John Lott New Book, 8/16, "The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    John Lott's new book, "The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies"

    Just out, available on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/War-Guns-You...id=1470271557&sr=8-1&keywords=the+war+on+guns
    (Edit: I couldn't copy SAF's Amazon Smile link, but be sure to use it to have Amazon make a contribution to SAF at no cost to you!)

    SAF's E-mail recommending it:

    "The Left Is Coming For Your Guns


    “Amidst threats of terrorism, the need for John Lott’s The War on Guns and a rational debate on guns has never been greater. Paris and San Bernardino show us that gun-free zones won’t stop terrorists. As this book documents, these killers consciously pick targets where they know victims will be sitting ducks. Lott carefully proves that the push for more gun control only makes the types of attacks that we fear more likely to occur.”
    —Newt Gingrich


    They’re coming for your guns…

    That’s not a scaremongering phrase—it’s a simple truth.

    And it comes from John R. Lott Jr., Ph.D., economists and bestselling author of the debate-changing More Guns, Less Crime.

    In this, his latest and most important book, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies , Lott offers the most thorough debunking yet of the so-called “facts,” “data,” and “arguments” of anti-gun advocates, exposing how they have repeatedly twisted or ignored the real evidence, the evidence that of course refutes them on every point.

    In The War on Guns , Lott explains why gun licenses and background checks don’t stop crime; how “gun-free” zones actually attract mass shooters; how big-money liberal foundations and the federal government are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into “public health” studies, the sole purpose of which is to manufacture false data against guns; and how anti-gun activists have targeted not just the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment—all in an effort to shut down pro-gun arguments
    Concerned about your gun rights? You should be.


    The War on Guns is the essential book for defending your Second Amendment Rights—before they are taken away forever.


    Buy your copy today!


    Sincerely yours,
    Alan Gottlieb's signature
    Alan M. Gottlieb
    Founder
    Second Amendment Foundation


    Copyright © 2016 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved."
     
    Last edited:

    robmints

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2011
    5,092
    "Reviewer: maryrosh (see more about me) from Philadelphia
    If you want to learn about what can stop crime or if you want to learn about many of the myths involving crime that endanger people’s lives, this is the book to get. It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed.If you want an emotional book, this is not the book for you. If you want a book with the facts, a book that tells you the benefits and risks from protecting yourself and your family from crime, a book that will explain the facts in a straightforward and clear way, this is the book to get.This is by far the largest most comprehensive study on crime, let alone on gun control. Professor Lott examines crime rates as well as accidental gun deaths and suicides for all 3,056 counties in the United States by year for 18 years. By comparison, the previous largest study on gun control examined 170 cities within one single year 1980. Lott examined 54,000 observations and the previous largest study looked at 170 observations. Lott used all the FBI data that was available from the first year that they released the county level data to the last year that they had put it out when he wrote his book. Unlike other studies, Lott used all the data that was available. He did not pick certain cities to include and others to exclude. No previous study had accounted for even a small fraction of the variables that he accounted for."

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/21/maryrosh/

    Really like the message, wish i could believe the messenger.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    "Reviewer: maryrosh (see more about me) from Philadelphia
    If you want to learn about what can stop crime or if you want to learn about many of the myths involving crime that endanger people’s lives, this is the book to get. It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed.If you want an emotional book, this is not the book for you. If you want a book with the facts, a book that tells you the benefits and risks from protecting yourself and your family from crime, a book that will explain the facts in a straightforward and clear way, this is the book to get.This is by far the largest most comprehensive study on crime, let alone on gun control. Professor Lott examines crime rates as well as accidental gun deaths and suicides for all 3,056 counties in the United States by year for 18 years. By comparison, the previous largest study on gun control examined 170 cities within one single year 1980. Lott examined 54,000 observations and the previous largest study looked at 170 observations. Lott used all the FBI data that was available from the first year that they released the county level data to the last year that they had put it out when he wrote his book. Unlike other studies, Lott used all the data that was available. He did not pick certain cities to include and others to exclude. No previous study had accounted for even a small fraction of the variables that he accounted for."

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/21/maryrosh/

    Really like the message, wish i could believe the messenger.

    Who is she? From the apparent date, looks like that was 1999, about an earlier book. The new one has only 12 Amazon reviews so far.
     

    robmints

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2011
    5,092
    Who is she? From the apparent date, looks like that was 1999, about an earlier book. The new one has only 12 Amazon reviews so far.

    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html

    And that is his side of the story. I'm still not buying. You are going to need someone more trustworthy to cite and rely on for facts, IMO. He may be 100% correct, but using him as the source to back your opinion is worthless because his name is known among antis as a debunked fraud.

    Might as well use Brian Williams or Hillary as your source.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html

    And that is his side of the story. I'm still not buying. You are going to need someone more trustworthy to cite and rely on for facts, IMO. He may be 100% correct, but using him as the source to back your opinion is worthless because his name is known among antis as a debunked fraud.

    Might as well use Brian Williams or Hillary as your source.

    I haven't relied on him for facts or expressing an opinion; passed along an e-mail that I received from SAF (OP, #1), which included some glowing reviews by some prominent people.

    Maybe you should share your info with SAF, both to get its response and potentially save it some embarrassment.
     

    Engine4

    Curmudgeon
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2012
    6,983
    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html

    And that is his side of the story. I'm still not buying. You are going to need someone more trustworthy to cite and rely on for facts, IMO. He may be 100% correct, but using him as the source to back your opinion is worthless because his name is known among antis as a debunked fraud.

    Might as well use Brian Williams or Hillary as your source.

    Wow, I didn't know Lott had that much baggage.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Just received it from Amazon ... reading this weekend

    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html

    And that is his side of the story. I'm still not buying. You are going to need someone more trustworthy to cite and rely on for facts, IMO. He may be 100% correct, but using him as the source to back your opinion is worthless because his name is known among antis as a debunked fraud.

    Might as well use Brian Williams or Hillary as your source.

    While I'm researching the actual numbers of 'copies sold', I think a good benchmark on Lott's reputation in this area might be a comparison between him and his closest rival on the topic of gun control, Adam Winkler. You can probably assume that the number of reviews for each is indicative of the number of books sold.

    I chose Lott's 3rd edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" because it's the most current and complete, along with being published a year prior to Winkler's "Gun Fight". Once Lott's new book gets a few months of sales and a few more reviews, I'll give it a comparison. Despite Winkler being a oft-cited darling of the gun-control crowd, his academics, especially in statistical analysis pales to Lott.

    In the meantime, read Lott's one-star review of "Gun Fight".

    Not a very accurate book, very disappointing By John R. Lott Jr. on October 24, 2011

    The most disturbing thing about this book is how Winkler distorts what others have written. Take this example. Clayton Cramer has written extensively on the history of concealed handgun laws. Winkler claims that Cramer didn't believe that concealed handgun laws were motivated by racism, but, according to Clayton, the laws in the late 1800s were in fact clearly motivated by racism. When I read this discussion I called up Clayton just to make sure that I hadn't completely gotten things backwards in my mind and he assured me that I hadn't. Clayton also rejected the notion that the concealed handgun laws adopted then were done as a way of "reducing public violence" as Winkler writes. It is hard to read Clayton's work and get these things so backwards. You can disagree with Clayton and explain those disagreements, but don't claim that he wrote the opposite of what he actually wrote. I hope that I am wrong, but this discussion comes across as an attempt to separate gun control from its racist past in the South.

    The book also does Clayton a real disservice by completely ignoring his role in the Bellesiles episode.

    From the first hand knowledge that I have about the Heller and McDonald cases, it is very clear that Adam also got much of that recent history wrong.

    The book's discussion of my own work on concealed handguns is littered with inaccuracies, but one can see what Winkler does to Cramer research as a warning for how facts can be reversed in this book. In my case, at best Winkler didn't read the first edition of More Guns, Less Crime very carefully (he doesn't cite either the second and third editions) -- this is only a problem given that he is writing about the debate over my research.

    I recently debated Adam on KPCC, a public radio station in Southern California. A copy of the interview as well as some of my comments on a few obviously incorrect claims by Adam are available on my website here.
     

    Attachments

    • Winkler & Lott.JPG
      Winkler & Lott.JPG
      43.2 KB · Views: 403

    robmints

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2011
    5,092
    I haven't relied on him for facts or expressing an opinion; passed along an e-mail that I received from SAF (OP, #1), which included some glowing reviews by some prominent people.

    Maybe you should share your info with SAF, both to get its response and potentially save it some embarrassment.

