Average Rating: 
Rating:  - Facts vs Belief
Many controversial topics pit beliefs and emotions against one another, with facts thrown in as a legitimizing afterthought. In his new book, "The Bias Against Guns," John Lott does not use sparse facts to bolster an emotional appeal on gun-control, but follows the careful development and analysis of data to reach measured conclusions. The only emotional demand the author makes is the restrained appeal to judge the data, analysis methods and facts rather than to make knee-jerk conclusions about the relationship between gun ownership, crime, self-defense, multiple shootings, gun-lock, gun-free zone, and conceal carry weapons laws. Although Lott starts out well in an attempt to make his methods accessible, this casual reader became buried in the logic paths, surrogate data methods and analytical techniques used to conduct valid research. Sadly, the simple data gathering methods and analysis that many gun-control authors employ, while more straight-forward to understand, also leads to false conclusions, as Lott demonstrates. The vast majority will have to wait while academics have at Lott's latest work. While the technical failings of Michael Bellesiles' "Arming of America" have lead to his academic censure and halt in publication of the book in little more than 2 years, John Lott's first book "More Guns, Less Crime" is going strong five years after publication. Not without his academic detractors ...the long-term survival of Lott's work and publication of this second installment in his continuing research bears out broad acceptance of his conclusions.
Rating: - Will Drive The Anti-Gunners Crazy!
As a professor of statistics, I laughed out loud when I read an earlier reviewer write: "I can't believe John Lott has a doctorate and gets away with such flawed research. He 'randomnly' called a little over 1000 people and made a conclusion for the entire nation. Can't do it with such a small sample." Flawed research? What an intellectual ignoramus! Not only can't he spell 'randomly' correctly, he doesn't understand anything about statistics. He puts randomly in quotes when even a beginning student in statistics recognizes that this is REQUIRED if sample information is to be credible and representative of the population being sampled. And if 1,000 people aren't enough to draw a conclusion about the entire population, Mr. Einstein, how does the Gallup Poll forecast national elections with an accuracy of +/- 3% by talking with only 1,100 people? The only thing flawed here is the reviewer's obvious anti-gun bias. Like most closed-minded individuals, this reviewer proves himself to be Invincibly Ignorant For like members of the Flat Earth Society, no matter how many facts and arguments against their positions they encounter, they simply refuse to admit that they might be wrong. Instead, they resort to name calling and character assassination. I have read the book and find Dr. Lott's data and conclusions extremely compelling. I recommend this book to anyone that is open to the truth about the bogus intellectual underpinnings of the gun-control movement in America.
Rating: - Facts Drive The Anti-Gunners Nuts .... Again!
As a professor of statistics, I laughed out loud when I read an earlier reviewer write: "I can't believe John Lott has a doctorate and gets away with such flawed research. He 'randomnly' called a little over 1000 people and made a conclusion for the entire nation. Can't do it with such a small sample." Flawed research? What an intellectual ignoramus! Not only can't he spell 'randomly' correctly, he doesn't understand anything about statistics. He puts randomly in quotes when even a beginning student in statistics recognizes that this is REQUIRED if sample information is to be credible and representative of the population being sampled. And if 1,000 people aren't enough to draw a conclusion about the entire population, Mr. Einstein, how does the Gallup Poll forecast national elections with an accuracy of +/- 3% by talking with only 1,100 people? The only thing flawed here is the reviewer's obvious anti-gun bias. Like most closed-minded individuals, this reviewer proves himself to be Invincibly Ignorant For like members of the Flat Earth Society, no matter how many facts and arguments against their positions they encounter, they simply refuse to admit that they might be wrong. Instead, they resort to name calling and character assassination. I have read the book and find Dr. Lott's data and conclusions extremely compelling. I recommend this book to anyone that is open to the truth about the bogus intellectual underpinnings of the gun-control movement in America.
|
