Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) - Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

This is not an easy read, as it is a scholarly work with a lot of charts and tables, and considerable discussion of the statistical techniques and regression analyses that Lott used in arriving at the conclusions presented here. But I would categorize it as a "must-read" for anyone who has a serious interest in the gun control debate, and who is looking for facts - rather than emotion - upon which to form an opinion. Lott's conclusions are compelling and well supported. He also deals, in a straightforward, factual manner, with the criticisms that have been directed toward him and his research, most of which come from people who have not read his work and/or do not have the knowledge of statistical analysis required to offer valid criticism of his methods. I strongly recommend this book.

Dr. Lott does an excellent presenting the data that supports the position that mores guns in the hands of law abiding citizens the less crime there is. Dr. Lott provides a number of examples that prove this, not NRA polls, but using data from the FBI, CDC and other unbiased organizations.

A real eye opener for the anti-gun person with the courage to know the truth, certain to change your perspective...it did mineMore Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics).

The book makes some excellent points which are well grounded in solid statistics, but can be a little much for those just looking for general reading of firearms supportive arguments. This is more like a thesis.

Like every Kindle book I've purchased, there are no page numbers. With this book, you can't even move from chapter to chapter, so you have no idea where you are-do you have one page till the end of the chapter or a hundred. I think the entire Kindle format needs to be re-done so they are more like actual books.

This book is a great way to learn about statistics on gun laws, crimes, and how these two effect each other. It is VERY detailed down to each law and how each gun law effects the crime rate. The only thing wrong with this book is that there are MANY gun related pieces of information, but they don't explain the title "More Guns, Less Crime". Which in my case is why I am reading the book. Still, I am a glass half full kind of guy, so these random bits of information are always nice to learn (knowledge is power). It takes about four chapters to get into answering the question of "How do more guns lower the crime rate?". It is a book that is hard to get into since it is just straight facts, but the learning experience is well worth the read and money. Five-stars on learning what I want to know and three-stars, because it makes you learn more than what you want to know. Worth every cent though. It will answer everyone of your questions.

Fun book, kind of outdated. But nice to read John R. Lott Jr. Does his homework to obtain the information in this book, now when someone ask you why you carry a gun, either hit them with information in this book or with the book itself.

In much the same way that Immanuel Kant devoted reams of dense prose to a philosophical foundation for the Golden Rule, John Lott piles chapter after chapter and chart after chart of thorough, systematic data analysis into support for propositions that you intuitively know to be correct.
Armed citizens stop crimes.
The more armed citizens you have, the lower your rate of violent crime -- criminals are stupid, but they're rational, and they don't want to get shot any more than you do.
En route, Lott's analysis of the data reveals additional points that are very interesting and may be slightly less intuitive. For instance:
1. Blacks benefit more from gun ownership than whites. On average, black Americans live in worse neighborhoods with higher crime rates than white Americans. When laws permitting citizens to carry concealed firearms are introduced, crime rates fall more dramatically in those neighborhoods, and black Americans benefit disproportionately.
Yep, that's right. Gun control is racist.
2. Women benefit more from gun ownership than men. Women's ownership of concealed weapon permits decreases the women's murder rate more than men's ownership decreases the men's rate. Women toting guns also significantly reduce the rape rate.
Amen, sister. Gun control is sexist, too.
3. Private gun ownership is cheap law enforcement. I don't mean vigilantism -- I mean deterrence. Private gun ownership lowers more crime per dollar spent than almost any other crime reduction measure...and the gun owners bear virtually all of the cost.
And the list goes on. In addition to the statistical analysis (including abundant responses to academic and not-so-academic criticism), Lott recounts the reception of his initial paper on the subject, as well as the hardback edition of the book, and discusses the media mistreatment of school shootings and similar events.
The book is dense, but as statistics-driven sociology goes, quite readable. Go buy it today.
And then apply for your concealed weapon permit.

some of the conclusions are not as valid as the data would suggest. if you are on the fence on the gun issue and just read this book, you will get a skewed view of the data. there are lots of reviews of the analysis on the internet; I recommend reading several.

Obviously the facts are there,backed by research and data. I found it frustrating to see how clear it is and yet we still have to defend our right to protect ourselves and loved ones. Not just from criminals but also from those who know how to twist the truth to there liking only to put us in danger.

Mr. John Lott says what the liberals don't want to hear and won't listen to. He exonerated gun owners for the crimes we are accused of by thick skulled, dim witted liberals and their suck up, non-thinking followers. Guns save lives, gun free zones get children killed. So, Mr. Liberal, sit down and shut up. You're not just wrong, you're lying about guns.

I first admit that I am only 3/4 the way through this book and would love to give details for every chapter, but I think one could best summarize this thesis in a just a few short sentences. Mr. Lott does legitimately criticize the gun control argument fraught with anecdotal evidence and yet he himself does the same over and over. On some key arguments where he does throw statistics around, he cites references that have in some cases written based on anecdotal evidence or in two cases when I went the primary source since found they were redacted. The reason I am not as far along in reading the book is because I am trying to cross reference his arguments to his cited references. I will admit in a few cases, he hits the mark (excuse the pun), but more often he tries to pass off scientific evidence for his argument that the references does not support.

He does suggest that other factors may contribute to less crime other than more guns but he uses far less of an emphasis even in contrast to the plethora of sociological research that provides evidence for alternate hypothesis.

This is not to completely discount Mr. Lott's thesis, I just don't think it would pass the sniff test for a Master's thesis in my field of study. If one wants to assume deterrence to crime due to armed citizens we would see much much lower crime statistics than is currently recorded by the DOJ and FBI and we might possibly see incarceration rates going down. This could be a chapter in a book on less crime but to make this the primary argument in my opinion (based on what I have read in this book and other references) falls far short of a central argument.

This is a compelling thesis, and the author starts out reasonably strong. However, what follows is a diarrhea of regressions correcting for this factor and that factor. This may convince some people who give in out of boredom or data asphyxiation, but I think this is a case where it does not serve your argument to show us how the sausage is made. He lets us watch him painstakingly model out confounders and scrutinize residuals, then builds a case that correlation implies causation, but ultimately these repetitive gymnastics do not amount to a strong argument. In fact, this exercise sheds doubt on the very nature of such "reasoning" from social science data, which is riddled with confounders and apples to oranges comparisons. It's not clear how much of the weak effects upon which the conclusion of this book is based rests on nuances of assumptions about of the forms of probability distributions and linear relationships between covariates. Even if the conclusions stand, the statistical argument could be presented in a much more informative, concise, and convincing manner, eg employing data visualizations and better prose. This reads more like the supplement to some technical academic paper than a book fit for mass consumption .

Exhaustive (or exhausting) amount of data. I ended up more or less skimming the book to get the gist of it. I guess it all depends on what you want. This book has lots of data and some interesting short stories.

An outstanding expose on how concealed guns serve as a deterrent to crime. Contains many studies documenting laws and their affect on crimes. Replete with statistical analysis and studies from other respected journals.

Here are a few quotes:

"the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws."

Right to carry laws' effect on crime:

"The annual declines in crime from right-to-carry laws are greater for murder (2.2 percent), rape (3.9 percent), and robbery rates (4.9 percent), while the impact on aggravated assaults (0.8 percent) and the property crime rates (0.9 percent) is smaller."

"Concealed handguns also appear to be the great equalizer among the sexes. Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. Providing a woman with a concealed handgun represents a much larger change in her ability to defend herself than it does for a man. The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who use them in self-defense. Because the guns may be concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether potential victims are carrying guns until they attack, thus malung it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes that involve direct contact with victims."

"We find no support for the theory that safe-storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people's ability to use guns defensively..."

"While the object is obviously to disarm criminals, the laws are primarily obeyed by good people. If the research in this book convinces me of anything, it is that disarming potential victims relative to criminals makes crime more attractive and more likely..."

Guns equal freedom! Gun prohibition equals Holocaust and slavery. It seems everyone who hates Jews wants to take their guns. Be it Hitler or FDR. Both hated Jews and both had the blood of thousands of Jewish children on their hands. And both hated the Second Amendment. It would have been a lot harder to slaughter the Native Americans and the Jews if they had guns to fight back with. As time went by, both were able to get a few guns and fight back. But they were not able to get enough guns. A few thousand more guns and things would have been different. To get an idea of how bad things can get in the US if the Dems get their way and we continue down the road to Socialism, read John Grit's "Feathers on the Wings of Love and Hate." The writing is as good as it gets and you will certainly value our freedoms more than ever! From the main character of the story: "If you are not willing to fight, kill, suffer and die for your freedom, someone will take it from you. History has hammered that into our hearts." We need guns to protect ourselves from the likes of FDR!

More Guns, Less Crime

This book explores the relationship between crime and gun control laws. The author is a research scholar in the School of Law at Yale University. The `Preface' asks if owning or carrying guns deters violent crime and examines the relationships. Most people get their knowledge about guns from television, movies, and newspapers not from real life (Chapter 1). Countries with tough gun-control laws have more "hot burglaries" (p.5). Concealed carry of guns creates risks for criminals. Adult murderers usually have criminal records (p.8). Child-resistant bottle caps resulted in more poisonings of children under 5 (p.10). [Why?] Crime rates have been falling as gun ownership has been rising. Increased concealed handguns result in drops in violent crime (p.19). Waiting periods do not reduce crime (p.20). This book is not an easy read like a novel of popular history. Lott was the first to provide the facts and statistics about the effects of Gun Prohibition for the public.

Counties with big cities have the highest murder rates while small rural counties have the lowest (p.31). Note that states near the Canadian border tend to be safer that those near the Gulf Coast (the effect of temperature on crime). Do laws alter the crime rate or does the crime rate affect the laws (p.34)? The passage of the Brady law caused a large rise in gun sales (p.36)! Chapter 3 analyzes gun ownership. Families with union members have a higher rate of gun ownership (p.39). California is first in the percentage of people who own guns now while Texas is below the national average (p.40). Murder rates are 60% higher than in 1965. [Is it the economy?] Violent crime rates were highest in states with the most restrictive gun ownership rules (p.43). It is not the law about concealed carry but the increase of permits that is important (Chapter 4). There are other variables that affect the crime-rate (p.51). Concealed carry laws reduce crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

Population density affects robbery, burglary, and auto theft rates (p.56). Higher arrest rates lead to lower crime rates. High-income areas experience more violent crimes. Crime deterrence increases with the number of concealed carry permits (p.75, p.79). The Brady law led to increases in rapes and aggravated assaults (p.91). The concealed handgun law of 1987 was followed by a drop in the Florida murder rate (p.107). Pennsylvania's concealed-handgun law reduced violent crime: murder, rape, aggravated assault, and burglary (p.109). Lott assigns a dollar value for concealed-handgun permits (p.110). Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates (p.113). States that adopted nondiscretionary laws virtually eliminated mass public shootings (p.115). Banning guns from schools can make them targets. "Concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime" (p.115). So too "higher arrest and conviction rates" (p.116).

Chapter Six explains the measures used to analyze the population. Can the votes for a presidential have an effect? Lott's original study was attacked by many who never read it (Chapter Seven)! False attacks were made (p.123)! [Who funds the Gun Prohibitionists?] It was a lesson in media censorship (p.128). Concealed handgun laws reduce murder and robbery rates (p.138). Chapter Seven provides a summary of this book. Unlike others, Lott made his data available to all who requested it (p.157). His findings have been replicated. Non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime (Chapter Eight). They benefit urban areas, women, and blacks (p.161). There is a drop in the murders of children. Areas with the most violent crime have the least numbers of guns. There is no evidence that the Brady law reduced crime (p.163). Carrying concealed handguns saves lives (p.166).

Chapter Nine discusses the corporate media's campaign against gun ownership and other topics. Lott tells how armed citizens prevented or reduced school shootings (p.195). Laws have no significant effect on public shootings. Those who commit these crimes usually die. States that passed right-to-carry laws saw a decline in public shootings (p.197). Concealed handguns by citizens deter public shootings (p.197). Guns offer the most effective means to defend yourself or your family. Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates (p.199). Safe storage laws do not reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths of suicides (p.201). The one-gun-a-month rule was associated with more murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Those who did not agree with Lott's book used shoddy studies (pp.204-205). Newspapers did not evaluate their claims. `TIME' magazine misinformed their readers (p.206).

Gun-control organizations continually make false statements (p.207). Right-to-carry laws are followed by a fall in violent-crime rates (p.208). Citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year (p.219). Surveys of criminals are always suspect (p.218). Critics of Lott's studies are based on "feelings" that there are other factors (p219). Page 220 gives an example of the lies by Gun Prohibitionists. They're not true (p.221). Concealed handguns deter crime, they do not cost lives or increase crime (p.232). They reduce "murder, rape, and robbery" (p.232). The Brady law, waiting periods, or background checks cause some crime rates to increase (p.233). "Newsworthy bad events give people a warped impression" (p.236). Can you believe everything in the media? [Lott won't tell you that the corporate-controlled media is unreliable (p.238).] Page 239 reminds us that widespread availability of guns before 1968 did not result in many school shootings. Australia's gun ban did not reduce crime (p.241). Countries with tough gun bans have higher murder rates (p.241).

More Guns, Less Crime

This book explores the relationship between crime and gun control laws. The author is a research scholar in the School of Law at Yale University. The `Preface' asks if owning or carrying guns deters violent crime and examines the relationships. Most people get their knowledge about guns from television, movies, and newspapers not from real life (Chapter 1). Countries with tough gun-control laws have more "hot burglaries" (p.5). Concealed carry of guns creates risks for criminals. Adult murderers usually have criminal records (p.8). Child-resistant bottle caps resulted in more poisonings of children under 5 (p.10). [Why?] Crime rates have been falling as gun ownership has been rising. Increased concealed handguns result in drops in violent crime (p.19). Waiting periods do not reduce crime (p.20). This book is not an easy read like a novel of popular history. Lott was the first to provide the facts and statistics about the effects of Gun Prohibition for the public.

Counties with big cities have the highest murder rates while small rural counties have the lowest (p.31). Note that states near the Canadian border tend to be safer that those near the Gulf Coast (the effect of temperature on crime). Do laws alter the crime rate or does the crime rate affect the laws (p.34)? The passage of the Brady law caused a large rise in gun sales (p.36)! Chapter 3 analyzes gun ownership. Families with union members have a higher rate of gun ownership (p.39). California is first in the percentage of people who own guns now while Texas is below the national average (p.40). Murder rates are 60% higher than in 1965. [Is it the economy?] Violent crime rates were highest in states with the most restrictive gun ownership rules (p.43). It is not the law about concealed carry but the increase of permits that is important (Chapter 4). There are other variables that affect the crime-rate (p.51). Concealed carry laws reduce crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

Population density affects robbery, burglary, and auto theft rates (p.56). Higher arrest rates lead to lower crime rates. High-income areas experience more violent crimes. Crime deterrence increases with the number of concealed carry permits (p.75, p.79). The Brady law led to increases in rapes and aggravated assaults (p.91). The concealed handgun law of 1987 was followed by a drop in the Florida murder rate (p.107). Pennsylvania's concealed-handgun law reduced violent crime: murder, rape, aggravated assault, and burglary (p.109). Lott assigns a dollar value for concealed-handgun permits (p.110). Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates (p.113). States that adopted nondiscretionary laws virtually eliminated mass public shootings (p.115). Banning guns from schools can make them targets. "Concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime" (p.115). So too "higher arrest and conviction rates" (p.116).

Chapter Six explains the measures used to analyze the population. Can the votes for a presidential have an effect? Lott's original study was attacked by many who never read it (Chapter Seven)! False attacks were made (p.123)! [Who funds the Gun Prohibitionists?] It was a lesson in media censorship (p.128). Concealed handgun laws reduce murder and robbery rates (p.138). Chapter Seven provides a summary of this book. Unlike others, Lott made his data available to all who requested it (p.157). His findings have been replicated. Non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime (Chapter Eight). They benefit urban areas, women, and blacks (p.161). There is a drop in the murders of children. Areas with the most violent crime have the least numbers of guns. There is no evidence that the Brady law reduced crime (p.163). Carrying concealed handguns saves lives (p.166).

Chapter Nine discusses the corporate media's campaign against gun ownership and other topics. Lott tells how armed citizens prevented or reduced school shootings (p.195). Laws have no significant effect on public shootings. Those who commit these crimes usually die. States that passed right-to-carry laws saw a decline in public shootings (p.197). Concealed handguns by citizens deter public shootings (p.197). Guns offer the most effective means to defend yourself or your family. Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates (p.199). Safe storage laws do not reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths of suicides (p.201). The one-gun-a-month rule was associated with more murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Those who did not agree with Lott's book used shoddy studies (pp.204-205). Newspapers did not evaluate their claims. `TIME' magazine misinformed their readers (p.206).

Gun-control organizations continually make false statements (p.207). Right-to-carry laws are followed by a fall in violent-crime rates (p.208). Citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year (p.219). Surveys of criminals are always suspect (p.218). Critics of Lott's studies are based on "feelings" that there are other factors (p219). Page 220 gives an example of the lies by Gun Prohibitionists. They're not true (p.221). Concealed handguns deter crime, they do not cost lives or increase crime (p.232). They reduce "murder, rape, and robbery" (p.232). The Brady law, waiting periods, or background checks cause some crime rates to increase (p.233). "Newsworthy bad events give people a warped impression" (p.236). Can you believe everything in the media? [Lott won't tell you that the corporate-controlled media is unreliable (p.238).] Page 239 reminds us that widespread availability of guns before 1968 did not result in many school shootings. Australia's gun ban did not reduce crime (p.241). Countries with tough gun bans have higher murder rates (p.241).

More Guns, Less Crime

This book explores the relationship between crime and gun control laws. The author is a research scholar in the School of Law at Yale University. The `Preface' asks if owning or carrying guns deters violent crime and examines the relationships. Most people get their knowledge about guns from television, movies, and newspapers not from real life (Chapter 1). Countries with tough gun-control laws have more "hot burglaries" (p.5). Concealed carry of guns creates risks for criminals. Adult murderers usually have criminal records (p.8). Child-resistant bottle caps resulted in more poisonings of children under 5 (p.10). [Why?] Crime rates have been falling as gun ownership has been rising. Increased concealed handguns result in drops in violent crime (p.19). Waiting periods do not reduce crime (p.20). This book is not an easy read like a novel of popular history. Lott was the first to provide the facts and statistics about the effects of Gun Prohibition for the public.

Counties with big cities have the highest murder rates while small rural counties have the lowest (p.31). Note that states near the Canadian border tend to be safer that those near the Gulf Coast (the effect of temperature on crime). Do laws alter the crime rate or does the crime rate affect the laws (p.34)? The passage of the Brady law caused a large rise in gun sales (p.36)! Chapter 3 analyzes gun ownership. Families with union members have a higher rate of gun ownership (p.39). California is first in the percentage of people who own guns now while Texas is below the national average (p.40). Murder rates are 60% higher than in 1965. [Is it the economy?] Violent crime rates were highest in states with the most restrictive gun ownership rules (p.43). It is not the law about concealed carry but the increase of permits that is important (Chapter 4). There are other variables that affect the crime-rate (p.51). Concealed carry laws reduce crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

Population density affects robbery, burglary, and auto theft rates (p.56). Higher arrest rates lead to lower crime rates. High-income areas experience more violent crimes. Crime deterrence increases with the number of concealed carry permits (p.75, p.79). The Brady law led to increases in rapes and aggravated assaults (p.91). The concealed handgun law of 1987 was followed by a drop in the Florida murder rate (p.107). Pennsylvania's concealed-handgun law reduced violent crime: murder, rape, aggravated assault, and burglary (p.109). Lott assigns a dollar value for concealed-handgun permits (p.110). Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates (p.113). States that adopted nondiscretionary laws virtually eliminated mass public shootings (p.115). Banning guns from schools can make them targets. "Concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime" (p.115). So too "higher arrest and conviction rates" (p.116).