    They all know all about the controversy surrounding Lott. I guess some feel his answers are credible and convincing? Maybe they think time earns credibility back? Maybe they all have a common publisher? I don't know. I haven't fallen for the "the kids must have written the comments" or "all the supporting evidence was on my computer and it crashed, but believe me, I swear".
     

    robmints

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 20, 2011
    5,092
    Well, if you call 'baggage' commentary and reviews from the likes of ...

    http://[B]thinkprogress.org[/B]/justice/2016/06/13/3787491/discredited-nonsense-gave-america-guns-less-crime-myth/

    AND

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/21/why_is_the_media_rehabilitating_john_lott/

    Baggage. :innocent0

    My issues are based in his own admissions. He posted reviews of his book as someone else. Additional questionable postings from what may be the same computer, he denied knowledge and said it may have been his children. He wrote a book and when pressed could not produce the supporting research.

    I'm not using anything he writes or says to form my opinion, or using information gleaned from him in conversation or correspondence. So I might as well read about Travis McGee, much more entertaining.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    My issues are based in his own admissions. He posted reviews of his book as someone else. Additional questionable postings from what may be the same computer, he denied knowledge and said it may have been his children. He wrote a book and when pressed could not produce the supporting research.

    The Mystery of Mary Rosh was published by Julian Sanchez in May 2003 right after Lott's 1st version was released. Much has changed since then with two more thoroughly researched and reviewed editions, with a whole lot more statistical data being collected by trusted sources.

    I'm not using anything he writes or says to form my opinion, or using information gleaned from him in conversation or correspondence. So I might as well read about Travis McGee, much more entertaining.

    I've also read a number of 'academic' reviews that dispute his research and call him out for his " descent into dishonesty", however all critiqued his analysis of data between 1977 to 1992, hardly what one would call years of runaway gun violence where you could make a case either way. But that was the basis of his 1st book. Like I said a LOT has transpired since then and even CDC data proves his initial theory correct.

    So, read Travis McGee if you wish and be content in doing so, unless you want to offer something more than a rehash of a 2006 report from SourceWatch.

    The Truth about SourceWatch
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    EL1227 - excellent post and analysis, as usual sir, thank you.

    I've been a long time reader and proponent of John Lott; quite frankly I wasn't totally convinced of the 'facts' until I examined his work and purchased his book you mention.

    While I (and others) wait to get our hands on his new work; some may enjoy and take comfort in these comments:

     

    NatBoh

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 4, 2012
    2,704
    Baltimore
    Thanks for bringing that information to light Robmints. I had always thought that Lott was a legit, upstanding researcher. Very disappointing to hear.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    With sniper fire-dodging, Benghazi-lying Hillary Clinton now lying to not one, but two different journalists on national TV that FBI Director Comey said the opposite of what we all saw and heard him say about her repeated lies, Lott's credibility certainly can't be any worse than hers.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    With Obama telling the world that we didn't pay Iran ransom for hostages, when one of the actual hostages recounted yesterday that his plane releasing them was delayed taking off until an airplane full of foreign-denominated cash had landed, Lott's credibility isn't any worse than Obama's.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html

    And that is his side of the story. I'm still not buying. You are going to need someone more trustworthy to cite and rely on for facts, IMO. He may be 100% correct, but using him as the source to back your opinion is worthless because his name is known among antis as a debunked fraud.

    Might as well use Brian Williams or Hillary as your source.



    If you are taking to antis..you are part of the problem...

    Talk to everyone else... talk though them...use them as props...but never talk to them..

    We don't have time to waste..
     

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    Who is she? From the apparent date, looks like that was 1999, about an earlier book. The new one has only 12 Amazon reviews so far.

    I hate to say it, but it would appear that Mr Lott has been busted on a number of things including Mary Rosh.

    Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet.

    If this report is true, it is a sad day for the 2A.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    I hate to say it, but it would appear that Mr Lott has been busted on a number of things including Mary Rosh.



    If this report is true, it is a sad day for the 2A.

    It looks really amateur, childish, and not good. But isn't this very old "news", although many of us are unaware of it? Sort of like Hillary and Whitewater, McDougall, cattle futures, travelgate, etc., etc., etc.? He should have hired a Democrat image remaker.

    Or, is only the Left allowed redemption and a second, third, fourth chance?

    I don't know enough about it or him.
     

    j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    It looks really amateur, childish, and not good. But isn't this very old "news", although many of us are unaware of it? Sort of like Hillary and Whitewater, McDougall, cattle futures, travelgate, etc., etc., etc.? He should have hired a Democrat image remaker.

    Or, is only the Left allowed redemption and a second, third, fourth chance?

    I don't know enough about it or him.

    Yes, this is old news.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,483
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom