Sat 12 Jul 2003
This is an annotated list of John Lott’s on line reviews at Amazon and at Barnes and Noble.
Most of his reviews were posted anonymously or under a false name, and he used this anonymity to post many five-star reviews of his own books and to pan rival books.
When you post a review at Amazon.com, you can choose to post it anonymously (in which case it is attributed to “A reader”), or under a pseudonym that you choose. Lott posted some his reviews using pseudonyms: maximcl and sherwinrl, the names of two of his children and washingtonian2 and maryrosh, the names of two of his sock puppets.
Lott’s other reviews were posted anonymously, but because Amazon included the location of the reviewer for anonymous reviews, it is possible to work out which account some of the anonymous reviews were posted from.
Amazon’s Canadian and US sites treat the location of the reviewer differently. On the US site, all the reviews by a reviewer have the same location—the one given for the most recent review. This location changes if the reviewer posts a review of some other book and gives a different location. On the Canadian site the location is the one given when the review was posted. In the list below I put the location found on Amazon’s Canadian site in square brackets, and earlier locations found on the US site in round brackets. For example, the review of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s book is quoted like this:
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA) [Washington, DC]That means that on Amazon’s US site the reviewer is from Washington, DC (where Lott works), the location on their US site used to be Swarthmore (where Lott lives), while on their Canadian site the reviewer is from Washington (where Lott works). There are several other reviews with the same pattern of location changes. These changes in location occurred at the same time. In November 2003 the location changed from Washington DC to Swarthmore when washingtonian2 posted a review (now deleted) of MacOS X 10.3. The reviews changed back to being from Washington DC on December 7, 2003 when washingtonian2 posted a review of The Company : A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea. We can be certain that all these reviews were posted from washingtonian2’s Amazon account, the same account used for the review of Joyce Lee Malcolm’s book. And we know this review was written by Lott because he signed his name to it.
The other reviews were picked out from the reviews of Lott’s books because of the writing style. It may not be so obvious when you see them in this list, but when you see them amongst all the other reviews at Amazon, they stand out because of the distinctive use of language (such as phrases like “as an academic” and “sets the standard”). and repeating Lott’s favourite talking points about his book.
After the reviews were picked out because of the writing style, this was corroborated by the reviewer location: places where Lott lived or worked.
- Chicago
- Lott worked at the University of Chicago till mid 1999
- Madison, Wisconsin
- Lott lived here while working at Chicago
- Swarthmore, Philadelphia
- Lott lived here after mid 1999
- Washington DC
- Lott currently works at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington
More Guns, Less Crime
by John LottFor this review Lott did the right thing—he signed his own name to it and told Amazon that it was from the author and hence it does not include a star rating. Would that he had done that for all the ones below.Comments from the book’s reviewers:, March 10, 1998
Reviewer: john_lott@law.uchicago.edu from Madison, Wisconsin
“This sophisticated analysis yields a well established conclusion that supports the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than of those who would limit the right of law-abiding citizens to own and carry guns. The general reader may find of most interest chapter 7 which documents how far ‘politically correct’ vested interests are willing to go denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. John Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue.”-Milton Friedman[Other quotes omitted]
More Guns, Less Crime
by John LottRequired reading for those interested in what causes crime!, August 8, 1998
Reviewer: A reader from Madison, Wisconsin [Chicago]
More Guns, Less Crime is a very readable and thorough examination of the relationship between gun ownership and its deterrent effect on criminal activity. Professor Lott explodes myths about crime that go unquestioned in the press everyday. Should people behave passively when confronted by a criminal? Are people that we know a threat to us? What are the real risks in having a gun in the home? Do guns save more lives than they endanger? This book answers these questions and many, many more. I will never listen to the news media reports on crime the same way again. –This text refers to the Hardcover edition
Lott’s first anonymous review. At that time he was a John M. Olin Fellow at Chicago and not allowed to style himself as “Professor Lott”. He calls himself “Professor Lott” in several other reviews as well.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader [from Madison, Wisconsin]
This book explodes many myths about crime and guns. Professor Lott has put together a truly monumental study on crime. This is one book that people will be discussing for many years to come.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader [from Chicago]
It is too bad that there isn’t more of this clear headed and factual discussion of important issues that directly impact people’s lives. This book may not have completely changed my mind on the issue of gun control, but I have certainly gone from automatically supporting controls to a much more agnostic position.
