Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I am not a researcher (though I am a board-certified forensic expert), but I have used the modeling/analysis tools that John Lott has employed in his research. What I find in reading this book is a scholarly, measured examination of the statistics of the relationship between gun ownership and non-discriminatory ("shall issue") concealed carry permit laws. Even more than that, I find his manner of expression to be most reassuring. He is not making a point or promoting a political position. He is simply OBSERVING what is. This reminds me of a situation some years ago working on a project for a State of California government department. I am, by the way, a former Federal, State and Local civil servant. An issue came up regarding what State agency - if any - had jurisdiction over the construction work of the project. In particular, what agency was responsible for reviewing construction plans and issuing a construction permit. Stay with me here....................., and you'll see where this is going. So, being the project engineer (you knew that, right?) I approached the State agency that the Department building the project stated had jurisdiction. When I reported what that agency stated - in writing - that they did not have jurisdiction, the Department employee stated that I was stating my "opinion" about the matter. This is willfully confounding opion with observation. I was simply reporting what I had observed, and provided the source documentation. Yet, the civil servant I was dealing with insisted on declaring this observation an "opinion" since he did not like the factual information that was presented to them. John Lott faces a similar situation - in that folks who disagree with his OBSERVATIONS want to declare them OPINIONS. John Lott expresses himself very precisely as a researcher. He analyzes the data, and does so very, very carefully, and then announces what THE DATA REVEALS. He does this time, and time again throughout the book. He even observes when the data points to a conclusion that is different than his original hypothesis. That's called intellectual honesty. The problem that we have in our society today is that many folks are so entrenched in their (apparently) mindless attachment to political positions, that they are apparently incapable of actual rational thinking. As near as I can tell, the anti-gun lobby falls into this category, and continues to believe that the way to solve crime involving guns, is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens - ignoring the FACT that criminals don't obey the law, and never will. They also don't seem to realize that if they can take away others' constitutional rights, under different circumstances, THEIR constitutional rights could be taken away. I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, and it gives me great satisfaction to find a scholar that has taken the (huge amount of) time to examine the facts relating to gun ownership and crime.