rate of the general population). Therefore, permit holders are much more trustworthy to not commit murders than non permit holders
2. Concealed handguns without a doubt deter violent crime including murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery. This is a statistical fact, and contrary anecdotal evidence is exactly that: anecdote. Opening all states to non-discretionary laws could decreased annual murders by 1500 and rapes by 5000. In 1996, 17 children aged 5 and under died as a result of accidental firearm use. In that same year, 40 children under age 5 drowned in 5 gallon buckets and 80 in the bathtub. The use of firearms in defense greatly out ways the accidental deaths or misuse of such firearms: firearms are used defensively between 760,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the United States.
3. Making legislation to prevent people from having access to guns, including supposed "gun show loopholes" (that don't exist anymore although they are constantly referred to in the media) , limit the use of defensive weapons by law abiding citizens. A survey of 20000 inmates in state prisons demonstrated that 0.7% of guns used in illegal activity were acquired from a gun show, and 1.2% were from a flea market. However, 40% of guns were acquired from family members and an additional 39% were acquired from the streets or from illegal activity. While the closing of acquisition loopholes lowered the amount of gun shows by 24%, which limits the protection the general public gets from access to protection from firearms.
FINAL NOTICE: Michael Storandt should not read this book because he would find it boring and complain there are too many facts in the book.
May 14, 2008
This book was the result of a study on gun control laws, mainly non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws (aka "shall issue laws"), and crime rates. The study is very extensive in that in includes data from all 3,000+ counties in the U.S. over more than a 15 year period. However like any the study isn't complete (he only studies data available i.e. not all counties kept records as detailed as he would have liked, he doesn't look at statistics from other countries) and isn't perfect. One thing good about this book is that he addresses the criticisms lobbied against his study. I do think this is a good book in that it addresses an important issue and encourages debate which I think is always good. I don't know if I agree with his conclusion that non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws result in less crime. I do agree with his conclusion that arrest rates, conviction rates, and longer sentences do have an impact on crime rates. Whether or not one agrees with his conclusion, one cannot dispute that Lott did his homework. If you do choose to read this book, realize that it isn't easy to understand if you don't have an in depth knowledge of statistics. Also realize he can only deal with the statistics available to him.
August 18, 2022
This book is a mosh mash of opinion masked as facts and cherry-picked weak data that has so many caveats, the author has created diarrhoea in book form. Lott has an issue with conflating correlation/causation and spends a lot of time deviating from his points with quick fire irrelevant points, trying to sound smarter than he is. At the end of the day, the best argument for guns is that you like them, the best argument against them is that the gun laws work elsewhere pretty darn well and it is proven by the death rates by firearms. There’s little honesty in the gun debate from the weapons lobbyists and they exist only to be merchants of doubt, keeping sales high. Whilst I’m not for banning all guns, they shouldn’t be so easy to get. Take a page from Australia’s book, and focus on improving your countries education, health and safety standards and you’ll see how lives can be saved.
July 28, 2017
Everyone who wants to understand the role of guns in violence in America must read this book. The result of heroic research, including data collected from nearly every county in the US over a period of fifteen years, it proves that permitting people to carry concealed handguns reduces the risk of violent crimes, including homicide and rape, while increasing the risk of nonviolent crimes, such as burglary. Furthermore, those who hold licenses to carry concealed guns are not likely to use them except in cases of self-defense—a gun in your purse does not get pulled out to settle an argument.
Want to read
January 21, 2009I own lots and lots and lots of guns.
December 18, 2017
If true, the statistics are pretty compelling. Lott makes a counterintuitive argument that more conceited carriers makes for a safer society and he bases it on statistics. I’ve also read a lot of counter arguments about it and people who question his statistics. He does a good job in the book of aggressively answering the critics and arguing mathematically against the counter-arguments. He does also make the point that most concealed carriers are statistically more law abiding than the public.