Probably the most important thing that I learned from this book is that sometimes what may seem like the most obvious, simplest solutions to problems can have unintended consequences. I guess that I have become more concerned that we must be careful that gun control policies do not the primarily disarm law-abiding “good” citizens, who are most likely to obey any new laws. I guess that I have also come to believe that guns not only have obvious bad effects, but also beneficial ones for people’s safety and that we must ask what is the net effect of new rules. Lott’s powerful evidence that it is poor minorities who live in high crime areas who benefit the most from being able to defend themselves hit me hard.
The evidence on accidental gun deaths was also very surprising. With all the national news coverage of accidental gun deaths involving young children, I would never have guessed until I read Lott’s book how infrequent these events are. Again what is most powerful about the book is not that Lott denies the problems, but that he asks how do the benefits compare with the costs: Do guns on net save childrens’ and adults’ lives? Just as getting rid of pools would prevent drownings but simultaneously eliminate important benefits, Lott shows that more lives are saved than lost from gun ownership.
I was also deeply bothered by the outrageous attacks that gun control organizations like Handgun Control launched against Lott. –This text refers to the Hardcover edition
More Guns, Less Crime
by John LottA reviewer, from Madison, Wisconsin, April 19, 1999,
Clearly written and a truly thought provoking book
It is too bad that there isn’t more of this clear headed and factual discussion of important issues that directly impact people’s lives. This book may not have completely changed my mind on the issue of gun control, but I have certainly gone from automatically supporting controls to a much more agnostic position. Probably the most important thing that I learned from this book is that sometimes what may seem like the most obvious, simplest solutions to problems can have unintended consequences. I guess that I have become more concerned that we must be careful that gun control policies do not the primarily disarm law-abiding ‘good’ citizens, who are most likely to obey any new laws. I guess that I have also come to believe that guns not only have obvious bad effects, but also beneficial ones for people’s safety and that we must ask what is the net effect of new rules. Lott’s powerful evidence that it is poor minorities who live in high crime areas who benefit the most from being able to defend themselves hit me hard. The evidence on accidental gun deaths was also very surprising. With all the national news coverage of accidental gun deaths involving young children, I would never have guessed until I read Lott’s book how infrequent these events are. Again what is most powerful about the book is not that Lott denies the problems, but that he asks how do the benefits compare with the costs: Do guns on net save childrens’ and adults’ lives? Just as getting rid of pools would prevent drownings but simultaneously eliminate important benefits, Lott shows that more lives are saved than lost from gun ownership. I was also deeply bothered by the outrageous attacks that gun control organizations like Handgun Control launched against Lott.
This is the only review he posted at Barnes and Noble. It is just a copy of the previous review.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: A customer from Springfield, Illinois
This well written book explodes many myths about crime and guns. It is really amazing how many claims printed in the mainstream media really endanger people’s lives (e.g., should you behave passively when confronted by a criminal?). It is amazing how many “facts” the mainstream media tells us are completely misleading (e.g., they tell us that most murders are committed by acquaintances, but they forget to inform us that most acquaintance murders are committed by rival gang members).
I learned a great deal from this book, and it was enjoyable to read. Professor Lott has put together a truly monumental study on crime. This is one book that people will be discussing for many years to come.
This review does not have a location where Lott lived or worked, but it is an expanded version of this review by Lott.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader [from Chicago, Illinois]
This book may not have completely changed my mind on the issue of gun control, but I have certainly gone from automatically supporting controls to a much more agnostic position. A friend of mine had been begging me for a while to read the book, and I have to confess that I am glad that she did. It has surely caused me to think more critically about the current debate.
I must say I have been most impressed by Professor Lott’s ability to acknowledge both the costs and bennefits of guns. When there are costs or benefits Lott lays them out and tries to measure them.
I have also been learned that what might appear to be the most obvious response is not always the best. With all the heat that this debate has generated, it is nice to see someone clearly and dispationately lay out all the evidence.
Here he is pretending to be someone on the other side who has been swayed by his book. He uses this device in several other reviews.
Targeting Guns
by Gary KleckIn this book Kleck rejected Lott’s conclusion, writing :Pretty disappointing, May 13, 1999
Reviewer: A reader from Madison, Wisconsin
I thought that Gary Kleck’s “Point Blank” was OK, but this book is basically a reprint of that one with a few updated numbers and a new title. I must confess that I felt cheated.
What bothers me the most about this book is that Kleck continually argues that guns produce no net benefit or harm, but I could not find any evidence that directly proves this contention. If someone could point to the page that he provides direct evidence on this, I would appreciate it because I completely missed it.
I thought John Lott’s book (More Guns, Less Crime) was vastly superior. When he makes a claim the evidence he marshalls is directly on point, and I thought that his book was much more clearly written. The two books aren’t even close in quality.
Finally, I was also bothered with some of Kleck’s discussion of other research. Kleck gets upset when others attack him by saying that something might explain away his results, but they refuse to say what those unexplained factors are. Kleck is correct to be upset this with. But he unfortunately does the same things to others.
More likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis.
Kleck said that “other factors” likely caused the crime reductions and this is what Lott is complaining about in his last sentence and why he panned this book.
Are Predatory Commitments Credible?
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader [from Washington, D.C.]
If you want to understand the government’s charges against American Airlines or Microsoft, this book lets you know where they are coming from and why their cases make so little sense. I saw Lott recently on CSPAN discussing this book and it lived up to its billing. As the Chicago Professor says in a dust cover blurb, Lott demolishes any evidence that predatory pricing is an important phenomenon. This book is worthwhile reading even if you only want to learn how to set up and present empirical evidence in a clear convincing manner. I was particularly impressed by how he took the time to clearly describe the arguments on both sides of the debate.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader [from Philadelphia]
Great book. As an academic, with all the garabage research that gets covered by the press, I can’t believe that this book hasn’t gotten more news coverage. If everyone actually read this book, we would have a lot fewer deaths. It is extremely well written and explains to people where the different claims that they hear come from. I have never seen such a careful indepth study of any issue. This guy really sets the standard for research! Despite what might be good intentions (though after reading chapter 7 I have real doubts about their intentions) gun control advocates are endangering people’s lives. The press really needs to think twice about the impact that their newscoverage has on people’s safety. I can understand why bad events get so much news coverage relative to good events, but this lopsided coverage creates some real misimpressions. –This text refers to the Hardcover edition
More Guns, Less Crime
by John LottSAVE YOUR LIFE, READ THIS BOOK — GREAT BUY!!!!, August 18, 1999
Reviewer: maryrosh (see more about me) from Philadelphia
If you want to learn about what can stop crime or if you want to learn about many of the myths involving crime that endanger people’s lives, this is the book to get. It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well. He explains things in an understandable commonsense way. I have loaned out my copy a dozen times and while it may have taken some effort to get people started on the book, once they read it no one was disappointed.If you want an emotional book, this is not the book for you. If you want a book with the facts, a book that tells you the benefits and risks from protecting yourself and your family from crime, a book that will explain the facts in a straightforward and clear way, this is the book to get.This is by far the largest most comprehensive study on crime, let alone on gun control. Professor Lott examines crime rates as well as accidental gun deaths and suicides for all 3,056 counties in the United States by year for 18 years. By comparison, the previous largest study on gun control examined 170 cities within one single year 1980. Lott examined 54,000 observations and the previous largest study looked at 170 observations. Lott used all the FBI data that was available from the first year that they released the county level data to the last year that they had put it out when he wrote his book. Unlike other studies, Lott used all the data that was available. He did not pick certain cities to include and others to exclude. No previous study had accounted for even a small fraction of the variables that he accounted for.
This is Lott’s most famous anonymous review, making it into the Washington Post. Lott claims that his thirteen-year-old sold wrote it but his claim is almost certainly false. It was later deleted by Amazon.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Rezensentin/Rezensent: Rezensentin/Rezensent aus Philadelphia
This book is an excellent read that demolishes the many myths spread in the popular press about guns and crime. By grossly exaggerating the risks of having a gun in the home and failing to report the frequent defensive uses of guns, the media endangers people’s lives.
I have a hard time believing that most of the negative reviewers have even read the book. The reviewer who worries about the impact of Florida on the results could not have read the book (see for example pp. 139-41). It is simply bizarre to claim that Lott doesn’t give enough attention to the issue of causality. Not only does the decline in crime occur in many different states when those states adopted their laws in many different years. But the decline is closely related to the number of permits issued. Lott also goes through evidence of counties which border each other in neighboring states with and without the right to carry laws. Guess what the crime rate goes down in the county with the law at the same time that it is going up in the neighboring county without the law. Lott has about 5 other points on the issue of causality.
The earlier reviewer from Australia who mentions the international comparison has definitely not read the book. Lott specifically points out how when you look at all the countries for which the data is available higher gun ownership countries do not have higher homicide rates. This myth is because of the selective picking of only a few countries to make a comparison with.
Finally, let me say that those who attack the book because it is supposedly not a fun read are just trying to discourage others from reading the book. I have seen statements from everyone from Tom Sowell to Milton Friedman to James Q. Wilson saying what a well written book this is and how valuable of a factual source it is. Those attacking the book will stop at nothing to keep other people from even looking at it. They know that once people read it they will understand that all the attacks on it are completely bogus. The media has done a horrible job covering this book. It is so easy to verify whether Lott has taken into account the other explanations for why crime rates have changed over time, and they are afraid that those who have lied about Lott’s research will lose their credibility.
