|
titled The Bias Against Guns. Its plots, figures, tables, and data, almost overwhelming. It closes with how the government paints the same wrong picture. A gun in the home does provide a small, as it turns out ridiculously small, chance of the gun injuring or killing a child. Part 1 discusses how everything you've heard about guns is wrong. It talks about how the media focuses entirely on how guns are abused while completely ignoring how guns are used to prevent or reduce the effects of crime. I recently finished a book by John Lott Jr. That is true.
Frankly, I'd rather focus on the other areas of danger; not guns. The bottom line is that gun laws cause more deaths than save, typically between 10-100x.For instance, the idea that guns in the home kill kids. The book is very good, although the facts and data can be overwhelming. Its 180 pages of surveys, statistics, and facts. John separates the book into two parts. It is also true that that same gun also provides a layer of defense that no other device on earth can provide.
Part 2 is the evidence. Its 180 pages of why the government studies are wrong and the media are doing us an injustice. My favorite table is from page 138. I'd strongly recommend it for anyone who thinks guns only do harm.
Lott does a great job of showing statistics and the source where he gets his numbers from. Regardless of your position on gun control you may learn some things from this book. It is well researched and a plethora of information that may cause you to think.
How can this possibly be, asks the left-wingers. As a result, criminals know that they - oh no. The left-wing absurdities become apparent: If you create gun free school zones, then law abiding citizens won't bring weapons. Lott examines a whole host of important issues, including gun-control regulations-assault weapons bans, "one-gun-a-month", right-to-carry laws and more. So millions of people are not raped, assaulted or murdered. While people who die from bullet wounds is not to be discounted or disregarded, many critics fail to ask: How many people use a weapon to deter a criminal, save their own lives and stop further criminal tragedy.
According to Lott's analysis, guns are used as self-defense over 2 million times per year. That's TWO MILLION TIMES PER YEAR. Economist Lott presents storng evidence that gun ownership stops crime. Lott uses analysis, graphs and table to support his assertions. In Washington D.C., the gun ban on our civil rights has deprive individuals of their own self-defense. - might get shot for their criminal actions. A very useful book to understand that your 2nd Amendment Civil Rights have a basis in stopping crime in society.
Since one can own a weapon in America under the 2nd Amendment Civil Rights, then the criminal must assume that a person might be armed. Because guns are a deterrent. But will criminal obey that kind of law. In fact, I tell people that guns are a deterrent. Hence, deterrence. Probably not. Michael Mandaville, Author: "Citizen Soldier Handbook: 101 Ways for Every American To Fight Terrorism"
So to them I say -- Don't read it since it will only make you angry and force you to look at something from an empirical perspective rather than from your usual emotional perspective. The title of the book says it all. Thoughtful, intelligent bookworms will love it. John Lott then proceeds to prove it. Control freaks, sociopaths, leftists, mama's boys, and girly men will hate this book. This is serious stuff, not much humor here so if your looking for an easy, entertaining read -- look elsewhere. If you want the truth about guns and the people who use them -- this is the book.
It is rather contradictory to attack Dr. A bias against guns perhaps.NOTE: Though the findings of Lott's first book More Guns, Less Crime have come under fire the more politically correct academics have yet find any flaws in his research. It is unfair to only cite outlandish statistics in your review when the valid ones do not appear in review.
That being said, it is almost intellectually dishonest to euphemistically bludgeon Dr. Also, call me a radical but Lott's research methods have been praised by two Nobel prize winning Economists and his work being right wing in nature has made it impossible for him to get a job at a "proven" University. Lott who was taught at many academic institutions across the country for being biased when the negative reviewers themselves have a bias as well.
This, of course, indubitably proves the blind bias of the reviewer. Lott for citing certain statistics when those statistics have yet to be disproved by the world of academia (NOTE). Some statistics are unfounded and not necessary yet some provide a certain insight into the nature of gun laws and their effect on crime rates.
My final question is why do left wing research methods get a pass while right wing research methods are always so psuedo-intellectually scrutanized. Finally, the American Enterprise Institute is no less credible than the social sciences department at Brown, Cornell, or even Berkeley because the credibility of the peer review is solely based on the bias of the reviewer.
|