Chapter Six explains the measures used to analyze the population. Can the votes for a presidential have an effect? Lott's original study was attacked by many who never read it (Chapter Seven)! False attacks were made (p.123)! [Who funds the Gun Prohibitionists?] It was a lesson in media censorship (p.128). Concealed handgun laws reduce murder and robbery rates (p.138). Chapter Seven provides a summary of this book. Unlike others, Lott made his data available to all who requested it (p.157). His findings have been replicated. Non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime (Chapter Eight). They benefit urban areas, women, and blacks (p.161). There is a drop in the murders of children. Areas with the most violent crime have the least numbers of guns. There is no evidence that the Brady law reduced crime (p.163). Carrying concealed handguns saves lives (p.166).

Chapter Nine discusses the corporate media's campaign against gun ownership and other topics. Lott tells how armed citizens prevented or reduced school shootings (p.195). Laws have no significant effect on public shootings. Those who commit these crimes usually die. States that passed right-to-carry laws saw a decline in public shootings (p.197). Concealed handguns by citizens deter public shootings (p.197). Guns offer the most effective means to defend yourself or your family. Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates (p.199). Safe storage laws do not reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths of suicides (p.201). The one-gun-a-month rule was associated with more murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Those who did not agree with Lott's book used shoddy studies (pp.204-205). Newspapers did not evaluate their claims. `TIME' magazine misinformed their readers (p.206).

Gun-control organizations continually make false statements (p.207). Right-to-carry laws are followed by a fall in violent-crime rates (p.208). Citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year (p.219). Surveys of criminals are always suspect (p.218). Critics of Lott's studies are based on "feelings" that there are other factors (p219). Page 220 gives an example of the lies by Gun Prohibitionists. They're not true (p.221). Concealed handguns deter crime, they do not cost lives or increase crime (p.232). They reduce "murder, rape, and robbery" (p.232). The Brady law, waiting periods, or background checks cause some crime rates to increase (p.233). "Newsworthy bad events give people a warped impression" (p.236). Can you believe everything in the media? [Lott won't tell you that the corporate-controlled media is unreliable (p.238).] Page 239 reminds us that widespread availability of guns before 1968 did not result in many school shootings. Australia's gun ban did not reduce crime (p.241). Countries with tough gun bans have higher murder rates (p.241).

More Guns, Less Crime

This book explores the relationship between crime and gun control laws. The author is a research scholar in the School of Law at Yale University. The `Preface' asks if owning or carrying guns deters violent crime and examines the relationships. Most people get their knowledge about guns from television, movies, and newspapers not from real life (Chapter 1). Countries with tough gun-control laws have more "hot burglaries" (p.5). Concealed carry of guns creates risks for criminals. Adult murderers usually have criminal records (p.8). Child-resistant bottle caps resulted in more poisonings of children under 5 (p.10). [Why?] Crime rates have been falling as gun ownership has been rising. Increased concealed handguns result in drops in violent crime (p.19). Waiting periods do not reduce crime (p.20). This book is not an easy read like a novel of popular history. Lott was the first to provide the facts and statistics about the effects of Gun Prohibition for the public.

Counties with big cities have the highest murder rates while small rural counties have the lowest (p.31). Note that states near the Canadian border tend to be safer that those near the Gulf Coast (the effect of temperature on crime). Do laws alter the crime rate or does the crime rate affect the laws (p.34)? The passage of the Brady law caused a large rise in gun sales (p.36)! Chapter 3 analyzes gun ownership. Families with union members have a higher rate of gun ownership (p.39). California is first in the percentage of people who own guns now while Texas is below the national average (p.40). Murder rates are 60% higher than in 1965. [Is it the economy?] Violent crime rates were highest in states with the most restrictive gun ownership rules (p.43). It is not the law about concealed carry but the increase of permits that is important (Chapter 4). There are other variables that affect the crime-rate (p.51). Concealed carry laws reduce crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

Population density affects robbery, burglary, and auto theft rates (p.56). Higher arrest rates lead to lower crime rates. High-income areas experience more violent crimes. Crime deterrence increases with the number of concealed carry permits (p.75, p.79). The Brady law led to increases in rapes and aggravated assaults (p.91). The concealed handgun law of 1987 was followed by a drop in the Florida murder rate (p.107). Pennsylvania's concealed-handgun law reduced violent crime: murder, rape, aggravated assault, and burglary (p.109). Lott assigns a dollar value for concealed-handgun permits (p.110). Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates (p.113). States that adopted nondiscretionary laws virtually eliminated mass public shootings (p.115). Banning guns from schools can make them targets. "Concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime" (p.115). So too "higher arrest and conviction rates" (p.116).

Chapter Six explains the measures used to analyze the population. Can the votes for a presidential have an effect? Lott's original study was attacked by many who never read it (Chapter Seven)! False attacks were made (p.123)! [Who funds the Gun Prohibitionists?] It was a lesson in media censorship (p.128). Concealed handgun laws reduce murder and robbery rates (p.138). Chapter Seven provides a summary of this book. Unlike others, Lott made his data available to all who requested it (p.157). His findings have been replicated. Non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime (Chapter Eight). They benefit urban areas, women, and blacks (p.161). There is a drop in the murders of children. Areas with the most violent crime have the least numbers of guns. There is no evidence that the Brady law reduced crime (p.163). Carrying concealed handguns saves lives (p.166).

Chapter Nine discusses the corporate media's campaign against gun ownership and other topics. Lott tells how armed citizens prevented or reduced school shootings (p.195). Laws have no significant effect on public shootings. Those who commit these crimes usually die. States that passed right-to-carry laws saw a decline in public shootings (p.197). Concealed handguns by citizens deter public shootings (p.197). Guns offer the most effective means to defend yourself or your family. Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates (p.199). Safe storage laws do not reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths of suicides (p.201). The one-gun-a-month rule was associated with more murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Those who did not agree with Lott's book used shoddy studies (pp.204-205). Newspapers did not evaluate their claims. `TIME' magazine misinformed their readers (p.206).

Gun-control organizations continually make false statements (p.207). Right-to-carry laws are followed by a fall in violent-crime rates (p.208). Citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year (p.219). Surveys of criminals are always suspect (p.218). Critics of Lott's studies are based on "feelings" that there are other factors (p219). Page 220 gives an example of the lies by Gun Prohibitionists. They're not true (p.221). Concealed handguns deter crime, they do not cost lives or increase crime (p.232). They reduce "murder, rape, and robbery" (p.232). The Brady law, waiting periods, or background checks cause some crime rates to increase (p.233). "Newsworthy bad events give people a warped impression" (p.236). Can you believe everything in the media? [Lott won't tell you that the corporate-controlled media is unreliable (p.238).] Page 239 reminds us that widespread availability of guns before 1968 did not result in many school shootings. Australia's gun ban did not reduce crime (p.241). Countries with tough gun bans have higher murder rates (p.241).

This book has changed my mind about gun control, which I now believe to be basically worthless and even counterproductive. It's a tough read, and as a mathematician, I saw a number of places where the author could not really fully explain the mathematics behind his assumptions because of the target audience. But mostly I knew what he was driving at, and after seeing all the tables and graphs, covering city, county and state data, I came away convinced that there could be no good argument for most forms of gun control for safety reasons. Indeed, given the reduction in crime resulting from just 2-7 percent of adults having carry permits (it varies by state), it is easy to imagine that most crime would simply disappear if every law-abiding adult carried a permitted gun. Criminals wouldn't have a chance.

This book is much narrower in scope than the somewhat misleading title indicates. It is only really about the effects of concealed carry, not about open carry, and not about the effects of gun ownership in general. I know a number of people who have entire arsenals of rifles but do not carry a concealed pistol in public, and this book does not try to analyze their effect on crime, if any. But despite my minor criticisms, I still give this book the maximum rating. It's important and a must-read, if you have the patience.

I finished this book last night. First, some background. I grew up in a rural area in a family in which guns are in common use. To this day, my father and grandfather both keep weapons and ammunition in various corners of the house, not for home defense, but rather for the various raccoons and similar animals that come around. I've always enjoyed shooting, will go to a gun store to pass the time when home, but I keep no guns in my own home. Any guns that are mine, so to speak, I've left with my father, as my wife is staunchly opposed to gun ownership. Prior to reading this book, I always felt much the opposite of the title: Wouldn't giving more people more guns lead to more crime? It seemed the reasonable assumption. After reading this, I'm questioning my previous beliefs.

I don't particularly know much about statistical methods or econometrics or criminology. Other than a basic econ class and a masters-level statistics course, I simply haven't had much exposure. As such, it's hard to judge if Lott's methods in measuring the relationship between concealed handgun permits and crime are fair. To be sure, his arguments sound convincing and he produces more numbers than I thought were possible. On the face of it, what he says seems to make sense given the numbers he produces: more guns do result in less crime. Although he dedicates a great deal of space within the book to answering criticism of his work and methods, it's again hard to follow. Have you ever tried to watch a sport on TV where you don't know the rules? Where you can see the scoreboard but actually understanding what's happening is a bit difficult?It felt like that to me. It's easy enough to get the feeling that what Lott says is right, but, without really understanding all the verbiage and methods possible, there's always that nagging feeling that you're missing something. It's my own weakness and confusion in this method that kept the book a 4- rather than 5-star review. I kept getting lost in the details.

His responses to his critics, especially their ad hominem attacks, were very enjoyable and enlightening. I also thoroughly enjoyed the latter part of the book, in which he tackles some of the new issues in the gun control realm that appeared since the first book.

Overall, it's a book that's had me questioning many of my prior beliefs about crime and concealed carry. I'm not sure I'm absolutely convinced (it's the only book I've ever read specifically on the subject), but it's pushed me much closer to it.

I believe that this book responds to the gun lobby. It is sold at a very low Price....which Leads me to believe it is probably subsidized and its Price accesible to most given it promotes a powerful industry. Not to dismiss the theory behind its hypothesis...

More Guns, Less Crime

This book explores the relationship between crime and gun control laws. The author is a research scholar in the School of Law at Yale University. The `Preface' asks if owning or carrying guns deters violent crime and examines the relationships. Most people get their knowledge about guns from television, movies, and newspapers not from real life (Chapter 1). Countries with tough gun-control laws have more "hot burglaries" (p.5). Concealed carry of guns creates risks for criminals. Adult murderers usually have criminal records (p.8). Child-resistant bottle caps resulted in more poisonings of children under 5 (p.10). [Why?] Crime rates have been falling as gun ownership has been rising. Increased concealed handguns result in drops in violent crime (p.19). Waiting periods do not reduce crime (p.20). This book is not an easy read like a novel of popular history. Lott was the first to provide the facts and statistics about the effects of Gun Prohibition for the public.

Counties with big cities have the highest murder rates while small rural counties have the lowest (p.31). Note that states near the Canadian border tend to be safer that those near the Gulf Coast (the effect of temperature on crime). Do laws alter the crime rate or does the crime rate affect the laws (p.34)? The passage of the Brady law caused a large rise in gun sales (p.36)! Chapter 3 analyzes gun ownership. Families with union members have a higher rate of gun ownership (p.39). California is first in the percentage of people who own guns now while Texas is below the national average (p.40). Murder rates are 60% higher than in 1965. [Is it the economy?] Violent crime rates were highest in states with the most restrictive gun ownership rules (p.43). It is not the law about concealed carry but the increase of permits that is important (Chapter 4). There are other variables that affect the crime-rate (p.51). Concealed carry laws reduce crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

Population density affects robbery, burglary, and auto theft rates (p.56). Higher arrest rates lead to lower crime rates. High-income areas experience more violent crimes. Crime deterrence increases with the number of concealed carry permits (p.75, p.79). The Brady law led to increases in rapes and aggravated assaults (p.91). The concealed handgun law of 1987 was followed by a drop in the Florida murder rate (p.107). Pennsylvania's concealed-handgun law reduced violent crime: murder, rape, aggravated assault, and burglary (p.109). Lott assigns a dollar value for concealed-handgun permits (p.110). Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates (p.113). States that adopted nondiscretionary laws virtually eliminated mass public shootings (p.115). Banning guns from schools can make them targets. "Concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime" (p.115). So too "higher arrest and conviction rates" (p.116).

Chapter Six explains the measures used to analyze the population. Can the votes for a presidential have an effect? Lott's original study was attacked by many who never read it (Chapter Seven)! False attacks were made (p.123)! [Who funds the Gun Prohibitionists?] It was a lesson in media censorship (p.128). Concealed handgun laws reduce murder and robbery rates (p.138). Chapter Seven provides a summary of this book. Unlike others, Lott made his data available to all who requested it (p.157). His findings have been replicated. Non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime (Chapter Eight). They benefit urban areas, women, and blacks (p.161). There is a drop in the murders of children. Areas with the most violent crime have the least numbers of guns. There is no evidence that the Brady law reduced crime (p.163). Carrying concealed handguns saves lives (p.166).

Chapter Nine discusses the corporate media's campaign against gun ownership and other topics. Lott tells how armed citizens prevented or reduced school shootings (p.195). Laws have no significant effect on public shootings. Those who commit these crimes usually die. States that passed right-to-carry laws saw a decline in public shootings (p.197). Concealed handguns by citizens deter public shootings (p.197). Guns offer the most effective means to defend yourself or your family. Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates (p.199). Safe storage laws do not reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths of suicides (p.201). The one-gun-a-month rule was associated with more murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Those who did not agree with Lott's book used shoddy studies (pp.204-205). Newspapers did not evaluate their claims. `TIME' magazine misinformed their readers (p.206).

Gun-control organizations continually make false statements (p.207). Right-to-carry laws are followed by a fall in violent-crime rates (p.208). Citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year (p.219). Surveys of criminals are always suspect (p.218). Critics of Lott's studies are based on "feelings" that there are other factors (p219). Page 220 gives an example of the lies by Gun Prohibitionists. They're not true (p.221). Concealed handguns deter crime, they do not cost lives or increase crime (p.232). They reduce "murder, rape, and robbery" (p.232). The Brady law, waiting periods, or background checks cause some crime rates to increase (p.233). "Newsworthy bad events give people a warped impression" (p.236). Can you believe everything in the media? [Lott won't tell you that the corporate-controlled media is unreliable (p.238).] Page 239 reminds us that widespread availability of guns before 1968 did not result in many school shootings. Australia's gun ban did not reduce crime (p.241). Countries with tough gun bans have higher murder rates (p.241).

From a conceptual point of view a very useful book. However, it is not interesting reading and is somewhat out of date. The data references are not up to date. Not a book I would recommend. As a 2A advocate, I appreciate the arguments for gun rights made by the author. And this book received a lot of coverage in the gun industry, but it is simply too long and convoluted. Its strength lies in the diligence of the studies and their outcome, which is excellent. But as stated, outdated. The book should be rewritten, simplified, and brought up to date.

More Guns, Less Crime

This book explores the relationship between crime and gun control laws. The author is a research scholar in the School of Law at Yale University. The `Preface' asks if owning or carrying guns deters violent crime and examines the relationships. Most people get their knowledge about guns from television, movies, and newspapers not from real life (Chapter 1). Countries with tough gun-control laws have more "hot burglaries" (p.5). Concealed carry of guns creates risks for criminals. Adult murderers usually have criminal records (p.8). Child-resistant bottle caps resulted in more poisonings of children under 5 (p.10). [Why?] Crime rates have been falling as gun ownership has been rising. Increased concealed handguns result in drops in violent crime (p.19). Waiting periods do not reduce crime (p.20). This book is not an easy read like a novel of popular history. Lott was the first to provide the facts and statistics about the effects of Gun Prohibition for the public.

Counties with big cities have the highest murder rates while small rural counties have the lowest (p.31). Note that states near the Canadian border tend to be safer that those near the Gulf Coast (the effect of temperature on crime). Do laws alter the crime rate or does the crime rate affect the laws (p.34)? The passage of the Brady law caused a large rise in gun sales (p.36)! Chapter 3 analyzes gun ownership. Families with union members have a higher rate of gun ownership (p.39). California is first in the percentage of people who own guns now while Texas is below the national average (p.40). Murder rates are 60% higher than in 1965. [Is it the economy?] Violent crime rates were highest in states with the most restrictive gun ownership rules (p.43). It is not the law about concealed carry but the increase of permits that is important (Chapter 4). There are other variables that affect the crime-rate (p.51). Concealed carry laws reduce crimes (murder, rape, aggravated assault).

Population density affects robbery, burglary, and auto theft rates (p.56). Higher arrest rates lead to lower crime rates. High-income areas experience more violent crimes. Crime deterrence increases with the number of concealed carry permits (p.75, p.79). The Brady law led to increases in rapes and aggravated assaults (p.91). The concealed handgun law of 1987 was followed by a drop in the Florida murder rate (p.107). Pennsylvania's concealed-handgun law reduced violent crime: murder, rape, aggravated assault, and burglary (p.109). Lott assigns a dollar value for concealed-handgun permits (p.110). Switzerland, Finland, and New Zealand have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates (p.113). States that adopted nondiscretionary laws virtually eliminated mass public shootings (p.115). Banning guns from schools can make them targets. "Concealed handguns are the most cost-effective method of reducing crime" (p.115). So too "higher arrest and conviction rates" (p.116).

Chapter Six explains the measures used to analyze the population. Can the votes for a presidential have an effect? Lott's original study was attacked by many who never read it (Chapter Seven)! False attacks were made (p.123)! [Who funds the Gun Prohibitionists?] It was a lesson in media censorship (p.128). Concealed handgun laws reduce murder and robbery rates (p.138). Chapter Seven provides a summary of this book. Unlike others, Lott made his data available to all who requested it (p.157). His findings have been replicated. Non-discretionary concealed-handgun laws are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime (Chapter Eight). They benefit urban areas, women, and blacks (p.161). There is a drop in the murders of children. Areas with the most violent crime have the least numbers of guns. There is no evidence that the Brady law reduced crime (p.163). Carrying concealed handguns saves lives (p.166).

Chapter Nine discusses the corporate media's campaign against gun ownership and other topics. Lott tells how armed citizens prevented or reduced school shootings (p.195). Laws have no significant effect on public shootings. Those who commit these crimes usually die. States that passed right-to-carry laws saw a decline in public shootings (p.197). Concealed handguns by citizens deter public shootings (p.197). Guns offer the most effective means to defend yourself or your family. Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates (p.199). Safe storage laws do not reduce juvenile accidental gun deaths of suicides (p.201). The one-gun-a-month rule was associated with more murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults. Those who did not agree with Lott's book used shoddy studies (pp.204-205). Newspapers did not evaluate their claims. `TIME' magazine misinformed their readers (p.206).