This is a book where it’s easy to let your confirmation bias run away with you. If you are anti-gun, you will probably hate it and pro-gun will love it.
If you are interested in the pro-gun argument, this is probably the best book for reading that case.
This is a book where it’s easy to let your confirmation bias run away with you. If you are anti-gun, you will probably hate it and pro-gun will love it.
If you are interested in the pro-gun argument, this is probably the best book for reading that case.
January 7, 2023
Имам въздушна пушка и прабългарски лък, с които обичам да се съберем с приятели и да стреляме по мишени. Не го правя зад блока обаче, по две интересни причини. Пушката ми е въздушна, но с голям оптически мерник и е черна на цвят - прилича на снайпер на специалните части за човек който не разбира. Хората се плашат като я видят и се оплакват като я изнасям. Лъкът пък не е от модерните карбонови измишльотини, ами си е класически дървен лък със стрели с пера и като го извадя веднага се събират деца и родители да ме гледат, а родителите активно поощряват децата си да ходят при мене.
Обаче... пушката е изключително точна (да "пропусна" с нея означава да продупча мишената 3-4 мм настрани от центъра, самата мишена е колкото 1 лв. на лист А4 са нарисувани 12 мишени) така че шансът да "застрелям" някого е точно никакъв, да не говорим че не е мощна и няма да му направи нищо. Но хората се плашат само като я видят и колкото и да им обяснявам и показвам не си променят мнението.
Подобно е и с лъка, но с обратен знак - той изглежда интересен, забавен, като от исторически филм. Но е много мощен (35 кг опън), стрелите са тренировъчни, но все пак са остри и ако уцелят човек могат да го пробият от край до край, а могат да го уцелят лесно, защото класическият лък не е прецизно оръжие и дава отклонения. Но родителите тия неща не ги схващат като им ги обяснявам и пращат децата си да се мотаят практически пред мишената ни.
Та книгата, да си дойдем на думата, обяснява един, според мен, съвсем нормален и обикновен факт - при равни други условия, колкото повече легални огнестрелни оръжия има в едно цивилизовано общество, толкова по-малко престъпления има. Нормално - кой ще иска да обере къща или да изнасили жена, като знае, че шансът да му натикат пистолет в лицето е значителен? Това се подкрепя и от статистиките на престъпността, както и от всеки, посещавал Швейцария.
Но хората се плашат от пушките и пистолетите и не схващат, че не оръжията убиват, а хората - и докато има психичноболни на свобода, ще има и убийства, независимо с какво оръжие. "Да ама в Америка се изпозастрелват по училищата всеки месец!" е голям аргумент, при условие че в България годишно има повече хора, убити с брадви и ножове при битови спорове, отколкото в САЩ са убитите в училищни стрелби...
Обаче... пушката е изключително точна (да "пропусна" с нея означава да продупча мишената 3-4 мм настрани от центъра, самата мишена е колкото 1 лв. на лист А4 са нарисувани 12 мишени) така че шансът да "застрелям" някого е точно никакъв, да не говорим че не е мощна и няма да му направи нищо. Но хората се плашат само като я видят и колкото и да им обяснявам и показвам не си променят мнението.
Подобно е и с лъка, но с обратен знак - той изглежда интересен, забавен, като от исторически филм. Но е много мощен (35 кг опън), стрелите са тренировъчни, но все пак са остри и ако уцелят човек могат да го пробият от край до край, а могат да го уцелят лесно, защото класическият лък не е прецизно оръжие и дава отклонения. Но родителите тия неща не ги схващат като им ги обяснявам и пращат децата си да се мотаят практически пред мишената ни.
Та книгата, да си дойдем на думата, обяснява един, според мен, съвсем нормален и обикновен факт - при равни други условия, колкото повече легални огнестрелни оръжия има в едно цивилизовано общество, толкова по-малко престъпления има. Нормално - кой ще иска да обере къща или да изнасили жена, като знае, че шансът да му натикат пистолет в лицето е значителен? Това се подкрепя и от статистиките на престъпността, както и от всеки, посещавал Швейцария.
