THE WELL-READ WONK
Taking Gun-Control Advocates To Task

With terrorist attacks, school shootings and crime rates scaring America, the issue of personal weapons possession seems lodged in the national consciousness.

One author, however, fears that one side of this divisive debate is getting short shrift. In "The Bias Against Guns," American Enterprise Institute scholar John R. Lott Jr. states his case that guns "make us safer" -- an argument he fears Americans do not hear often enough.

Lott's subtitle, "Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong," adequately sums up his intent: to explain why the "defensive" benefits to gun ownership are seemingly rarely discussed in public debate, as opposed to the obvious dangers of accidental shootings or guns getting into criminal hands. In fact, Lott argues, gun control laws disarm "law-abiding citizens more than criminals."

"The Bias Against Guns" is divided into two distinct sections. The first deals with the allegation that a bias against gun owners exists in America, while the second dissects the reality of the situation based on various studies and data. Lott has chosen four key issue areas -- reduction of terror attacks, increase in home gun ownership, gun show "loopholes" and bans on assault weapons -- as focal points for his study, which, he says, he has conducted from the perspective of a cost-benefit analysis rather than a philosophical one.

In each section, Lott draws heavily on media accounts, personal anecdotes and nationally-compiled data to make his case for the benefits of gun ownership.

Of particular interest is the chapter on terrorism, in which Lott explores the post-Sept. 11 American emphasis on preparedness against personal attack. In this section, Lott also takes note of ways in which other terrorism-afflicted countries, such as Israel, handle personal gun ownership.

In "Guns," Lott has chosen to defend what could be perceived as the politically incorrect position on one of the nation's most controversial issues. His analysis is both thoughtful and provocative, however, and worth a look by anyone interested in the gun control debate.

--Meg Kinnard, NationalJournal.com