Book Description
Slicing through the emotional--but factually wrong--arguments of gun control advocates this book busts a number of myths, demonstrating with hard statistical data and riveting anecdotes.
Customer Reviews:
Very dry reading.......2007-09-01
If you can get past the numbers research then you'll benefit from this book. And, you'll never understand the evidence behind the truth about the benefits of gun possession versus the costs until you read it. The Bias Against Guns easily discredits those opposed to gun possession. Anti-gun folks don't tell the truth about the benefits of owning guns - John Lott does and proves it with advanced statistical analysis and research.
The proof that proves the benefits of gun possession is in this book.
Note the publisher of this book.......2007-08-26
Right wing, non-scholarly press. Then look at where Lott's critics publish--in scholarly journals and with academic presses.
Enough said.
Who should read this..........2007-04-01
Most of the news we see every day is favored toward showing the use of guns as bad. Whether this is because of a media plot to condition the public against guns, or because, in general, the people who work for the mainstream media are horrified by guns is not the point. What this book does is give us the other side of the debate, a side that needs to be heard.
Anyone who is caught by the day to day onslaught of the media bias against guns, but has an open mind and thinks they should have both sides of the story, should read this book. Anyone who instinctively knows that guns are the basis of all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans and would like a better understanding of that, should read this book.
Anyone else, it will be a waste of your money.
The Stephen Glass of econometricsisisis?.......2006-12-30
Fans of this 'scholarly work' (if computerized number crunching and anecdotal evidence can be called scholarly) by a 'much-published academician' (if that is meaningful to you) would no doubt be disappointed to learn Lott has based crucial evidence upon a survey he conducted himself and then 'unfortunately lost all trace of' the data; that he & his family have taken it upon themselves in the past to write stellar reviews for his books on Amazon.com; that Lott has found it necessary to defend his work by using pseudonyms and fake personas ('Mary Rosh')--but why, when the numbers speak for themselves??
Certainly not in order to profit from the audacious frenzy a claim like 'unregistered assault weapons reduce crime' would inevitably create...
Please, read 'How to Lie With Statistics' instead. Heck, read Wikipedia's article on John Lott, which cites the New England Journal of Medicine's statement:
[Lott] finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws.'
Controversy is indeed delicious, and who can fault some guy for trying to drum up a little press--but clouding such a serious issue in which lives are at stake with fuzzy math is undoubtedly reprehensible.
You can either be persuaded about this author's ethos by a few dazzling blurbs by 'Nobel Prize winners of Economics' (a solid science to be sure), or by his own behavior in response to scepticism. As Jon Weiner's Op-Ed in the LA Times states concerning the Lott v. Levitt lawsuit:
Lott is not suing those who have said some of his pro-gun research was "invented," "faked" or "cooked." The lawsuit turns on the definition of "replicate," from the "Freakonomics" sentence about how other scholars have tried and failed to "replicate his results." Lott maintains "replicate" means "analyze the identical data in the way Lott did." Because nobody tried to do that, he argues, "Freakonomics" is wrong. Most people, however, understand "replicate" to mean something like "confirm." Lott's reputation has indeed been "seriously damaged" by critics, but only because they have described many apparent holes in his dubious research and misleading citations. Blocking the sale of a book based on a literal interpretation of a single word [is] outrageous.'
Eye-opening from the first page.......2006-11-04
John R. Lott is a modern-day genius. His writing should earn him both the Nobel Prize for Peace AND the one for literature.
It's about time someone gave us the real story on gun crimes instead of the liberal slant we get from all the liberal news outlets. Obviously the previous reviewer who was in the military and speaks in favor of background checks has been misguided his own experience and these liberal media outlets.
Waiting periods make no sense at all, and I don't know who this Ronald Reagan guy is, but he sounds like a garden-variety lilly-livered liberal to me. Think about it. If you try to buy a handgun and you are forced to wait a week, there could be, by Mr. Lott's statistics, hundreds of crimes that you could have stopped by brandishing your piece. But those crimes happen, because you're stuck waiting because some liberal panzy named Reagan needed a background check law.
It's obvious, even to the most gun-scared leftist out there, everyone, even those who have not developed their full motor skills, should own a gun. Otherwise, how can you protect yourself!? It's NUMBERS people. If everyone has a gun, no one will get shot. Since gun owners are all expert marksmen, none of them would ever try to shoot a criminal and miss, thereby shooting an innocent bystander. After all, it's really easy to hit a moving target with a handgun. Heck, even you're a bad shot and you run out of bullets, you can easily peg your assailant on the head with the butt of your Magnum. If an innocent person gets shot, the statistics pale in comparison to how many would get shot it all of them didn't have guns.
Book Description
The authoritative standard for anyone seeking wide-ranging and fair-minded analysis of the American gun debate, The Politics of Gun Control homes in on three key culture shocks that shape the politics of gun control in America today: the shooting at Columbine High School, the clearly delineated positions on the gun issue staked out in the 2000 election, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Written with insight and showcasing the wide-ranging debate, this third edition also examines such important issues as the proliferation of concealed-carry laws, liability lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers, NRA political funding of Republicans, and the controversy surrounding the assault weapons ban, bringing this popular and well-respected book right up to date.
Customer Reviews:
Excellent analysis.......2007-08-03
A fine book for anyone interested in understanding how the NRA has hijacked the issue of gun control in the U.S.. Spitzer's analysis is well-reasoned and presented clearly. I recommend this book highly.
Good overview, not definitive.......2005-09-12
Unlike one of the other previous reviewers, though I am generally a conservative, I would agree with this book's primary conclusion: the NRA has had a disproportionate impact on the politics of gun control.
The legal and constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment also does not seem to be much in dispute. Perhaps there is some evidence he does not cite for thinking that it goes back to an individual right to bear arms, but as conceived by those who wrote it, the Second Amendment was clearly intended to protect the rights of state militias.
Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in this issue, scholar and lay reader alike.
Politics of Gun Control - Another liberal hatchet job.......2000-10-27
I read this book because I was required to in College. It is painfully, obvious that it was written from a predetermined conclusion. The history of the NRA is especially vicious. The author chastises the NRA at several points for the NRA early support by Government by subsidies, use of Nat'l parks to train WWII soldiers how to shoot, etc. The author essential argument that anyone that has ever received support from Gov't has duty not to ever to oppose the government in anything. In the beginning he points out that this book he will not examine gun control polices in foreign countries, yet on several instances he cites them (Canada for instance) to make his point, but nevertheless totally neglects gun control failures such as England and Austrailia (See London Times 1/16/2000 for details on this) . He quickly glosses over concealed weapon laws citing statistics showimng their failure, when a number of policy studies have concluded the opposite that Concealed weapon laws do in fact reduce crime. If you want one-sided reading of gun control this is your best bet.