Gun-control organizations continually make false statements (p.207). Right-to-carry laws are followed by a fall in violent-crime rates (p.208). Citizens use guns to stop violent crime about 2.5 million times each year (p.219). Surveys of criminals are always suspect (p.218). Critics of Lott's studies are based on "feelings" that there are other factors (p219). Page 220 gives an example of the lies by Gun Prohibitionists. They're not true (p.221). Concealed handguns deter crime, they do not cost lives or increase crime (p.232). They reduce "murder, rape, and robbery" (p.232). The Brady law, waiting periods, or background checks cause some crime rates to increase (p.233). "Newsworthy bad events give people a warped impression" (p.236). Can you believe everything in the media? [Lott won't tell you that the corporate-controlled media is unreliable (p.238).] Page 239 reminds us that widespread availability of guns before 1968 did not result in many school shootings. Australia's gun ban did not reduce crime (p.241). Countries with tough gun bans have higher murder rates (p.241).

The criticisms directed against this book in a very few of these reviews all have something in common: the authors didn't want to believe the conclusions reached in the book, so they didn't. The criticisms simply try to justify it.
Take a reader from Spain: he says things like "in Spain (and France) guns are strictly regulated. Consequently, random shootings are extremely rare", but what he doesn't say is that in Switzerland (next door to France), every male 18 or over is REQUIRED to keep an assault rifle in his home and all of the law abiding citizens can keep pretty much any guns they wish. The result? Crime (including random shootings) is even lower in Switzerland than in France and Spain. I recommend the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies by David B. Kopel if he wishes to understand the issue of comparing statistics from different countries on this issue.
Spain's reader also suggests that the Michigan Reader's criticisms have yet to be addressed. Most of it is so incredible, I can see why most wouldn't bother addressing them. "the first pro-gun book to include a bibliography"? You must be joking! Rather the opposite is true. Check out works by Kleck, Kates, Polsby, Wright, Rossi, Malcolm, Adams (just published), Halbrook, Kopel and all the peer reviewed legal papers over the last twenty years. Anti-gun fact is almost an oxymoron; HCI had to found the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence to fabricate data for them to use. "the rise is due to violent people--who shouldn't have guns in public--are suddenly permitted to do so?" Not a SINGLE school-yard shooting in the past twenty years was committed by a concealed carry permit holder. In fact, by every objective measure (and there is plenty of data here), CCW permit holders are the most law abiding large group of people in the country. Perhaps they might consider the fact that most of America's violent felons are serving their prison time (currently) on parole or probation when trying to explain the crime problems in the U.S. Influenced by his funding? Professor Lott has made his exhaustive data and methods available to all who asked and not one of the many reviewers have called the research and methods anything but exemplary and his conclusions come directly and logically from it. But Lott agrees with the NRA? I find it fascinating that someone should be surprised that legitimate firearms research should agree with the assertions of the foremost authority on all aspects of firearms, the NRA.
Most of the other criticisms of the book, masquerading as statistics, are just plain imaginative, and I leave it to you to pick your own objective authority and look up the numbers yourself. It is worth noting that most of the anti-gun people that have taken the time to do their own research and possess any significant intellectual honesty have had to admit the truth of most of the pro-gun arguments.

Regardless of your position on this passionate issue, you should at least hold the book in your hands. If you are in favor of responsible citizens being allowed to carry concealed weapons, you will find massive support for such a view. Lott looks at all sorts of related issues such as death by hand guns in homes, involving adults; changes in suicide rates with guns in the homes; accidental deaths of children involving firearms in the homes; on and on the salient points are discussed objectively. He makes statistically sophisticated (and intellectually satisfying) analyses comparing the crime rates of cities, counties and states with varying degrees of gun control and under varying demographic and socioeconomic conditions. If you oppose gun ownership, you too should read this book, for it is bound to become the weapon with which your position will be bludgeoned. Don't make a fool of yourself by estimating the number of 5 year-olds or younger who die every year in this country from gun accidents in the home. It is not in the thousands. It is 30; Don't propose that women carrying concealed guns are at a higher risk of suffering injuries or death than those who do not. Such is not the case. To argue the anti-gun position with authority, try debating it with this book. It is a good exercise.

If the general public can protect itself criminals and the possibility of government tyranny like the impending ideas of the current congress and socialist Obama presidency are unlikely to succeed. (Of course now that I think of it, I suppose criminals and the current government in power have very much in common i.e. they both intend to unlawfully redistribute wealth at the expense of the unwilling victim)

This book just proves it is just too simple a principle for "Gun Control People to Understand". If you have a gun thugs and socialists think three times about killing you and taking your money and your liberty. If you are not armed then they just take your money, your life, and tax you and your children into oblivion.

This review is dedicated to Carole Stiller who leads the New Jersey chapter of the Million Mom March Against Fire Arms orgnization and who is an avid supporter of the Brady Gun Control Movement. When I found out she had been fetted by the New Jersey Government for her efforts I went out and bought another fire arm in her honor. She badly needs to read this book but I am sure it is "Just Too Simple" for her to understand. We are unfortunately surrounded by well intended citizens leading us to tyranny with the best of intentions.

An important resource when concerned with the debate about guns and violence in American society. This book deals with facts, meticulously researched and eliminates the emotionalism that so often permeates this issue. It has held up well after nearly 2 decades and no one has been able to seriously undermine or refute the conclusions.

I urge everyone who cares about preserving all of the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment in particular, to buy and read this book, and to make sure you bring it and its findings to the attention of every politician and media talking head in America. Professor Lott provides incontrovertable proof that armed individual citizens save lives every day in America. One might also remind people, particularly folks like Senator Charles Schumer, VP Al Gore and alleged feminist Rosie O'Donnell, that Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung were among the major "gun control" promoters and enacters of the 20th Century. They too insisted that their citizens should not own guns, and also used hysterical propaganda to enact draconian gun registration. Then, when they had registered and subsequently confiscated all privately owned firearms, and their populaces were disarmed, they proved the fact that Professor Lott's book so eloquently demonstrates: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns... and that all too often those outlaws are tyrannical governments run amuck.
Buy and read More Guns, Less Crime!

Finally someone has gone to the trouble of statistically debunking the myth that law abiding citizens are dangerous. County by county, state by state, fact by fact John Lott proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feel good" gun control legislation has allowed criminals to prosper while leaving law abiding citizens defenseless.
Just as Ayn Rand showed in her timeless book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", legislators often fail to take the big picture into consideration when making new laws. John Lott similarly shows statistically how our way of life can actually erode if we venture too far from The Constitution and especially The Bill of Rights.
All of us who believe in The Constitution as it is written owe John Lott an extreme debt of gratitude. For now perhaps some of our legislators will be forced to uphold The Constitution, as they are sworn to do, rather than spend their political lives attempting to change it.

If the reader from Falmouth, MA actually read the book, he will see that Dr. Lott did indeed account for the crim cycle and had put controls in his study to remove non-relevant factors. And the so-called critics complaints are also answered competently by Dr. Lott.
Also, I like to know how Scientific American came to the conclusion that America's high murder rate without going through the extensive study methods that Dr. Lott had performed. You want to talk about lack of causation, yet you quote Scientific American as conclusive. What a joke. The fact is Dr. Lott also put in controls to remove any doubt that the number of gun permits and the crime rate was not just a correlation but a direct causation.
If you want a serious intellectual discussion, please quote the facts without throwing in mis-information. Your criticism of Dr. Lott's study seem to fall in line with the faulty reasoning the critics he so carefully refuted in his book.

In this most momentous book, Professor John R. Lott, Jr., studied the FBI's massive yearly crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use, and comes to some startling conclusions:
1. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Springfield, Oregon, this year, or the 1993 shooting on the Long Island Railroad) - by 69 percent.
2. For each additional year that concealed carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by over 2 percent, and rape by 1 percent.
3. Children 14 to 15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.
This book debunks much of the sensationalized mythology surrounding what has been published in the medical literature based on the politicized, results-oriented gun (control) research of the public health model, and supports and elaborates on Profs. Don B. Kates' and Gary Kleck's previous research about the benefits of gun ownership by ordinary citizens, albeit from different perspectives.
This is a must have tome for those genuinely interested in the criminological aspects of gun and violence research. Dr. Lott deserves the respect of all social scientists working in this area for his groundbreaking research and the accolades of all freedom-loving citizens of this great nation.
Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and author of Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine.(...)

I purchased this book in the hardcover, rather than wait for the paperback, because this is a subject dear to my heart.

Dr. John R. Lott, when he wrote this book, taught criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago, where he was the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. He has published over seventy articles in academic journals.

He is well qualified to write such a book as this, since he is trained in statistics and the accepted methodology in gathering and interpreting them.

In this volume, Lott studied the facts and figures gathered from all 3,054 counties in the United States in the 15 year period from 1977 through 1992 (the book was copyrighted in 1998).

He says, in the introduction, "American culture is a gun culture--not merely in the sense that 75 to 86 million people own a total of about 200 to 240 million guns, but in the broader sense that guns pervade our debates on crime and are constantly present in movies and the news."

But, his question is: "What do we really know? How many times have most of us actually used a gun or seen a gun being used? How many of us have ever seen somebody in real life threatening somebody else with a gun?"

In his Preface, he asks, "Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?"

Important questions. John R. Lott develops the answers, not from the closed-mind "common sense" that so many have relied on in the past, but from the actual statistics. And, not statistics that he himself has gathered, which might be suspect to some, but by government statistics which any citizen may check.

Of course, his answers--the obvious answers that the statistics themselves portray--are not what the political left, including many in the liberal media, wanted to hear. Consequently, Lott has been attacked, as might be expected.

Among other things, they have attacked him as suspect because his fellowship patron was the Olin Foundation (the Olin company was involved in manufacturing ammunition), which is as nonsensical as saying that someone sponsored by the Ford Foundation would be expected to champion Ford automobiles. The Foundation is absolutely independent of the company, as his critics who used the scurrilous attack well knew.

Nevertheless, this is a valuable book--indeed, a seminal book--by a well-qualified scholar. It dispels myths, and substitutes unadorned fact. I recommend it to you.

Joseph Pierre,
Author of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS: Our Journey Through Eternity

9,756 ACTS OF SELF DEFENSE FOR EACH ONE MURDER*

[...]

One out of every 12 crimes are reported to police.

3,248 per 100,000 population property crimes reported to the police

x 12 = 38,976 per 100,000 population total property crimes

x 315 million population = 122,774,400 total property crimes EACH YEAR

467.2 per 100,000 violent crimes reported to the police

x 12 = 5,606.4 per 100,000 total violent crimes

x 315 million population = 17,660,160 total violent crimes EACH YEAR

140,434,560 TOTAL crimes EACH YEAR

In numerous surveys, inmates claim that two thirds of the inmates they know were frustrated from committing a crime by someone with a gun.

140,434,560 TOTAL crimes EACH YEAR x 0.66 =

92,686,810 uses of a gun EACH YEAR for self protection

The REAL figure is that guns are used 92,686,810 times EACH YEAR to prevent a crime, which means that guns are used 9,756 TIMES more often for self protection than they are to murder someone.

Imagine what those murder figures would be WITHOUT those guns used for self protection.

THIS IS 5,510 ACTS OF SELF DEFENSE FOR EACH ONE GUN ACCIDENT

I remember when this book was first published. It addressed an issue--gun control--that I had little interest in, and didn't follow. But the furor it caused was unmistakeable. Since then, however, have grown increasingly interested in the subject. There is a lot of noise coming from both sides of the fight. Lott's voice, however, is one of the most reasonable and convincing of them all.
Enough has been said about this book in the other the store reviews so that I don't need to repeat any of the arguments or counterarguments. Suffice it to say the evidence is irrefutable unless you are willing--nay, compelled--to engage in the most tortuous exercises of rationalization. Lott is clearly not an ideologue. He is precise and meticulous in his analyses of the data. The arguments of his detractors are, well, sometimes amusing, sometimes bizarre. None of their arguments--which he addresses in the updated edition of this book--can match the utter simplicity of the common sense that his study finally proves: Criminals fear armed citizens.
Is this book exciting? Well, maybe if you dig statistical analysis. If you have an interest in the issue of gun control, however, it's must reading.

Great book. As an academic, with all the garabage research that gets covered by the press, I can't believe that this book hasn't gotten more news coverage. If everyone actually read this book, we would have a lot fewer deaths. It is extremely well written and explains to people where the different claims that they hear come from. I have never seen such a careful indepth study of any issue. This guy really sets the standard for research! Despite what might be good intentions (though after reading chapter 7 I have real doubts about their intentions) gun control advocates are endangering people's lives. The press really needs to think twice about the impact that their newscoverage has on people's safety. I can understand why bad events get so much news coverage relative to good events, but this lopsided coverage creates some real misimpressions.

This book is a splendid piece of analysis by a fellow who really seems interested in truth instead of rhetoric. Don't believe what you read elsewhere, this work has not been discredited, the author is not a shill for the NRA, and most of the academics who have looked at it agree with the results. There have only been three critical reviews, which are cited by three other authors which is why you'll see "six" quoted, and the author in this second edition methodically goes through each criticism refuting it entirely. The author has also made all the data (taken from FBI crime statistics and elsewhere) available to numerous academic institutions, the vast majority of which agreed with the results. This is like someone coming out in the 1600s with an idea that blood-letting might not be good for curing disease. There is an enormous backlash against this study because it doesn't show what a lot of folks want it to show. The Brady Bill folks are furious that their legislation does absolutely nothing. Rather, this study says that common sense makes sense. Criminals do attack the weak, women get raped less if they are allowed to carry concealed weapons, responsible citizens do not shoot each other over traffic accidents if you let them carry concealed weapons, suicide rates don't go up, accidental shootings go up a lot less (from 200 per year to 201) than the media would have you believe and thousands of times more lives are saved by people defending themselves. And what a lot of folks really don't want to hear is that the most cost effective thing a government can do is allow it's citizens to protect themselves with firearms. It is more cost effective, and just plain effective, than more police, longer prison sentences, or anything else that's on the table. The author did a tremendous job of wading through statistics to try to find the answers to very hard questions. He did a thorough, unbiased, and darned interesting job. Buy or borrow this book and read it, you will see for yourself.

Professor Lott's book thoroughly documents the generally (though not exclusively) positive effects of non-discretionary ("shall-issue") CCW throughout the country. If the book has any shortcoming at all, it is in its author's willingness to respond to every conceivable anti-gun argument, no matter how tangential, irrelevant, or downright silly that argument may be. Many of these myths were debunked long before Lott released his data, as his is not the first on the topic, just the most comprehensive. Anti-gunners parroted these myths long before Lott's book came around, they continue to parrot them now, and they will probably continue to do so for a long time to come, no matter how many more researchers may prove them wrong. To his credit, however, Lott has demonstrated far more patience with these fear-mongers than I would have.
Even Lott's critics have been unable to distort the statistics enough to show any deleterious effects of CCW; at best, they can ignore certain states and certain years, and then proceed to "prove" that CCW has no measurable effect on crime whatsoever. But if that is the debate, whether CCW's effects are good vs. nonexistent, why is there any debate at all? It's too bad that even Professor Lott can't get his own mayor to grasp this simple concept. Lott's book will accomplish a great deal if enough reasonable, open-minded people take the time to read it.

This book is dry.
It is full of statistical analysis.
It reads like a math book, not a novel.
That being said, BUY THIS BOOK. If you're reading this review, you probably have strong feelings on gun control (pro or con)... so this book is for you. It is a rare occasion that the gun control debate takes the form of statistics and not emotional outbursts. For that reason alone this book is worth its weight in gold. As other reviewers have noted, it dispels certain gun control myths (particularly ones relating to statistics), and elucidates on why these myths exist.
The gun control policy debate so often takes the form of anecdotes and outbursts from both sides, that reading such rational arguments gave me a sense of hope--that perhaps we can deal with this issue sensibly.
Remember: Be prepared for a book that is on the dry side. But it is well-worth it. Get this book, then give it to a friend!

"More Guns Less Crime" is brutally detailed in its facts and figures: Regressions, scatter diagrams, means, standard deviations, whew! It's enough to make the non-initiated's head swim.
The book has great info showing the reduction in crime as related to increasing handgun ownership and right-to-carry permits. However, I found the reading so laborious that it detracted from the message being conveyed. It was downright boring at times, for pages on end.
But if you are up to the task, "More Guns Less Crime" is a scholarly, academic work. If you love facts, figures, and charts, this is for you! (Perhaps you are a sociologist, economist, statistician, math whiz?) If you prefer the more "human" side of the gun debate issue (case studies, would-be victim testimonals, etc.) you will be less than satisfied.

More Guns, Less Crime is an excellent thorough examination of the relationship between gun ownership and its deterrent effect on criminal activity. It's full of facts and statistics that every gun control advocate should read before they spout off again about how we need to outlaw guns and repeal the 2nd Amendment. But I doubt they will.
After reading More Guns, Less Crime, you'll know that the only result of stricter gun laws will be more brazen and fearless criminals stalking our streets. It is the kind of book that the public needs to counter the unrelenting media groupthink that supports the passage of more gun control laws for real criminals to ignore.

It is well known for many decades that areas with many guns (rural, sparsely populated, economically egalitarian, ethnically homogeneous) have much less crime than unarmed areas (urban, densely populated, economically and ethnically diverse). John R. Lott Jr. studied the results from states that passed "shall issue" (or "right to carry") laws and compared the results: personal crimes (murder, rape, assault) decreased, property crimes (auto theft, etc.) increased. Since personal crimes cost mush more than property crimes, billions of dollars were saved!
Also, none of those states have ever seen a mass killing (like Columbine High School). The author points out that "gun-free school zones" create targets for madmen. Could this be the unstated hope of anti-gun fanatics like Handgun Control Inc.?
He notes that crimes are reported by state level, but everyone lives in counties; crime rates vary widely by county in most states. His book lists facts about gun owners: rich and conservative are more likely that poor and liberals. But a family with a union member is more likely than a family with none.
The "Epilogue" discusses the events that followed publication of the first edition. Anti-gun fanatics refused to review his book, but immediately announced that the book was "flawed". Verdict first, trial afterwards? He notes that increased licensing fees and training costs reduce the benefits of more guns.
A short review can not summarize this important book. My advice is to borrow and browse, or buy and study it; you won't be disappointed. But he does not discuss the political bent of the anti-gun fanatics, or the hidden forces behind them. You could read other books for insight on the need for armed citizens for democracy.

John Lott has researched, to exhaustion, one of the more fascinating issues presented in America today. The debate on gun ownership has, interestingly, spawned a conventional wisdom that would appear to counter the intuitive, and Dr. Lott's findings are in accord with that intuitive. How could the conventional wisdom be so wrong? The intuitive answer appears to be: the term "conventional wisdom" has become synonymous with "the view most reported in and widely supported by the media." Dr. Lott's efforts may well represent a significant turning point on this issue.
Dr. Lott's research demonstrates a clear relationship between the enactment of concealed weapon carrying laws and reductions in criminal actions taken against the citizenry at large. Not only those who carry weapons, but those who do not as well, benefit from these carry permit laws. This makes sense. A criminal's cost of committing a crime rises as a result of such laws. When a carry permit law is relaxed, the bad guy's risk of picking an armed target goes up. So more bad guys will gravitate to where such armed targets are least likely to be found.
Now the 'conventional wisdom' is directly contradicted by the only study of this type available. Proponents of this 'conventional wisdom' have been unable to identify weaknesses in Lott's research, let alone the conclusions drawn therefrom. Having fashioned and nurtured over the years this 'conventional wisdom' virtually to the exclusion of reasonable debate on the subject, gun control advocates have a vested interest in trying to allow this study to go quietly into that good night. They have yet to accept Lott's challenge to evaluate his research, data, and findings. Perhaps this is because the gun control advocates believe that they have the issue locked. Perhaps they do not want to give it the credit it deserves. Most assuredly, they do not want to give the appearance that they believe it worthy of a challenge in the first place. So they studiously ignore it, which is the most effective means of damage control they can muster.
But this study should not be ignored. As long as the reasonable discussion of both sides of the gun ownership and carry argument in public forums remains so limited, an unfairness and true disservice is visited upon all Americans. The gun control advocates have built a formidable position over the years. It will take a steady exposure to accurate, fair, and reasoned presentation of facts for Americans to understand that there is a reasonable position contrary to that propounded by those advocates. Lott has made a terrific start in exposing the conventional wisdom for the myth that it is. It is up to those who read his work to study that work and use it intelligently and respectfully, as the research's quality warrants that it be used, to educate rather than pontificate. An educated public, hopefully, will do the rest.

