The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies

Must read laid out in a way that keeps your attention

The "Left" is waging a war on our Guns in America, using false data, innuendo, and outright lies, and it's working for them. Bloomberg is funding much of the research and he is getting what he is paying for; in almost all cases, John Lott, Jr. details how the research is wrong and supports every word with factual data to support his claims. John Lott Jr. does not receive ANY funding from ANY source with a "dog in the fight", and his research is honest and provable. EVERY American Citizen needs to read this book, especially those of among us who are "against" guns. They have been duped into believing the Gun Control groups who are dead wrong on the real truth about guns in America and the real Gun Control Agenda.Did you know that there have been MANY mass shootings stopped or lessened by Responsibly Armed American Citizens while carrying a concealed firearm? John Lott J. details 9 of these cases; and has many others, but being very conservative in his answers only listed those that a known person in a position of authority, Police Chief or Officer, a Sheriff for Deputy, or a Mayor, who actually went on record and claimed that the shooting would have been much worse if the Concealed Carry person did not respond with his weapon. There were obvious others, but no record of a person of authority made a statement that could be verified. He details cases where Responsibly Armed Americans who are carrying a concealed weapon came to the defense of Police Officers. In this book and his previous books, "More Guns - Less Crime" he details that at least two million crimes against innocent victims are stopped by the legal use of guns in America each year. That's TWO MILLION possible rapes, murders, assaults, burglary's, etc. that could have been deadly or in the least ravage someone's life forever, but were stopped by a responsibly armed Citizen. President Obama has stated many times that America has the worst crime rate with guns in the world, this is a false statement, the truth is in the book. If you took out the "Democratically" controlled, and highly "Gun Controlled" high crime cities such as Detroit, Washington DC, etc.(probably 8 in total) America's crime rate would be lower than that of Sweden, or the lowest in the world.I know that many people don't want to read about issues that don't fit their known beliefs, but this is one, everyone should read as the deception will just continue if not stopped. Our Second Amendment is the "Right" that protects all others; The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. Thanks for your time, Rick

Lott himself considers this his best book to date on guns, and I agree. It is the best single volume exhaustive compilation of counter arguments to the anti-gunners, both in terms of good statistics practice and fact vs confounding imagination with reality. For a fully rounded set of studies smashing the anti-gunners in this country and, for one more, the UK and Wales, I commend to all readers the following additional books:1. Joyce Lee Malcolm's "Guns and Violence," wherein she covers the history of violence and crime in those two countries from the Middle Ages to 2002, the copyright date. Her analysis takes us through the criminalization of self defense in those two countries, an abject lesson for us in USA. We only need a few things to happen at the federal level for personal self defense to become a crime in this country, as it is already in several cities with disarmed law-biding citizens, the nation's highest crime rates, and, as a further high correlation, Democratic machine administrations.2. Heather MacDonald's "War on Cops" that looks at the full panoply of statistics and arguments against the assertions of racism and discrimination in how African-Americans fare in the US criminal justice systems.I also recommend John Lott's MGLC, a go-to volume of stats through 2010 and a comprehensive rebuttal of all the arguments the anti-gunners have tried to use to "debunk" and discredit Lott's work. He slams all of those, but he is not the only one in the business.His website, crimeresearch.org is worth keeping up with daily.Lott continually points out what the anti-gunners NEVER do, and that is that guns have VERY REAL benefits, not just for private pleasure, but very much in reducing or reducing the likelihood of all categories of violent crime.Another website, drgo.us , the site for Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, supports Lott's work and conclusions using their own research. They take on the professional medical societies, academies, and associations which have sucked into the anti-gun ether, trying to make guns part of a public health problem, even though gun violence doesn't fit the definition of a public health issue.So, "War on Guns" if you are willing only to read one volume, but for the comprehensive picture in greater detail and more points of view, all three of the above books and the two websites. NRA's isn't shabby, either.

Though this book is a little long on statistics, which are not my forte, I could follow most of them. A few repetitious conclusions, and a couple of "leaps of logic". But on the whole, my personal research finds it completely debunks the gun grabbers' emotional appeals, and the falsehoods and misdirections they promulgate. I am not an NRA member, but like shooting as a sport since my teen years learning in NRA. I took the updated courses recently and qualified, though I hadn't shot for 35 years. In the military, my "gun" was an ICBM (though we had to carry a .38 Special).I am not against some limitations on purchasing automatic weapons and larger weapons (needs defining!), but simple intelligence and a basic knowledge of history, establishes that the cat is out of the bag: millions of guns in the U.S. already, and most folks are smart enough not to give up their only significant form of self-defense. I support my police who put their lives on the line, but it is physically impossible for them to always be "johnny on the spot" for a crime, and it takes (usually) five to ten minutes OR MORE for them to respond in the great majority of instances. Do I ask the perp, "please wait a few minutes before you shoot/rob/attack me while the police respond?". That's what the grabbers want you to be: completely dependent on GOVERNMENT to run your life and save it. I could go on for an hour, but will spare you. This is a good book despite its many charts and tables, with some good common sense in it. Sent a copy to others in my family, and a couple of friends.

O livro é uma defesa do direito de portar armas e uma crítica da regulamentação de armas. O autor, John R. Lott, é um economista e estudioso de direitos de porte de armas, e é conhecido por sua defesa à liberdade de porte de armas. Suas opiniões são consideradas polêmicas e não são compartilhadas por todos os especialistas no assunto. Alguns críticos alegam que suas pesquisas são incompletas, tendenciosas e não foram replicadas por outros estudiosos. É importante considerar as fontes e as opiniões de diferentes especialistas antes de formar uma opinião sobre o assunto ou utilizar o livro para trabalhos acadêmicos.

2018 habe ich das Buch schon einmal gelesen. Jetzt habe ich es gerade ein zweites Mal gelesen, denn mittlerweile habe ich gelernt, dass Lott zu den ganz wichtigen Figuren in der oben genannten Debatte gehört.Hier in Europa wird über Waffen kaum geredet oder geschrieben, und wenn doch, dann nur in einem negativen Kontext. Die meisten Europäer wissen über Waffen gar nichts. Die Waffengesetze sind so streng, dass nur noch wenige Bürger Waffen haben. Wir haben hier auch keine Fachleute wie z.B. David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook, Adam Winkler oder eben John Lott. Für mich als Europäer ist es wirklich faszinierend in die amerikanische Waffendebatte einzutauchen, denn dadurch lernt man viele wichtige Fakten und Argumente kennen, die sich nahezu 1:1 auf europäische Verhältnisse übertragen lassen.Lott und sein Crime Prevention Research Center sind längst ein Schwergewicht in der amerikanischen Waffendebatte. Seine Gegner fürchten ihn und sie lassen ihn auch ihre Abneigung spüren. 1998 schrieb er seinen Bestseller „More Guns, Less Crime“, und das kostete ihn die akademische Karriere. Die Universität von Chicago setzte ihn dafür vor die Tür. Das kommt davon, wenn man in der Waffendebatte die „falsche“ Seite vertritt. Er beschreibt das ziemlich ausführlich am Ende des Buches ab S. 187.Fast alle Leser geben dem Buch 5 Sterne. Warum das so ist, kann man in den anderen Rezensionen nachlesen. Ich habe mich entschlossen, das Buch hier inhaltlich vorzustellen:Kapitel 1: Die Meinung der Amerikaner zu Waffen hat sich in den letzten 20 Jahren gedreht. Immer mehr Amerikaner erkennen den Vorteil, den der Besitz einer Waffe mit sich bringt, und das trotz der Tatsache, dass sämtliche Mainstreammedien auf allen Kanälen ständig von den bösen Waffen sprechen. Man sieht den Wandel nicht nur in Umfragen, sondern auch an ganz konkreten Zahlen, zum Beispiel steigt die Zahl der Waffenscheine seit Jahren massiv und kontinuierlich.Kapitel 2 beschäftigt sich mit jenen Leuten, die in USA als Experten in der Waffendebatte auftreten. Man erfährt, dass und warum Kriminologen und Ökonomen das Thema Waffen unterschiedlich angehen. Michael Bloomberg, der wohl schärfste Waffengegner der USA, und seine Organisation „Everytown“ werden beleuchtet.Kapitel 3 befasst sich überwiegend mit der Rolle des Gesundheitssektors in der Waffendebatte.Kapitel 4 bringt einige interessante Tatsachen, die man in Europa nie hört. Wer weiß, hierzulande, dass das Registrieren von Waffen bei der Aufklärung von Verbrechen keine Rolle spielt und warum? Wem ist bekannt, dass das am Tatort gefundene Projektile über den sog. ballistischen Fingerabdruck meist gar nicht zugeordnet werden kann?Kapitel 5 fragt, ob privater Waffenbesitz das Risiko für Polizisten erhöht, im Dienst ums Leben zu kommen. Außerdem geht es darum, warum die NRA so gut wie kein Geld für Umfragen, Gutachten, Studien etc. ausgibt.In Kapitel 6 geht es darum, wie Umfragen und Daten durch die Waffengegner manipuliert werden. Obama, ein notorischer Waffengegner, ging sogar so weit, dafür zu sorgen, dass das FBI in seiner Kriminalstatistik „passende“ Zahlen liefert.Kapitel 7 widmet sich einem Thema, das wir hier in Deutschland vor allem als sogenannte „amerikanische Verhältnisse“ kennen. Die Kapitelüberschrift fragt: "Wie sehen die USA im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern aus?“, wenn es um die Zahl der Toten durch Amokläufe (mass public shootings) geht? Die Antwort fällt leider nicht so aus, wie sich das die Waffengegner wünschen.Kapitel 8 fragt: „Haben Länder mit vielen Waffen eine höhere Mordrate?“ Die Frage wird mit Nein beantwortet. Untermauert wird dieses Ergebnis u.a. mit Großbritannien, Irland, und Venezuela. Insofern gibt es auch einen Überblick über die OECD-Länder.Kapitel 9 befasst sich mit dem Thema Australien. Dieses Land wird sehr gerne herangezogen, wenn es darum geht, zu beweisen, dass ein strengeres Waffengesetz zu einer niedrigeren Tötungsrate mit Waffen führt, wobei immer eine entscheidende Tatsache verschwiegen wird: Die Tötungsrate mit Waffen sank in Australien bereits seit den 1980ern, also lange VOR dem Buyback-Programm von 1996/1997.Kapitel 10 beschäftigt sich speziell mit Amokläufen, die in USA „mass public shootings“ heißen und streng definiert sind. Hier geht es darum, ob sog Sturmwaffen („assault weapons“) tatsächlich so gefährlich sind wie behauptet wird. Es wird gefragt, ob High Capacity-Magazine diese Attacken tödlicher machen, welche Rolle waffenfreie Zonen spielen und welche Rolle die geistige Erkrankung bei den Tätern spielt.Im 11. Kapitel geht es darum, wie gefährlich Waffen im Haus für Kinder sind und ob nicht vielleicht Badewannen und Swimmingpools gefährlicher sind. Anschließend wird untersucht, inwieweit Regeln aus dem Straßenverkehr auf das Waffenrecht übertragbar sind.Kapitel 12 untersucht die Effektivität von Backgroundchecks.Kapitel 13 hat die Stand Your Ground-Gesetze zum Gegenstand, da von verschiedenen Seiten behauptet wurde, diese Form der Notwehr würde dazu führen, dass Weiße öfter freigesprochen werden als Schwarze.Kapitel 14 beschäftigt sich schließlich mit Backgroundchecks bei Waffenverkäufen die unter Privatleuten stattfinden.Fazit:In diesem Buch wird immer wieder gezeigt, wie die Waffengegner und ihre Helfer in den Mainstreammedien die Fakten verdrehen. Wer Fakten, Fußnoten, Zahlen, Tabellen, Diagramme, Listen und Aufdröselungen aller Art liebt, der ist bei Lott genau richtig. Hier hat die Waffendebatte akademisches Niveau.ENGLISH TRANSLATIONIf you want to know about the U.S. gun debate, you can't ignore John Lott.In 2018, I read the book once before. Now I just