After finding some clues on Amazon’s Canadian site that revealed three more of Lott’s reviews, I decided to check their other sites. On their German site I found the review below. This review seems to have also been deleted when the Mary Rosh review was deleted. I think that was because this review was posted anonymously from Mary Rosh’s Amazon account (it’s from Philadelphia, just like Mary’s one). and when Amazon deleted all of Mary Rosh’s reviews they also deleted the anonymous ones.

i-6da7393c8ff6de1c28d52199d33a151e-stars-5-0.gifVery well written, solid researched book, 30. Januar 2000
Rezensentin/Rezensent: Rezensentin/Rezensent aus Philadelphia

This book is an excellent read that demolishes the many myths spread in the popular press about guns and crime. By grossly exaggerating the risks of having a gun in the home and failing to report the frequent defensive uses of guns, the media endangers people’s lives.

I have a hard time believing that most of the negative reviewers have even read the book. The reviewer who worries about the impact of Florida on the results could not have read the book (see for example pp. 139-41). It is simply bizarre to claim that Lott doesn’t give enough attention to the issue of causality. Not only does the decline in crime occur in many different states when those states adopted their laws in many different years. But the decline is closely related to the number of permits issued. Lott also goes through evidence of counties which border each other in neighboring states with and without the right to carry laws. Guess what the crime rate goes down in the county with the law at the same time that it is going up in the neighboring county without the law. Lott has about 5 other points on the issue of causality.

The earlier reviewer from Australia who mentions the international comparison has definitely not read the book. Lott specifically points out how when you look at all the countries for which the data is available higher gun ownership countries do not have higher homicide rates. This myth is because of the selective picking of only a few countries to make a comparison with.

Finally, let me say that those who attack the book because it is supposedly not a fun read are just trying to discourage others from reading the book. I have seen statements from everyone from Tom Sowell to Milton Friedman to James Q. Wilson saying what a well written book this is and how valuable of a factual source it is. Those attacking the book will stop at nothing to keep other people from even looking at it. They know that once people read it they will understand that all the attacks on it are completely bogus. The media has done a horrible job covering this book. It is so easy to verify whether Lott has taken into account the other explanations for why crime rates have changed over time, and they are afraid that those who have lied about Lott’s research will lose their credibility.

Those attacking Lott will stop at nothing to keep you from reading this book. Don’t let them succeed. As Sean Hannity says, “this is the most important, best written book that has ever been written on guns.”

Once again we have Lott replying to previous reviews. His claim that the reviewer who said his book was not a fun read was trying to stop people from reading it seems rather paranoid. That reviewer was recommending the book despite its dullness. Here’s the review that set Lott off:

In More Guns Less Crime, John Lott fires away at the fatuous assumptions that empower most forms of gun control. While he hits many bulls-eyes and scores several important points, the book misses the mark of being a real page-turner. It reads more like an extensive case study (in reality it summarizes the findings of numerous case studies) and fails to really engage the lay reader. Tumescent with charts and graphs, it plods along rather than flying like a bullet. I certainly admire the author for being a straight shooter who relies more on facts than emotionally-charged but empty slogans. He is destined to be ambushed by Rosie O’Donnell and her myopic clones in Hollywood for daring to tell the truth rather than their version of reality. I just wish it could have presented with more of a blast. Although he sends a barrage and hits many targets in the gun control movement’s poorly defended arguments, the dragging pace of this book may turn off some readers. However, those who complete the book will learn quite a few facts that gun control advocates do [not] want disseminated

Comments

  1. #1 Michael Peckham
    February 24, 2004

    Wow. Not only is the review self-serving, it’s downright whiny.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.