Good book review about more guns, less crime

Guns are involved in the killing of some 100 people daily in United States. The policy discussions concerning this major problem the America’s criminal justice as well as its public health is among the contentious debates. At one end are those who would veto the use of guns and on the other end are those that not only support guns but also they would increase armament to the already heavily armed public. The latter opinion is evocative of Bunker’s solution to the hijacking problem of the 1980s. If everybody had a gun, hijackers would not have the superiority as they would be putting themselves in danger by pulling their rod. John Lott has referred to Bunker’s solution positively as he supports the pro-gun side of the discussion. In his book, the title “ More Guns, Less Crime” appropriately describes his suppositions. The core of his work is an enormous statistical research of government right to carry laws. By the use of statistics covering a period of eighteen years and from three thousand counties in united states, Lott proves that when and where “ shall-issue” right to carry laws are enacted, the rate of violent crimes go down immediately and continue to reduce over time. Notably the cases that reduce by a significant margin are rape, aggravated assault, murder and robbery. The drop in cases of crime in all the jurisdiction is proportional to the permits that are issued in the corresponding jurisdictions.
While open carry may protect carrier and maybe the people in his or her vicinity, concealed carry protects all. The offenders do not know who is armed and who is not armed. Therefore, they should consider that any adult would present a risk of armed self-defence to the criminals. The criminals substitute property crimes where there is no likelihood of a confrontation with the victim as burglary of unoccupied business, find other work to do or move to the jurisdiction that have restrictive gun laws. Lott’s book supports guns with an academic savour; some knowledge in econometrics is necessary to assess his statistical methodology. Conversely, “ Making a Killing,” by Tom Diaz, who is an analyst at the pro-control Violence Policy Centre is simple and can be assessed easily by an amateur audience. The problem with this sector also is with the nature of the guns. With a reasonable care, guns rarely wears out and with young people growing into the markets for sport shooting and traditional hunting, convincing societies that they need more weapons has required novelty and fear-nurturing publicity. Instead of innovating towards safe firearms with maybe load indicators and child locks the manufacturers has chosen a different direction of the guns lethal efficiency. Manufacturers continue with making guns that hold more ammunitions; increased speed coupled with accuracy and much smaller guns that are highly concealable.
Overall, John deserves high marks for evaluating important public concerns and for sorting and sharing his data with the public. However, he deserves has failed by pressing policy advisers to borrow from his report despite the significant questions raised about his study. He has done a thorough and extensive study on the effects of loosening guns control. Regardless of whether on agrees with his assumptions, his work is a must read to all those who are open minded and serious about fighting crime. Especially fascinating is his account on the unscrupulous reactions to his research by gun control academic critics, advocates and the new media.