read it a second time, because in the meantime I learned that Lott is one of the most important voices in the above-mentioned debate.Here in Europe, guns are hardly ever talked or written about, and if they are, it is only in a negative context. Most Europeans know nothing about guns. Gun laws are so strict that few citizens have guns anymore. We also don't have experts here such as David Kopel, Stephen Halbrook, Adam Winkler or even John Lott. For me as a European, it is really fascinating to dive into the American gun debate, because you learn many important facts and arguments that can be transferred almost 1:1 to European conditions.Lott and his Crime Prevention Research Center have long been a heavyweight in the American gun debate. His opponents fear him, and they also let him know their distaste. In 1998, he wrote his best-selling book, "More Guns, Less Crime" and it cost him his academic career. The University of Chicago threw him out the door for it. That's what you get for taking the "wrong" side in the gun debate. He describes this quite extensively at the end of the book starting on p. 187.Almost all readers give the book 5 stars. You can read why in the other reviews. I have decided to present the book here in terms of content:Chapter 1: Americans' opinion of guns has turned around in the last 20 years. More and more Americans are realizing the benefits of owning a gun, despite the fact that all the mainstream media on every channel is constantly talking about the evil guns. You can see the change not only in polls, but also in very concrete numbers, for example, the number of concealed carry permit holders has been rising massively and steadily for years.Chapter 2 deals with those people who act as experts in the gun debate in the USA. One learns that and why criminologists and economists approach the topic of guns differently. Michael Bloomberg, arguably the fiercest gun opponent in the U.S., and his "Everytown" organization are also examined.Chapter 3 focuses mostly on the role of the health sector in the gun debate.Chapter 4 brings some interesting facts that you never hear in Europe. Who knows that gun registration plays no role in solving crimes and why? Who knows that the projectile found at the crime scene can usually not be identified using the so-called ballistic fingerprint?Chapter 5 asks whether private gun ownership increases the risk of police officers being killed in the line of duty. It also looks at why the NRA spends virtually no money on surveys, studies, etc.Chapter 6 is about how polls and data are manipulated by gun opponents. Obama, a notorious gun opponent, even went so far as to make sure the FBI provided "proper" numbers in its crime statistics.Chapter 7 is devoted to a topic that we here in Germany know primarily as the so-called "American conditions". The chapter title asks, "How does the U.S. compare to other countries?" when it comes to the number of deaths from shooting rampages (mass public shootings). The answer, unfortunately, does not turn out the way gun opponents would like.Chapter 8 asks, "Do countries with lots of guns have higher homicide rates?" The answer to the question is no. Underpinning this result are the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Venezuela, among others. In this respect, there is also an overview of OECD countries.Chapter 9 deals with Australia. This country is often used to prove that stricter gun laws lead to a lower homicide rate with guns, but one crucial fact is always omitted: Gun homicide rates have been falling in Australia since the 1980s, long before the 1996/1997 buyback program.Chapter 10 deals specifically with shooting rampages, which in the USA are called "mass public shootings" and are strictly defined. The question is whether assault weapons are really as dangerous as they are claimed to be. It asks whether high capacity magazines make these attacks more deadly, what role gun-free zones play, and what role mental illness plays among the perpetrators.Chapter 11 addresses how dangerous guns in the home are to children and whether bathtubs and swimming pools might not be more dangerous. It then examines the extent to which rules from traffic laws can be applied to gun laws.Chapter 12 examines the effectiveness of background checks.Chapter 13 deals with Stand Your Ground laws since it has been claimed by various parties that this form of self-defense results in whites being acquitted more often than blacks.Finally, Chapter 14 deals with background checks for gun sales that occur among private citizens.Conclusion:This book shows over and over again how gun opponents and their helpers in the mainstream media distort the facts. If you love facts, footnotes, figures, tables, charts, lists and unraveling of all kinds, „The War On Guns“ is the book for you. Here, the gun debate has an academic level.(translated with deepl.com)

"The War on Guns" is an imperative follow-up to Lott's seminal earlier publication "More Guns/Less Crime".Anyone who digests the facts that Lott meticulously lays out is able to see through the unimaginable ignorance and/or Machievellian designs of those who call for disarming citizens and be in a position to articulate why they are so terribly misguided.Were gun control zealots themselves to educate themselves by reading Lott's texts all but the most radical would find themselves re-thinking their positions.

A good read with accurate data, I recommend this if your a law abiding gun owner

Amazing book. Reveals the truth behind gun statistics and the reasoning for the current media and political climate against responsible gun ownership.