Но хората се плашат от пушките и пистолетите и не схващат, че не оръжията убиват, а хората - и докато има психичноболни на свобода, ще има и убийства, независимо с какво оръжие. "Да ама в Америка се изпозастрелват по училищата всеки месец!" е голям аргумент, при условие че в България годишно има повече хора, убити с брадви и ножове при битови спорове, отколкото в САЩ са убитите в училищни стрелби...
August 3, 2014
This book explains the detailed studies the author conducted, which show that concealed-carry permit laws reduce violent crime, and to a lesser extent, property crime. He has conducted studies spanning almost 30 years for several US States. The book is bit heavy on statistics, charts and explanations of study methodology, but the study results are clearly explained as well. In this third edition, Lott includes data for states that passed carry laws more recently, as well as his responses to a long list of criticisms that the book has received from gun-control advocates.
December 1, 2010
Another behavioral economics book. This one analyzes the impact of concealed carry legislation on crime. Pretty heavy analysis over many decades. In ALL cases, for every county in the United States, conceal carry means less crime.
This book is the reason that virtually all free states have implemented Shall Issue laws.
This book makes bed wetting liberals heads explode.
This book is the reason that virtually all free states have implemented Shall Issue laws.
This book makes bed wetting liberals heads explode.
August 5, 2018
Finished this book, recommended to me by a gun-loving friend and colleague of mine.
I tried hard – and succeeded, I dare think – to maintain an open mind throughout the book, looking up references where needed, etc.
I can see why Lott thinks that more guns equals less crime, but I think he has missed the mark, so to speak. And reading reviews of his work, I see now that I am not alone, as his work has been largely and roundly criticized by other experts in the field.
Basically, he claims, as the title suggests, that the more guns we have in society the more criminals will be deterred.
I see several problems with the book. To name just a few:
1) Poor references. For instance, he claims that concealed handguns are more cost-effective at reducing crime and that they provide a higher return than law enforcement, incarceration, other private security devices, or social programs like early educational intervention, but then cites a largely irrelevant article on an empirical analysis of Lojack (Kindle Locations 1958-1960). Lojack is a good analogy for concealed handguns, but the reference here seems out of place.
2) In many places he seems to ignore data that contradicts his position. For example, in his discussion on mass shootings (Kindle location 1715), he does not even mention the famously successful case of the Australian gun buy-back and related reforms following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. As noted by Hopkins researchers,
“Overall, Australia’s reforms have proved a resounding success. We have not had another mass shooting since 1996, and the firearms mortality rate today is 1/100,000—less than half what it was then (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012), and one tenth the current United States rate. This dramatic improvement in public safety has not stopped the United States gun lobby from misrepresenting the Australian experience as part of its campaign against firearm regulation. A National Rifle Association (NRA) infomercial video produced in 2000 claims crime rates have skyrocketed and Australia is overrun by criminals as a result of the reforms. The misinformation was so outrageous that our Attorney General took the unusual step of writing a letter of complaint to Charlton Heston, then president of the NRA.”Bloomberg, Michael R. Reducing Gun Violence in America [Kindle Locations 3887-3893]. Johns Hopkins University Press.)
Similarly, more recent data have been published showing decreases in mass shootings both in Australia after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement and in the USA after the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban, but with an increase after the ban expired in 2004 (https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015...).
3) In several places he drastically overstates, such as stating that concealed-handgun laws “virtually eliminated mass public shootings” (Kindle location 1947).
4) He claims to be cautious not to confuse association with causality, but when it suits his bias, he talks of associations as if they are causalities. For example, observing a decrease in murder rates for a given local and time period, which is associated with concealed-handgun laws, he seems to assume that the decrease in murder rates are caused by the concealed-handgun laws, as if murders go and look up the number of permits listed and then decide whether not to commit murder, which seems a little absurd to me.
5) And perhaps most damningly, Lott has been accused, rightfully and not vengefully it seems, of academic dishonesty. As reported by the admittedly liberal publication Mother Jones (but citing the highly reputable academic journal Science):
“Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey — which supposedly found that ‘98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack’ — that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’. Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, ‘Mary Rosh,’ and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a ‘false identity for a scholar,’ charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. ‘In most circles, this goes down as fraud.’”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/...
Indeed subsequent to his widely publicized work, other independent investigators reanalyzed his data and found that the deterrent effect he reported was due in part or whole to unmeasured variables. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147667)
I tried hard – and succeeded, I dare think – to maintain an open mind throughout the book, looking up references where needed, etc.
I can see why Lott thinks that more guns equals less crime, but I think he has missed the mark, so to speak. And reading reviews of his work, I see now that I am not alone, as his work has been largely and roundly criticized by other experts in the field.
Basically, he claims, as the title suggests, that the more guns we have in society the more criminals will be deterred.
I see several problems with the book. To name just a few:
1) Poor references. For instance, he claims that concealed handguns are more cost-effective at reducing crime and that they provide a higher return than law enforcement, incarceration, other private security devices, or social programs like early educational intervention, but then cites a largely irrelevant article on an empirical analysis of Lojack (Kindle Locations 1958-1960). Lojack is a good analogy for concealed handguns, but the reference here seems out of place.
2) In many places he seems to ignore data that contradicts his position. For example, in his discussion on mass shootings (Kindle location 1715), he does not even mention the famously successful case of the Australian gun buy-back and related reforms following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. As noted by Hopkins researchers,
“Overall, Australia’s reforms have proved a resounding success. We have not had another mass shooting since 1996, and the firearms mortality rate today is 1/100,000—less than half what it was then (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012), and one tenth the current United States rate. This dramatic improvement in public safety has not stopped the United States gun lobby from misrepresenting the Australian experience as part of its campaign against firearm regulation. A National Rifle Association (NRA) infomercial video produced in 2000 claims crime rates have skyrocketed and Australia is overrun by criminals as a result of the reforms. The misinformation was so outrageous that our Attorney General took the unusual step of writing a letter of complaint to Charlton Heston, then president of the NRA.”Bloomberg, Michael R. Reducing Gun Violence in America [Kindle Locations 3887-3893]. Johns Hopkins University Press.)
Similarly, more recent data have been published showing decreases in mass shootings both in Australia after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement and in the USA after the 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapon Ban, but with an increase after the ban expired in 2004 (https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-05-2015...).
3) In several places he drastically overstates, such as stating that concealed-handgun laws “virtually eliminated mass public shootings” (Kindle location 1947).
4) He claims to be cautious not to confuse association with causality, but when it suits his bias, he talks of associations as if they are causalities. For example, observing a decrease in murder rates for a given local and time period, which is associated with concealed-handgun laws, he seems to assume that the decrease in murder rates are caused by the concealed-handgun laws, as if murders go and look up the number of permits listed and then decide whether not to commit murder, which seems a little absurd to me.
5) And perhaps most damningly, Lott has been accused, rightfully and not vengefully it seems, of academic dishonesty. As reported by the admittedly liberal publication Mother Jones (but citing the highly reputable academic journal Science):
“Earlier this year, Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey — which supposedly found that ‘98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack’ — that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition of ‘More Guns, Less Crime’. Lott then made matters even worse by posing as a former student, ‘Mary Rosh,’ and using the alias to attack his critics and defend his work online. When an Internet blogger exposed the ruse, the scientific community was outraged. Lott had created a ‘false identity for a scholar,’ charged Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy. ‘In most circles, this goes down as fraud.’”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/...
