Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns

I don't hate or dislike Glenn Beck, but I mistrust him even when I happen to agree with him--mostly because of his profession. I have no doubt he is smart and articulate, but he caters too often to a kind of extremist politics and conspiracy-theory thinking, and after all, in his line of work, that's a proven way to expand your audience. But for those reasons, I wouldn't turn to him as a reliable resource for information while forming an opinion. Indeed, I did not even order this book. I ordered John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"--which is excellent (see my review)--but Amazon accidentally sent me this book also. So I read it. It's a very quick read, about 150 pages in simple, accessible prose. I was pleasantly surprised to find Beck unusually restrained in his rhetoric and level-headed in his claims. Although there are still some obvious traces of his politicized hyper-suspicions about the left (several references to "elite controllists," for instance), he keeps it under control and often does a very fine job expressing simple, accurate, scientifically-supportable arguments in favor of guns. He rebuts anti-gun claims in the process, but usually in straightforward and reasoned terms, not (as I might expect) by repeatedly attacking their character or motives. That's surprising, given that the book's overarching argument--which is not featured or repeated as heavily as I would've expected--is basically that restricting gun rights is more about control than public safety. I hesitate to say it, but I actually agree with Beck on that point--not for political reasons, but because the data bears it out quite clearly.Given his occupation, I wouldn't normally trust data supplied by someone like Beck. There's just too many ways to "spin" it to suit your politics. It's best--especially with a highly controversial subject like gun control--to read and analyze studies and statistics for oneself. Fortunately, I've done that very thoroughly over the last four years, so, in this case, I've already read nearly every study and source Beck cites, except those he cites about the correlations between violent aggression and violent media (television, video games, etc.). With the exception of those media studies--which I haven't read--I can vouch for the validity of his gun- and crime-related sources. He represents their findings accurately and they do indeed corroborate most of the claims about guns which he employs them to support.Of course, who am I? I'm just a random Amazon reviewer, so while I obviously trust my own opinion and diligent research, you obviously can't because you don't know me. So, for the same reasons I wouldn't normally trust Beck (without first researching the matter myself), you shouldn't trust my endorsement of Beck. Before you read him, go look into the data for yourself. Spend some time looking at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the CDC reports on injuries and fatalities, and at least a few empirical studies like John Lott's breathtakingly detailed "More Guns, Less Crime" (the most comprehensive study of guns and crime to date). Check a few of the studies with anti-gun findings also, especially the reprehensively faulty Kellerman study, which is laughably flawed but has carried surprising weight ever since and has probably played the single most damaging role in seeming to validate the idea that all guns do is kill. When you later read Beck's or Lott's (accurate) descriptions of the flaws in that study, you'll not only understand why Kellerman shouldn't be trusted, but also why you should be suspicious of ANY "scientific" findings until you first check out the study's methodology for yourself.As a tenured professor, I started out sharing many of the anti-gun biases of my fellow academics, but I changed to strongly pro-gun after two years of extensive research into the subject for myself (and another two years of continuing to read about the topic since then). I now firmly believe that there would be little question about the public benefits of firearms if more people simply suspended their irrational emotional stigmas about guns, stopped listening to the pundits, and simply investigated the raw statistics and the most detailed studies for themselves. If you do, I suspect you'll conclude, as I have, that the (demonstrable) financial, legal, and public benefits of firearms far outweigh their emotionally-jarring (but comparatively rare) abuses in our society.So what is Beck's book good for? A few things. First, it's a great gift for someone who knows nothing about pro-gun arguments and wants to get up to speed quickly on the broad strokes. It does represent the claims accurately (though you have to take my word for it), and covers a wide range of such arguments. While I still think it is better to research the data for oneself, I realize some people won't invest that effort. In that case, you could do a lot worse than Beck's book.Second, it's a great gift for a staunchly pro-gun folks who want a single, easy-to-share resource that distills major pro-gun arguments into clear, concise, articulate, and rhetorically effective form. Beck does have a gift for cutting to the salient point and swiftly rebutting the most disingenuous arguments anti-gun folks tend to offer. I'm not sure he's the best resource if you're in a truly academic debate, but he's definitely got the number of anti-gun folks who occupy a large swath of the popular media.Third, Beck's book is a very interesting (if unintended) study of media bias. While I don't perceive media bias (generally) to be as severe as folks like Beck believe it to be, I am sincerely stunned by how biased the media coverage of guns has been since the Colorado and Newtown shootings. Beck has a fascinating section in which he quotes absolutely false or inexcusably skewed statements made by various people--from noted journalists, to television celebrities, to novelists like Stephen King, to President or Vice President--and exposes the fallacies they contain. Some of the most shocking are the incredible "sources" they reference to argue, for example, that "40% of all guns are purchased via the 'gun show loophole'" or that the assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 reduced violent crime. Other memorable quotes are the severely anti-gun sentiments expressed by people like Eric Holder, who once spoke about how we need to turn public opinion against guns the way we did so successfully with anti-tobacco campaigns, or Dianne Feinstein who has admitted on public record that she would ban every gun, of every type, if she could. Beck rightly suggests that comments like these give at least partial credibility to the concern that many anti-gun folks are indeed "gun grabbers" who would like to see all guns banned from civilian hands. The evidence? Their own words.Not a bad read--a great compilation of pro gun arguments and studies, albeit often incomplete or cut short in the swift movement from one claim to the next. Beck gives plenty to chew and writes very accessibly, while also restraining some of his normal rhetorical excesses (probably because he rightly senses that the numbers really are on his side here). Check it out if you're looking for a good, easy read. If you're trying to form a strong, reasoned view about guns, I still say go crunch the numbers for yourself. It's worth the effort, and it will prove revealing about how distorted the politics of guns have truly become.