With all due respect(and that isn't much) to those who believe this book is just a bunch of twisted propaganda, perhaps you can try explaining why that is the case instead of just making those false claims. Anyone with intelligence, education and an open mind can see that John Lott has done excellent research in proving his points.
It is also quite obvious his detractors has to, once again, resort to lies and slander to try to disprove this study.
If memory serves me correctly, one group of critics states that Lott's study is too comprehensive by including all counties in the U.S. Therefore to arrive at a MORE representative sample, they chose samples based on their own criteria. The funny thing is, only 8 counties remained from thousands. It seems these 8 counties are the only one the critics deemed representative. They consider this to be scientific. Sounds more like twisting facts to make a lie sound like the truth. So much for intellectual honesty.
It is very obvious that those who disagree with this book, are doing so only out of a complete disregard for reality and a blind hatred towards guns and gunowners. If indeed this book is full of lies where are the facts to support this view. Those criticisms are also answered in this book.
I have yet to read a critical review that is able to genuinely refute Lott's findings with facts. Maybe that's because those facts don't exists.
For those who are open minded but are not completely sure of the truth behind this country's gun control policies and their ineffectiveness, READ THIS BOOK. And also read what the anti-self defense(gun rights) authors have to say. You'll come to the same logical conclusions that Lott and most gunowners have come to. Guns in the hands of law abiding, responsible citizens are not only NOT harmful, it is very likely beneficial to society.
It is refreshing to finally come across a researcher who is not blinded by his own personal beliefs on a very important issue which affects our entire society.

The title, "More Guns, Less Crime," really says it all. According to Lott, efforts to limit the availability of guns mostly serve to make innocent citizens more vulnerable to criminals. By making crime, safer and more rewarding, such measures also make it more common. By contrast, Lott finds that when states relax gun-control laws -- particularly by making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry guns concealed -- criminals rationally respond to the increased risk by shifting to nonconfrontational crimes (e.g., auto theft, burglary of empty buildings) or by moving. The book relies on the most extensive study of gun and crime data anywhere, encompassing *every* county in America rather than just a few selected locations. And some of the studies were coauthored with Lott's extremely eminent University of Chicago colleague William Landes. A first rate book, informative, readable, and persuasive.

This is a few days after the FL school shooting that left 17 dead. As is par for the course, the libs are again hysterical, and this time their disingenuous leaders have the kiddies ready to March on DC and elsewhere. (I highly doubt teens in serious state of grief would organize something like this just 2 days after the most gruesome violence they will ever experience in their lifetime). “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” I’m sure the liberal powers to be have been waiting for this since Newtown.

I am a conservative, but have zero interest in guns or owning them, but am fascinated by the hysteria on the left over the proliferation of guns as well as the infatuation for guns on the right, esp the huge popularity of the AR 15.

My view is there is incredible lack of knowledge by most, esp. libs, and total misinformation and lies spread throughout the media as it pertains to guns, crime and gun control.

I wanted to real Lotts’ latest, “the war on guns” which was unavailable at B n N, so settled for this book.

Really interested in reading it and have wanted to for years, but it is a tough and verrrrrry boring read. I ended up skimming most of it.

I accept his premise for the most part. More Guns, Less Crime, or at least not an increase in crime. Here in MN, we have had conceal for 15 years or more and have very little crime. I’m not sure if there is any causal link but I do remember the libs screaming bloody murder when this was debated in the legislature. They really believed we would turn into the Wild West. I think there has been one misuse of a gun by a holder of Conceal in over 15 years.

As dull as the book was, I had far more enjoyment reading the 100’s of comments.

The scholarly ones gave it one star (many professors, etc who had a hard time accepting Lotts’ methods of analysis. (Who knows for sure?)

The point is, crime has not gone up since states have implemented c and c, so it doesn’t bother me if one has the need to carry in order to feel safe.

The real issue now is the increase in mass shootings. For all the 1 star reviewers who are skeptical of Lotts’ analysis, do you really believe these nut jobs who shoot up a school would do it had they known there were teachers, janitors, etc who were trained and carrying a gun?

What is the common premise of all these mass shootings?

Nearly all done in gun-free zone

Nearly all end with good guy with gun shooting bad guy with gun, or at the least, the threat of doing so causing the gunman to shoot himself before being apprehended or shot.

The libs want more gun control (Really, they want the 2A overturned only they know it would be political suicide to admit it, but one of these days there will be a massive shooting like at Vegas hotel where several hundred get shot up. This is what they’re hoping for. Yes, there will be massive casualties but that will be a small price to pay to get rid of all the guns. It’s just a matter of time.

John Lott Jr. shatters the anti-gun lobbies claim that guns cause crime. He shows through FBI crime data that areas with the worst crime have the most restrictive gun control laws, and that states with concealed carry laws (for the law abiding citizen) all have lower crime rates and that concealed carry laws are the best and most cost effective defense against crime. Any individual who is concerned about reducing crime, saving lives, and preserving our second ammendment rights must read this book. Other books worth mentioning for the protection of our rights to bear arms are: 1) Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide, and 2) Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny, both by Jay Simkin.

The most interesting part of this book is introduction and the chapter on the "political and academic debate". The book was originally a typical scholarly paper published in a Peer-reviewed journal. It was ignored until the politically connected Cato Institute invited the author to speak. Then suddenly many jumped in to "refute" it without checking his data.
The Kirkus Review above is typical of this: "In Lott's mind. . . . Lott ignores common sense programs." The conclusion that more legally carried guns leads to less crime, that common sense programs like gun buy-backs don't reduce gun crimes, are driven by the data, not the desires of the author.
Lott's argument is based on hard data. The raw data he has made available to scholars who have asked. (A new scholarly curtesy made practical by computers and mini-discs.) None have refuted his interpretation of the data. Or declared the data inadequate.
But this issue is political and scientific data will continue to be ignored.

With all of the misgivings and apprehension that has been generated by recent, very disturbing shooting incidents across the country, especially the School shootings in New Town, Connecticut, a common sense guide to all the most current research on the topic is certainly called for, and this well fills the bill. This book is probably one of the most thoroughly researched, all inclusive studys of how recent legislation, and gun ownership trends have actually caused a significant reduction in all forms of violent crime, though with some variations from location to location, as might be expected. The one thing that keeps me from giving this volume a full five star review, and something other readers might want to be prepared for, is that some of this research is somewhat dry, and similar to a clinical study or corporate research paper, with only a few personal examples given through the course of the book. If you are responsible weapon user, who wants to keep the laws from being more restrictive this will give you many, many charts and graphs and research statistics which supports the benefits of responsible, properly used gun use for hunting, and ,more importantly, personal protection.

This book has definitely brought the anti-self defense lobby into an uproar. It probably won't win any converts among the overtly dogmatic gun control crowd who use lies, deceit, and legal manipulation too further their disarmament agenda. It's a good read to give to the "neutral" non-gun owner who's not quite as passionate about the Second Amendment, yet not decisively "anti-gun."

As the National Review has said, "Lott has done to gun control what Charles Murray did to welfare payments in Losing Ground." This book is a thorough, well-reasoned rebuttal to liberal gun control dogma and it proves that more guns do equal less crime. It's no coincidence that the highest-crime cities have the most gun control and that states like Vermont with "no permit required" concealed-carry enjoy the lowest crime rates. Lott does an excellent job shattering gun control myths... whether its those about gun buybacks, waiting periods, and background checks reducing crime or high-crime being attributable to a "proliferation of weapons." Lott, an economist at the University of Chicago makes a well-reasoned analysis of gun control trends and its consequences, while offering excellent reasoning, verbal logic and statistics based on facts not wild speculation. This is the book to have close at hand when gearing up for a debate with those against the inalienable right to self-defense.

John Lott's book-More Guns Less Crime-should be required reading for anyone interested in crime reduction. Lott's comprehensive study of crime and gun control clearly establishes that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does, in fact, reduce crime. As expected, this politically incorrect book brought out vicious attacks from the anti-gun lobby, but Lott successfully debunks many of the myths fantasized by gun control proponents. Chapter 7 of Lott's book is particuraly interesting as to how far gun-control zealots will go to discredit anyone who disagrees with them.

I recently heard John R. Lott, Jr. (Law Professor, University of Chicago) promoting the book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" (University of Chicago Press, 1998) on talk radio in the New York tri-state area. He impressed me so much that I ordered the book from the store Books, and upon receipt of the book have discovered that it is exactly as advertised.
The book is an exhaustive professional research study on the statistics relating to gun control (extracted primarily from recent FBI reports), which produces the following conclusion; where there are more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there is less crime, because criminals know that any crime they attempt to commit, might be met with lethal force in the prevention of that crime. Furthermore, it is found that the most cost-effective method of fighting crime is through allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in the manner that they see fit for their own personal security, and in the prevention of crime. The people of the state of Arizona surely know exactly about that which Lott speaks, and that which is presented right here.
This book will probably end up becoming the preeminent study on the matter of gun control, and combined with the work by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and with the material in JPFO's books "Lethal Laws" and "Gun Control; Gateway to Tyranny," makes an irrefutable argument against gun control.
This particular publication includes initial reaction to Lott's original research study, which was released last year in an industry journal. It is interesting to note Lott's numerous stories about the many people in opposition to his research who refused to even look at his study, but who criticized his study anyway without having read it first, and who continually announced with confidence that they could obtain publicity from the mainstream media for their gun control cause whenever they wanted; all of this might give people who read the book additional reason to ponder the entire issue of gun control.

The question of whether or not the permitting of average citizens to carry concealed weapons will reduce crime is so incendiary, merely asking the question can reduce an audience to livid rage. Thus, the question is an ideological one, and the last thing either side wants to do is to have it answered! The result is lots of annecdotal commentary on both sides with very few facts.
John Lott provides--probably for the first time--enought facts to completely close the question to further debate. He uses FBI data from over 3000 counties and over 50,000 data points. His study is sober, thorough and low-key. By proving that in those states where concealed carry has been permitted, viloent crime dropped dramatically and in nearly all cases, he has sent the ball solidly into the anti-gun court. It will be very nteresting to see how they respond. Half the pleasure in reading this book was to see how the anti-gun left resolutely refused to respond to commenting on the study--until it recieved air time. Then they leaped in. One memorable tale was of an anti-gun academic who refused to accept his study. Lott then saw her on ABC TV lamenting the "deeply flawed" nature of it. Shortly thereafter he recieved a call from the woman saying she had reconsidered and asking if he would sent it to her. When he told her he had seen her on TV, she hung up.
With this landmark study, the nature of the concealed-carry debate moves to a new level, and poses the question, effective or not in reducing crime, why this country seems to need so many guns.

John Lott puts up a persuasive argument for the notion that the best way to combat gun crime is to increase the general availability of arms. This may seem like a crazy notion to many but, when looking through his economic graphs and socio-political analyses, an alternative yet persuasive perspective comes across. While I disagree with his call for the relaxation of the law preventing juveniles from carrying concealed firearms, I too came to the conclusion that a legal obligation for citizens to be armed would be for the force of greater good. Food for thought includes the account of the parking-violation that was successfully thwarted (with deadly force) by a gun-toting civilian who was no longer willing to sit back and let crime happen. If there were more common-sense thinkers like John Lott in the world, we should all be far safer. Guns for peace!

A fascinating subplot to the story is told in the last chapter of the book. One gets the impression that initially Lott assumed that even those social scientists who heretofore supported gun-control were indeed scientists -- that they were disinterested, objective seekers of the truth, and that they would appraise his study honestly. In other words, he assumed they were like himself. It turns out that for the most part, nothing could be further from the truth.
Critics from such groups as Handgun Control, Inc. calling Lott biased is an absolute howler!

In More Guns Less Crime, John Lott fires away at the fatuous assumptions that empower most forms of gun control. While he hits many bulls-eyes and scores several important points, the book misses the mark of being a real page-turner. It reads more like an extensive case study (in reality it summarizes the findings of numerous case studies) and fails to really engage the lay reader. Tumescent with charts and graphs, it plods along rather than flying like a bullet. I certainly admire the author for being a straight shooter who relies more on facts than emotionally-charged but empty slogans. He is destined to be ambushed by Rosie O'Donnell and her myopic clones in Hollywood for daring to tell the truth rather than their version of reality. I just wish it could have presented with more of a blast. Although he sends a barrage and hits many targets in the gun control movement's poorly defended arguments, the dragging pace of this book may turn off some readers. However, those who complete the book will learn quite a few facts that gun control advocates do want disseminated.

Although the book in itself is a bit dry to read. But considering that I bought it as a reference, not as a night time fairy tale story it was to be expected. I make no claims of being a statistician, and therefore do not completely understand some of the higher methods of statistic analysis used in the book. The information and methods are carefully, in detail, explained for others in the field to review. Yet I found it fully understandable, even at my level of education.

Expertly written, fact filled with full disclosure on where the information came from, with dates, and a full source list. Many, MANY people and organizations have tried, and failed, to poke holes in his data. Which he freely makes available to any who request it. This is the third edition of this book, updated with newer data and longer study periods. The author's attention to detail is amazing. He even goes so far as to try to prove his own findings wrong with multiple methods of filtering and cross checking against other data points. Even he cannot fault his own findings.

If you are interested in the what the TRUE crime figures actually say, this is THE book to read to allow you to make an INFORMED DECISION and a defensible opinion.

This book is usually derided by people who haven't even read it- they have a philosophical aversion to firearms and just assume what the content must be.

One of Lotts more compelling arguments is the data presented regarding "multiple victim public shootings"- like the one that occured at VT. It was shown, using very simple statistics provided by the FBI and the Department of Justice, that incidences of MVPS were lower in states that permit law abiding citizens to obtain carry permits (keep in mind, citizens with carry permits exhibit a rate of crime at a grossly lower rate than the population at large. In some places, their rate of criminal infraction is lower than the police)

How does this pertain to VT?

Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus -with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, said "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

I wonder how safe the students at VT "feel" now?

John Lotts book gets into these hard facts and philosophies.

"Of course pilots shouldn't be armed. Can you imagine what might have happened if the 9/11 pilots had had guns?"

John Lott has undertaken the only study of the relationship of private gun ownership to the level of violent crime that is not blatantly conclusion-driven. (You should read some of the academic gun studies; because the primary facts so clearly favor ubiquitous gun ownership, a result that is anathema to every liberal journal extent, these professors are reduced to producing pages of turgid text debating how many disarmed angels can dance on the head of a pin.)

Lott clearly shows that in nearly every U.S. State in which private citizens were allowed to carry concealed handguns (up to 38 at this time), violent crimes rates dropped, often precipitously. Criminals may be dumb, but they are not stupid. In jail house interviews they universally admit that their first concern in robbing or mugging someone is not to get shot. This simple fact has somehow escaped the notice of the entire liberal establishment. So what is a liberal manqué who wants to beat his breast to do? He writes about the unsafe aspect of gun ownership. But only in the most restricted sense. The average safety message of the anti-gun left is that people get killed by guns accidentally, full stop. Yes, that is true. But, as John Lott shows, the number of accidental deaths is miniscule compared to the number of people who don't get killed because they were able to thwart a crime by "presenting a firearm." Aaah, the bleeding hearts respond with a vengeance: "But how are you going to bring back the life of little Johnny..." And round and round it goes.

The elephant in the room in this argument that can never die, is that the left is terrifed that the truth might come out. If the left truly believed more guns mean more crime, they could quickly prove that supposition, say in Trenton, NJ, or Detroit, MI. Issue guns to every non-felon who wants one, and watch what happens. Unfortunately, such an experiment would indeed prove the issue and, as John Lott so ably shows--end the logical debate once and for all. But, of course, this debate is far from logical.

Indeed, if safety were truly an issue, the same people who wish to protect out children from accidental gun deaths would have much greater effect by saving them from drowning in home swimming pools. But that does not interest them. So it is not child safety they are really worried about. Rather it is the individual use of force that so riles them. The government should be the only one allowed to use force against others. We, the people, can not be trusted. This is clearly a religious argument; and, when discussing an article of faith, facts hold no primacy. Guns are bad, pure and simple. Thus, being wrong about mere facts means nothing to the faithful. And no amount of facts that John Lott has so ably assembled to show that, truly, "more guns means less crime" will move this ideologically strangled element toward rational behavior.

Maybe the most boring read but this is not the emotional based "whatifism" fiction made up by gun control advocates; these are the TRUTHS based on FACTS and statistics gathered from all credible sources.
I used a previous edition (like all good sociology/criminology studies, this is updated periodically) to do my senior thesis in Justice Policy Studies and found the information to be complete, cited and conclusive based on facts.
Even if you are not a student of criminology you will find insightful facts based on actual statistics NOT the lies perpetrated by the Bloomberg/Brady/Feinstien/Obama crowd pushing a political agenda.

You won't really understand the virtue of a gun until you need one. I hope no one ever reaches a situation that perilous, but it happens to thousands of innocent people. My husband has had a concealed carry permit and a semi-automatic on his hip for years. This book finally convinced me it was something I needed to do too.

That perilous time did come for me and my little pistol was there to back me up. The police are a helpful lot, but they can't be with you all the time or at the moment you need them most. Minutes away is sometimes too long when someone is trying to get into your house. Nothing is more frightening, especially when I thought of my baby sound asleep a room away.

I don't live in fear anymore because I am no longer a helpless victim.

The second ammendment is very clear. Requiring a waiting period or banning certain "scarey" looking guns does not seem unreasonable at first. But you give legislators an inch and they will go all the way. Why do you think our taxes are so high?

As a former prosecutor, the book confirmed many things that I have always believed about criminals. However, I have also learned a great deal from this book (e.g., the impact of the Brady Law on crime rates or international comparisons of gun ownership). If every citizen could read this, there would be a lot fewer deaths from crime because people wouldn't be taken in by the many false claims that endanger their lives.

John Lott's subtitle mentions that the book is a study in law and economics, and that's exactly what it is. For the most part, the book is very readable. On one or two occasions I found myself drawing on my knowledge of statistics, but this book is by no means accessible only to academics. Lott's study is significant because it deals with every county in the US as a separate entity. As he shows, it is unjustifiable to treat entire states as homogeneous units. As well as presenting a thorough explanation of his study and results, Lott deals with some of the most common objections to his work. I would recommend this book to anyone attempting to understand the effects of concealed carry reform.