Those attacking Lott will stop at nothing to keep you from reading this book. Don’t let them succeed. As Sean Hannity says, “this is the most important, best written book that has ever been written on guns.”
This review seems to have also been deleted when the Mary Rosh review was deleted. Presumably that was because this review was posted anonymously from Mary Rosh’s Amazon account and when Amazon deleted all of Mary Rosh’s reviews they also deleted the anonymous ones. I retrieved it from Amazon’s German site (the Mary Rosh review is still there as well).
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader from Philadelphia, PA
Here are just a few of the academics who have expressed admiration for Lott’s pathbreaking book. Few people have both the real world law enforcement experience and extenstive research background to take on this explosive issue of guns and crime. This is what the experts in the field think of Lott’s book. (The quotes are from the paperback version of the book.)“John Lott has done the most extensive, thorough, and sophisticated study we have on the effects of loosening gun control laws.” — Gary Kleck, Professor, Florida State University
[Other quotes omitted]
The book has gotten similar positive comments from those working in law enforcement. This is a great book.
Targeting Guns
by Gary KleckThe previous day, Lott posted a review of his own book, quoting praise from Kleck. He returns the favour by stabbing Kleck in the back.
Reviewer: A reader from Philadelphia, PA
This update of Kleck’s “Point Blank” is useful, though I have a few serious problems with it and ultimately I came away from the book disappointed. Before stating my problems, however, I will give Kleck this much, he is frequently unfairly attacked by gun control advocates. In some sense, Kleck’s work really should not bother them too much because he is really saying that guns don’t matter. If they want to get rid of guns and it makes them feel better, let them do it because nothing will change.
I will also say that the book provides a useful source for the literature on guns.
Here are my most basic problems with the book:
How does one get from his survey data to his conclusion that guns on net produce no benefit?
Kleck oversells the quality of his empirical work. If one wants to see the best empirical work on crime, read Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime (the second edition is even much better than the first). The difference in the amount of time that these authors put into doing their studies isn’t even comparable. The inability to even account for other factors like arrest or conviction rates or the death penalty or prison sentences or illegal drug prices or almost anything else is disturbing. As to the previous review that Kleck somehow alone in understooding that higher crime rates can cause increased gun ownership, my advice is that he actually read Lott and see how one is supposed to take this into account correctly. By the way, once one does this and takes into account the other factors that influence crime, Lott is correct: More Guns mean Less Crime.
Personally, I also don’t understand Kleck’s criticizisms of Lott’s work. In a sentence he guesses that something else might exist which could explain away why concealed handgun laws reduce crime, but then he fails to even hazard what else should be accounted for.
Targeting Guns
by Gary Klecksherwinrl would be Sherwin R Lott, John Lott’s fourth son, the Sh in MaRy RoSh and about eight when this review was posted. Lott also posted a review under the name maximcl, his oldest child. Cute trick he has, posting under his children’s names. Anyway, the first review is confirmed as one by Lott and I’ve found yet another one of Lott’s reviews of Kleck. And notice how in this review he writes “Unlike the other reviewers who are picking a fit between Kleck and Lott, I thought that both were valuable.” He’s referring to two previous reviews, one by “A reader from Philadelphia” and one by “A reader from Madison Wisconsin“. Only they were two more of Lott’s sock puppets. We’re entering higher-order sock puppetry when you have your socks arguing with each other.Interesting reference book, though somewhat dry, July 10, 2000
Reviewer: sherwinrl from Miami, Florida
Kleck has but together quite a useful overview of the research on guns. I liked the detailed discussions of the existing literature, and, as a nonacademic, I did not find it too difficult to read. Unlike the other reviewers who are picking a fit between Kleck and Lott, I thought that both were valuable. They both have their strengths. Kleck’s is to use survey data, while Lott’s is to examine the impact of gun ownership and gun laws on crime rates. Both books go into the other’s territory (as they should), but their relative strengths are clear.
On the survey data, I wish that Kleck would have dealt more with the survey data about offensive gun use. I also wish that he could explain why his survey data does not imply a net benefit from using guns.
My only real complaint on the quality of the writing is that too much of the book is such and such shows this and such and such shows that and …. This is fine if the book is to serve as a reference source. It is not too thrilling to have to read through.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John LottMiami is not one the locations associated with Lott, but the same day he posted another review from Miami and signed it with his son’s name, so we can be sure this is by Lott as well.