Indeed subsequent to his widely publicized work, other independent investigators reanalyzed his data and found that the deterrent effect he reported was due in part or whole to unmeasured variables. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147667)
July 28, 2017
I'm glad I finally learned statistics! Without it, this book would seem to be written in a foreign language.
It's a dry book. Coming from a guy who likes dry writing and cold data, that's saying a lot. Still, Lott lays out convincing evidence that there is in fact a negative correlation between violent crime and the number of county-issued concealed carry permits.
When counties adopt non-discretionary permitting laws (where a concealed firearms permit shall be issued so long as the applicant meets specific requirements - it's not a subjective issuance per the issuing sheriff or police chief) violent crime such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault all decrease. Oddly enough, in true economic fashion, there is a substitution effect where crimes such as burglary (which do not entail contact with a victim) increase.
Lott also notes that increased arrest rates and conviction rates also contribute to decreased crime. However he argues that if states and counties want the most bang for their buck regarding ways to reduce crime, allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms is the most cost effective way to deter crime. Think of it this way: what is cheaper? Hire 100 more police officers, or let men, women, and the elderly carry concealed weapons to protect themselves?
Central to Lott's thesis is the idea that everyone benefits from the passage of non-discretionary laws. People who choose not to carry a firearm still benefit from the passage of the law simply because other people may be carrying a concealed weapon. This has a special deterrence effect on criminals because they no longer know which of their victims may be armed. The risk of a violent encounter is increased, and so they turn instead to crimes that don't involve contact with the victim, such as burglary.
Lott also addresses much of the criticism (of which much is unfounded and not based on the study itself) he received when he issued his original research. It would seem that some sides of the gun debate are not particularly interested in having an honest discussion.
I appreciate how academic this book is. If you don't have any background in statistics, honestly you wont understand it. But if you want to look into one economist's cold research regarding concealed weapons licenses and violent crime, this is a good entry point.
It's a dry book. Coming from a guy who likes dry writing and cold data, that's saying a lot. Still, Lott lays out convincing evidence that there is in fact a negative correlation between violent crime and the number of county-issued concealed carry permits.
When counties adopt non-discretionary permitting laws (where a concealed firearms permit shall be issued so long as the applicant meets specific requirements - it's not a subjective issuance per the issuing sheriff or police chief) violent crime such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault all decrease. Oddly enough, in true economic fashion, there is a substitution effect where crimes such as burglary (which do not entail contact with a victim) increase.
Lott also notes that increased arrest rates and conviction rates also contribute to decreased crime. However he argues that if states and counties want the most bang for their buck regarding ways to reduce crime, allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms is the most cost effective way to deter crime. Think of it this way: what is cheaper? Hire 100 more police officers, or let men, women, and the elderly carry concealed weapons to protect themselves?
Central to Lott's thesis is the idea that everyone benefits from the passage of non-discretionary laws. People who choose not to carry a firearm still benefit from the passage of the law simply because other people may be carrying a concealed weapon. This has a special deterrence effect on criminals because they no longer know which of their victims may be armed. The risk of a violent encounter is increased, and so they turn instead to crimes that don't involve contact with the victim, such as burglary.
Lott also addresses much of the criticism (of which much is unfounded and not based on the study itself) he received when he issued his original research. It would seem that some sides of the gun debate are not particularly interested in having an honest discussion.
I appreciate how academic this book is. If you don't have any background in statistics, honestly you wont understand it. But if you want to look into one economist's cold research regarding concealed weapons licenses and violent crime, this is a good entry point.
April 24, 2023
After reading countless studies in social sciences that misuse statistics to prove the political views of the author, it was refreshing to find a book that employs robust statistical analysis to examine a public policy issue.
The argument that "more guns in the US compared to other countries, so more violence" never convinced me. It is possible that the high prevalence of guns in the US throughout its history contributed to its more violent culture, but simply comparing gun ownership rates between the US and other countries overlooks the unique characteristics of each country. Those who use gun ownership data alone to argue that guns are the cause of crime and should be restricted do not explain why states with higher per capita gun ownership often have lower crime rates.