Not For Those Who Have Already Made Up Their Minds.......2000-10-13
I wonder if the reader from Glen Ellen CA and I read the same book? That review seemed to my mind an excellent example of tediously shaving facts to fit one's predilections- much more so than the actual work in question.
I do happen to agree with him in this regard- people who have already made up their minds about the issue will find the book irritating-- in much the same way that baseball fans are irritated by umpires.
Spitzer builds a case for stepping back from the issue far enough to see alternatives clearly, and to understand the larger forces driving the insanity of this battle over weapons of destruction.
The problem for Spitzer is that human beings consistently develop addictions to causes that allow them to release large amounts of adrenaline into their circulatory and central nervous systems in the form of rage, paranoia and righteous indignation. Actually solving the problem would be the equivalent of flushing one's favorite stash of drugs down the toilet. Those who don't want to see this battle over guns ended will find plenty of things to irritate and discomfort them in Spitzer's intelligent analysis.
Promising concept - fails to deliver on the facts........2000-05-24
"Not concerned with the efficacy..." of gun control laws. That about sums up The Politics of Gun Control. Dr. Spitzer started out to write a book exploring the policy resolution ramifications of gun control, but along the way he got sucked into arguments for the pro and con of gun control, and ended up delivering a weak polemic for stricter gun control laws.
Dr. Spitzer's original question intrigued me greatly. How, in a civilized society, does one develop a rational and moral course of action when so many competing interests are so stridently opposed to each other? What are the proper roles of the courts, of the federal government (both legislative and executive branches), of local government, and of advocacy groups, in determining the proper direction for government policy? Sadly, after posing these questions, The Politics of Gun Control fails to deliver, beyond the superfluous finale that the gun control dilemma can be resolved by treating gun control similarly to international arms control. (Suffice it to say I was unconvinced.)
Alternatively, as pro-control literature, The Politics of Gun Control fails utterly. Unlike Dr. Kleck's Targeting Guns, The Politics of Gun Control offers little insight into the methodologies of the studies cited, why one may be better than another, and offers virtually no explanation of the plausible mechanisms that underlie quoted study's results.
For other examples of the failings inherent in The Politics of Gun Control, consider the following:
- Many of the significant citations are taken from newspapers and magazines. While this may be acceptable for anecdotal recollections, it is not sufficient for scientific analysis. When concluding that "easy accessibility of weapons" is a significant contribution to a rise in homicide, one expects a more respected source than the New York Times.
- In the section devoted to participants to the debate, twenty-three pages are devoted to a rather mean-spirited negative portrayal of the National Rifle Association, and only one page to Handgun Control, Inc. In one quote, the rabidly anti-gun Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center is passed off as a "policy analyst".
- The section lambasting the NRA for its position on KTW "cop-killer" bullets blatantly misrepresents critical facts: facts readily available in Osha Gray Davidson's Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control. The result is that readers like "A customer from Michigan" draw erroneous conclusions and disparage a stand that never was.
- The material on "assault weapons" contains the same fabrications reported in HCI's partisan literature, and fails to adequately deal with the objections raised by David Kopel and others. Left unanswered are such critical objections as the irrationality of a ban on "assault weapons" that are fundamentally indistinguishable from other, unbanned, semi-automatic firearms, and that far from being criminal weapons of choice, "assault weapons" are actually under represented in crime. Again, the result is that less knowledgeable readers complain of the non-existent "proliferation of automatic weapons." If a book can be judged by its results, this one failed miserably to produce enlightened readers.
- The claim that firearms are not regulated because they are not under the control of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, is demonstrably false. (Interestingly, Robert Delfray of the National Shooting Sports Foundation reports the CPSC exemption for firearms was instituted because HCI attempted to use the CPSC to ban "the sale of bullets for handguns.") Firearms are manufactured according to SAMI regulations (part of ANSI) in addition to a multitude of access laws, not that you could learn this from The Politics of Gun Control.
- The chapter on the interpretation of the Second Amendment fails to answer any of the arguments raised by pro Second Amendment scholars (who are not necessarily anti-control) such as Clayton Cramer, Robert Cottrol, Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, Sanford Levinson and Lawrence Tribe. (Most of these authors have works available on Amazon.Com - I suggest you search and decide for yourself.) Many of these scholars appear in the endnotes, so obviously Dr. Spitzer has read their work, but their primary arguments are neither presented nor refuted. Of greater concern is that Dr. Spitzer's work promised to tell us what role, if any, should be assigned to judicial precedent, in deciding the future of gun control. Given that the courts have produced both good and bad decisions, how are we to know which ones are to be given credence and which consigned to the trash heap? After reading this chapter I was left with the feeling that Dr. Spitzer's criteria was based on which cases supported his preferred outcome.
On a general basis, I found especially irritating the emotive, value-based, unsupported, adjectives that are peppered throughout the text. I was looking for an alternative viewpoint, not consistent needling. For pro-control readers this may give you a warm glow; for more doubtful readers it may simply make you grit your teeth and reach for the markup pen.
In the final analysis, Dr. Spitzer begins with the twin propositions that the "purpose of government is to maintain order" and that the "purpose of firearms is the ... destruction of people, animals, and objects." Neither assumption is adequately supported; they are presented to be taken on faith. Perhaps, to one holding such beliefs, the burden of proof for the necessity of gun control is much lighter. To those who actually believe that governments are instituted to secure the blessing of liberty and that firearms are simply a tool for good or ill, The Politics Of Gun Control remains unconvincing.
Book Description
The Toboggan Ride to Tyranny
Your right to trial by a randomly selected jury -- not one stacked with jurors who swear to convict in advance -- is gone.
The IRS can now seize your bank account, paycheck, and house -- without so much as a judge's order. Your banker will help them.
Vietnam veterans and their wives, and 68-year-old engineers, are in federal prisons on "drug" charges -- despite the fact they never sold, touched, or even saw a single gram of cocaine or marijuana.
