More Guns, Less Crime:
Understanding Crime and Gun-
Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr.
The Book's Conclusion Is Correct, But...
Multiple regression analyses are rarely the subject of heated public debate
or 225-page books for laypeople. But John R. Lott, Jr.s study in the
January 1997 Journal of Legal Studies showing that concealed-carry
weapons permits reduced the crime rate set off a firestorm. The updated
study, together with illustrative anecdotes and a short description of the
political and academic response to the study, as well as responses to the
responses, makes up Lotts informative More Guns, Less Crime. In
retrospect, it perhaps should not have been surprising that increasing the
number of civilians with guns would reduce crime rates. The possibility of
armed victims reduces the expected benefits and increases the expected
costs of criminal activity. And, at the margin at least, people respond to
changes in costs, even for crime, as Nobel-Prize winning economist
[TAG]Gary Becker showed long ago. Allusions to the preferences of
criminals for unarmed victims have seeped into popular culture; Ringo, a

British thug in Pulp Fiction, noted off-handedly why he avoided certain
targets: Bars, liquor stores, gas stations, you get your head blown off
stickin up one of them. But Lotts actual quantification of this, in the
largest and most comprehensive study of the effects of gun control to
date, a study well-detailed in the book, provoked a number of attacks,
ranging from the amateurish to the subtly misleading, desperate to
discredit him. Lott takes the time to refute each argument; its almost
touching the way he footnotes each time he telephones an attacker who
eventually hangs up on him without substantiating any of their claims.
Lott loses a little focus when he leaves his firm quantitative base; as an
economist, he should know that the low number of rejected background
checks under the Brady Bill doesnt demonstrate anything by itself,
because some people may have been deterred from even undergoing the
background check in the first place, but he attacks the bill on this ground
anyway. But the conclusions that are backed by evidence--that concealed-
weapons permits reduce crime, and do so at a lower cost to society than
increasing the number of police or prisons--are important ones that should
be considered by policymakers. --Ted Frank
Personal Review: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime
and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr.
Regarding the Amazon editorial review by David Hemenway, Ph.D, like all
anti-gun promoters, the review fails to address the real issue.
Gun violence from registered gun owners is virtually non-existent. Where
guns cause problems is in two areas: (1) criminals with guns, (2) people
who have access to guns without any training, including children and
family members.
The problem for those of us who understand self-defense with a firearm is
the lack of encouragement given to others, by government, to get firearms
training, to learn to defend yourself and family in a way that makes sense.
When gun control laws are strict, law-abiding people do not learn much
about weapons, and thus guns are often discharged by accident, or those
using them are not effective in stopping in-home invasions, or other events
in which a gun would stop a criminal.
To believe that the police can protect your family and property is the height
of ignorance. They simply don't do it, they don't have the resources, and
when they do finally come with sirens blaring and lights flashing, the
criminal has either completed the crime, or is laying in wait for the police
(who routinely give plenty of notice with noise, lights, tires squaling, etc.) -
and when the police engage a criminal, they use deadly force at times, but
they also get shot themselves. And criminals pay no attention to gun
control laws.
In conceal carry permit states, criminals are less likely to engage in crime.
Period, it's a fact, and the FBI knows it, informed police know it, informed

citizens know it, but arrogant politicians think the police are the only ones
who can protect citizens.
Isn't in interesting how many police are themselves users of weapons to
commit crimes of murder and assault themselves? They are no more or
less likely to be safe users of firearms than a citizen with reasonable
training. So they use untrained citizens as their benchmark for gun control,
which of course is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- no training, poor results.
More guns AND more training in the use of guns, less crime. Perhaps that
is what the title should say.
PS: Criminals like gun control laws, it disarms their victims and makes
crime a safer occupation. Is that the desired result of gun control laws? It
may not be the objective, but it is the clear outcome of strict gun control
laws.
Focus on gun usage, gun training, and issue more CCW. I would rather
know that my neighbor had a gun, knew how to use it, and would be there
to help protect the neighborhood against criminals than to be hiding in his/
her closet waiting to be shot or killed by a gun toting criminal. You can't
take a knife to a gunfight and expect to survive any more than you can
expect the police to help based on your 911 call. By the time they arrive,
you're likely to be dead, or severely injured. In crimes against people in
their homes, the police are useless and provide nothing more than false
hope and expectations.
Ever wonder why crimes don't happen at doughnut shops where the police
hang out? Criminals aren't stupid, they know that armed victims are
hazardous to their own health.
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr.
5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price!