John Lott is an American hero for many reasons. But in this book, he is a hero for enganging in detailed, and accurate statistical data to prove the Second Amendment is not just a part of the Constitution, but has also proved to be good social policy as well, even in our modern life. Lott shows how liberalization of gun laws (i.e., allowing more people to carry concealed weapons) has resulted in drops in crime rates, even when we take into consideration other variables. Lott also shows that those most protected from concealed gun laws are women and minorities--those whom often are the most skeptical towards liberalization of gun laws and elect those who pass laws that are contrary to their constituents' best interests. If only liberals such as Representative Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), Nancy Pelosi, and gun-grabbers Sen. Ted Tennedy were to read -- and believe this book, and understand its signifiance, perhaps we would have less crime in America. Until then, don't bet on it, and encourage your representative to repeal restrictive gun laws and let law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

The Second Amendment was Brilliantly designed to set Americans free from organized stupidity, and Democratic Sociopychological Terrorism. The mind games the of so many of America's politicians , and perverted educators has created a Cancer in our society that no amount of Mental Chemo Therapy will ever cure.
John Lott's book is a heroic attempt at steering Americans away from enemies, "Foreign and Domestic". The words and actions of every Hero has always drawn out verbal attacks from Traitors and Cowards who so often boast at how much better educated they are from the rest of America. We need more couragous authors like Mr. Lott. We need vastly Less writings from the multitude of Counterfeit University Professors.

An absolute must read for anyone interested in this topic, regardless of position on firearms.
The world is full of myths and misquoted information. All too often you hear made up statistics over this issue - on both sides. This book takes a scholarly look at the issue using open information and sources that can be verified and indepently analyzed to verify the results - something usually sorely missing from all discussions on this topic. This does however make it a pretty dry read - if you are looking for the grandstanding theatrics usually associated with both sides of gun control, look elsewhere.
If you are for the free ownership of firearms, it provides you with solid information and statistics to back your position. If you are against firearms ownership, and have a rational and reasoning mind, this book will give you some great food for thought, if you don't throw it away and you actually do read it. I have suggested and given this book to a few people with strong feelings about this topic, and they usually just ignore this book's information, as it is so much easier to just blindly charge on with nothing more than emotionally based sound bites as a substitute for reason and thought.

While supporters of lawful firearms restriction or elimination attempt to rationalize or manufacture "flaws" in Lott's work, it is in fact as close to "bulletproof" (pun intended) as research can be. From a personal viewpoint, this research helped change my somewhat anti-gun stance to a fairly pro-rights one.
Researchers can quibble over the statistical methods used by Lott all they wish-albeit few accredited critics do. But the bottom line is that, by studying all 3,054 counties in the U.S., violent crime was significantly less in those states which allowed citizens to carry firearms. Although many people associate firearms with crime, and some have even developed a prejudice that they cause crime, it seems equally commonsense that criminals should fear a potentially-armed victim, and, logically, some will be deterred from attacking. That, in turn, squares with research showing as many as 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses annually (Kleck/Gertz, et.al.)
Moreover, previous work by James Wright and Peter Rossi for the National Institute of justice shows that three-fifths of prison inmates studies said they would not attempt to attack a potential victim known to be armed. Real-life evidence can be seen in Switzerland, where gun ownership is mandatory and violent crime extremely rare; it is virtual suicide.

John Lott's book is right on target. He takes unbiased raw data and makes sense of it. He is quick to point out any studies that are biased or flawed one way or another. Anyone that is interested in the wave of gun control going on in this country should read it.
Mr. Lott will be in the state of Connecticut for a panel discussion on gun control on March 28th. This discussion will be with Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General. Anyone that wants to retain their right to bear arms should attend. Contact the state of CT. for reservations. Fee is ten dollars and includes lunch.

I'm surprised I'm the first to point this out. There has been another mass murder in a "gun free zone", with some six THOUSAND people killed because the victims were disarmed.
I refer, of course, to September 11th, 2001. The murderers were lawfully in the country, lawfully on board commercial airplanes. There is nothing short of GOD which could have prevented this event, no background checks, no photo-ID, no metal detectors or prohibition of carry-on bags. Nothing that has been proposed that further gives up the liberty to travel would have prevented these attacks.
The one airplane that did not reach its target had brave, heroic passengers who died fighting back. Had they been allowed to carry their private arms, the airplane would not have been hijacked any more than carjackers go after armed drivers.
Another gun free zone, another mass murder. Is anyone surprised?

This is a great book that shows the other side of the gun control debate. Like it or not, people use guns on a daily basis to defend themselves. Like it or not, States and Cites that have less gun control also has less gun violence (FACT, not fiction). For example, Chicago. I just cannot figure out why the store.com wants to write their garbage. Oh wait, I know...

After listening to him talk at my school I sat down and read the book. Truly a well laid out and backed up arguments. Great explanation of the data and problems that arise when measuring or attempting to explain the data. There are those who bash him for being a zealous promoter of his idea, but honestly they never sat down and either read his book, or removed their emotion from their thinking. This is for people who would like to seriously consider the issue and understand why certain policy makers are misled.

Law abiding citizens have an innate right to defend the lives of themselves, their families, their loved ones. Personal firearms provide the highest level of defense capability and require no special physical abilities.
Lott's book provides proof positive that citizens are capable of doing so in an orderly manner and that exercise of that right provides a great benefit to society as a whole.
I recommend Lott's book to legislators in those few states clinging to the notion that the state, and the state alone, reserves the power to decide who is worth defending, who is not; who shall live, and who shall die.

It would be in the best interest of those thinking of purchasing the book to scan over a copy of it themselves before purchasing it. The especially negative reviews should be scrutinized.....they are obviously written by people who do not like looking at what Dr. Lotts' data says. They claim that he is a mouthpiece for the firearms industry, but the truth of the matter is that the man never even owned or operated a firearm until AFTER he came to the conclusions he did in the paper that subsequently led to this book. He chose to purchase a firearm only after he learned the effects private ownership had on crime.

Another example of misleading information concerns the fellow who referred to the NAS's firearms and violence study of 2005. The study was not done to study whether firearms ownership deterred violent crime; the purpose was to determine what effect legislation and regulation of who can and cannot own a firearm had on violent crime. There was no correlation as the previous reviewer had said, but this is only true if the correlation referred to an increase in firearms regulation with a subsequent drop in violent crime. In other words, they found no proof to substantiate the claim that more firearms regulation means less violent crime.

This book is so thorough, you had better really really want to understand every possible variable that affects crime, and the gun laws that are intertwined. Not an easy read, but very well done. The more you understand about statistical analysis, the more you will get out of it, but even the ignorant will be educated and gain much understanding. He issues an open invitation to anybody to use the original data, and come up with different conclusions.

I highly recommend this book for every American, on both sides of the debate.

The dustjacket endorsements quoted above were right on the mark. A healthy society must discredit and dishonor unscrupulous political activists such as those Lott exposes -- all the moreso the academic professionals and (supposedly objective) newsmedia who use rhetorical slight-of-hand to deceive the public.

Anyone wishing to understand the ongoing "gun debate" will profit from reading this book. The things you "know" often turn out to be mere assumptions - not supported by the facts. The facts include much FBI data and are used to clarify many key issues.

The most surprising fact to me was the condition under which victims were LEAST likely to be harmed by a criminal. Submitting to or running from a criminal was much more likely to get you hurt, than defending yourself with a gun. Who would have thought it?

This book is a rigorously scrupulous study of gun crime statistics and their relationship to gun ownership. No one before or since has done a study that is so exhaustive and complete. What makes this book even better is that it is done in a way to make it clear to the average reader.

Lott's masterpiece documents how violent crime skyrocketed in municipalities where gun bans went into effect, and conversely declined everywhere so-called right-to-carry laws were enacted. There's no magic here - Lott merely cites the statistical evidence to prove what people with common sense have known all along - criminals fear armed citizens and avoid them whenever possible.

For those who doubt this fundamental truth, I have a challenge:

Place a large "GUN FREE HOME - WE DEPEND ON 911" sign in your front yard or on your front door.

If you truly believe that widespread and ANONYMOUS gun ownership isn't a deterrent to crime - one which provides protection to the armed and unarmed alike - then, have the guts and the intellectual honesty to try to live your politics...put your life (and your family's) where your mouth is and post that sign in your front yard...I dare you.

Two examples of why gun control does not work. One; say you want to rob a store, there are roughly ten people inside. Would you be detered at all if you knew there was a good chance nobody inside was carrying a concealed weapon because of gun control laws? Probably not. Now if conceal carry was encouraged in that state, how comfortable would you feel robbing that store?
Two; Gun control laws are useless to criminals. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Why would they all of a sudden follow this new law passed? You need stricter penalties punishishing neglagent and malicious use of guns instead of new laws. This book is a facinating read and very thought provoking. A bit difficult to understand at some points with so many charts, but covers all arguments. For those of you rate this book low, John Lott has an open invitation for anyone to debate him on this issue publicly, but to this day nobody has stepped forward. It might also be interesting to know this man was in favor of gun control until he after he started the research for this book. Something to think on.

If you want to understand guns and gun control laws; you have to read Prof. Lott's books on the subject. He is the ultimate authority on this subject; having done more research on this subject than anyone else.

Finally some one who has done some "REAL" fact finding. In a rare stroke this one is gonna send gun-control extermists packin' home a crying to thier momma's. Good to see that there are some real Americans left. or should I say right?

Yes- as everyone says, Lott's study is detailed, comprehensive and based on real evidence. However, it is NOT a fun read by any means. Nearly half the book is "as this regression shows..." and the like-monotonous and uninteresting after a while. If you're looking for something to read in relation to math or statistics course, grab this book; it's a gem in that cateogry. If you're just looking for something to read, there are many other books as stimulating that are much more entertaining.

[...]Liberal dogmatists lack common sense when the subject turns to guns of any sort. They legitimately point out the accidents and criminal actions resulting from their misuse. But Lott wonders why they are blinded to the obvious benefits of firearms. "Unfortunately, our legal system," adds the author, "cannot provide people with all the protection that they desire, and yet individuals are often prevented from defending themselves." Sometimes citizens are even charged with a felony for protecting themselves with a gun! Sadly, these laws usually only prevent law abiding folks from obtaining a fire arm. The criminal class could care less if such a law is on the books. Convicted mafia thug, Sammy "the Bull" Gravano laughs at gun control. "It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters." The media generally gives the benefit of the doubt to gun control groups, and Lott is astonished by their gullibility. More often than not, the media take their word at face value. Those on the other side of the issue, needless to add, are given the third degree. Journalists alert the general public concerning the bad things done with guns, but ignore the incidents when lives are saved. Lott finds it ironic that gun control advocates don't realize that legal restrictions hinder the ability of minorities to defend their lives and property. Guns are of far more importance in poorer neighborhoods than those where affluent Liberals reside. Also, what about women? Don't these white wine and brie cheese party goers have any concern for the physically weaker sex who is more vulnerable to attack? John Lott will have to rehabilitate his reputation. Nonetheless, "More Guns, Less Crime" remains an fairly accurate and substantial contribution to this debate that is not going away anytime in the near future. I see no reason not to continue giving it a very strong endorsement.

I have a concealed carry permit and am a member of a number of gun rights organizations. However, I simply am not one to use utilitarian arguments for such positions and so would normally not be interested in econometric modeling to defend something like the right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, as I began to find all these attacks on Dr. Lott -- even by miscellaneous gun rights advocates on USNET, I just had to see what it was all about.

I have a fairly good technical background, especially in statistics. (I have an MS in Math which has included a fair amount of probability and statistics as well as having gone into actuarial science professionally.) And, I thought the book was pretty good, in fact, perhaps the best I have seen (for someone that doesn't typically buy such books), especially for what I would tend to expect out of social scientists. Furthermore, I think most of what I have seen in terms of criticisms of his methods on the internet are ridiculous pseudo-science. And finally, the source of his data seems pretty solid -- pretty much just various governmental agencies' data on crime, concealed carry laws, and so on.

I suppose if I really wanted to know just how right he is or isn't, I would go independently collect the data and perform his regressions myself, but I do have a day job. Also, having read his book and many criticisms of it, I think the recent data for states having long since enacted concealed carry laws is not nearly as important as many seem to think it is. The issue is what happens when concealed carry laws are implemented. It is an interesting *separate* question as to the ongoing effects of having concealed carry laws on the books. If you include too much data from times distant from the event in question, you are likely to cloud the model and tests of such an hypothesis with all sorts of other factors that no one can realistically have accounted for in any model of something like crime rates.

I agree with other reviewers that this book is a difficult read if you're not into data/statistics. As I read the book through the first time, I marked all the pages I wanted to come back to. The second read of these marked pages brought home the key points for me. Mr Lott has done an outstanding job of presenting straight forward findings on a controversial issue. He also does an excellent job of responding to the criticism his work has received. His work supports why the founders of our nation included the second amendment into the Bill of Rights. An armed society is a polite and safer society.

5 STARS?
Maybe that's a little high, after all, hacking your way through this statistical rain forest with all it's multiple regression, and fiercely territorial dummy variables will tire your machete arm. However, I DARE you to find a book on this issue with even half the detailed, checked and rechecked, considered and reconsidered statistical analysis of "More Guns, Less Crime."
Read the literature for yourself, most authors are content to let someone else do the statistics, but Mr. Lott simply won't let any detail rest. Responding to criticism of his methods, he returns time and again to toy with different variables in his calculations, and consistently emerges with the same results.

Sharp! Wonderful insights into this hot topic. If I wasn't already pro-gun, I would have seriously rethought my stance after reading this book. It is fabulous to see this kind of information coming from a party independent from the special interest groups in Washington D.C. It would be great if Mr. Lott published an update to the statistics in the book. I think that 1992 was the main focus year of his analysis. If there could be an update to that, to see if the trends shown have continued into 2000, it would show if there were sustainable long-term effects on crime.

My family and I could easily have been included in Prof Lott's database. Once I was almost robbed by two blacks in Detroit (shortly after moving there from Europe) - however, the crime was prevented when another gentlemen, who happened to spot the crime in progress, pulled out his .38 cal handgun and ordered the two to stop or he would "blow their brains out" - I shall be forever grateful to him.

Years later, my wife was almost robbed and rapped (and probably murdered) - again by blacks (3 of them) except for the fact that she had a "Lady Smith" .357 Magnum in her car. As soon as they took one look at her "piece" - they ran away. In both cases, a shot did not have to be fired - the mere presence of the guns prevented the crime.

Using all the available data, John Lott asks -- and, alas for the advocates of "gun control" answers -- the question: What effects do laws permitting competent, law-abiding adults to receive handgun carry permits have?
The answer is, manifestly: to reduce violent crime.
Which is why the gun control advocates are reduced to the sort of handwaving that several of the scoffing reviewers engage in here.

If we ask our friends & neighbors to make decissons that affect the American way of life, we must have all the facts pro or con. "We the people" means everyone. This book presents the facts better than any other with clarity & support documents. Decissons must be made & will be made as times change, but media or agenda driven propaganda must not make this change. "We the people" must be the changers. This book provides quality facts. You will not regret reading this book no matter which stand you take. Let's move forward.

'the first right', as gun ownership is called, earned that title for a reason - it ensures all of your other rights. more wisdom than you catch shake a stick at and plenty of data to back it up - a classic.

The other reviews are exceedingly efficient at hitting the highs and lows of this book, but here goes nothing . . .

Dr. Lott writes in a gifting manner, provoking a thought, describing data and situations, and finally providing a conclusion. It's a classic Toulmin example.

Dr. Lott's contention that increses in concealed handgun carry deter criminals and lower crime rates stands true. As a math major with a heavy interest in Calculus, not that French Probability and Statistical crap, I used random samplings of John Lott's raw data in a set of equations describing scenario(s) in question. Mathematics proves Dr. Lott's aforesaid contention.

For those flaming this book with surpassing enthusiasm because of questionable post publishing actions of the author, realize numerous statistics and experiments have proved Dr. Lott's contention; flaming the work in no way reflects flaming the author. Regrettably, Dr. Lott has given hypocrites something to do with themselves.

Perhaps the ability to unequivocally answer a simple set of questions holds nowhere near as much importance as simply raising your hand and walking to the chalkboard, which Dr. Lott has done well.

This is a superb work of research. John Lotts work is the single largest, most thurough study ever done on crime. In this research Lott looks at the effects of conceled carry weapons on crime rates. Over and over, in every instance, his research shows that the more conceled weapons permits there are in a given area, the lower the crime rates will be for that area. Also, that these rates of reduction continue over time.
One of the most interesting things in this edition is reading through the pathetic attemps by gun control fanatics to refute his findings. Lott goes through these one by one and clearly explains why they're unfounded, misleading and at times comepletely basesless. He also responds to the numerous threats of violence he's received from gun control lunatics.
A great deal of mud has been slung in Lotts direction by gun control fanatics who have sought to use anything they can dream up to discredit him. Quite telling in this is that they can not discredit the findings of his research so they attack him personally with slander, outright lies and attempts at intimidation. If this alone doesn't get your interest I'm not sure what will.
Revealed in all of this is the fact that those who advocate gun control do so not because they have facts to back up their positions but rather rationalize their baseless, irrational fears by misrepresenting the facts. Gun control is not interested in safety. It is not interested in "the children". Gun control is just an effort to create an maliable, sheepish society of individuals who can't stand up for themselves and therefore can be easily controlled.
Near the end of his book Lott points out that before his research was published it was unthinkable that Handgun Control Inc. would be racing to put out "research" showing that the crime reducing effects of conceled carry permits were slightly less than what Lotts work had shown them to be.

When the anti-gun folks decide to dispense with their emotional rants and raves, this is the book that they can turn to to properly educate themselves on this incredibly-important subject. Unlike his opponents, his demeanor is calm and dignified, his analysis is as careful as it is detailed--and the theory he brings to bear upon the numbers he presents is exceptionally persuasive! The bottom line here is that concealed handguns save lives. Californians, take heed!

If you want to have an educated opinion on this topic, this book is a MUST read, anyone discussing Gun Control who has not read this book is to be taken as an ignorant, uninformed source. It is rough reading, as it is a book about facts and figures, not a novel or a compilation of anecdotal evidence, nevertheless it is THE definitive source for information about guns in the United States. It only makes me sad and angry that my right to protect myself has been ignored by the politicians in Chicago.

More Guns, Less Crime 2010 is the third edition of Lott's book originally based on his and David Mustard's Right-To-Carry study of 1997 that measured the result of 22 states going "shall issue" on carry permits for handguns between 1986 and 1996. The first 1998 edition was focussed on the RTC issue.

The 2nd edition 2000 looked at other gun control policies as well, and commented on the controversy that Lott & Mustard 1997 and Lott 1998 engendered in the media and among academics.

Since the 2nd edition 2000, a lot has happened: the CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 reviews on gun laws and gun violence, the sunset of the 1994-2004 federal Assault Weapon Ban, the Supreme Court decision on the Heller case in 2008 (gun ban in DC v Second Amendment), and so on. The 3rd edition 2010 is expanded by about 150 pages to cover these new issues.

I would like to correct an impression that may be created by an earlier reviewer, that Lott's book is a major Second Amendment resource. First, in the 2nd edition there were one sentence and one paragraph in the text and three paragraphs in the footnotes on the Second Amendment out of 300+ pages (Second Admendment issues were "...important issues that are beyond the scope of this book"--Lott at page 168); while the 3rd edition expands somewhat on the Second Amendment, it is not a resource book on the Second Amendment. Secondly, Lott stated in the Oct 2008 NPR debate on guns that his family did not own a gun until his 1996 research convinced him that having a gun was beneficial for self defense within reasonable safety costs. Lott's argument on guns and gun control is based on weighing the economic benefits v the costs of gun ownership and gun control: this is a law and economics argument, not a constitutional law argument. If you are interested in the debate over the benefits and costs of gun ownership and gun laws, this is an important book regardless of your apriori beliefs on the gun issue; if you are interested in the debate over the constitutionality of gun laws, gun rights v gun control, there are books devoted to those subjects. This book is a study of the good v the harm done with guns and by gun laws; it is not a dedicated Second Amendment analysis. Journal of Economic Literature Subject Classification K42 (Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law).