The Founders guaranteed Americans the right to keep and bear arms for defense against their own government. But the meager legal arms of the Branch Davidians were no match for government tanks and helicopters at Waco. National gun registration led to confiscation in oncr-free England and Australia. And national gun registration began in the U.S. on December 1, 1998.
How did we get to this point? Is there any peaceful way back from the toboggan ride to tyranny? The answers are in "Send in the Waco Killers," by America's syndicated Libertarian columnist, Vin Suprynowicz.
Customer Reviews:
Thank god.......2007-07-27
Finally someone speaks out against the libtard Clinton dolts who were trying to ruin our lives. It is good, no it is stupendous literature that should be read by every American who does not want to be a zombie slave under a socialistic movement that the Dems are trying to pull about as we speak. Long live our freedom and individual responsibility, so that the lazy turds who want the government to think for them can move to Canada or wherever they want to be relocated to.
Libertarian Honesty, from Cover to Cover.......2003-07-25
Author and journalist Vin Suprynowicz has something to say about the political climate in the United States. He doesn't like the government's excesses of control, the lying, the manipulation, and the almost complete disregard for the constitution. A strong proponent of individual liberty and personal responsibility, Vin covers many topics in this book that relate to government run amok, all with an inspired fervor and a very Libertarian angle.
Starting with the first chapter, Vin talks about where Americans have gone wrong since the founding fathers established the constitutional framework that suited the nation well for so many years. Juries are now "stacked" in an attempt to control the outcome of a trial; guns are confiscated in direct violation of the second amendment; people are sent to prison just because they choose to smoke a plant; and school children are indoctrinated to ensure that they are all slaves to the supreme command of the state, from now and into the future.
After commenting directly on the miserable failure of these various government policies, Vin describes countless examples of how government power has been used to manipulate individuals and destroy their lives. You can read all about hard working Americans who had their rights trampled on by government, like a man who saw his farm business wrecked by government officials who declared areas of his farm a wetland, and refused to allow him to farm on it, then refused to allow it to be used for other purposes either, making it worthless. Another true story covers a woman who was harassed by government because she refused to lie (yes, you heard me correctly) and disclose inaccurate ingredient listings on her company's pet foods.
Vin also talks about the government debacle at Waco and he gives sound reasons for why, he believes, the government is solely responsible for the deaths of the Branch Davidian members. He talks about the failed war on drugs, pointing out how government has used this disastrious policy to erode individual liberty.
Suprynowicz is a very outspoken person, and his in- your- face style might make some people uncomfortable. He frequently resorts to sarcasm and he provides countless examples of how government has ruined people's lives through its ruthlessness and its total failure to follow the constitution.
"Send in the Waco Killers" is well- written and easy to understand. Vin is a skilled wirter who knows exactly how to take an ordinarily complex situation and state it in a way that will make sense to most anyone. This book is one of the best I have read, and it was even recognized by freemarket.net as the "Freedom Book of the Year" in 1999. It's a book that everyone should read, just to see how far government has pushed its will on the people and how we, as a nation, are slowly marching toward a police state as each day passes.
The Ugly Truth.......2003-04-20
I was originally turned off by the title of the book. However, it had been recomended to me by a friend. I have to say that it turned out to be the most thoughtful, well reasoned, documented accounting of just how far out of control the Federal Government has gotten over the years that I have ever read. The point is driven home over and over again in this book that every Constitutional protection you thought you had can be abused, with no consequences, by the Federal Government. Think the money you worked hard for all you life is yours? Think again. Federal police, with local police support can seize it and any other property they covet with impunity. And the cop that takes it gets to profit in the transaction. Think you have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers? Wrong again. Jury picking has become an art, designed to eliminate anyone who may be sympathetic to your views. Think the Constitutional guarantee in the 2nd amendment means what it says? Well, you are probably breaking one of the 20,000 gun laws already in affect, directed against honest Americans like you and I, and don't even know it. And if you are caught by one of these "Special Militia" ( ATF, DEA, FBI that we were warned against over and over by the founding fathers) you will spend more time in jail than a bank robber. Think you cannot be murdered by the Federal Police without justice being done to the ones who murdered you or your family members? You are living in a dream world. This book should be required reading by every 9th grade civics class in America. But of course, as is pointed out in this book, these "Government Schools" will do everything in its power to ensure that your children will NOT understand the true meaning of our Constitution.
This is a Must Read.
Libertarian Bible for the 21st cenutry!.......2003-02-17
While writing from a Libertarian and non-religious perspective, Vin takes us across the gamut of current attitudes and the hopes and aspirations of self-sufficient, liberty minded, and responsible persons everywhere. Vin really nails it as to the virus and bacteria infection that holds this land in an ever tightening grip as it chokes our very lives. What kind of virus is this?
1. The Public School. 1.6 Billion dollars later a Kansas City School still cant stop truancy and raise test scores. Vin finally says what many have screamed from years, that you cant fix the public school system because its ALREADY WORKING. Vin give you history of development of public schools, statistics, and then contrasts a public school with home schoolers who are doing tremendously better, at a fraction of the cost, and in fact raises test scores and perfromance across all class, and racial lines!
2. Gun control. I dont even need to describe this canard.
3. Unaccountable Federal Agencies. Whether its the DEA, the INS or even the Farm bureau, the activities of various 'protectors of independance', who used to leave us sorely disappointed, but who know take family farms and get people killed.
4. Restriction of Jury Trials and the rights of jurors to be fully informed of their 1200 year old right to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the law!
5. A lapdog press that does whatever a corporate or government interest dictates. This is why more and more Americans read European newspapers or otherwise use the internet to get the real news. Vin documents the attitude of the press and gives personal experiences with getting his own column published. You need to read Vin's article on the press to fully appreciate the fog let off with the current Iraq situation.
Now all of the above problems are such that they can be solved with the ballot box, and appropriate education. That is why this book is important. When the public propaganda school system is dismantled by default, when the jurisdictions of various government agencies are curtailed by consisten not guilty verdicts by fully informed juries excercising their rights to nullify the law, this apocolyptic revolution that every right wing crackpot spouts as being inevitable will never occur, thank God. ...
Vin's a voice in the wilderness, whom we need to hear.......2002-03-04
For the past several years, there has been a lonely libertarian writing a column for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and now his columns have been collected and sorted by subject. He and I don't agree about absolutely _everything,_ but then, we do agree about the important things, like doing something about the inexorable growth of the Nanny State into an all-devouring shoggoth. If the news media weren't so single-mindedly leftist, his columns would reach the wider audience they deserve.
