This collection of studies is, unfortunately, not light reading (especially for those lacking a solid grounding in statistical methods). Nor, like many of the pro-gun tracts, do the studies included set out clear and definitive conclusions.What it does is present a number of studies and articles by those scholars who the NRA would label as "gun grabbers" offering evidence that challenges many of the more widely disseminated pro-gun arguments and pseudo-scientific works of authors like John Lott.
For example, while John Donohue's article presents a rather compelling case that Lott's conclusion (summed up as "More Guns, Less Crime") is deeply flawed he notes:
"If one had previously been inclined to believe the Lott and Mustard results, one might now conclude that the statistical evidence that crime will rise when a shall-issue law is passed is at least as compelling as the prior evidence that was amassed to show it would fall. However, there are still enough anomoliesin the data that warrent caution."
That's quite different from Lott's certitude in "More Guns, Less Crime" and, given the evidence, it is Lott's certitude that should be called into question, even before the conclusions about which he is so certain.
One other example merits particular note. That study, by Steven Raphael and Jens Ludwig, challanges the effectiveness of one program that is the "darling" of both the NRA *and* the Brady Campaign -- Richmond's Project Exile. The study concludes that the drop is actually something more akin to "regression to the mean" -- where the implementation followed a particurly steep risee in homicides and the subsequent drop is more attributable to the return to the "normal" rates than the increased focus itself. What the study doesn't mention is that, in 1997 (the base year used in hyping the program's success), homicide rates in Richmond had risen so steeply (contrary to other Virginia metropolitan areas) that Richmond's homicide rate exceeded Washington, DC's.
It many ways, it's a shame that the book isn't written for a wider audience, because the gun debate is one where the loudest and most self-certain voices carry more weight among the public than the most reasoned ones.
