More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) [Paperback]

John R. Lott Jr. (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 24, 2010 | ISBN-10: 0226493660 | ISBN-13: 978-0226493664 | Edition: Third Edition, Third Edition

On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.

Product Details

• Paperback: 472 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; Third Edition, Third Edition edition (May 24, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226493660
• ISBN-13: 978-0226493664
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 1 x 9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (156 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #7,794 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #12 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Elections & Political Process > General
  • #12 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Civil Rights & Liberties
  • #16 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Criminology

Editorial Reviews

Review

“A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”

(James Bovard Wall Street Journal )

“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”

(John O. McGinnis National Review )

About the Author

John R. Lott, Jr., is the author five books, including Freedomnomics and Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?, the latter also published by the University of Chicago Press.

Product Details

• Paperback: 472 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; Third Edition, Third Edition edition (May 24, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226493660
• ISBN-13: 978-0226493664
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 1 x 9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (156 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #7,794 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #12 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Elections & Political Process > General
  • #12 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Civil Rights & Liberties
  • #16 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Criminology

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

180 of 182 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Most comprehensive crime study ever conducted--devastating to gun control advocates May 12, 2013

By Candid Reviewer TOP 1000 REVIEWER

Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase

First, some background about me: I am a Ph.D.-holder and tenured professor whose immersion in the insular politics of academia had led me to harbor many negative perceptions about firearms. Though I was never staunchly "anti-gun," I was not a gun owner, did not understand the appeal of firearms, and generally believed that gun control legislation was only common sense. That changed four years ago when I (finally) decided to look into the data on guns, crime, and public safety for myself. I am a trained researcher, but I conducted my research for personal not professional reasons. My wife was pregnant and I wanted hard facts--not talking point from the political parties--so I could make an informed decision about what to teach my children about firearms, and whether it would be prudent or dangerous to have one in our house.

I was drawn into that research almost immediately by the sheer force of my own disbelief. I discovered fact after fact that starkly disproved the claims and "facts" so many teachers and colleagues had expressed about firearms and their relationship to violence, and which, during my long trip through academia, had led me to believe stricter gun control was just plain common sense. For two years, I read thousands of pages of information, starting with raw data from the FBI and CDC so that I would be better able to assess the claims I subsequently read in books, peer-reviewed journals, news publications, blogs, and so forth. In the course of that research, I came across numerous references to John Lott's studies, but so many of them suggested there were "fatal flaws" in his methodology (and questions about his motives) that I never bothered to read him. I simply assumed based on the sheer number of such comments that his work was indeed more propaganda than serious study.... Nonetheless, I turned up enough information over the course of two years to completely change my view about guns. I now believe wholeheartedly in the right to carry, the wisdom of the 2nd Amendment, the particularly important benefits of concealed carry for women, and the notion that more firearms in law-abiding hands does make society demonstrably safer.

Now that I have finally read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" (3rd edition, 2010), I am ashamed that I did not consult it earlier instead of accepting at face value the facile criticisms of his work. Lott's research and claims are astonishingly thorough--meticulously explained and documented. At every turn, he (accurately and clearly) explains the challenges, assumptions, and variables that inform his findings. Often, just to cover his bases, he runs the data with, and then without, certain questionable variables (arrest rates, county sizes, etc.). Again and again, he shows that with only slight variations in the magnitude of the results, more concealed carry permits equals less violent crime (murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robberies involving direct contact with the victim, such as muggings). He also observes that those permits may contribute to a smaller "substitution effect" that displaces criminal activity into less-confrontational forms, such as property theft. On all counts, this constitutes powerful evidence that the likely presence of a defensive firearm has a statistically significant deterrence effect on criminal behavior. More concealed carry permits lead to a net decline in assaults and deaths, and a net decline in the financial costs to society. Moreover, these benefits apply to all citizens--not just those who are armed--and they increase over time, as the number of carry permits rises. They also have the greatest positive impact on African Americans and women.

Why should you take Lott's study seriously? Because it is the most comprehensive study of crime--let alone firearms--ever conducted. In retrospect, I am stunned that any commentator has dared to fault the quality of his data. If anything can be said for Lott, it is that he is meticulous in recognizing and accounting for the variables at stake. Indeed, like a responsible analyst testing a hypothesis with appropriate rigor, he tends to control in ways that actually minimize (i.e., underestimate, and perhaps even artificially suppress) the benefits of non-discretionary ("shall issue") concealed carry laws. His is the only gun control study I've seen that takes all counties into consideration (not some selective sample) and then meticulously controls for population density, arrest rates, rising/falling trends in crime prior to the passing of the carry laws, demographic factors, the number of permits issued, and so forth. Although his expansive, county-level approach is clearly the most precise way to analyze the impact of carry laws, he also consistently re-runs the regressions using state-level (aggregate) data to show that, while the precise results vary, the trends remain the same: more guns, less crime. Indeed, the scope and depth of his study is so far beyond any other peer-reviewed study of guns I've ever encountered that any blanket dismissal either of his findings or his methodology is manifestly disingenuous.

Of course, given the amount of criticism his work has received, Lott is (rightly) concerned to defend his integrity as a scholar. His seventh chapter thus quotes a series of 23 direct criticisms by other academics--each of which he capably rebuts. Whenever possible, Lott first politely plays devil's advocate: re-running his regressions in the alternative manner some critics have suggested, only to show that the results consistently yield the same conclusion: more guns, less crime. He also exposes some critics' blatant ignorance of certain statistical categories (such as what it means for victims to "know" their shooters) and then lays bare salient points or critical factors those critics ignore. One devastating effect of these clear, well-reasoned rebuttals is to expose the patently un-scientific anti-gun bias that drives most critical "concerns" about Lott's study. Yet Lott never dispenses with civility or stoops to base political jabs. A few times, he briefly speculates on the kinds of credible concerns that could be raised about his work--politely leaving it for the reader to note, in unflattering contrast, that the criticisms that have actually been leveled at him fall very short of that standard. Ever the responsible scholar, he chiefly defends his integrity by clarifying his robust methodology and letting the data speak for itself.

I can't say enough about the importance of this book. Do not trust the claim that Lott's work has been "discredited", "fatally flawed," or "funded by the gun lobby." Lott explicitly refutes those attacks in this book, and I have verified to my own satisfaction that those are indeed false claims designed to deflect attention away from his compelling pro-gun findings. Read this book for yourself. It matches the findings of my own personal two-year study into these issues, though I might have saved myself a lot of time and work by consulting Lott's book sooner. He explains the variables and various analytical concepts very clearly (the substitution effect, the endogeneity problem, the perils of looking only at raw measures instead of slopes/trends over time, etc.). This diligent effort to empower (non-expert) readers by allowing them to understand what is at stake in the measures before delving into the data is one clear sign that his intention is to inform readers truthfully, not manipulate their political views. His habit of checking, re-checking, and checking his regressions again--verifying how the results change as certain variables are included or excluded--is another good sign. And yet another is the modest and precise way he reports his results: never engaging in bombastic or exaggerated claims, but always frankly acknowledging the limits of what can be reasonably concluded from the data. By the end of the book, you will understand many of the flawed assumptions and misunderstandings which underlie the oft-cited "evidence" that stricter gun control enhances public safety.

If you're anti-gun and Lott's book does not give you pause and force you to reconsider the potential benefits of an armed society, you either did not read the book with an open mind, or you do not know how to distinguish a precisely-reasoned argument from a merely political one.

Well done Mr. Lott. I cannot fathom the amount of energy and intellectual rigor you must have invested in this massive project, but I am grateful to you for this impressive and substantial contribution to knowledge. Read more ›

94 of 107 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars This the benefit v cost economics approach, not the constitutional rights approach August 26, 2010

By A.J. Brown

Format:Paperback

More Guns, Less Crime 2010 is the third edition of Lott's book originally based on his and David Mustard's Right-To-Carry study of 1997 that measured the result of 22 states going "shall issue" on carry permits for handguns between 1986 and 1996. The first 1998 edition was focussed on the RTC issue.

The 2nd edition 2000 looked at other gun control policies as well, and commented on the controversy that Lott & Mustard 1997 and Lott 1998 engendered in the media and among academics.

Since the 2nd edition 2000, a lot has happened: the CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 reviews on gun laws and gun violence, the sunset of the 1994-2004 federal Assault Weapon Ban, the Supreme Court decision on the Heller case in 2008 (gun ban in DC v Second Amendment), and so on. The 3rd edition 2010 is expanded by about 150 pages to cover these new issues.

I would like to correct an impression that may be created by an earlier reviewer, that Lott's book is a major Second Amendment resource. First, in the 2nd edition there were one sentence and one paragraph in the text and three paragraphs in the footnotes on the Second Amendment out of 300+ pages (Second Admendment issues were "...important issues that are beyond the scope of this book"--Lott at page 168); while the 3rd edition expands somewhat on the Second Amendment, it is not a resource book on the Second Amendment. Secondly, Lott stated in the Oct 2008 NPR debate on guns that his family did not own a gun until his 1996 research convinced him that having a gun was beneficial for self defense within reasonable safety costs. Lott's argument on guns and gun control is based on weighing the economic benefits v the costs of gun ownership and gun control: this is a law and economics argument, not a constitutional law argument.... If you are interested in the debate over the benefits and costs of gun ownership and gun laws, this is an important book regardless of your apriori beliefs on the gun issue; if you are interested in the debate over the constitutionality of gun laws, gun rights v gun control, there are books devoted to those subjects. This book is a study of the good v the harm done with guns and by gun laws; it is not a dedicated Second Amendment analysis. Journal of Economic Literature Subject Classification K42 (Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law). Read more ›

173 of 202 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Will DC and Chicago Ever Learn? May 19, 2010

By Cal Skinner

Format:Paperback

Nine more years of data in this third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime."

When I read the second edition eight years ago, I was pleased that John Lott's hypothesis of the mid-1990's had up held.

After all, it's just common sense that if a potential rapist thought a woman might be able to protect herself with a gun that he would be less likely to attack, being the cowards rapists are.

But the leap from common sense to policy formation sometimes takes facts.

Fortunately, this book is packed with them.

Besides showing that no state that has adopted right-to-carry legislation has seen any of the parade of horribles that opponents trot out occur, the data presented show that crime actually does decrease when people are allowed to carry firearms.

In my own state of Illinois, there was a member of the Armed Forces killed while sitting in the front row of the Northern Illinois University lecture hall when the shooter entered the stage from an outside door and started firing. Lott points out that campus security arrived in six minutes---faster than in any other mass shooting at an institution of higher learning---but that was still not good enough.

Maybe, had NIU not been a protection free zone, she (the soldier was a woman) and others would be alive today.

Perhaps the mayor of Washington, D.C., whom I understand is a fellow graduate of Oberlin College, will read the book and figure out that he could lower his city's crime rate by advocating something no good little Oberlin liberal would ever think would work...unless he or she actually was willing to follow data to their logical policy conclusions....

Not that I think my former legislative colleague, now mayor of Chicago, could make that leap, but, maybe, just maybe, the mayor of Washington can.

The rest of us who read this book will be armed with information to promote a logical "we can protect ourselves when the police aren't around, if policy-makers will let us" policy.

Incidentally, lower hurdles to get a license (in training and dollars) tend to result in larger drops in crime rates. Read more ›