Book Description
Targeting Guns comprehensively reviews the research evidence on the links between guns, violence, and gun control, and reports results of the author's original research as well. Among the topics the book covers are: the impact of guns on violent crime and suicide; the impact of gun ownership on ; accidents; the impact of gun control laws on violence rates; public opinion on gun control; and the focus of gun control on special types of guns, with particular emphasis on assault weapons. In addition, it describes the frequency and effectiveness of defensive use of guns by crime victims.
Customer Reviews:
A dry but comprehensive overview of gun control studies.......2002-09-18
This is an update of Kleck's earlier book, "Point Blank", which won the Michael J. Hindelang Award in 1993. The award is given by the American Society of Criminology annually for a book published during the previous two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to research in criminology.
Even if you disagree with Kleck's conclusions, "Targeting Guns" is an essential addition to your library if you are interested in the issue of gun control. No other book gives such a detailed and comprehensive overview of the research that has been done on this subject.
Where Science and Ideology Disagree.......2001-07-06
Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is, by his own admission, a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic Party candidates.
He must be an awful disappointment to many of his fellow liberals.
Because, you see, in addition to being all those other things, he is also a criminologist and professor at Florida State University; a scientist who believes empirical evidence and research are more important than dogmatic ideology.
In Targeting Guns, he deomnstrates that the best available empirical evidence is that attempts at gun control legislation are, by and large, either futile, or self-defeating.
In this closely reasoned, scholarly work, Kleck debunks many of the myths of gun control, and concludes that, for the most part, the political rationale for gun control--and the majority of gun control legislation--is seriously flawed. To reach these conclusions, Kleck looks closely at the links between guns, violence, suicide, and gun control, and sums up the relevant research in these areas.
Kleck describes the central--and seemingly commonsensical--rationale for gun control, which is that disarming people will be beneficial, because guns are dangerous, and their use elevates the possibility that a victim of violence will die. He then painstakingly shows why this rationale rests on a simplified and ultimately incorrect assumption about the role of weaponry in violence. He shows why this role is so much more complex than some assume, as well as showing the beneficial aspects of gun ownership among the general populace.
Kleck concludes by suggesting some commonsense gun control measures that DO appear to work in reducing violent crime, or at least, ARMED violent crime by reducing criminal access to guns.
Targeting guns is not, unfortunately, easily accessible by a general audience, but Kleck has done his best to make it so. Nevertheless, it is heavily footnoted, and the text is often broken up by a variety of data tables. The issue of gun control is quite complex, and resists being broken down into easily digestible morsels. But those who make the effort will be rewarded, and at the very least, be encouraged to think more rationally about this somewhat divisive and emotional issue.
The importance of that cannot be overstated.
Interesting reference book, though somewhat dry.......2000-07-11
Kleck has but together quite a useful overview of the research on guns. I liked the detailed discussions of the existing literature, and, as a nonacademic, I did not find it too difficult to read. ...
On the survey data, I wish that Kleck would have dealt more with the survey data about offensive gun use. I also wish that he could explain why his survey data does not imply a net benefit from using guns.
My only real complaint on the quality of the writing is that too much of the book is such and such shows this and such and such shows that and .... This is fine if the book is to serve as a reference source. It is not too thrilling to have to read through.
Without a doubt the single best book on gun control!.......2000-05-24
Without a doubt the single best book on the issue of gun control. Of paramount importance is Dr. Kleck's superb presentation of the methodology of analyzing gun control. This book not only presents the facts (which are impeccably researched and presented), but goes beyond them to question and examine issues of causality and the social mechanisms that underlie the statistics. For example, Dr. Kleck looks into the critical question of the association between guns and violence: do more guns cause more violence or does more violence cause more people to acquire guns? (Before readers of Dr. Lott castigate me, between 1963 and 1971 both the national gun stock and national firearms death rate doubled. Dr. Kleck asks which is the chicken and which the egg.) Another example is the counter intuitive result that firearms sentencing enhancement laws result in less time served - because, as it turns out, those are the first charges plea-bargained away. Again and again Dr, Kleck challenges the conventional wisdom and shows that the simplistic associations favored by both sides of the debate fail to stand up under the careful scrutiny of scientific analysis.
Since pro-control literature dominates in the media, (especially in the health advocacy forum), it is only logical that the majority of the studies impeached by Dr. Kleck's research should be of a pro-control tilt. For example, Targeting Guns points up the abysmal failure of the medical literature (e.g., Journal of American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) to meet even the lowest standards for scholarly research, and exposes what amounts to intentional fraud on the part of pro-control "health advocates". The section highlighting the solid association between substance abuse (both alcohol and drugs) and firearms abuse leaves one wondering why this vital information hasn't gotten more attention from the media, the health profession, and ultimately, the policy leaders in government. After reading this book I can well understand the frustration of the anti-control groups over the misrepresentation, misdirection, and blatant lies permeating pro-control arguments and policy recommendations.
In the end, even the staunchest partisans of either side of the debate should read this book, if not for its conclusions, then for its eye-opening view of how social science should be practiced as just that: a science.
Book Description
Today, the right to own a gun is under assault like never before. Every time a firearm is used in a high-profile crime, calls for stricter gun regulation—even outright prohibition—are pounded into us by a press that has taken sides. In fact, when it comes to guns, journalists have clearly made up their minds. According to a recent study, television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered newscasts opposing such laws by a ratio of ten to one. In other words, we are hearing only one side of the story.
This is the other side.
"A blockbuster book every freedom-loving American should read." — Christopher Ruddy, editor, NewsMax.com
In
The Seven Myths of Gun Control, award-winning journalist and bestselling author Richard Poe cuts through the blizzard of anti-gun propaganda and uncovers the truth about guns, crime, and freedom. He details the seven most common arguments used by gun prohibitionists, debunking each one with a wealth of statistical and legal data gleaned from top experts in the field of guns and gun rights. You will discover that, contrary to myth, the availability of guns leads to less crime, not more; that guns do not pose a special threat to our children; and that the Second Amendment is as vital to the lives and liberty of modern Americans as it was in frontier times. You will also learn how the current drive to further regulate and even outlaw firearms is a point-blank assault not only on truth but on freedom as well.
Provocative, accessible, and persuasive,
The Seven Myths of Gun Control is a thoughtful and invaluable contribution to the national debate about guns.
Customer Reviews:
A Must Read.......2007-08-13
This book is a must read by all who have a conceal carry permit. You need to know the legalities of what has happened in the past and what you may be facing in the future for those who argue that guns should be outlawed. You would be surprised by reading this book who is trying to take your right to own and carry a gun.
No such thing as reasonable gun control.......2007-05-19
The author chronicles what history has proved, that there is no such thing as reasonable gun control. History is clear on this matter. The author also is quite prophetic in his prenouncements prior to 9/11 and some to which he gave warning has come to pass with the Patriot Act...a necessary read for gun owners and the proponents of liberty.
Worse is Better.......2007-03-19
Outstanding.
I have sent this book to more people than any other book I've read.
I urge folks to start with the Epilogue for it is the best writing I have experienced on a topic that is what I believe at the very core of the current social disorder in America. Our families are broken, boys are not allowed to become men, and men have surrendered their souls.
The issues around gun control are presented so clearly in this book it
is a wonder there is still an issue at all.
Outstanding.
Superficial at best.......2006-03-23
The author uses the same tactics he denigrates when used by others. For instance, in the section on Japan, he has to admit that gun crime is the lowest in the industrialized world, mostly affecting intra-ciminal violence. To mitigate that success, Poe describes the fuedal lord who took away swords in the 16th century and how the police are still the arrogant samurai, as if that's relevant to this modern subject.
Citing a few successful-gun-defense-kills/failure-to-have-a-gun stories always gets the pro-gun crowd excited. No different than when the anti-gun extremists cite their innocent bystander shootings. The absence of large number statistics in this book relegates it to the genre of hype, mostly. The fact is that the US has the highest gun violence is because of the easy access to our huge inventory of firearms. The author never once mentions that felons get many handguns that are stolen from law-abiding suburban homes.
The author's myths are just that, real statistics and the law of large numbers prove Poe wrong. In 2003, there were 163 justifiable private citizen homicides with handguns, but 7701 handgun homicides in total. (See FBI Uniform Crime Report www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm)
I don't understand why the book has size 24 bold letters for a hundred paragraph headings, maybe it's a sign of statistical weakness. Still, the author cites many sources that could be used for pro-gun research, I gave it two stars for effort.
Concise and logical.......2005-09-20
Just thought this book was great. Provided many interesting facts/figures that have now inspired me to start doing my own research. A great, quick read for anyone intersted on the topic of Gun control/ Gun Laws. Great book regardless of your position on this fundamental right.
Book Description
Few schisms in American life run as deep or as wide as the divide between gun rights and gun control advocates. Awash in sound and symbol, the gun regulation debate has largely been defined by forceful rhetoric rather than substantive action. Politicians shroud themselves in talk of individual rights or public safety while lobbyists on both sides make doom-and-gloom pronouncements on the consequences of potential shifts in the status quo. In America today there are between 250 and 300 million firearms in private hands, amounting to one weapon for every American. Two in five American homes house guns. On the one hand, most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who believe they have a constitutional right to bear arms. On the other, a great many people believe gun control to be our best chance at reducing violent crime. While few--whether gun owner or anti-gun advocate--dispute the need to keep guns out of the wrong hands, the most important question has too often been dodged: What gun control options does the most heavily armed democracy in the world have? Can gun control really work? The last decade has seen several watersheds in the debate, none more important than the 1993 Brady Bill. That bill, James B. Jacobs argues, was the culmination of a strategy in place since the 1930s to permit widespread private ownership of guns while curtailing illegal use. But where do we go from here? While the Brady background check is easily circumvented, any further attempts to extend gun control--for instance, through comprehensive licensing of all gun owners and registration of all guns--would pose monumental administrative burdens. Jacobs moves beyond easy slogans and broad-brush ideology to examine the on-the-ground practicalities of gun control, from mandatory safety locks to outright prohibition and disarmament. Casting aside ideology and abstractions, he cautions against the belief that there exists some gun control solution which, had we the political will to seize it, would substantially reduce violent crime. In Can Gun Control Work?, James B. Jacobs, one of our most fearless commentators on intractable social problems, has given us the most sober and even-handed assessment of whether gun control can really be made to work.
Customer Reviews:
Must reading for everyone; mostly the anti-gun crowd........2005-12-05
This book should be must reading for the anti-gun crowd, although they won't read it. It is too slanted toward the truth; it discusses the pros and cons of the gun control debate--to the detriment of both sides, but more slanted toward the free guns side (although he does advocate some gun controls). The major arguement against the book from the anti-gun folks is that he points out, in a clear and succint manner, why most gun controls won't work; mostly the arguement usually heard that criminals simply won't abide by any law, no matter how well-intentioned. There's also the issue of loopholes, which he holds up for all to see. However, he does argue for closing gun shows (or at least extending the Brady Bill to cover them)...and then points out how even this won't help as people intent on obtaining guns can easily get them from people who want to sell them. Usually private parties.
Unfortunately, most gun control advocates won't ever read this, as they don't want to be confronted with the facts, preferring to live in their own fantasy world where everything will be fine if we just pass enough laws. It's irrelavent that there aren't enough police or other law enforcement personnel to enforce such laws.
Pro-gun forces will find succinct arguements against almost anything the anti-gun crowd can throw against them. They already know the facts; it is just that the other side refuses to accept reality.
At least, that's the argument, as well presented in this book.
A Rehash Of The Known.......2004-09-13
The author does hit on many of the common arguments both for and against gun control issues and attempts to clarify both sides positions but in doing so he fails to answer the title question of the book. In contrast to the closing statement in the book description; "Casting aside ideology and abstractions, he cautions against the belief that there exists some gun control solution which, had we the political will to seize it, would substantially reduce violent crime.", the author suggests that several gun-controls be enacted while acknowledging that there is little if any evidence that the controls would have any effect at all.
The book is a good indtoduction to the debate for someone with little or no understanding of the major points but the closing recommendations appear unfounded.
An Absolutely Fabulous and Fair-Minded Book.......2003-11-22
Over the last few years, I've read most of the books written on this subject, from Michael A. Bellesiles' "Arming America" to John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."