This book goes beyond that simplistic view and explores the effects of laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. It presents several different analyses of various data sets, all of which support the book's main message. In summary, guns in the hands of licensed citizens act as a deterrent to crime, as criminals are less likely to attack someone who may be carrying a gun themselves.
The book is dense with numbers and statistical models, and it may not be necessary for everyone to read through all the details, which can be dry and overly academic. However, it's clear that the book's authors put forth a tremendous effort to make it as robust as possible against criticisms, some of which were unfounded and even personal attacks. This may have contributed to the book's density.
All things considered, in a debate on gun laws that often relies on oversimplified and dishonest number games, this rather old book offers a refreshing perspective on the subject.
The argument that "more guns in the US compared to other countries, so more violence" never convinced me. It is possible that the high prevalence of guns in the US throughout its history contributed to its more violent culture, but simply comparing gun ownership rates between the US and other countries overlooks the unique characteristics of each country. Those who use gun ownership data alone to argue that guns are the cause of crime and should be restricted do not explain why states with higher per capita gun ownership often have lower crime rates.
This book goes beyond that simplistic view and explores the effects of laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. It presents several different analyses of various data sets, all of which support the book's main message. In summary, guns in the hands of licensed citizens act as a deterrent to crime, as criminals are less likely to attack someone who may be carrying a gun themselves.
The book is dense with numbers and statistical models, and it may not be necessary for everyone to read through all the details, which can be dry and overly academic. However, it's clear that the book's authors put forth a tremendous effort to make it as robust as possible against criticisms, some of which were unfounded and even personal attacks. This may have contributed to the book's density.
All things considered, in a debate on gun laws that often relies on oversimplified and dishonest number games, this rather old book offers a refreshing perspective on the subject.
July 16, 2019
Probably the most detailed and thorough research into the issue of gun control ever done. The third edition adds a new layer of data and expanded research. It's a ton of detailed information that can be difficult to wade through, but it's incredibly rewarding for those who stick with it. All the personal attacks against Mr. Lott came at him because his research was and is impeccable. And in our political climate, when you can't attack the research or the data, attack the man and try to discredit him.
The goal should be to get to the truth, but too often and especially on this issue, too many people are looking to have their pet theories proven for them, instead of looking at issues with an open mind. There is a reason why schools and shopping malls, not gun clubs and shooting ranges, are the target of mass killers the world over. Pity not enough people are willing to understand why that is and do something about it.
The goal should be to get to the truth, but too often and especially on this issue, too many people are looking to have their pet theories proven for them, instead of looking at issues with an open mind. There is a reason why schools and shopping malls, not gun clubs and shooting ranges, are the target of mass killers the world over. Pity not enough people are willing to understand why that is and do something about it.
September 28, 2023
My beliefs on gun control are based on principles and not data so this book wasn't going to change my views one way or another, but it was very interesting learning about the data on this subject. It is a bit dated in that it spends most of it's time on effects of "shall issue" concealed carry license laws when many states have already moved to constitutional carry today. But what was notable was the effect other laws had on the violent crime rate such as safe storage laws, age restrictions, and waiting periods.
It also covers many criticisms as well as covers the numbers on suicide and accidental deaths.
Despite the name, all the research was on certain laws and regulations relating to guns, their is not data offered on the sheer number of guns on the street and how it relates to crime.
I would not recommend the kindle version for this as the charts/graphs are basically undecipherable.
It also covers many criticisms as well as covers the numbers on suicide and accidental deaths.
Despite the name, all the research was on certain laws and regulations relating to guns, their is not data offered on the sheer number of guns on the street and how it relates to crime.
I would not recommend the kindle version for this as the charts/graphs are basically undecipherable.
April 25, 2018
The author writes well and both the statistics and analysis are fairly exhaustive. However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the book, and subsequent research seems to indicate that the conclusions of the book are not as certain as the author presents them (Read "FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW" by the United States National Research Council https://www.nap.edu/read/10881).
Additionally, while the research was extensive for its time, the author admits that there is often difficulty getting quality data, and the book definitely needs to be updated, both because newer data is available, as well as because it now feels significantly dated having been written over 20 years ago.
Nevertheless, the impact that this book has had on the gun discussion in the United States is significant, and his findings must be considered in any well informed discussion on the matter.
Additionally, while the research was extensive for its time, the author admits that there is often difficulty getting quality data, and the book definitely needs to be updated, both because newer data is available, as well as because it now feels significantly dated having been written over 20 years ago.
Nevertheless, the impact that this book has had on the gun discussion in the United States is significant, and his findings must be considered in any well informed discussion on the matter.
November 20, 2022
Every controversial topic in public policy debate deserves to have a book like this written. The level of attention that the author puts into all aspects of the research is unparalleled. This study uses the largest scale of data ever used for any study on crime ever let alone gun control. EVERY factor that I can think about regarding the effect of gun control laws is explored. The statistical treatment of the same is remarkably executed. The criticisms against the study are responded to with grace and comprehensiveness.
Excellent book. The only criticism I can think of, is that the book can be a little dry and too heavy on statistics - but that's inevitable for a book of this rigor and methodicity in approach.
Excellent book. The only criticism I can think of, is that the book can be a little dry and too heavy on statistics - but that's inevitable for a book of this rigor and methodicity in approach.
January 18, 2023
I only got to page 26, and that only because I was waiting for my wife at the urgent care. It's not that it's a bad book - what I read is good...for what it is. It's just that it's an academic book, not one for popular consumption. And that means it's full of jargon, and it reiterates things endlessly. The introduction really says all that it's necessary to say, which is that the data indicate that the more honest citizens are armed, the safer everyone is.
And the plain fact is that I knew that already.
And the plain fact is that I knew that already.
August 23, 2023
I read the original book, in fact I have an author signed copy. I found interesting how the work was attacked for so long, and even to this day people say the study was debunked when it has been clearly proven as a good well thought out study. But people don't like the fact that it does not fit the narrative. I think anyone on either side of the gun debate really needs to read the study and this book and then review their perspectives on gun control.
June 8, 2018
I am writing an argumentative paper for school using the gun debate and the effect of the media on the debate. This book was a great source for gun rights. Because it was so focused on statistics, it was difficult for me to stay engaged but it provided great insights. Being very familiar with political studies, I have also learned that even statistics can be easily skewed.
September 30, 2019
I had a chance to meet Mr. Lott quite a few years ago when he was touring t promote this wonderful book. He was a very informative speaker, kind and intelligent, and this book shows that. Well worth your time and effort, it is every bit as interesting and educational a read today as it was nearly 20 years ago. So what are you waiting for: pick up your own copy today.
December 31, 2024
This presents itself as a scientific and objective study of the issue, but only stands up if the reader doesn't understand scientific studies and doesn’t attempt to follow up or fact check anything. Unfortunately, that describes most people. This was a clearly biased book based on some explicitly bad research (that never attempted to be good. To be clear, this was intentional).
I read it because I was genuinely curious to see what the author was going to say, but found that it was the same standard pro-gun lies and misinformation that you can find anywhere. This is a perfect example of a misuse of statistics and a willful misinterpretation of facts.
I read it because I was genuinely curious to see what the author was going to say, but found that it was the same standard pro-gun lies and misinformation that you can find anywhere. This is a perfect example of a misuse of statistics and a willful misinterpretation of facts.
February 22, 2018
Excellent research. Incredibly dry.
For those who wish he brought in data from other nations: to do so would be invalid. There are so many other differences that the comparison would be invalid on its face.
For those who wish he brought in data from other nations: to do so would be invalid. There are so many other differences that the comparison would be invalid on its face.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews