Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
The only reason this book gets a star from me is because "0 Stars" isn't an option.
There are frequent remarks which are presented as "fact" that are completely unsupported yet used as a basis to make sweeping, ridiculous proposals.
If they do, your are to tell them that you will not come into their home and you are to tell them why!
As I read down through the book information and reviews it made me smile that the item most people purchased after looking a this book was a pistol case. Read morePublished 6 months ago by Golden
What nonsense. It does make for a good laugh. I am sure the brain dead will love this book. Sad.Published 22 months ago by Scott
I find mr. Sugarmans fundamental Concept is flawed using inane points of view which for me were rather transparent. Read morePublished on March 18, 2013 by S. Kunkel
this book is better left unread. objective data will always serve one better than prpoganda. if youre already convinced no protection is the best defense but you need to reassure... Read morePublished on January 4, 2013 by vathneant
The author obviously mispresented data from surveys to support his idea. For example on p.24 and p.25, the author made a comparison between percentage of people who oppose handgun... Read morePublished on February 1, 2012 by W. Li
Quoting myself from a forum, didn't feel like re-typing an entire book review:
Of course it's been chock full of cherry picked data (like comparing NY's suicide rate to... Read more
Since all his claims can be debunked, it really isn't worth reading.
It really shines for scrubbing ones rear end though.
I tried to read this, I got about 80 pages into it or so. Very un-American. How are we going to protect are family and our homes? With rocks? This is absurd. Read morePublished on April 25, 2008 by T. L. EDWARDS
This work is a flat out lie and it would not suprise me if New Press (the publisher) isn't eventually required to publish a formal retraction. Read morePublished on April 21, 2008 by John A. Nicolai