"Can Gun Control Work?" stands head and shoulders above the rest. First, Jacobs has carefully described the history of gun control in the United States (and for the most part, the book focuses on the US). Second, he takes a careful look at what the problem actually is -- is it accidents? suicides? homicides? Jacobs does a very rigorous (but not dry) job of explaining what the statistics actually show about gun violence -- poking some holes in commonly accepted myths from both sides of the debate.
Finally, I think he does a very good and pragmatic job of looking at what gun control measures may actually work. Our national discussion about gun control is dominated by emotional outbursts about gun rights on the one hand and about gun risks on the other -- this book steers clear of emotion to examine what is really happening, and what we can really do about it.
Jacobs reaches conclusions that will annoy gun rights advocates (gun shows are impossible to police and should probably be banned outright) and conclusions that will annoy anti-gun activists (a ban on handguns would be just as impossible to enforce as our drug laws). He calls 'em as he see 'em.
I would recommend this book to both pro and anti-gun readers without any reservation.
Amazon.com
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 Lott's 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 Lott's 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; it's 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 doesn't 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
Book Description
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics.
"Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . . . If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof."—Peter Coy, Business Week
"By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott's book could hardly be more timely. . . . A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy."—John O. McGinnis, National Review
"His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match. . . . This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date."—Public Choice
"For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come."—Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News
"A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates."—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal
"John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."—Milton Friedman
Customer Reviews:
Compelling ideas.......2007-07-26
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!
very informative.......2007-07-08
The book is full of informative arguments about why gun control increases violent crime. It is well written and very enjoyable to read.
Crimes against unarmed citizens........2007-07-01
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.
Lott Exposes the Utter Failure of "Gun Control".......2007-06-14
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.
Particularly relevant in the context of VT.......2007-05-02
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.
Book Description
From the floor of American gun shows, a fascinating historical exposé of how guns have burrowed into the heart of American democracy.
"To understand gun talk, I had to understand what America means to millions of ordinary people and how these beliefs shaped their sense of who they are, were, and must remain in the future."—from the introduction to Gun Show Nation
In this first-of-its-kind archaeology of America's gun culture, progressive cultural historian, critic, and gun owner Joan Burbick takes us on a journey from gun shows to NRA conventions, using firsthand observations and interviews with a wide range of gun owners and gun advocates as a jumping-off point for a fascinating exploration of the rise of the gun—from Buffalo Bill and the mythology of the frontier to Ronald Reagan, the first sitting president to address the NRA.
Gun Show Nation examines the lethal politics of gun ownership, uncovering a powerful, conservative political ideology that places the individual citizen armed with a gun at the bulwark of our democracy.
Talking directly to gun lobby strategists, Burbick reveals the pro-gun movement's deliberate effort to co-opt the language of rights from the civil rights movement to appeal to a disaffected white electorate, crafting a powerful conservative response to liberal efforts to achieve social, economic, and racial justice in the 1960s.
An illuminating examination of how guns have changed and challenged our beliefs in democracy, Gun Show Nation shows us what America looks like from the floor of a gun show.
Customer Reviews:
The word from the lunatic left.......2007-06-24
I was aware that this book was a propaganda piece before I read it; so I borrowed it from the library to avoid giving any financial support to the lunatic left. I really wanted to learn how the enemy thinks and I must say that after suffering through her extremist rant I have the answer: they simply don't think at all. If you were to cross out those passages expressing her vicious hatred of white males, and were to eliminate the anti gun rhetoric that she regurgitates as fact, there would be nothing left. It should not surprise any one that she would write such drivel or be able to find a publisher. The far left consists of just two types: dedicated Marxists, and the "useful idiots" who do their bidding. The really frightening thing about this is that this "author" is a tenured university professor who is spreading her extreme views in the classroom. Don't waste your time and especially not your money on this leftist nut.
Alarmist trying to make the 2nd Amendment a partisan issue.......2007-06-01
The author attempts to frame gun ownership as something only advocated by people on the political far right and Christians. A reading of The Federalist Papers should put that thinking to rest. I am neither a conservative nor a Christian, and I'm aware of a huge, mostly quiet, diverse group who recognize that the 2nd Amendment guarantees rights that our founders considered of utmost importance. In fact, they were clear that we needed to be ready to protect ourselves from aggression (outsiders) and tyranny (our own government). They warned us not to raise permanent armies, in fact, because of the very real threat of tyranny by whomever was in power. Our right to keep and bear arms is the one amendment that ascertains the others will remain intact.
Never mind that firearms are the only reasonable means of personal protection for women, people of short stature, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Or that a 911 call or pepper spray are useless in the middle of a violent assault.
Yes, old white boys are the ones front and center at gun shows, just as they are in government, business, and in all aspects of our society. They held all the power for many years, and power-sharing is not something that happens overnight--culture creeps. And yes, they are mostly the ones who fought in the wars and developed an interest in firearms history. But that's changing. Women are starting to listen to the words of Susan B. Anthony, who advocated for females protecting themselves and not relying on males. More women are studying the Federalist Papers and other documents written by our founders.
Some of the history presented is interesting, and yet the author's bias is obvious throughout. When the Supreme Court reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment, they examined it only out of context. A closer look in context alongside the other amendments clearly shows it guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.
What I found most troublesome with this book is the author's jumping on the political bandwagon of framing the sales, ownership, and use of firearms as representing something called the "gun culture," as if the 2nd Amendment isn't affirming our right to keep and bear arms for very good reasons with which the founders were intimately familiar. The words of the founders are clear--they were warning that tyranny and aggression happen. They taught us to be armed and ready.
This book is an alarmist opinion piece that contains some interesting--but incomplete--history. In that sense, it's dangerous, because the author presents herself as an expert rather than an ideologue.
A collection of opinions and anecdotes.......2007-04-14
I got this book from the local library, intrigued by its title. I was amazed at how bad the book is. It is primarily a collection of anecdotes sprinkled liberally with the author's opinions. Although the author claims to be a professor at Washington State University, do not be fooled into thinking that this book is an academic work. It is anything but.
Social bigotry masquerading as academic observation.......2007-01-07
A friend told me about this book and I checked it out from the library to read it for myself. I'm glad that I did so but I would NOT recommend buying it to anybody. For those interested in an OBJECTIVE look at gun issues, pro and con, I would recommend instead "The Gun Control Debate: You Decide", edited by Lee Nisbet (Amazon.com page http://tinyurl.com/y8p4we).