This book is for those readers who are looking for answers to America's ongoing debate about firearms and violence.It takes 36 recent quotes by various public figures like President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg and various celebrities like CNN's Piers Morgan or novelist Stephen King and provides counterpoints and analysis.The reason to start on page 75 is this quote from President Obama on 16 January 2013:"But it's hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check. That's not safe. That's not smart. It's not fair to responsible gun buyers or sellers...."Glenn Beck and his editors / researchers then go on to explain why the President's statement is both misleading and incorrect. In light of the recent debate and US Senate vote on background check legislation, the analysis of this position should serve as a good indicator of the value of the remainder of the book; which looks at 35 additional recent quotes and also has a Part Two on "Winning Hearts and Minds" and then closes with some suggestions for possible solutions in the final section "The Way Forward"...Those readers who favor gun control / safety will likely be dismissive of this book, rate it one star and move on. Those who favor gun rights will likely rate it highly and agree with its positions and perhaps gain some additional insights and support for their beliefs. Those who are somewhat on the fence about the gun debate, wondering what to do and who is telling more of the truth, I think will benefit the most. Beck's 162 pages are followed by 27 pages of notes so the reader has the opportunity to check for themselves. The book is generally easy to read, even enjoyable in spots and may cause an objective reader to re-look the various issues and even consider some family and personal lifestyle changes. In my view, that is the primary benefit of this book.But then again, consider this Beck statement on page 53: "And to Stephen King. I hate to break it to you, but in the event people ever try to invade my home,you're right: my AR-15 semi-automatic has only one intended use; to kill them."Hmm... I was a combat soldier in Vietnam, Panama and Kuwait. Served as a sworn reserve police officer and also had a career as a forensic psychiatry RN dealing with the criminally mentally ill. And I've killed, not murdered, but killed enemy combatants in war.So what you say? Well I take exception with Mr. Beck's words about intending to kill a home invader. He has said the same thing recently on his TV show while in Texas for the NRA convention. I've been trained by respected firearms experts like Massad Ayoob, that as a civilian my goal is to stop a lethal threat, maybe by killing the attacker, but the goal is to stop them before they hurt any innocent person. A useful phrase to remember says you can use lethal force if you face an "immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." So what does that mean? I suggest you look at [...]There you will find a well written explanation on the ideas of Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy and Preclusion. I recommend the link to Mr. Beck as well. If as a civilian I ever face a home invasion, I too will attempt to defend myself and family with our firearms. As I have been trained, if I face such an AOJP type lethal scenario, I will shoot at the attacker's body center of mass until they are stopped and are no longer a threat. In doing so, I may in fact kill them. But if I wound them and they turn away to flee or fall down, I do not legally have the right to continue shooting until they are dead. An important legal distinction as some have discovered later in court.Also, getting back to page 75 and gun shows. I think it would have been helpful if Mr. Beck had also included the fact that there have been filmed examples of firearms sales in gun show parking lots where money is exchanged for firearms and there are no background checks. The original purchaser may have undergone a backgound check from a dealer inside the gun show, but the same firearm is now exchanging hands in a private sale. At times, I think the case can be made, as Mr. Beck does in a later section of this book, such transactions could be labeled as a minor form of gun-running depending on the ultimate user of the firearm being sold in such a manner. Gun-running has been described as one of the causes for the epidemic of gun shootings in otherwise strictly gun controlled Chicago.In Part Two Mr. beck introduces the well respected author and speaker, LTC Dave Grosmman (US Army, Ret.) and explores the various claims and counter-claims about the potential influence of violent entertainment media on young minds. Examples are provided that I think make a comon sense case that such games / videos have a negative effect, especially as shown by the murderers in some of the worst mass killings here and also abroad. The reader will make up their own mind but there is something here to ponder, especially if you have children and have never played an M rated game you've bought for them. It might be eye-opening and disturbing if you look and think about the possibilities. As perhaps Mrs. Lanza should have done before the Sandy Hook murders occurred?LTC Grossman wrote two books that may become of interest for some readers, "On Killing" and later, "On Combat" which he co-authored with Loren w. Christensen. Much can be learned about human inter-personal violence in these books.Finally, I hope tonight's NRA keynote speech by Mr. Beck at the NRA convention in Houston, TX will be seen or read about by many, and serve as a spur to buy, read and share this inexpensive paperback book that has so much to offer voters and legislators in the ongoing gun debate. The upcoming Zimmerman murder trial in Florida next month may serve as a reminder of why this book is so timely, as was the recent incident at Bush International Airport in Houston resulting in the suicide death of what could have been our latest mass murder episode.Read "Control" and learn before that next event occurs... and then make your feelings known to your friends and legislators. If you do, then I think this book will have served its stated purpose... exposing the truth about guns... Be safe.