Reviewer: A reader from Miami, Florida
A couple of friends of mine have been nagging me to read this book for a couple of years. When the second edition came out I finally gave in and got it (for $9.60 I couldn’t argue that the price was too high). Anyway, I am only sorry that I didn’t read this book earlier. As an academic and a person who has been somewhat anti-gun, I had two reactions to the book.
1) I was amazed by how much research went into this book. I have never seen so many different data sets been used so comprehensively. State level, county level, and city level data is used, and not just from a few jurisdictions but for the entire country. Just the work that he has done on the impact of police on crime is amazing by itself.
2) The attacks on Lott disgust me. I confess that I have seen some of these claims in the press (about things like whether he accounts for certain factors or not), but one thing is obvious — the point of these attacks is to keep people from even reading the book. It is a high risk strategy because anyone who spends a half hour with this book will realize that those attacking Lott are lying constantly. How amazingly false these attacks surely made me wonder about other things that the media tries to push.
Finally, let me just say this is a book that shows you how research should be done. It is also written in a way that I wish other research was written. It is very clearly written and accessible to a very wide range of readers. To much of what academics write these days is filled with jargon. This book has changed my views when I didn’t think that they could be changed.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: maximcl from Philadelphia
As an academic I can honestly say that I have never seen so much data assembled to study a topic. There is no doubt that Lott has done by far the most comprehensive study on crime ever conducted. Not only is it the largest number of counties and cities studied over the longest period of time, but he accounts for more factors than anyone else has even come close to accounting for. It is an impressive accomplishment, but just as amazingly Lott provides this information in a readable and interesting manner. Most academics are unable to explain what they have done in common sense easily understandable terms. Not Lott. He eliminates the useless jargon that fills academic discussions and discusses what he has done in readily accessible terms. If you understand percentages, you will understand this work.I also have to comment on some of the critical comments made by other readers here. I can only conclude that they have not read the book. As someone who has seen and been involved in academic debates, this is a particularly strange discussion. People repeat claims that they must have heard others make, but they are not correct. Take the review below by Mark Wylie.
1) The Robbery Problem. “In fact, Lott finds that the impact of shall-issue laws on robbery rates is far smaller than on other violent crimes.” This is false. Here is just a fraction of the pages that argue that the effect on robbery is very large (indeed, the largest single effect): 78, 133, 137, 173, and 215-217.
2) The Adult/Juvenile Homicide Problem. Wyle writes: “Lott’s analysis makes no distinction between murders of adults and juveniles.” Again, this is completely false. Lott not only discusses this possibility early on but he goes through a discussion to explain how the results for these different age groups all fit together. See for example Lott’s discussion on pages 98 and 147-148.
3) The Stranger Homicide Problem. Lott explains that gun ownership can also stop attacks when the attacker knows the victim. For example, see his discussion on pages 148-150.
Possibly, these attacks will work as long as they keep people from reading this book, but once people read it they will be amazed about how much that they have heard is so completely false. It is amazing that those like Wylie, who make claims such as Lott “makes no distinction” about the impacts of the law by age, make attacks that are so easily disproved once someone reads the book. Either he did or did not make this distinction. Any reader will clearly see that he spends substantial time on this point.
maximcl would be Maxim Christopher Lott, John Lott’s son, the “Ma” in MaRy RoSh. The same son who Lott tried to blame for the Mary Rosh review. Now it is obvious from the writing style that John and not fourteen-year-old Maxim wrote it, but anyone who wants to argue that Maxim did write it has to face the fact that it begins “As an academic” and fourteen is too young to be an academic.
Gun Violence : The Real Costs
by Philip J. Cook, Jens LudwigNow, some would argue that Lott is being dishonest here in pretending to be a supporter of gun control who is looking for good evidence to use against those “gun nut morons”, but I would like to suggest an alternative explanation: John Lott really is on the side of gun control and he really thinks that the pro-gun folks are “gun nut morons”. The whole “More Guns, Less Crime” thing with the fake survey and the cherry-picked models has been an elaborate plot to discredit the pro-gun side of the debate. So far it is working.
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA) [Washington, DC]
This book is obviously strongly on our side, but unfortunately it is not going to provide us with serious evidence. Suppose someone challenges me on how they got their $100 billion estimate of the costs of guns. Will I be taken seriously if I tell them that the book relies on one public survey question in one survey? If I do use this number, where does that leave me in arguing with gun nuts that cite these wacky surveys showing that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times a year? So they have 16 surveys. I don’t believe any of them, but what do I say when they say I only use a survey to measure the costs, why not also the benefits? What if the gun nut morons point out that the estimates of benefits from the surveys are greater than our estimated costs? The one paragraph that Cook and Ludwig have on defensive gun uses being silly could just as well be used against their reliance on a survey. I want to use the figures here, but could one of the people on our side write a review saying how I could respond to these concerns. Absent that this book risks making us look rather silly and hypocritical.