As for "Gun Show Nation", it's a nasty book: the author spends half her time spewing vitriol regarding white males. While I happen to BE a white male, I in no way believe that we are any better than other segments of our society. However, I also do not think we are any worse and frankly hold people who subscribe to this petty Balkanization in complete contempt.
On to the contents of the book itself. If I may digress, what is the reason that people do not walk around wearing sunglasses all of the time? Because they make everything look dark and deprive the wearer of a high degree of visual sensitivity. Well, this author seems to have taken it upon herself to look at gun owners with dark sunglasses on: she sees only a darkened image of what is there and misses out on a great deal of what makes gun ownership something that gives substantial enjoyment. Take her contemptuous comments regarding Charlton Heston, for example. She seems to have decided that since he was an NRA leader for a number of years that he's some sort of bigoted fool. The fact that he marched on D.C. with Martin Luther King Jr. apparently means nothing to her. He opposed racial segregation AND McCarthyism but since he also chose to support a right she disapproves of, he is a bad guy. The thing is, one of our country's biggest problems is how willing people are to only support rights that they themselves want to exercise and to condemn (and try to ban the exercise of) rights they dislike. We should support the ACLU and NARAL as well as the NRA if we want to make this country healthier.
On to the NRA itself. While Burbick is correct in thinking that the NRA has been predominately white and male in membership, it has at times been way AHEAD of society in the area of promoting equality. For example, Elizabeth Topperwein broke the gender barrier by competing in the National Rifle Match in 1906, winning a medal "to the cheers of the admiring men". Show me any other sport in which women competed with men on an equal footing 100 years ago! Looking back at those same American Rifleman magazines that Burbick finds antiquated, I see plenty of issues from the 1940s and 1950s (before women's liberation had even become a leading viewpoint) lauding female shooting competitors.
NRA support for equality went beyond firearms used for "sporting purposes", too. In the 1950s, before the Civil Rights movement took off, Robert William (president of a North Carolina NAACP chapter) formed an NRA chapter due to threats from the KKK (many of whom were police officers), to teach black folks in the area how to use firearms for self defense. An article (by David B. Kopel) in the February 2005 issue of Reason magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/32889.html) details the long correlation between the restrained capability of self defense with firearms and the social justice community.
In Burdick's book, however, this ability to defend ones self would be viewed with a jaundiced eye, as something that negatively affects society. One would wish that she viewed peace and freedom as something that resulted from a positive interaction between citizens and the government, not something bestowed by government on a helpless citizenry. Owning guns is and should be a right that augments basic police preservation of a peaceable society. Armed individuals have protected other individuals and even police officers from being murdered by criminals. And while government can be a great servant of the people, history shows that circumstances can arise at any time (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) in which the onus is on you to defend yourself for a period of time.
Reading Burbick's book left me with the impression that she would have a problem with the very notion of a private citizen using a firearm to protect another citizen or a police officer. This leaves me wondering whether she would similarly look with disfavor upon people who choose to practice martial arts (who are after all predominately...male), whether she would assume that they want to go around acting violently. In fact, martial arts training includes a strong ethic in which the practitioner is taught to avoid violence, if at all possible. Similarly, gun owners have a strong incentive to avoid violent situations because abusing their right can result in their losing it.
Writing this book would have been a great opportunity to provide insight into the half of the US population who keep and use firearms responsibly. It is too bad that the author chose to support bigoted stereotypes instead.
Useful examination of the topic.......2006-12-11
Nearly everyone trying to understand the surge of right wing political strength over the last twenty five years seems to be fixated on the role of religion; Burbick, for a change, focuses on that other social issue, gun control and second amendment rights. She gives a sweeping history of the last hundred years, and the tradition of white males in the US proudly arming themselves while African Americans are disarmed. She also shows the way right wing advocates appropriated and revised the discourse of civil rights to claim to be oppressed by the threat of gun control laws. Expanding on the theme, she shows the way the gun rights discourse intersects with anger at ex-wives (laws against those under restraining orders possessing firearms are opposed because of the many police officers they effect(!)), the religious right, and fear of a UN-controlled America (i.e. restraints on US foreign policy). I wish she'd looked a little more into the intersections of veterans, law enforcement, militias, etc, but overall, quite good.
Book Description
Non-Government Warning: L. Neil Smith's vision of Liberty is highly contagious and incurable. Exposure to his ideas will change your life.
Renowned science fiction author L. Neil Smith (The Probability Broach, Pallas, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, Forge Of The Elders, Hope) has been inspiring, delighting, and motivating Western Libertarian audiences for 25 years with his iconoclastic letters, essays, and downright rants. Now for the first time, the best of Neil's non-fiction writing on gun rights, Libertarian and Republicrat politics, the sorry socialist state of modern science fiction — even his legendary essay "Why I Hate Breakfast" — are gathered together in a single volume.
Customer Reviews:
the best.......2007-07-27
a little bit outdated in hardware terms. That is okay the ideals are still there, ideals that libtards try to crush every day. Amazes me how people forget their own history or what it takes to preserve what they have. Let the libtards in to stary spouting the myths they claim are fact, it is fun.
Have a big enough lever and you can move anything........2006-09-27
L. Neil Smith is one of the most prolific libertarian writer of the last few decades. With more than 20 sci-fi books under his belt this is his first non fiction book. Full of essays on libertarian philosophy, libertarian politics, the Second Amendment, the media, science fiction, sex, drugs, Ayn Rand, freedom and Robert A. Heinlein.
The only problem is that if you are not a libertarian it will piss you off and if you are, well, then why do you need to read it?
Lever Action should have been titled "Full Auto".......2003-03-07
L. Neil Smith has gathered a no-holds-barred collection of his finest political essays in this book. I first found "el Neil" in "The Libertarian Enterprise" online. I have since read much of his fiction, and found it to be excellent. Please buy lots and lots of his books--give them as gifts, read them and stock them in every room in your house and in every vehicle. I want him to write more, and the sure way to convince him to do so is to pay him.
And the Truth Will Set You Free.......2003-01-13
I've read and enjoyed most of L. Neil Smith's science fiction novels. I checked out his essays and other non-fiction works almost as an afterthought. I liked them. So when I saw LEVER ACTION, I jumped on it.
Guess what? I liked it too. Of course, the issues that are addressed in Smith's science fiction by allegory, implication and exposition-an optimistic, freedom-seeking, pro-gun, science fiction worldview-are addressed directly in this collection of essays and speeches.