What is an assault weapon? Why does anyone need a gun? Are guns killing our kids? On the subject of guns, there is so much misinformation broadcast to an uniformed public, by politicians and the media interested only in selling their own agenda at the cost of truth , that this book is a must read for anyone who is sick of being lied to. This book presents the truth about guns: makes, models and functions: ownership, and the reasons an armed citizenry is so important to our freedom. It is clear and concise and easy to understand. If you want to know the truth yourself, or, if you are as frustrated as I am with trying to educate friends and family who think they know it all, then this is for you. Do what I did and buy each their own copy.

Once again well thought out, and written. Glenn Beck unveils the secret agenda when it comes to the state and the control of weapons.The statement especially when it comes to Great Britain as we face the abolition of this nation by the insidious European Union and treasonous politicians would have to be:When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people you have liberty.This book reveals the truth about agendas followed by the US government under Obama in trying to disarm the people, and the British government's success in disarming the people, as treasonous politicians abolish Great Britain. In order to oppress the people, despotic governments must first disarm the people, on disingenuous claims that they are trying to make life safer for the people, the truth is "Control."

Molto chiaro, discorsi approfonditi, giornalismo all'americana in cui ci si impegna sempre ad informare il lettore in maniera pragmatica ed aderente alla realta'.

For all you "Gun Control" and Pro-firearm people out there... this is a very interesting read. Although written primarily about firearms, the firearms culture and the anti-gun (gun control) culture in the USA, it reveals a lot of interesting information and lifts some of the haze and myth surrounding some of the recent mass murders, the media hysteria, and Government hypocrisy. Very interesting read.

Typical Glenn Beck, i.e., well researched and documented information integrated into an interpretation. Beck sees the desired gun control, particularly from presidential side, as part of a larger wish to establish "control" (or the possiblity thereof) from the side of the federal government, specifically by the executive. As I understand the US Constitution (and I am only an amateur) the most profound reason for the right to bear arms is to enable citizens to resist "control" felt as tryanny on the part of government. Originally this derives from resistance to the British crown and the continued desire that the US fed. gov. does not re-constitute itself as a new "crown". I recommend the book, particularly for those (e.g., Europeans) who do not understand American history and customs.