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture
by Michael BellesilesFraud, October 2, 2001
Reviewer: washingtonian2 (see more about me) from Washington, DCIt is deeply troubling when an academic refuses to give his data to others. It is also deeply troubling when he can’t even tell other academics where he got the data, especially when by all accounts it doesn’t exist. What data does exist does not remotely match the results that Bellesiles claimed in his book. After reading the Boston Globe piece see: http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/01oct01/seckora100101.shtml , which details the other continually changing explanations Bellesiles has provided for where he got the data.
The Boston Globe
September 11, 2001, Tuesday ,THIRD EDITION
A few days later, Mary Rosh made a similar criticism of Bellesiles on Usenet. This review has since been deleted.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John Lott
Reviewer: washingtonian2 (see more about me) from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA) [Washington, DC]This is by far the most comprehensive study ever done on guns. It provides extensive evidence on waiting periods, the Brady Act, one-gun-a-month rules, concealed handgun laws. For some gun laws this is the only study available and it is important to note how many academics have tired to challenge his work on concealed handgun laws and failed and that no one has even bothered to try and challenge his work on one-gun-a-month laws and other gun control laws.
I am constantly amused the lengths to which reviewers here will go to distort Lott’s research. Take the one by the Australian who claims that Lott doesn’t explain why he uses the polling data that he does on gun ownership rates. If he was honest, he would note that Lott talks about these being the largest surveys on gun ownership rates available and that it is necessary to have such a large survey to get detailed information at the state level. A survey of 1,000 or even 1,500 people nationally is not enough to allow you to make comparisons across individual states.
These guys will do anything to keep people from reading Lott’s work.
“Washingtonian” was a pseudonym that Lott used on freerepublic.com. Although the About washingtonian2 page just gives the nickname “washingtonian2″, if you look at washingtonian2’s Wish List, you’ll see that washingtonian2’s real name is “JL”. These are, of course, John Lott’s initials. A few minutes after I posted the link to washingtonian2’s Wish List, it was deleted (the link above is to a copy I saved).
Punishment and Democracy: 3 Strikes and You’re Out in California
by Zimring, Hawkins and Kamin
Reviewer: washingtonian2 (see more about me) from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA)[Washington, DC]
This is an important topic, but the empirical work in this book is at the level of the average newspaper. The work doesn’t even take into account that all counties in California didn’t follow the rules. What about simultaneously trying to account for arrest rate and conviction rates or changes in any other factors that affect crime?
Oddly enough, Zimring and Hawkins wrote an article dismissing Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” thesis.
The Seven Myths of Gun Control
by Richard Poe
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC
This book is a fast read, and it serves a useful niche taking the research done by others and presenting the work in such a way that it is easily understood by a wide audience. While the book addresses second amendment issues, the biggest emphasis is on how gun control increases crime. It is on this last point that the book relies very, very heavily on John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime and his op-ed pieces. Even though I had read Lott’s book, I hadn’t read some of his op-ed pieces, so I still got something out of even this discussion. I also think that Poe does a good job of simplifying some of Lott’s discussions. My bottom line: is that Poe’s book is still a valuable addition to Lott’s book.
I almost think this should count this as another five-star self-review of More Guns, Less Crime, since it mentions Lott twice as often as the author of the book that is ostensibly being reviewed.
Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control
by Kleck and Kates:What evidence is there in this book that “Kleck appears to really dislike Lott”? Kleck hardly mentions Lott at all. In 360 pages, this is all he says about him:
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC
I have read Targeting Guns and Point Blank. Point Blank was a classic. Target Guns, despite the different title, was simply an update of that book. I have also read the previous book by Kates and Kleck entitled The Great American Gun Debate. My biggest problem is that the same arguments keep on getting repeated over and over again. What is the deal with this?
My second problem is why does Kleck seem to always feel so strongly that guns do not on net decrease crime. This book again talks about defensive gun use and implies that it is much more prevelant than the bad things that happen with guns used in crime, but never, ever explains why he thinks that the net effect is a wash. Can someone please explain this to me?
My third problem is Kleck appears to really dislike Lott. He can’t even accurately discuss what research Lott has done on concealed handguns. To Kleck the only thing that Lott has done is examine the before and after crime rates with respect to concealed handgun laws. Give me a break!
