Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The War on Guns, John Lott’s Important New Book
John Lott, Jr., a PhD economist who has published scores of peer-reviewed articles in top journals, has written an outstanding and important new book, The War on Guns. It is, I believe, the most important document ever written about guns.
The book has many outstanding aspects. One is Lott’s careful review of many studies that the media often cite in order to bolster arguments in favor of additional restrictions on guns. Often, Lott uses his exceptional training in statistics to expose major flaws in these studies. A second outstanding aspect of the book is Lott’s documentation of several cases where anti-gun advocates have been dishonest or deceptive in presenting their evidence.
For this review, however, I focus on a third outstanding aspect of the book. This is the many powerful and interesting facts and anecdotes that fill the book. Like many Ricochet readers, I consider myself a news junkie; e.g., I probably consult the Drudge Report at least a dozen times a day and I probably listen to or watch a couple hours of talk radio or cable news each day. As a consequence, when I read a book on politics or current events, I’m often already familiar with many of the book’s anecdotes. Not so with Lott’s book. I’d estimate that approximately every fifth page or so I learned a new fact or anecdote that I now consider very important.
You might think that I’d be very pleased when learning these facts or anecdotes. However, my reaction was usually the opposite. Instead, I’d often think, “Why haven’t the media — not even the conservative media — reported these facts? What is wrong with our system of government and media, when most people have no knowledge of these facts?”
The following is a partial list of such important facts and anecdotes that I learned from Lott’s book:
- Over the last two or three decades American attitudes toward guns have shifted significantly in the pro-gun direction. For instance, each year the Roper Center surveys Americans, asking them if they favor or oppose stricter gun laws. During the late 1990s, approximately 32 percent said they opposed stricter gun laws. Since then, the percentage has risen consistently, reaching approximately 50 percent by 2014. Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center, using slightly different questions, show a similar shift. The shift has been approximately as great as the recent shift in attitudes toward gay marriage, a shift that many consider astounding. For instance, Pew reports that, in 2001, 35 percent of Americans supported gay marriage, while 55 percentsupport gay marriage in 2016.
- The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School occurred in Newtown, Ct. on Dec. 14, 2012. Approximately two years later, in February 2014, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action released a report, which was covered by more than two thousand news stories. The report claimed that, during the two years after the Newtown massacre, forty-four “mini Newtowns” had occurred in the U.S. and they were becoming so commonplace that the media no longer pay attention to them. The report led President Obama to claim that “It [a mini Newtown] happens once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this.” However, of the 44 “mini Newtowns” documented in the report, only 28 involved a death. Eleven of the 28 deaths were suicides. Of the remaining 17 deaths, most involved gang fights. In no way is it accurate to say that, during those two years, a massacre similar to Newton happened once a week.
- “Ballistic fingerprinting,” notes Lott, “ was all the rage fifteen years ago. This process requires keeping a database of the markings that a particular gun makes on a bullet; its unique fingerprint, so to speak. Maryland led the way in ballistic investigation, and New York soon followed. The days of criminal gun use were supposedly numbered. It didn’t work. Registering guns’ ballistic fingerprints never solved a single crime. New York scrapped its program in 2012.” Maryland ended its program in 2015.
- “Since 2011,” notes Lott, “there have been only three mass public shootings in areas where concealed carry was allowed.”
- In the “gun violence” debate, advocates of gun control often insist that mass killers are incapable of rational planning. Accordingly, they insist, killers will not be deterred by policies that allow their potential victims to possess a gun and shoot back. In a discussion of this debate, Lott notes an interesting fact: The Newtown killer, Adam Lanza, spent much time planning his attack. This included spending two and a half years writing a dissertation-like report on mass shootings. The report included a 7ft. x 4 ft. spreadsheet with names, body counts, and weapons from previous mass murders and attempted killings. Lanza also collected information on media coverage for each killing.
- As Lott notes, “For several years, Obama has been requiring that veterans be reported to the [National Instant Criminal Background System] if they need someone else to manage their Veterans Administration (VA) benefits. The only way out is to forfeit the benefits before the information is given to the background check system. According to the Congressional Research Service, 99.3 percent of all names reported to the NICS list’s ‘mental defective’ category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA).”
- THe federal background check system is plagued with many false positives. As Lott notes, “About 96 percent of ‘initial denials’ are dropped after the first two stages of review. Many more are dropped during the three remaining stages.”
- Lott lists nine cases where a concealed handgun permit holder likely prevented a mass killing. I suspect that the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of all nine cases. The following are two of the cases, which, I believe, are representative of the list in terms of their newsworthiness: (i) “Conyers, Georgia, May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people had already been killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said of the incident: ‘I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot]. . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.’” (ii) “New Holland, South Carolina, May 5, 2015: A man, firing his gun, approached a volunteer fire department with a ‘parking lot full of children and firefighters.’ Fortunately, two firefighters had permitted concealed handguns and confronted the man with weapons drawn. The assailant ‘pointed the firearm at individual firefighters for lengthy periods of time.’ Eventually, the man was persuaded to drop his gun.”
I believe that most readers will agree: The above list contains some very important facts. I suspect, however, that few Americans are aware of any of them. If I’m correct, this reveals how ignorant most Americans (including me, before I read Lott’s book) are about the facts surrounding gun issues.
In writing War on Guns, John Lott deserves much praise and credit for helping to correct this problem.
Published in Guns
Us gun nuts have been aware of most of these things for a long time, but the press has its agenda.
Great book review! Should have started on the main feed . . . needs to be moved there!
It probably was already at the printer, but I hope Dr. Lott was able to work in the Katie Couric fiasco. When they don’t have the facts on their side, lefty journos simply lie. Then they are dumbfounded when gun owners turn out to be able to read and think, and that they can push-back on their anti-2A narrative.
Excellent review, Prof. Groseclose. You need to make more appearances ’round these parts.
The shift in public opinion really is striking when you put it next to the gay marriage data. That’s quite a way to frame the issue.
Here’s a great interview with Dr. Lott that I just watched yesterday, talking about his new book.
Great piece! Thanks! I didn’t even know about Lott’s book (I have More Guns, Less Crime).
In the interview I linked, Dr. Lott says he thinks this new one is his best.
Thanks for posting the link/vid, BTW.
Professor, why rely on data and the scientific method when we have readily available anti-gun slogans and emotion-based policy proposals backed by good intentions?
As long as you have good intentions nothing else matters.
I’m really happy to read this review. Guns and violent crime is an area I tend to read in already, so I while I thought it would be a good book– Lott is a really good economist who knows how to set up interesting studies– I was worried it would feel redundant. Such high praise for the book makes me a lot more confident that I won’t be wasting my time or money with it.
Not so sure about that. The left seems to be doing well with bad intentions.
Maybe it’s more accurate to say the Left is motivated by intentions both good and bad. In short, they are amoral.
I have not seen any good intentions from the Left in the past few decades. It was different when there were liberals.
I gotta disagree with you here. Your garden-variety bien pensant lefty is full of good intentions and caring (cf. the work of Jonathan Haidt). Trouble is they’re driving down the road to hell on those good intentions.
And now, for your viewing pleasure:
It’s a mistake to believe anything a leftwinger says about his or her intentions.
This is a good point. They often do have good intentions, and I think both sides tend to often have their own set of facts and preferred measures. Your view on guns may differ if you look at guns & deaths or guns & crime. People who are anti-gun tend to focus on guns and deaths since that allows them to lump in the suicide rate. People more supportive of guns tend to talk about guns and crime
But I have noticed “guns” tends to be a very emotional issue. Taxes, the regulatory state? Not nearly as much. Guns? Very much. I’m just surprised at how many people don’t want their minds changed on the subject. I have a very smart close friend who is probably moderate or only slightly left-leaning, for a Brooklyn-ite, but he doesn’t like guns. Know about guns? Why would he? They are bad.
I don’t know what you do in a situation like that.
I know what you mean. They are icky, taboo, gross, evil, not to be held, touched, or even thought of in too much detail.
I was very heartened to see one of my most outspoken liberal friends made an effort to read and post several pro-gun articles on Facebook in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Well, not specifically pro-gun, but the kind of articles with headlines like Why I need an AR-15. She actually made a sincere attempt to understand the people on the other side of the issue. She will still support an assault weapons ban and still vote for Hillary, alas. But people like her, genuinely interested in learning rather than moralizing, are few and far between, unfortunately.
That’s great to hear. Yeah, I think if we could first at least get to an understanding, or at least ensure that we are even talking about the same thing, perhaps the conversation could go somewhere further. Instead, it seems people actively attempt to inject misinformation into the discussion– like calling any black rifle a “weapon of war.” Its almost like it is getting worse rather than better.
I actually try and argue guns without citing Lott, since people say “yeah yeah that guy.” It’s unfair, but that is what happens. I would still like to read his book sooner rather than later though.
Yes, this is a real problem.
Do you know Steven Crowder? He’s an interesting guy, very knowledgeable about guns, and he has a very popular podcast in which he frequently invites guests to talk with him about controversial issues. Some are his friends with whom he agrees, some are friends with whom he disagrees, and some are people he does not know well but wants to hear their point of view.
I think it is a very important outreach. Talking about different ideas.
Here’s a part of his show/podcast in which he debates about guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_rzNtPWFuQ
I know of Crowder. Something about the format of his show doesn’t quite work for me, but I do enjoy him when I sit down to listen to him. I especially appreciate that he does seem willing to have a legitimate, good faith discussions/debates with people who disagree with him on his show.
I have a couple of his podcasts still on my computer. Guess I should catch up. I’m just behind on podcasts in general.
The full podcast is more than 2 hours. I don’t always listen/watch either!