I'll make this review short. Thankfully a study has finally been put out by a college professor regarding this subject. It's an honest book without any liberal or conservative bias. It tells the truth about our gun control laws and uses statistics to prove his case. Well worth the read if you are interested in this subject matter.

This books lays it all out. Private ownership of weapons saves at least one million lives a year. Autos kill around 40,000, and accidental gun deaths are around 1,100 a year. It will not be popular with the vast left-wing conspiracy, Gore lovers, gun control fascists, or the bleeding heart liberals. This book should be mandatory reading in all public high schools across the States.

I bought this for one reason only. To give me verbal ammo that I can document on the issue of concealed weapons. I'll admit it, I'm an activist. This provided me with information to pass onto my Senators and Rep. I'm inspired to start a non-profit organization to mail a couple of this book to my state officals. Truely a must read for everyone pro-gun and anti-gun.

Finally, a study that can open the eyes of Gun Control advocates to the truth about lawful gun ownership...if only they could look beyond their biases and actually read it. John Lott Jr.'s study of firearms ownership is packed full of statistics and explanations of why gun control actually helps increase crime by making criminals, and not law abiding citizens, feel safer on our streets. Everyone can benefit from reading this book. Overall, I found this to be a very informative book. Some areas that were heavy with statistics and graphs were a somewhat slow read but, in the end, John Lott's conclusions were informative and help remove the veil of lies, misinformation, and scare tactics that the media and Gun control advocates have used to blind the general population.

This book is a greatly expanded version of a paper published by Lott and Mustard in 1997. In that paper they claimed that laws allowing the concealed carry of handguns caused significant decreases in violent crime. The paper was Lott's first publication on firearms policy and unfortunately Lott's inexperience with this subject shows.
Contrast the treatment of the topic of gun ownership in Lott's book with that in another book by a pro-gun scholar, Gary Kleck's "Targeting Guns". Lott looks at the results of two exit polls, conducted in 1988 and 1996 and concludes that the percentage of the population that owned guns increased by 50% in just eight years. Kleck looks at 86 different surveys, going back to 1959, as well as half a century of gun sales data, which show that the gun ownership percentage has not changed since 1959. Kleck's conclusion is obviously the better supported one.
Lott does a better job in his statistical analysis which found the the introduction of concealed carry laws was associated with declines in violent crime rates. That is because this analysis is in his area of expertise, econometrics. Unfortunately, his unfamiliarity with firearms research betrays him when he interprets this result to mean that the laws caused the decrease in crime. Kleck's book contains details of surveys of gun carrying that show that the number of people that get permits for concealed carry is much less than the number of people who carry illegally, that is, the laws did not make a significant difference to a criminal's chance of encountering an armed victim. Kleck concludes that the crime decreases were probably caused by some factor other than the carry laws.
There are many more errors of fact and interpretation in Lott's book, too many to list here.
So why does the pro-gun book by Kleck have a sales rank of 72,000 while the pro-gun book by Lott have a rank of 1264? I think the reason is that Lott goes well beyond what the data supports to claim that more guns cause less crime. Kleck sticks with a position that is supportable by the data - that the bad and good uses of guns mostly cancel out, leaving little net effect on crime. Pro-gun readers would rather hear Lott's message, even if it's wrong.
Readers looking for a pro-gun book should buy Kleck's book, rather than Lott's. Lott's book is only useful for those readers who are interested in the details of Lott's multivariate statistical analysis.

I will assure you that no on e I know will not be urged to read this remarkable and devastating book! This is the antidote to the Left's unwavering march to disarm America. I'll be pushing the perfect companion book as well: "Transfer" by Jerry Furland. Read and re-read these again and again. Then become a zealot for your freedom!

This is a great book. Dr. Lott explains in plain English exactly how and why more guns means less crime. He did the largest study on the subject ever conducted.
If you want all the statistics, it's in here. If you want a general explanation, it's there. If you don't understand anything about statistics, that is fine. Wether you want to make a living studying guns and crime or just want to sort our the truth from the lies for your family, this is the place to start.
The information contained in this book is so valuable that you will keep coming back to it as you read other studies on guns. It is the best book I have ever read on the subject.

Your example doesn't work because your control group is preselected to have a certain characterisic, i.e., owning guns. Your group consists of males in the Swiss army (assuming that it is true that all Swiss males are required to have guns in their houses- I've been to Switzerland many times and have never seen a gun). Males in the Swiss army is not a random population. Even if you consider that you are comparing Switzerland, and not just the Swiss army, then you should also factor in the American Army, and the number of guns in possession of its members. When you start adding in armies, you get a distortion that destroys any meaningfulness of the data.
It seems very reasonable that one could compare gross populations such as Europe and the United States without continent dummies or other controls. In fact, Scientific American, in the August 1999 issue on (I think) page 25 did exactly that, and came to the conclusion that the murder rate in the United States is 2 to 8 times greater than in Europe DUE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES.
The thesis of Lott's book, which I did read, unlike Mr Cockeysville, is that there is a correlation between the number of CARRY PERMITS and a lower crime rate. Lott's data proved nothing whatsoever about a supposed inverse relationship between gun availability and violent crime rate.
The most basic law of statistics is that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality. Other statisticians have looked at Lott's book and have come to the conclusion that Lott made a serious error in his analysis of the data. Crime normally goes in cycles. Near the top of the cycle, more people feel threatened and feel the need to get carry permits. The crime rate, however, goes down naturally, whether or not the carry permits are issued. Thus the relationship that Lott finds between carry permits and violent crime rates may be bogus. It may only appear that there is a relationship.
There are many other problems with Lott's study (e.g., the data was gathered for other purposes and in widely variable fashion, the definition of crimes varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the information gathered varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, etc.). I believe Lott tried to do a competent job, but I doubt he could do much with the way he approached the subject. I agree, a prospective longitudinal study is what should have been done.

John Lott has done the entire country a service by eliminating the "he said - she said" rhetoric between gun rights and gun control advocates and providing us with clear and substantiated documentation. He has shown without a doubt that the presence of firearms, and specifically concealed handguns, has a dramatic impact in the reduction of violent crime.

I read this book , here in Brazil.I'm an agronomist(jobless) and I like to read books.

The main idea of this book is simple.When the citizens have more guns, they become more safe and free.The so called "politically correct" puts this book and this believe, in a devilish thinking.

Well, here in Brazil, we have terrible and draconian gun-control laws.Every year, there's more selling of air travels Brazil-Japan, than gun's sells to brazilian population.To have the right to carry any gun, is so dificult, that there's LESS than 1 to more than 2,000,000 souls in Brazil.To buy any ammunition is a nightmarish task, full of burocracy and dozens of papers.Almost all brazilian gun-shops are over.

The result is that there's MORE crimes in Brazil, than any other coountry in the world.Iraq has LESS crime than Brazil.Venezuela who has gun control laws similars to Brazil's laws, also has big crime rates.Argentine and Uruguay, who have more liberal gun-control laws also have less crime than Brazil or Venezuela.

This book shows that main victims of gun-control, in USA, were the poors, women, old people and colored people.This is the same who happens , here in Brazil and in everyplace and everytime.The criminals aren't heroes robbering from the richs and giving goods , to the poors.They robber and muder, exactly the poors and powerless people.This is right both in USA as in Brazil and everyplace in the world.When the bigoted government stoles the right to have/carry guns, the criminals, not the good people have advantages.My congratulations to the author of this excellent book.

I just can't say enough about this book. It is fantastic! I wish I knew more about statistics than computer science after reading this one. Professor Lott will make a convert of anyone who reads this one.... That's why the anti-gun lobby is working so hard to keep everyone from reading it. Read this one as soon as possible, then pass it on to a friend.

This in a massively researched tome useful for those who wish to debate the merits of gun ownership. For those on the other side of the ideological spectrum, it should be read to gauge where the intellectual currency of the anti-gun control crowd is. Put emotions aside and those who honestly and sincerly believe that it is in the best interests of society that guns are destructive to a society will be able to balance the duties of citizenship. As a gun-owner I feel that this book provides an important service.

I'm an American student studying in Spain and I can tell you that Prof. Lott's book completely overlooks a basic fact that most of the rest of the world seems to understand: more guns DO NOT mean less crime, they mean more firearm fatalities. This book is a perfect example of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Here in Spain (and France) guns are strictly regulated. Consequently, random shootings are extremely rare. Lott's ¨mass public shootings¨, like the school massacre near Denver, are unheard of. If the kids all watch the same movies, read the same books and play the same video games, can anyone tell me what the difference is? You don't have to be a ¨scholar¨ like Prof. Lott to know the answer to that one.
I enjoyed the many reviews here because they all basically say the same things: the books presents the ¨facts¨ while anyone who criticizes it is wrong and can only offer ¨ad hominem¨ attacks at the author. Not true. From my point of view, the reader from Michigan offered the most incisive and detailed critique of the book. Who addressed those arguments? I sense that the people who really enjoyed this book never really thought about its conclusions, but were just happy to read a college professor making all their progun arguments. For every John R. Lott, there must be a dozen scholars refuting his claims. What about their work?
I understand that Prof. Lott is now working on a study that suggests that school shootings actually occur less frequently in ¨shall issue¨ states. Yeah, like in Kentucky, Arkansas, Oregon, Georgia, etc. I'm sure this will be another compendium of ¨facts¨ that just happen to support the NRA's stale arguments.
A boneheaded book.

The only significant difference between this edition and
the first edition is the addition of chapter 9, where Lott
updates some of his results and responds to the extensive
criticism of the first edition.
I've already posted a review of the first edition, and mentioned
two serious flaws, so to get a feel for how Lott does in his
new chapter, we can look at how he addresses these two criticisms.
First, that Lott used two exit polls to estimate gun ownership
even though dozens of other polls and guns sales statistics contradicted his results.
Lott responds in section 9.9, but fails to give any reason
why his polls should be regarded as better than all the other
ones.
Second, Kleck's critique that the change in the number of
people carrying was too small to have produced the result Lott
observed. Lott respond to this one twice, in section 9.7 and
again in section 9.14 (misattributing the Kleck quote to me
in that section). Even with two goes at it, Lott does not
have a good response. In 9.7 he offers an "explanation" of
Kleck's position that completely misses the point. Things
get worse in section 9.14. Lott asserts that the survey results
(given in Kleck's "Point Blank") on gun carrying include mere
transportation and not just carrying for protection. Lott's
assertion can easily be seen to be false by anyone who looks
at Kleck's book. Then Lott makes the bizarre assertion that
it is misleading to look at current permit rates because more
people might get permits in the future. However, Lott believes
that the current low permit rate caused relatively large decreases in crime, so the future rates, whatever they might be
are not relevant.
In summary, Lott has not fixed the problems with the first
edition, so my rating has not changed.

This is an excellent book filled with accurate and informative data. Dr. Lott's opinions are factually based and derived. Americans should savor such excellent efforts by our educational faculties to present unbiased examinations of our cultures important issues.

I found out about this book from a friend and read it with great interrest. I never realized just how wrong gun control advocates were.
The author used data straight from the government and showed that by allowing law abiding citizens to excercize their god-given right to self defense using hand guns, you reduce overall crime.
Some of the data is difficult for the lay-person to understand, but this can be overcome by reading the synopsis offered by the author.

This book backs what common sense would expect. If people take the responsibility for their own protection, we will all be better off [safer]. To some that makes perfect sense, to others it takes this proof. There will be those who will find fault in the conclusion, not because it is not true, but because they don't LIKE that conclusion.
I Loved the book and recommend it to anyone considering work as a legislator!

Thank heavens PRofessor Lott has finally talked some sense! But he doesn't go far enough with his argument. I believe the only way to stop school shootings is to let children carry firearms to school to protect themselves. After all, the Constitution bestows rights upon citizens, and even if you're in kindergarten you're still a citizen. Anything less than that is age discrimination! Glock and Sig Sauer could come out with smaller 9 mm handgun models, in the colors of their favorite Wobbles or Thomas the Train character, that would fit snugly in tiny hands. Then they'd need training: let's say the NRA Eddie Eagle program to start! And we all know that children can be trained to use firearms effectively--look at Joseph Kony! His Lord's Resistance Army is full of children. Taking kids to the range will teach them responsibility, and how to count!

I found this book very useful. It is packed full of data and support for the methods used to obtain the data. This book is for the person who craves logical support for the gun rights position. The material presented is quite dense and not for the casual reader.

To those esteemed reviewers bringing up other factors: they are outside the scope of the book. For instance, crime in NH is VERY low and yet many people have firearms, and many people have CCW permits. Japan has a very high suicide rate and few firearms. Israeli chaperones carry guns on field trips: you don't see many people attacking them with firearms. Kenesaw, GA requires adult males to have firearms. No crime. It's not guns that are the cause of crime, it's people. Don't ban guns, ban people.

On an average day in the United States, guns kill some 100 unarmed citizens and are used in about 3000 serious crimes against unarmed citizens.

Imagine how low the numbers if the would be victim was an armed citizen and pulled out a glock.

As the stats from this book show the numbers would approach zero.

The Leftists want you to think that you will be safer if only the police and criminals carry weapons. Lott proves them wrong in a manner that even the most ardent Anti-American can't deny with a straight face.
You would not believe the extent the Left as gone to to keep you from reading this book - to include reviews by anti-freedom folks who have never read the book (e.g. Cato Institute).

The majority of social conditioning in this nation is contrary to the obvious that John Lott presents in his book. There are three kind of people in this world, predators, victims and the fortunate. Predators will always be with us--the unprincipled have always existed. Victims are the uneducated and unaware. The fortunate are neither of the above. They are the PREPARED.

Truly an educational book, fact driven and soundly researched. No wonder the gun control lobby hates him (it).

Despite the tables and tables of numbers, he doesn't prove his case. Most of his arguments are not based on the numbers he cites, but the anecdotes he used as examples. When he sites how much violence went down in states that adopted more liberal gun laws, he provides no statistical analysis of whether the change in those states is significantly different from what was happening in the country as a whole. For example, for several years he sites a significant decline in states with more liberal gun laws, but doesn't note, at the same time, that there was a comparable drop in the country as a whole.

This is a must have book, i think everybody that does care about the truth and the wright to have guns should read and more get their friends and relatives to read it too. Serious data and facts that smashes the myth about guns causing violence and crime.

This is a book that sends gun control advocates packing. Some of the statistical jargon is, I admit, over my head. But the conclusions are easy-to-read. The questions deserved to be asked, and Lott & Mustard bring shock and awe with their answers.

Nine more years of data in this third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime."

When I read the second edition eight years ago, I was pleased that John Lott's hypothesis of the mid-1990's had up held.

After all, it's just common sense that if a potential rapist thought a woman might be able to protect herself with a gun that he would be less likely to attack, being the cowards rapists are.

But the leap from common sense to policy formation sometimes takes facts.

Fortunately, this book is packed with them.

Besides showing that no state that has adopted right-to-carry legislation has seen any of the parade of horribles that opponents trot out occur, the data presented show that crime actually does decrease when people are allowed to carry firearms.

In my own state of Illinois, there was a member of the Armed Forces killed while sitting in the front row of the Northern Illinois University lecture hall when the shooter entered the stage from an outside door and started firing. Lott points out that campus security arrived in six minutes---faster than in any other mass shooting at an institution of higher learning---but that was still not good enough.

Maybe, had NIU not been a protection free zone, she (the soldier was a woman) and others would be alive today.

Perhaps the mayor of Washington, D.C., whom I understand is a fellow graduate of Oberlin College, will read the book and figure out that he could lower his city's crime rate by advocating something no good little Oberlin liberal would ever think would work...unless he or she actually was willing to follow data to their logical policy conclusions.

Not that I think my former legislative colleague, now mayor of Chicago, could make that leap, but, maybe, just maybe, the mayor of Washington can.

The rest of us who read this book will be armed with information to promote a logical "we can protect ourselves when the police aren't around, if policy-makers will let us" policy.

Incidentally, lower hurdles to get a license (in training and dollars) tend to result in larger drops in crime rates.

Lott's preface to this book is right: nearly a decade has passed since the most recent comprehensive look at effects of gun laws, a period in which fundamental changes have taken place, not least of which the sunset of an "assault weapon" federal law. Understanding the effects of these policy changes is critical, and his book covers it all. Good piece of work and very accessible material!

It's hard to tell whether or not the research done by Lott is fair or accurate (we all know how cigarette companies can massage data to show that smoking isn't dangerous)but the sad fact of the matter is that once you allow guns out into the general populace, which Americans have done exceptionally well, then to protect yourself against gun crime you need a gun yourself. this fact is made obvious by Lott. It's the same as the nuclear proliferation disease: if your neighbour has got a weapon and you don't trust your neighbour, and Lott proves that we certainly don't trust our neighbours in America, then you need to get the same weapon or better. So, yes, crime may be down but death by guns will still be extraordinarily high which Lott doesn't dwell upon. There are thousands of gun deaths in the States every year, a vast number of which are caused by "non-criminals" through mishandling, negligence, bad temper. No other developed country even comes close to the number of gun deaths of the States. The NRA is right. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. So the solution isn't to get rid of guns but to get rid of the American lust for killing.

John Lott is to be commended for this work. For those that believe this is "gun propaganda", you did not read this book with any kind of open mind. I feel sad that in this day and age, the ignorant have lost faith in their neighbor's trustworthiness and reliability. This book has restored my confidence that truth will win out, no matter what the liberals lie about next. I am amazed there is not more discussion about it in the main stream media. SHAME on them. Don't be ignorant! READ this book.

Astonished to read here a Japanese supporting the concealed handgun argument, and someone else afraid of "regressing" to the "disarmed society of Britain". How does the crime rate of those regressed states compare to Lott's model states, Arizona, Texas and Oklamaha? Probably couldn't fit them on the same graph.

John Lott's provocatively titled "More Guns: Less Crime" has attracted enormous media attention and has become a powerful rhetorical weapon in the hands of gun control opponents. However, his work is marred by poor statistical analysis and sloppy reasoning, and should not be a basis for public policy.
Lott argues that if most adult Americans were able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public, violent crime would fall. His reasoning is that criminals are calculating people who sit down and work out the benefits and costs of a potential criminal act; therefore, if they know that potential victims are likely to be carrying guns, they will be deterred from committing crimes against persons, and will switch to committing property crimes where they are less likely to encounter an armed victim. Lott then presents some extensive statistical analysis purporting to show that when jurisdictions around the US pass "shall issue" laws that enable most adults to carry concealed weapons in public, violent crime falls in those jurisdictions.
There are errors both in Lott's reasoning and in his statistical analysis. Even those lacking the technical training to evaluate the latter can see the error in the former. Lott looks at criminals from the perspective of the neoclassical economist, viewing people as always rational--they always act in their own self-interest, carefully weighing the costs and benefits of any possible action. But anyone familiar with violent crime knows that much of it is extremely impulsive. For example, nearly half of all murders take place as a result of arguments or brawls, situations where people are hardly taking rational account of costs and benefits of their actions.
Turning to Lott's evidence, you see that he tries to calculate the effect of passing "shall-issue" type laws on crime by using data from every county in the US to conduct what is called a multivariate regression analysis--a technique used by social scientists to analyze complex sets of data. It is this regression analysis that is the basis for the "more guns, less crime" conclusion. Such conclusions, however, are valid only if the analysis they are based on is valid, and there are several problems with Lott's analysis, three of which I want to outline.
1. The Robbery Problem. Lott is studying the effects of "shall-issue" laws, which affect the ability of people to carry guns in public, not to have them in their homes. Logically, the greatest impact of these laws should be on robbery, which of the four main categories of violent crimes (the others are murder, rape and assault) is the most likely to occur away from the home in a public place, and which is also the most likely to occur as a result of advance planning. In fact, Lott finds that the impact of shall-issue laws on robbery rates is far smaller than on other violent crimes. This result is inconsistent with the deterrence theory he is proposing and suggests that there is something seriously wrong with his statistical analysis.
2. The Adult/Juvenile Homicide Problem. Lott's analysis makes no distinction between murders of adults and juveniles. His logic, however, suggests that the effect of shall-issue laws should be greater on adult homicides than on juvenile homicides. Since the laws allow adults only to carry concealed weapons, from the criminal's viewpoint, any adult is potentially defended, but juveniles are protected only when in the company of adults. However, when Professor Jens Ludwig redid Lott's analysis looking at adult and juvenile homicides separately, he found that shall-issue laws lead to an increase in adult homicides.
3. The Stranger Homicide Problem. A similar problem exists when homicides are broken down by the relation of offender and victim. Lott's logic suggests that "shall issue" laws should have a greater effect on "stranger" homicides, than on homicides where offender and victim are related, because someone intending to kill a family member will likely know whether their victim is armed, while someone killing a perfect stranger will not. But Albert Alschuler has found that this is not the case; once again, the data contradict Lott's logic.
It is true, as Lott's defenders will protest, that he attempts to respond in his book to some of these criticisms as well as others that I did not have space to review. However, like his analysis, his counterarguments are unconvincing. For example, on the adult/juvenile issue, he merely argues that juveniles are protected by the presence of adults in public, ignoring the fact that, as I noted, juveniles are protected only when in the company of a (potentially armed) adult, while adults are protected all the time.
Readers may ask why, if Lott's work is so badly flawed, have so many people accepted it. Part of the reason seems to me to be the psychological effect it has on gun control opponents. The strongest argument in favor of gun control is, clearly, that it would save countless lives. Lott's book allows opponents of gun control to pose as the true "life-savers," enabling them to feel better about themselves. This attitude can be detected in many of the favorable reviews of Lott's book posted here.

When I sat down to read the book I discovered that the first 34 pages were missing. Looks to be a quality control issue. The book did not appear to be damaged, it looked likes the pages were never included.

While this topic is difficult to teach, and the rhetoric often deteriorates to amazingly low levels in public discussions, it is an important one. I want to alert people to another Univ of Chicago Law & Econ prof (Duggan) whose research on guns and crimes is just being published. His analysis comes to the opposite conclusion from Lott. Duggan not only analyses the data in a more fair and comprehensive way, but he also shows how Lott's methodological individualism leads Lott to several untenable but crucial assumptions.

The only weak point in this book is that the research on which it is based has been thoroughly debunked. Other than that, it's great....The 1998 book is based on a 1996 study conducted by the author. The conclusion of that study was that states that loosened their concealed carry laws experienced a drop in violent crime because they led to an increased number of armed citizens.
Consider that a 1999 analysis of crime statistics conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) demonstrates that allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The Center found that, as a group, states that rely on permissive concealed weapons laws as a crime fighting strategy had a significantly *smaller drop in crime* than states which looked to other means to combat crime rather than make it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit. This finding directly contradicts Lott's prediction.
In the 29 states that have lax concealed weapons laws (as Lott advocates and states will decrease crime), the crime rate fell 2.1% from 1996-7. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%. So states that defied Lott's advice experienced TWICE the reduction in crime as those who believed his research conclusions.
Furthermore, according to the CPHV analysis, violent crime actually *rose* in 12 of 29 states (41%) which loosened their concealed carry laws over the five years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which did not change their concealed carry laws. The disparity in the decline is even more obvious for rates of gun violence. From 1992 to 1997 the violent crime rate in states with prohibitive concealed weapons laws *fell 24.8%* while the violent crime rate for states with permissive concealed carry laws dropped 11.4%. Nationally the violent crime rate fell 19.4%. So while national gun crime rates were going down, states that followed Lott's conclusions experienced HALF the drop experienced overall. States that ignored him experieced a 50% higher drop.
The unavoidable explanation of these observations, for all but the most blindly partisan gun advocates is that Lott is totally wrong. His predictions are nice but less likely to be right in real life than your horoscope. The simple truth, as illustrated by the above statistics, is that allowing thousands of ill-trained citizens to carry guns everywhere they go (as Lott advocates) has no positive effect on the crime rate.
Lott writes on page 153 of this book: "For a critic to attack the paper, the correct approach would have been to state what variables were not included in the analysis." Good advice, Mr. Lott. Critics of Lott's study have identified a number of factors that affect crime rates, but which Lott failed to address in his research. Examples include changes in how the police go about their business (e.g., implementation of community policing, and crime-mapping techniques used by some police departments), changes in poverty levels, gang activity, maturation of the drug market, and other changes in gun laws.
Most important, in a paper published in the Journal of Legal Studies (January 1998), Dan Black and Daniel Nagin used a well known, formal statistical test that proved that Lott failed to include a number of important variables in his study. On the basis of this and other findings, Drs. Black and Nagin, along with Professor Jens Ludwig, concluded that "there is absolutely no credible evidence to support the idea that permissive concealed-carry laws reduce violent crime," and that "it would be a mistake to formulate policy based on the findings from Dr. Lott's study."
To this day, John Lott has failed to provide any statistical evidence of his own that counters Black and Nagin's finding that Lott's conclusions are inappropriately attributed to changes in concealed carry laws. I submit that this is partly because he can't and partly because he does not need to. The gun advocates of our country are not concerned with evidence. Their views need no external validation and are subject to no external challenge. So Lott need not even justify such challenge with a response.

This book is in many ways a landmark effort and I recommend it to scholars who are doing a lit review on the gun wars. However, I cannot recommend it to the average reader who is simply looking for a clear statement on the current state-of-the-art. It gives a false picture.

If you haven't had a course in advanced statistics you will not be able to comprehend the study itself and will be dependent on the author's interpretation of the data. And there's the rub. Lott's credibility as a disinterested scientist has been severely eroded by his constant clamor for more hidden guns in practically all situations. He advocates concealed weapons for everybody, from high school teachers to airline passengers. He refers in this book to how the Israelis have been able to control terrorism with hidden guns. Yes, I said the Israelis. In my opinion, he has lost all credibility as a serious social scientist. He has become a spokesperson for the armaments industry and the gun lobby.

The easiest way to summarize the collapse of Lott's thesis is to look at the findings by the National Research Council, which is a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. It sets the gold standard for scientific rigor and integrity. They convened a fifteen member blue-ribbon panel to study the relationship between concealed weapons and crime (Firearms and Violence, 2005). Specifically, they examined the works of Lott and his critics. They found that the scientific evidence does not show a significant relationship between concealed carry (CCW) legislation and crime rates. In other words, John Lott's thesis of more guns less crime is wrong!

Fabricated evidence in the first edition, cited as "national survey" which the author admitted could not be sourced, see Adam Winkler in "Gunfight". Author was also a Olin Foundation recipient, a paleo-conservative foundation. This being the third edition, I'm hopeful that these errors were corrected but I'm not sure, hence the one star.

Author fails to correlate socioeconomics with gun homicides per capita. Sure, when compared with Nigeria or El Salvador, our gun-homicide rate looks average. But when compared with the top 30 high-wealth countries, the USA has over 25x more gun-caused homicides than the average 30 countries (per capita). 25X!! The USA has 5% of the world's population, but 31% of the mass shooting deaths. Sorry NRA. The issue is not black and white. We need far tighter gun controls, while respecting the intent of the 2nd amendment.

The most flawed book ever. Its more like the Bible for gun owners with every terrible flaw in it, but most not seeing them. The whole basis on this book is that apparently all criminals are terrified of guns and will apparently wet themselves when they see one. And somehow having an area flooded with guns will make all crime magically disappear.

If this was true. I guess my little town would have long since fallen to a lawless city over run by criminals as a city like Milwaukee and Chicago are to be safe havens where criminals are terrified to enter. Guess what, reality doesn't always work the way you want it to. You have people shooting people to steal their guns. This hardly sounds like criminals are these scared little girls as the book wants to paint them to be.

I would strongly encourage readers of this book - and John Lott - to get on a plane and see how other democratic nations operate in terms of gun control. Lott's claims, for those living outside the US, and many who live in it, are simply ridiculous. Fatalities from firearms in my own country of Australia, as well as New Zealand, Britain, France (and many more) are so much lower than for the US that it makes me wonder whether Lott has ever been outside of America and seen the evidence of firearms restrictions around the rest of the world. Most democratic nations do not consider a 'right to bear arms' as legitimate in civil society, and they are rewarded for this view by living in a society with a very small number of fatalities through gun use. If the right to bear arms leads to less crime and a safer society then the Wild West must have been a model of politeness and non-violence. Yeah right. Please, read the book if you wish to, but then go somewhere with stricter gun contols and see for yourself how wrong Lott is.

Borrowed this from a friend, but saw another's review and it reminded me why I had a hard time finishing it: " Lott's research, as the title of his book suggests, is dedicated to proving that more guns in more hands reduces violent crime. In the wake of Newtown, that means guns in teachers' hands, and an end to the gun-free zones that he says make schools "a magnet for these attacks." But Lott's research has always been problematic. For starters, he's a lousy data analyst. Lott allowed Professors Dan Black and Daniel Nagin to reevaluate his data for their 1998 inquiry into the effects of concealed-carry laws on violent crime rates. Their findings, published in the Journal of Legal Studies in 1998, blew a hole in his: "Our reanalysis of Lott and [co-author David] Mustard's data provides no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry"" laws on violent crime," they wrote. "As a result, inference based on the zLott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy." Four years later, Ian Ayres of Yale and John J. Donohue III of Stanford Law gave his scholarship an even more vicious debunking.

If you are considering buying this book, please look up the MANY scholarly articles refuting the data analysis that is the foundation for it. Simply put, there are GROSS mathematical errors that make any interpretation or conclusions the author draws useless and irrelevant.

Dear US readers, just consider: in a single week more people are killed by guns in the US than are killed in a whole year in all of Western Europe. In the USA out of 285 million citizens, 13752 were killed with guns during the year 2001. In Germany, in the same year the number was 381 out of 82 million inhabitants. In the UK 68 persons out of 60 millions. Not to speak of Japan. Most US citizens living there feel like reborn for the lack of fear of crime and guns. Criminological analysis shows that there is a strong correlation between the density of gun ownership in a population and homicide against women (this is mainly because women are killed more often at home and the availability of a gun at home is a crucial factor in the offender's decision making process). It is less strong for male victims (mainly because they get killed in other situations). By the way, there is even a stronger link between availability of guns and the suicide rate.
Lott's book is written from a frog-eyes perspective. Besides being methodologically questionnable even from within the frog's paradigm, it fails completely in considering the wider framework.

MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME: A LESSON ON HOW NOT TO DO RESEARCH
Edward Green
Professor Emeritus, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Eastern Michigan University
Does allowing upright citizens to carry concealed weapons really reduce crime rates, as John R. Lott, Jr. declares in his controversial book, More Guns, Less Crime ? Although critics on both sides of the gun controversy have furiously debated Lott�s research, no reviewer yet has noted the glaring error in the manipulation of the data that totally invalidates his findings and conclusions. Lott�s numbers just don�t add up, and it doesn�t require a dissection of his opaquely designed multiple regression analysis to make the point; a simple spreadsheet with all of numbers out in the open will do.
We begin by noting that Lott identifies three categories of gun law jurisdictions. Thirty-one states, labeled nondiscretionary , require the issuance of concealed handgun licenses to any law-abiding citizen who applies for one. Twelve states leave it to officials, on a discretionary basis, to grant or deny applications for licenses. Seven states and the District of Columbia , l;abeled forbidding, allow only law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns.
Lott claims that if the nineteen states and District of Columbia, jurisdictions that either restrict of forbid the licensing of handguns, would follow the lead of the thirty-one nondiscretionary, they would enjoy a significant reduction in crime rates. In defining the base from which that reduction is calculated, Lott makes a critical error. He writes on page 51, �In 1992 the following numbers were reported: 18,469 murders; 79,272 rapes; 538,368 robberies; and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties without nondiscretionary laws.� (States, not counties, it should be noted, determine gun licensing rules.)
By reference to the source of Lott�s data on crime, Uniform Crime Reports, 1992, one can readily calculate that Lott got it all wrong, that the correct numbers for states without the discretionary rule are much lower: 12,597 murders, 53,662 rapes, 429,151 robberies, and 528,126 aggravated assaults.
In other words, by Lott�s account, the nineteen states and District of Columbia, without the nondiscretionary rule, comprising 50 percent of the nation�s population, contribute 77 percent of all murders, 73 percent of rapes, 80 percent of robberies, and 53 percent of aggravated assaults. It follows then, that the counties of the thirty-one nondiscretionary states, containing the other half of the nation�s population, produce only about one-quarter of all violent crime. � 23 percent of murders, 27 percent of rapes 20 percent of robberies, and 47 percent of aggravated assaults. Our spreadsheet informs us that, Lott�s numbers are wrong. The correct proportions for the nondiscretionary states are: murder, 47 percent; rape, 51 percent; robbery, 36 percent; and aggravated assault, 47 percent � in all, a more balanced distribution between the nondiscretionary and other states.. Manifestly the crimes of many of the counties in the nondiscretionary states were shifted into the totals for the discretionary and forbidding states; but which counties were misplaced?
The search for an answer begins by noting that Lott identifies three sub-groups of nondiscretionary states, differentiated by information as to the time when they adopted the right to carry rule. Prior to 1985 only eight states had laws, stretching back for decades, granting citizens who meet nominal standards of responsibility the unconditional right to carry concealed handguns One group of ten states adopted nondiscretionary laws during that period, with the various dates of adoption specified by Lott. Thirteen other states adopted right-to-carry rules since 1985, with date of adoption unspecified by Lott. Again, checking our spreadsheet, it can be determined that the gap between Lott�s count and my count of the amount of crime in counties without the nondiscretionary rule is filled almost exactly by the count of crime in the group of thirteen states with the date of adoption of the nondiscretionary rule unspecified. Simply put. Lott has detached the crime data of thirteen nondiscretionary states and added them to the total of states without the nondiscretionary rule.
The effect of this statistical gaffe is to skew the results in favor of Lott�s hypothesis. My spread sheet shows that the rate of violent crime for all thirty-one of the nondiscretionary states is 669. If the thirteen states in question, with a rate of 1110 are removed, the rate for the remaining eighteen states is a very low 327.
An indication that the misplacement of the thirteen nondiscretionary states corrupts other parts of Lott�s research is evident in his discussion of the effect of the type of gun law on accidental handgun deaths. The base from which he makes his calculation of the number of additional deaths is the �º186 million people living in states without concealed handgun laws in 1992.� (p. 112) The actual number, based on Lott�s assignment of states into the different gun law groups, is 139,888,000.
A suspicion that the same erroneous transfer of data also infects Lott�s finding of reductions in crime rates after the adoption of right to carry laws is confirmed by a number of tests I performed, and most critically in tests using states without the nondiscretionary rule as control groups. The results are quite consistent: States which restrict the issuance of licenses to carry concealed guns display a better record in controlling rates of violent crime than nondiscretionary states.
There remains a mystery: How did Lott investigate the effect of the adoption of the nondiscretionary rule in the eight states which had right to carry laws long before the time frame, 1977-1992, of his data-set?
Despite the astringent tone of my criticism, I would still recommend the book to students of research evaluation, particularly in criminology and criminal justice, as an object lesson in the consequences of not paying attention to mundane detail.

This is replicated in both Constitution and Second Amendment.

And, even right wing darling Scalia states the fact, the evidence being overwhelming, the gun control is CONSTITUIONAL. See your favorite Scalia-authored SC decision, "Heller," which none of your ravers have actually read. But you've not read the Constitution yet either.
_____

At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.

Chap. XII.

An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.

I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.

"A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters" (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); "The First Laws of the State of Virginia" (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.

People on both sides of this issue like to point to "studies" that support their views. And then they argue ad nauseum over all those studies and get nowhere. All of that is missing the forest for the trees. In order to make progress, in order to form coherent policies, we have to address the fundamental questions.

There are three basic camps of people who want to own guns (I will not include groups that are required to use guns in their professions, such as law enforcement, military, security, body guards, mafia, criminals, etc.). First, there are the hunters and recreational users. Second, there are people who feel they need guns for self-protection against criminals. Third, there are people who feel they need protection against a tyrannical government.

Lott focuses on the second group, arguing for armed protection against criminals. Indeed, the title of his book is "More Guns, Less Crime." The premise underlying Lott's entire argument is that there is an awful lot of crime and criminals we need to protect ourselves against. In other words, the level of crime in the US is so high that just about everyone needs to worry about it. Crime is a serious problem in the US, the richest nation in the history of the world. And not just any kind of crime, but specifically the violent types of crime. I doubt that Lott (or anyone else) would argue that a majority of law-abiding citizens should carry guns in order to protect ourselves against non-violent petty crimes.

Lott does not concern himself with any of the reasons why violent crime is such a serious problem in the US, nor does he seem interested in any effort to address the root causes of it. This is the elephant in the room, and Lott would no doubt prefer to shoot the elephant than talk about it. Instead, he seems to prefer what some might call a "direct approach." How do you fight violent crime? With guns, of course. The logic seems simple enough: Guns are the most direct and effective way to deal with violent criminals. Guns give law-abiding citizens a fighting chance against violent criminals. Moreover, if criminals know that a large percentage of potential victims carry guns, there will be a deterrent effect. How much of an effect is debatable and tricky to measure. A small, weak, peaceful woman can defend herself against a big, strong, violent rapist if she has a small handgun. The solution, or at least a mitigation, for all the violent crime in America is for the majority of law-abiding citizens to pack guns. It's so logical. And yet, it's so short-sighted, misguided, and illogical.

Criminals with guns will always have one key advantage over an armed population: the element of surprise, of being the first to pull the gun. Another advantage is that criminals are more likely to be habituated to violence, making them more rather than less likely to pull that trigger if they suspect that their intended victim is carrying a concealed gun. Moreover, if guns are such an effective deterrent, why do rival gangs engage in nonstop wars with each other?

I recall years ago reading a fascinating health report in which it was found that studies demonstrating benefits from calcium supplementation were flawed in some fundamental ways. The "benefit" was measured by comparing the daily amount of calcium ingested with the amount of calcium excreted. If more calcium was retained by the body than was lost, that was "good." If more calcium was lost than ingested, that was "bad." It was assumed that a net retention of calcium would translate to stronger, healthier bones. It turned out that calcium retention and excretion is extremely sensitive to our diet. Put simply: If we eat a lousy diet we lose a lot of calcium, and it takes a lot of supplementation to compensate. But if we accept the lousy diet as "normal," then we have studies which demonstrate that taking lots of calcium supplements is beneficial, even necessary. But this approach ignores the underlying causes of the calcium loss. A far better approach would be to adopt a healthy diet, making calcium supplements unnecessary. This approach would also make us healthier in many other ways as well.

Similarly, millions of Americans packing guns will not cure the disease of violent crime in America. If we accept violent crime as "normal," then perhaps some studies will demonstrate that "more guns" are beneficial to some degree. It might make some of the symptoms look better. Some studies may suggest a reduction in crime rates; there will be anecdotal stories about how guns prevented crimes. Other studies may focus on accidents, mishaps, misuse, irresponsibility and negligence. Some people might try to do a meta-analysis of all these studies to create a comprehensive big-picture report or a granular breakdown. But if anyone imagines that millions upon millions of Americans packing guns is a cure for what ails our society, they are missing the forest for the trees. Guns are like calcium supplements: They only seem to help a problem.

How many of us want to live in a society in which it is necessary for most of us to carry guns in order to protect ourselves against pervasive violent crime? I want to take steps toward building a society in which people don't need to carry guns. I want to be able to walk in my city without having to worry about being attacked by violent criminals. As crazy as it sounds, I think such a society is possible. We have had such societies in the past. Even today there are safe communities in the US, and in other countries. This is not a pie-in-the-sky liberal fantasy. This "dream" is nothing more than a normal, rational society. I would say that any society which requires a majority of its citizens to carry guns in order to be safe is, by definition, a dysfunctional, broken, and irrational society. At that point it's time to start addressing root problems.

It's not rocket science: Middle-class communities with good schools and job opportunities do not suffer from significant rates of violent crime. Bigger picture: Societies that focus on character, working together, and humanism have less crime than societies that focus on competition, money status, materialism, consumerism, and sex, sex, sex. I suppose I should also mention that any society which regards guns as a necessary "accessory" for ordinary citizens is a society focused on a poisonous degree of fear.

If some people want to own guns for protection until we solve the root problems, that's fine. If some of those guns accidentally injure or kill innocent people they'd better be prepared to pay big penalties. But it's ridiculous for us to talk about guns as if they are a key component of a solution for the root problems.

There is nothing stopping people from owning guns for self-protection. Obama, whom some of you call "that liberal fascist," has no interest in taking away your guns. Some of you act as if you fear Obama more than you fear all the violent criminals. I grant that there is (and always will be) some ignorant talk about so-called "assault weapons" bans, but we all know that's going nowhere. And even if, somehow, Congress succeeds in limiting clips to ten rounds, don't try to tell me you won't be able to protect yourself against criminals. If you want a gun, shut up already and get a gun. Once you have your gun, how about talking about what we can do to build a safe and sane society? Or do you think that a high level of violent crime and a majority of people carrying guns is "normal"?

Not all gun regulations are bad. Use your head, otherwise we just hurt our cause.
"It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun."
- Ronald Reagan *endorsing* the Brady handgun control bill, at a March 1991 event commemorating 10th anniversary of the assassination attempt.

I was completely persuaded by this book when I read it over ten years ago. It seemed irrefutable. Then I read about his 1997 hard drive crash which wiped all the data he cited in his book, so he couldn't demonstrate his work to other scholars. Then I read other scholars reviewing the same types of data that Lott claimed that he used for his analysis. Their analyses showed different conclusions. So in the end, it turns out this book proves nothing. Even though the central idea is logical that criminals would rather target people without guns than people with guns, Lott just doesn't prove it with review-able statistics, and his work is pretty much discredited by real academics. Potential purchasers should know that. They could also google "John Lott Mary Rosh" to discover a little about how controversial a character Lott is.

There is obviously no connection whatsoever between having a gun and shooting somebody. Just as there is also no connection whatsoever between not having a gun and not shooting somebody. And you'd be a fool or a communist to suggest otherwise.

I purchased kindle edition to use in cloud view (read on computer rather than a kindle). AFTER I made the purchase, I found the kindle version isn't available in the cloud viewer. Thanks for ripping me off, the store.

I think I should read this book. "This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime." I have always wondered why we Europeans drown in crime but there is pretty much no such thing here in the US?

Just from my personal observation:

32 years of living in Germany:
Burglaries experienced: 1
Murders heard about in city I lived in: 0
Fatal hit and run crimes heard about in city I lived in: 0
Property thefts experienced: 0

7 years of living in US:
Burglaries experienced: 1
Murders heard about in immediate neighborhood: 2
Fatal hit and run crimes heard about in city I lived in: too many to count
Property thefts experienced: 5 or more

I think I should also read, "More Cigarettes, Less Cancer," or, "More Pollution, Healthier Children."

The book is clearly a valuable addition to the debate, as it provides a solid analysis on the 'correlation" between gun possession and crime rates in the 'current' USA context. However, it ignores several important aspects of the discussion.

First, how to explain the vastly lower levels of both violent crime and gun ownership in Europe? Increased hand gun ownership among certain minority groups as been clearly reacted to increased rates of 'violent `crime.

Second, the public health issue. In 2004, a Harvard study showed "in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." [Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40]. An earlier 1998 study showed: out of 23 high-income countries, almost 80% of all handgun related deaths that occurred in those countries, occurred in the USA' [Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries, EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg. International Journal of Epidemiology 1998;27:214-221].
Handgun violence has a huge economic cost due to the large burden gun-related violence has on public health; countries with lower rates of handgun violence have lower rates of deaths, and less taxpayer dollars spent on crime-related injury.

Third, and to me the most important, is that this book assumes everyone is willing to own a gun, and willing to teach their children to kill. I am not. Many Americans are not. It is against our beliefs. We believe in the Rule of Law. By asking citizens to use guns, vigilantes flout the rule of law, and undermine all social institutions. Governmental institutions protect the rights of everyone to be "equal under the law". As flawed as they may be, I would rather spend my tax dollars to strengthen social institution, than to place the life and welfare of my family in the whims of anyone owning a gun.

In effect, gun-owners are saying to the rest of Americans that we must tolerate their single-minded exercise of one constitutional right, to the exclusion of all others, particularly our right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The more gun owners walking around, the more wary people will be about expressing and hold and express different unpopular viewpoints. Vigilantism is not American, it is anti-social, anti-society. It places the individual as judge, jury and executioner, and the gun-toting individual as the sole determinant of when to resort to violence to get someone to submit to their whims. I do not want my children raised in such an environment that disregards the rule of law, and makes a mocekry of the eentire constituitonal basis for our great republic. Gun-owners will have to decide if they want to become contributing members of the American Society, and work collectively with all Americans to ensure that everyone's full range of Constitutional rights are protected; or if they wish to continue down the road of vigilantism, undermining the rule of law and turning America into a lawless state where only those willing to kill have the right to free expression.

After 4 chapters (out of 10), I couldn't grind thru any more pages and gave up reading the book. For me, I was primarily in interested in the summary of what the data showed and the net conclusions. I'm not an economist nor a statistician. So, a deep detailed analysis of the data (validity, trends, variables, coefficients, correlations, deviations) just bored me to tears. Rather, I think such banal data minutiae should've been put in an appendice for reference if you really wanted to know the data details. The point of reading a book by an expert is so their expertise can simplify and summarize it for me, not require me to become an expert too.

Poorly researched and using fictional statistics, this book is a great example of how NOT to do research!

Look at the reviews here on the store, reviewers who highly rate the book provide no credentials while those who pan the book seem to represent experts in field.

Better put, if you already know all the answers and "won't let things like FACTS stand in your way," this book is for you. If you are a participant in the debate HONESTLY, regardless of side, this book should be avoided.

It should be noted that the National Academy of Sciences concluded that John Lott did not prove his point. Their conclusion: there is no proven correlation either way between crime and concealed carry laws.

From the NAS's Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review:

The literature on right-to-carry laws summarized in this chapter has obtained conflicting estimates of their effects on crime. Estimation results have proven to be very sensitive to the precise specification used and time period examined. The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces
crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-tocarry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

Wellford, Charles F, John Pepper, and Carol Petrie. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005. Internet resource. ISBN: 0309546400 9780309546409

It should also be noted that some of these favorable reviews were probably written by Lott himself. At one time he masqueraded as his fictitious ex-student, Mary Rosh, to endorse his own work. I do not know if he did this in drag, but it seems likely.

It takes a certain kind of brain to create a compelling-sounding argument out of a premise that utterly defies both history and basic logic. I will give Lott credit for that. But overall, the book is beyond ridiculous. This is too important a topic for such an idiotic contrarian stance.

It's very interesting to read this book. Lott writes about statistics as though he were washing his hands, and all is very "scientific" and detached. He will bring out stats, for example, as to whether the Brady Law has affected crime rates or whether the amount of training and age of being able to carry a gun makes a difference in the statistics of crime. I agree that science is needed. There's just one problem Lott doesn't address and this is of paramount importance, and that's why we have the horrendous rates of violence in the first place in America. He can write all he wants about how conceal and carry is most important in areas where a high black population exists, but that doesn't address the issue of why we have such high rates of violence in those areas. Until he gets to the root of that question, Lott's book, which appears to be deep with all its use of statistics, is all surface and no substance; all numbers and no heart.

John Lott is a first class wack job. His research is questionable and he even invented a person (a woman named Mary Rosh) to defend him on various websites and blogs. How sad is that?

Hey John, FYI guns kill innocent people.

I believed his facts when I first read them. But I now realize he is a shill. He consistently cherry-picks data and misrepresents facts. I went through that in detail in his most recent political book coauthored with Grover Norquist.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/12/18/assault-death-rates-in-america-some-follow-up/

Just look at the graph. One of Mr. Lott's primary claims is that when guns are controlled other assaults rise.
Somebody is lying. I don't think that it's Kieran Healy.

Well, if you want to read a book by an author that has been debunked, this is your book. He has lied on air and manipulated data. Not only that, but he has also make-up non-existing data. There are literally dozens of examples, with citations, online. He gives empirical research a bad name. It is no wonder the general public has little trust in research with individuals like Lott pretending to complete research.

Research can be manipulated to prove any hypothesis that you chose to prove. According to FBI statistics, 67.5% of homicides are by gun which doesn't include accidents or natural causes. The Harvard School of Public Health has shown through survey data on rates of household gun ownership, the is an association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. They also analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period. Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of UNINTENTIONAL gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides homicides.

From the Denver Post 7/1/2008
The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for about 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year. Gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the past 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 2.6 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Read more: Gun owners more often kill themselves than others - The Denver Post [...]
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content:[...]
Anyone can validate reasons why they should be or should not be allowed to do anything. All that I know is that owning a gun doesn't make you safer. It puts you and your loved ones at a greater risk of dying. All you have to do is read the newspaper or take a look at the world around you. Guns rarely save people from a surprise attack but people do end up surprisingly dead from improper storage, gun accidents, suicides, mental instability, etc.

In America we must have a license and insurance to drive a car. Why because it puts others at risks. Well so do guns. It is sad that a deadly weapon is monitored less than the female reproductive system, driving, alcohol purchases and consumption, cigarette purchases and even prescription medication.

In an ideal situation, yes a gun could save a person's life, but let's be honest who's life goes the way it is printed in books! There is a name for such situations... Fairytale endings!

This book is a clear lie, and has been disproven by numerous other researchers:
1. A 2010 Yale study revisited Lott & Mustard's analysis, and the NRC findings which overturned Lott's findings, and corrected errors in both studies, and extended the timeline to more current years. Their major conclusion is: "Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime". The document can be read here:
[...]
2. The international data comparisons between U.S. and other OECD countries clearly shows more guns in U.S. mean MORE firearm deaths. See the charts here, and in related studies: [...]
3. None of the independent Gallup, L.A. Times, and Peter Hart Research polls which Lott cited supported his defensive gun use claims.
4. There was no data collection done to support the defensive gun use claims in this book. See pp 76-77 of Gun Fight by Adam Winkler, UCLA professor.

Mr. Lott does a great job of presenting tons of statistics. The problem is that the statistics are very selective and don't give true causal relevance. Have a true statistician, who isn't pro- or anti-gun control, review the methodology Mr. Lott uses to "prove" his point and you might be surprised at their opinion.

The most important thing to remember about violent criminals is that they are not acting rational. They do not say "wow, I'm not going to rape/murder/rob someone because they might have a gun." If that were the case, then murder in states with a death penalty would be lower than other states. Check the facts...they're not. Laws are enough to deter a rational person from committing an unlawful act. So adding another type of "deterrence" such as concealed weapons only adds one more variable to an irrational situation. Not the recent situation in Florida with an armed citizen being the aggressor. He had a carry permit. He decided to force the issue with an unarmed teenager and he killed him. Remember that the teenage did nothing illegal.

Ultimately, Mr. Lott does not address the core issue which is mental health. Rational people don't commit violent crimes. And un-rational people, by definition, don't think rationally.

This American argues using very selective data that guns reduce crime. It is a curious fact that countries such as Australia and Western Europe have little access to guns yet their murder rate is far less???!!! Statistical analysis will show that countries that have less guns have lower murder rates, additionally the highest gun ownership states,the southern states for instance have the highest murder rates.

However guns alone do not predetermine high homicide rates.

Switzerland and Canada have high per capita ownership of firearms, Switzerland has a defense policy based on it's neutrality that requires households to have access to military firearms. Yet their murder rate is one third yours, Canada's is MUCH LOWER. This US problem is not simply access to firearms, an objective analysis would show this. Some Americans would state that it is because of the melting pot of USA, racial friction etc. However Australia and Canada as well as Israel have a very ethically mixed population, yet there homicide rates are far less. If it is due to racial factors, then this may be more related to the hard segregating and alienating nature of the US economic-cultural system.

Conservatives will state that violent crime has decreased in America, yes it has but only by hiding the problem. You have three times the number of people in prison than say Australia, on a per capita basis and yet your homicide rate is still many times greater. In a number countries the differential is vastly greater.

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - there are 89 guns for every 100 Americans, compared to 6 in England and Wales. And the murder figures themselves are astounding for the British are used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.

Some say that video games and TV are to blame, yet statistically speaking violent crime has not increased in Europe to justify this claim, and they have access to these technologies. In fact this is a bogus argument since if you compare violent crime rates of the USA in the 30's and 20's, before the age of video games. Your murder rate was actually higher.

GUNS ARE A PERMANENT FACET OF AMERICAN LIFE.

Guns will always be prevalent in America for the following reasons:

1, It is heavily indoctrinated in American culture:

The above can be summarized as the following, American distrust of government, reliance on force for survival and advancement in the early days of settlement and the belief of the independence of the individual, his right of self -determination. Has led to an understandable great attachment to the gun. This is also combined with a fear element, since the only way to protect yourself in a gun infested culture THAT IS VIOLENT, is to own a gun.

Guns are also seen as means of conflict resolution particularity in the South. The South due to complicated cultural reasons is far more violent that the North. Texas and Tennessee have far higher homicides rates that the North-east. The gun is the tool of expression of masculinity and violent expression. In Britain they settled a dispute with a punch-up, in the South more violent means have been conditioned into their psyche. To deprive a man of a gun in these parts is almost equivalent to castrating him.

2, Powerful gun lobbies have tremendous influence and control. And the US governmental system is heavily influenced by powerful lobby groups, big money and connections rule.

3, Political methodology of division and polarization which is used to great effect by conservatives. The conservatives win over much of the American South and Midwest by appealing to these conservative social values. These values include the following: abortion, security, religion and gun ownership. In this way they gain these peoples support, while distracting them from other conservative fiscal polices that for many of these blue collar types, are unfavorable. This is a very effective strategy.

4, Saturation of the nation with firearms. There are 220 million firearms in the USA, so many that if there was a ban, you would never get rid of them anyway. There are just too many available. Additionally, such is the love of firearms in your nation due to cultural conditioning, that such a ban would simply lead to a renaissance in organized crime as seen in the prohibition era.

5, The right to bare guns is part of the Constitution of America, a Constitution that Americans love as much as the Bible. This constitution is almost impossible to change.

Hollywood is not to blame, after reviewing the statistics and comparing other countries that are also exposed to these films. Such criticism is unwarranted and is just another tool of the conservative establishment to polarize America. However Hollywood should have some control, because an anything goes approach would probably be detrimental.

The only way Americans can defend themselves in such an environment is to have armed security guards at all Schools, Malls, Universities etc, with a rehearsed plan of action. This will act as a deterrent and increase response time. You have fire drills , you should have gunman drills as well.

Practiced by professionals not the general public, if the general public especially children practiced such drills it would have a detrimental psychological effect, the cost would be greater than the gain. However, staff should have an established plan of action.

Some object to the cost of this, 6 billion a year by some estimates, but for a nation that has wasted 3 trillion on silly wars of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, AND WHAT SUCCESSFUL NATION BUILDING IT HAS BEEN!, this argument seems weak.

In chief kill zones like lecture halls, schools etc, having security on hand is viable, true you cannot protect every street corner but in you can reduce the risk in especially vulnerable areas as described above.

(However an economic rationalist would examine the data and determine that only about 50 people a year are killed by DERANGED gunmen in mass situations and that a cost of 6 billion would not be justified on a cost benefit basis.)

This is what D.H. Lawrence said of Americans, while it may be an excessively hard assessment, however there is a degree of truth within the statement:

"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic and a killer."

Your capitalistic, individualistic culture has a lot of strengths, but with every strength comes a weakness. Alienation and selfishness is just two of them.

The United States has by far the highest per capita gun murder rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.

oh by the way, I know the red necks who read this book and write most of the reviews for this work will not like what I have written. Stiff the truth is the truth. For non-red neck readers I apologize, I know that from the polls 40-50 percent of Americans don't like the high availability of guns in your country.

ADDITION: THE REAL FACTS

Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Homicide

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

GUNS AND SELF-DEFENSE MYTH

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate's new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. [...]

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

ON THE ROAD, GUN OWNERS

1. Motorists with guns are more likely to act aggressively (Arizona)
Using data from a telephone survey in Arizona, we examined the relationship between road rage and gun carrying in motor vehicles. We found that self-reported hostile actions (e.g. obscene gestures, cursing or shouting, aggressively tailgating) were more common among men, young adults, and individuals who carried a firearm in their car.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Solop, Frederic I. Road rage in Arizona: Armed and dangerous? Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2002; 34:807-814.

2. Motorists with guns are more likely to engage in types of road rage (USA)
Over 2,400 licensed drivers responded to questions about their own aggressive driving in a 2004 national random digit dial survey. We found that 17% of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year, and another 9% admitted to aggressively following too closely. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.

And I could not resist putting this gem here:

Surprise, Surprise: Gun Violence in Red States
by Michael Tomasky

Pooh-poh this if you like, since it comes from the Center for American Progress, but the group just released a big study showing that--across 10 measures like the number of firearms homicides, number of total firearm deaths (including accidents etc.), law enforcement agents killed by firearms, and so on--the deadliest states are those with the most lax gun laws.
The "top" 10: Louisiana, Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and Georgia.

Now I know conservatives are thinking: No way these places are deadlier than New York and other states with big cities that have very violent neighborhoods.

But according to CAP, New York and New Jersey, for example, rank 46th and 47th in gun violence. The full "bottom" 10: Nebraska, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii. That's basically a combination of sparsely populated states and states with strong gun laws.

Does this check out with other information? Here's another study showing Louisiana as the "least peaceful" state in the country. Here's a third that also has Louisiana at the top (yes, I know that's mainly because of Nawlins), but also features largely Southern and Southwestern states as the most violent, with New York in the bottom half.

And

The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America's gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called "fixed effect regression" to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: "age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate" were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA's stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. "All other factors being equal," the authors write, "our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower." Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don't find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America's gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area's propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can't avoid talking about America's fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

YES THE REAL FACTS

This gun culture in America goes back to 1700 when criminals and outlaws were banished from Europe to Americas, Australia, and New Zealand as a punishment. These people ended up killing the natives of these lands and snatched their lands.
In modern day society, it does not make any sense and cling to second amendment to justify possessing guns which are often used against the owner.