I confess that I couldn’t bring myself to finish reading this book. By the time I got 3/4’s of the way through I realized that the odds that “Armed” would bring up a new argument were extremely small. If it wasn’t for my respect for Kleck’s work in Point Blank, I would have given this book only one star.
Economists John Lott and David Mustard found that crime rates declined in states with right-to-carry laws after the laws went into effect, to a greater extent than in states without the laws, and attributed these decreases in a greater perception of risk from victims among prospective offenders. Deterrence was necessarily very indirectly inferred, and crime decreases that might have been attributed to other factors were attributed to unmeasured changes in criminal perceptions of risk.
I think Lott was sore because Kleck did not give Lott’s research the prominence that Lott thinks it deserves, so Lott let him have it with another anonymous two-star review.
James Stewart Westerns Boxed Set
Reviewer: John R. Lott, Jr. from Washington, DC - See all my reviews
Jimmy Stewart has many great films, but Shenandoah is one of his best. The struggle of the Stewart character to keep his family out of the Civil War is deeply moving. It is only when the North captures Stewart’s youngest son that he is forced to take action.
The Far Country and Bend of the River are also good movies, but I would buy this again just for Shenandoah.
Nothing wrong with this review, so he didn’t post it anonymously, but notice that it was posted on the same day and from the same location as the preceding review of Kleck’s book.
Bubbleology: The New Science of Stock Market Winners and Losers
by Kevin Hassett
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA) [Washington, DC]
Despite Mr. Hassett’s track record with his previous book “Dow 36,000,” I saw him appear on CNBC during the early morning show and thought that he did well enough that I should buy the book. He promised that you could use his book to figure out what stocks were overvalued and which ones weren’t. A pretty important topic given the current market environment. However, after reading this short book I have no idea of how to actually rank stocks on the 1 to 6 scale that he uses. He doesn’t actually provide concrete examples, only that he says that he put together this ranking and it worked really well. My other problem is that if this approach works so well how come he didn’t use it when his “Dow 36,000″ book came out when the stock market was at its peak. Some explanation would have been useful for why Hassett, who is marketing this book as a full proof approach to spotting bubbles, wasn’t able to use this approach himself over just the last couple of years to warn people and predict which stocks were going to crash, a period when he was supposedly writing this book. Claiming that you use a not clearly stated formula to identify overvalued stocks after they have already crashed seems like a scam to me. —This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title
Why would Lott anonymously attack a fellow AEI scholar? It’s intriguing. Perhaps there was a fight over a parking space? Or maybe there is some internal AEI politics going on here?
Guns and Violence: The English Experience
by Joyce Lee Malcolm
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA) [Washington, DC]
Joyce Lee Malcolm has put together an excellent, very readable study that should cause many to rethink the claims that Britain has a lower homicide rate because they have so many gun control regulations. What Malcolm shows is that British murder rates were declining for centuries before gun control was started and had reached very low rates by the turn of the last century. It is only once gun control was implemented that the crime rate began to slowly rise. Malcolm’s findings should be a warning to those who rely on simple cross-sectional comparisons, without taking into account that crime rates can vary for many different reasons. Any one interested in history generally or in the gun debate in particular will find this very interesting reading.
John R. Lott, Jr.
We know Lott wrote this review because he signed his name at the end. The reviews in this list with the same pattern of reviewer location changes were posted from the same Amazon account and must also have been written by Lott.
Nine Crazy Ideas in Science: A Few Might Even Be True.
by Robert Ehrlich
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA) [Washington, DC]
The level of data analysis in this book is somewhat above op-ed writing, but not very much. Crime rates are analyzed without any other factors being accounted for. The analysis on energy is no more sophisticated. The guy should stick to his areas of expertise, but this is really poorly done.
This is the only one-star review of this book on Amazon. All the other
reviewers gave it at least three stars. Why such a negative review?
Well, one of the nine crazy ideas is Lott’s “More
guns, Less crime” and Ehrlich doesn’t think much of
that idea. (You can read an on-line debate between Ehrlich and
Lott here.)
The Bias Against Guns
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader from Philadelphia, PA United States
Even for a cynic such as myself, Lott’s documentation of how the media and the government distort our perceptions of guns is amazing. The research that went into this book is impressive. He documents not only the imbalance in newscoverage but also how the media actually makes news to discredit guns. He shows how government studies systematically measure only the bad things that happen with guns and never discuss the benefits.