I especially enjoyed reading the Introduction in which Smith tells us how he came by the principles in which he believes. My favorite essay is a very short one. On page 226, Smith asks the rhetorical question, "How Much Do You Want to Keep Your Guns?" He then answers his own question in an economical yet impassioned couple of hundred words. It is as beautiful a plea for mutual tolerance and personal freedom as you will ever read anywhere. Read it aloud to get the full effect. Read it aloud to your family and friends. Heck, read it aloud to someone you don't like. It might make a difference.
I have only one minor nit to pick. Because LEVER ACTION is a compilation of previous independently published writings and delivered speeches, there is some repetition. Of course, some things bear repeating.
Table of Contents.......2002-11-08
----
For the sake of providing needed information on this collection of L. Neil Smith's essays, the following table of contents is drawn from his Web site (specifically from page http://www.lneilsmith.com/leveractionmore.html):
AUTHOR'S NOTE: My Purloined Letters
INTRODUCTION: My Willingness to be Drafted to Run for President
Section I: LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY
1. The LP's First Priority
2. The Atlanta Declaration
3. Bill of Wrongs
4. A New Approach to Social Darwinism
5. The Tyranny of Democracy (Majoritarianism Versus Unanimous Consent)
6. Shop Now and Avoid the Rush
Section II: LIBERTARIAN POLITICS
7. Lever Action -- Accept No Substitutes
8. Hillary Behind Bars
9. Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus Statement of Principles
10. Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus General Resolution
11. The Twenty-Ninth Amendment
12. Tea in a Whole New Bag
13. My Three Tax Programs
14. My China Policy
15. Operation Safe Streets
16. A Desperate Suspension of Disbelief
17. A Lesson in Practical Politics
18. The Return of the Creature
19. Rally Me Not on the Lone Prairie
20. Tactical Reflections
Section III: THE SECOND AMENDMENT
21. Suppose You Were Fond of Books ...
22. Ban a Gun -- Go to Jail
23. The Atrocity Engineers
24. What About England?
25. Nipponese, Ted!
26. Twelve Tips for Safer Schools
27. Kids and Guns at School
28. Murder by Gun Control
29. Armies of Chaos
30. On Concealed Carry and the NRA
31. Screen, Scran, Screwn
32. We Don't Need No Stinkin' Bodges
33. Am I the NRA?
34. How Much Do You Want to Keep Your Guns?
35. Clinton's Crimes Are Hitler's Crimes
36. Diana DeGette Wants You Dead
37. Whodunit? Wellington Webb!
38. Listen to the Women
39. Taking the Mag Pledge
40. Smith & Wesson Must Die
41. Right-Wing Socialism
42. Why Did It Have to Be Guns?
43. A Conspiracy Theory -- Sort Of
Section IV: REPUBLICRAT POLITICS
44. Prometheus Bound -- and Gagged
45. "Do It to Julia"
46. Feeding the Ducks
47. A Revolutionary Proposal
48. Advice to Flat Taxers: Go Jump Off the Edge
49. Bill Clinton's Reichstag Fire
50. Rumplestiltsclinton
51. No, No, Kosovo! No, No, Kosovo!
52. A Note to My Political Allies
53. Security
54. Stars and Bars
55. It's the Stupidity, Stupid!
56. A Tale of Two Hoovers
Section V: A RANT FOR ALL SEASONS
57. An Ant for All Seasons (formerly "Of Ants and Men")
58. The American Lenin
59. When They Came for the Smokers ...
60. Antismokers: Get a Life!
61. The Smoking Goons
62. The Lies of Texas
63. Weird Science
64. When You Wish Upon a Star ...
65. Big Brother is Watching You -- Again
66. I Hate Breakfast
67. Some Not-Quite-Random Thoughts on Americans and Their Cars
68. Sex, Drugs, and Voter Registration
69. The Most Thoroughly "Sanitized" City in America
70. Patching the Patches
71. Scalping Elmo
72. A Culture of Harmlessness
73. The Spider at the Center of the Web
Section VI: SCIENCE FICTION AND LESSER MEDIA
74. On a Clear Day You Can See Bulgaria -- But Who Wants to Look?
75. Merchants of Fear
76. The Manchurian Lobbyist
77. Getting Back at TV Propagandists
78. The Medium is a Massage
79. Parallax
80. I'll Show You Mine If You'll Show Me Yours -- A Challenge to the Canadian Mass Media
81. Robert Heinlein Remembered
82. Don Henley's Revenge (An Open Letter to America's Old Media)
83. Who's the Wacko?
84. A Maple-Leaf Rag
85. Stop the Nagging
86. Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision
---
"Why Did It Have to Be Guns" is one of the best brief arguments for why the advocates of any sort of "gun control" are not only intellectually bankrupt but also morally corrupt beyond redemption, and how each "gun control" politician must be immediately and unequivocally identified as your own personal mortal enemy, no matter what your political, ethnic, religious, or other demographic characteristics might be. As a whole, this collection is well worth its price, and should be in the hands of any honest, decent, humane person who can read the English language.
Book Description
In a highly publicized February 1997 shootout, two rifle-wielding thugs managed to outgun LAPD officers armed only with handguns after a botched North Hollywood bank robbery. It was not until responding SWAT officers armed with rifles arrived on the scene that the suspects were finally neutralized, but not without police casualties. Though not the first incidence of police officers being outmatched by criminals' superior firepower, this one was pivotal in bringing about a serious re-examination of the use of the rifle for urban law enforcement. In this book, Gabriel Suarez, founder and senior tactical instructor of his department's Tactical Rifle Team, exposes the myths that have long kept the rifle from being considered for use in urban policing. In addition, he details the many advantages the rifle affords the inner city police officer or SWAT operator in a wide range of deployment situations and presents innovative techniques that are replacing the "traditional" ones among agencies that have adopted the rifle. As we progress into the 21st century, the rifle is likely to become an increasingly integral part of the police officer's tool bag. This book will serve as a valuable guide to police tactical riflemen, making their jobs easier and safer as they make the criminal's job more difficult and hazardous.
Customer Reviews:
Real-world tactics for Law Enforcement!.......2007-01-14
This is an excellent basic training manual for law enforcement officers desiring to include the rifle in their tactical "toolb
Arms Control
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws
The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth About Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment
Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control
The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the UN Plan To Destroy the Bill of Rights
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy)