“If you want the truth the anti-gunners don’t want you to know… you need a copy of The Bias Against Guns.” —Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes
[Other quotes omitted]
Most impressively he also provides all his data to people who what to recheck the work that he has done on the benefits of keeping guns in the home as well as his work on gun shows, concealed handgun laws, one-gun-a-month rules, and “assault weapons” bans. The web site is noted in the book as (…).
Posted less than a week after the book was released.
The Bias Against Guns
by John Lott
Reviewer: A reader from Swarthmore, PA USA
This book deserves the endorsements that it has from three Nobel Prize winners. The discussion of media and government bias is great, but it could be even longer than the two chapters currently devoted to the topic. I liked the stories that he had about the New York Times and the Washington Post, but the facts on how the media systematically only reports bad events goes beyond annecdotal stories and really nails the argument. The discussion of government funded research was also very interesting as Lott shows how easy it would be to look at both the costs and benefits of guns but that the government is only interested in measuring the costs. This book is a very important book.
… and he posted another review a few days later for good measure.
More Guns, Less Crime
by John LottReviewer: A reader from USA
Few books have had their conclusions evaluated as closely and carefully as this book. Academic after academic has replicated his results, and since he has made his data available to others many have examined to see how sensitive to including other variables to explain whether the crime rate declines after shall issue concealed handgun laws are adopted. The data has been re-examined by academics at many universities and has survived remarkably well. The fact that Lott can write so well and clearly and that his findings can be understood by a large audience only helps explain why gun control advocates attack him so viciously.
This classic has stood the test of time.
The location is not a city where he lived or worked, but it uses Lott phrases like “sets the standard” and “powerful book”. The date it was posted is also telling, because Ayres and Donohue had just published a comprehensive review and analysis that showed that Lott’s thesis had not stood the test of time.
Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists Criminals & Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores
by Michelle MalkinNow why would a conservative give Malkin’s book such a negative review? It couldn’t possibly be payback for this column, written three months earlier, could it?
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA)
As a conservative and someone concerned about immigration, this was a real disappointment. Some horror stories are sprinkled through the book, but there is no real solid analysis. No notion of the trade-offs or attempts to meassure the returns to expending money on different measures. Just a lot of ascertions.
The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century
by Robert J. ShillerHmmm, I wonder what Shiller did to annoy Lott?
Reviewer: A reader from Washington, DC (Swarthmore, PA USA)
Whether it is home value insurance or other improvements that Shiller offers to fix the market, the one question that Shiller never deals with is why those policies don’t already exist. He simply assumes that he is smarter than the market and that others have made mistakes in not offering these options. Might there be moral hazard problems in home value insurance? No discussion is offered. This approach of simply asserting an “optimal” arrangement without really asking why it doesn’t exist if it is so “optimal” is something that infects a lot of economics, but you would think that if a service is so valuable the first question would be “why doesn’t the market already provide this?” Instead Shiller’s presumption that he is so smart.
Freakonomics : A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
by Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
Reviewer: Economist123 - See all my reviews
Published Thursday, April 21, 2005, in Wall Street Journal
Abortion Legalization and the Crime Rate
Not surprisingly, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s new book “Freakonomics” ignores their academic critics, but Steve Landsburg’s review disappointingly does so too (Leisure Arts, April 13). Take just the books first claim: Unwanted children are more likely to grow up to be criminals and that abortion can therefore reduce crime, a plausible idea that has been around since the beginning of the abortion debate. Yet, despite Messrs. Levitt and Dubner’s claims, legalization doesn’t explain 75% of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s, and if anything the reverse is true.
…
If Messrs. Levitt and Dubner were correct, crime rates should have first started falling among younger people who were first born after legalization. Only as they aged would you start seeing crime fall among older criminals. But in fact the precise opposite is true. Murder rates during the 1990s first started falling for the oldest criminals and very last for the youngest.
John R. Lott Jr.
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
Washington
He signed his name to this one, but if you follow the “See all my reviews” link, you’ll see that John Lott aka “Economist123″ is the same person as “washingtonian2″, who posted the five-star review of More Guns, Less Crime above.
In total, there are seventeen anonymous five-star reviews of his own books and ten anonymous pans of rival’s books.
This list was last updated on 7 July 2005. Unlike regular blog postings I have not indicated all the changes I have made to the list, since it would be just too messy to show them all.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:58 am
[…] It looks like Don Cyphers of the Montana News Association is having a multiple personality problem. Conservative scholar John Lott had a similar problem on Amazon.com, pointed out, to his great consternation, by John Lott. [link] […]
November 28th, 2005 at 12:57 am
[…] Note: This is a different review to the one he posted as “Mary Rosh” and blamed his son for. Besides these two, Lott has posted sixteen other five-star reviews of his books. […]