Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns

Another wonderful book from Glenn Beck in a series of his books where he counters the disinformation and false propaganda perpetrated by USA Democrats. This book focuses on the subject of the Second Amendment and discusses the facts behind gun crimes and how armed law abiding citizens are so much better capable of protecting themselves, than law enforcement. Lots of statistics and good information needed to refute more Democrat lies.

I found this book to be the right book for right now. For today. For what is happening today!! Beck and crew explain it clearly, briefly, give proof and supporting unimpeachable documentation. The title of the book is apt because that (Control) is the goal. Glen and his staff rebut current statements and quotes from people like Rachel Maddow, Piers Morgan, Mayor Bloomberg, Diane Fienstein and the rest of the 'control' crowd. You can relate to this book. You can relate to what is being said. You can relate to it ... no matter what side of the issue you are on. You can relate to it because it is current. You know the people talked about in the book. The book explains why self defense, especially for women, is so important. It talks about Sandy Hook and the other multiple/mass school/workplace massacres and the disinformation about them in America. The book reveals the way 'controllists' twist and ignore facts and settled law and deceive us in order to accomplish their goals of disarming the people by instituting a process of gun restriction, registration and ultimately confiscation. As long as the people remain armed they will hold on to freedom. The "controllists" know this. Glen makes it clear without going into long histories. Control is the goal so they can ultimately disarm us. If anyone has any doubts about the real purpose of gun control measures, please read this book. Gun control is not about safety. They don't care about the equalizing effect of being armed. It is about disarming America. Gun control is not about doing the right thing or the commonsense thing. It is about disarming us and making us more dependent on government for our protection. They want to convince you, you shouldn't protect yourself but that government should do it. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting; it is about self defense, of oneself, family, community; but especially and primarily defense against a tyrannical domestic government. I have been reading books about the Second Amendment and our Consitution for many years now educating myself on these topics. After reading this book you will know who the "controllists" are and they're not limited to one political party. I sincerely wish all of America would read it. You love our country? You need to read this book. I wish I had a book like this 10 years ago. I also bought the audio cd for my car.

Glenn Beck's new book, "Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns," does just that. This is not just an opinion piece, though he (or the staff who wrote it) has included opinions throughout the book. Not only does it present current and specific pro-gun control statements and arguments, it takes them apart and, using facts and studies, disproves them. But rather than just state the pro-gun side, the book ends with 27 pages crammed with end notes, in much smaller font than the rest of the book, giving specific references for the statements and studies from both sides, so the sincerely interested can go through, do his or her own homework and see if Beck really does have support. And that homework will show that he has. Why would anyone find this book dangerous? If it is read from a neutral position, with an open mind, it will convince the unsure of the danger of the current drive to control the ownership of firearms in this country. That would not be a good thing for those who are intent on disarming the American people. Those will be the ones who will try to discourage you from reading this book, and who may even ridicule or shame those they know who are reading it. I have done some research before into the gun issue, having my own concerns for what I saw as too many guns in private hands. My own research convinced me that the situation was quite the opposite. So I already had seen some of the things Beck's book says. But there were many things here that I didn't know. And I DID seek out several of those sources listed in the notes. And found them all legitimate and disturbing. If you are sincerely interested in the issue, particularly if you don't know which side to take, this book is a must-read. It should be required reading in high school and college.

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.

I pre-ordered Control and it showed up yesterday morning (one day early!), so I read the 160 pages in the afternoon. Glenn and his team follow and easy to read format of "The Lie, Recent quotes from "the usual suspects" of that lie, and then a concise FACTUAL & LOGICAL repudiation of those lies". On each subject, Glenn just touches the obvious hypocrisies, and tears apart the larger logical-fallacies told by the progressive-statists. He just focuses on the facts & legal decisions, mixed with a touch of history, which proves each and every one of his counter-points at every turn. This is kind of like a refined and concise version of Glenn's "Arguing with Idiots", but on the subject of 2nd Amendment Rights only. This is a great read for the average gun owner and his (or her) friends, and is a great book to have on-hand for a quick reference when writing op-ed stuff online. while Glenn touches upon legal decisions and history, he doesn't drown the reader in it (too much!) I did have to put the book down for a break after 5 or so pages worth of US Supreme Court decisions and history... that is some pretty intellectually thick stuff that didn't read nearly as easily as the other sections in the book... nor should it. The rest of the book provides we readers with great answers to every stupid thing that has come out of the mouths of a gun-banning progressive-statists and their sheep followers over the last five months. If you've had any problems concisely voicing your unwavering stance on our 2nd amendment rights, this book will provide you with plenty of intellectual ammo to support your positions, as well the opportunity to crush any leftist's attempt to argue their Marxist-statist beliefs... and that, my fellow patriots, is well worth the price of admission alone! - Highly Recommended!

Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. Don't believe me, ask an Indian, excuse me, today we call them Native Americans. They know how good the white man's treaty is. Remember Adolf Hitler? He had a treaty with almost every country he invaded. Today we have a new crop of enemies in the Middle East. They do not understand treaties. They do understand a gun however, and they respect it. Here on the home front we have our share of crazies. Yes, many of them carry guns. They didn't buy these guns legally or go through a background check. No matter how many new laws are passed the bad guys will always find a way to get a gun. Want to know why bad guys hold their gun sideways? Because that's the way it came out of the box! I need the right to own and possess a gun because, heaven forbid; I may run up against one of these bad guys. Most likely he will be holding his gun sideways. No matter how he holds his gun I will end up dead because I obay the law. If the loons on the left have their way I will not be able to defend myself. My death will not be a great loss but my family will miss me. Lucky for me this hasn't happened yet. I have several weapons and a CWP. So does my wife. It is our hope that we never use our weapons on a human. We go about our business and no one sees our weapons. To them we are just a nice eldery couple. I like to make people laugh. Sometimes I get carried away and my wife has to remind me to behave myself. No one gets killed and yet we have guns. I carry two guns and my wife carries one gun. Sometimes a person will make me or my wife mad. Our weapons always stay in place. Just because we get mad about something it is not a reason to take a life. On the other hand if our life or someone else is going to be shot by a bad guy our weapons come out. If death is near by the actions of this bad guy we shoot. If the bad guy just grabs some money and runs away he becomes a none threat to anybody. Our guns are put away and the police are called. It is their job to catch the bad guy. I also can and do use my weapons to go hunting.I like to hunt. My wife doesn't hunt because she does not like the act of killing. We also spend time at the rifle range. We hit what we point our weapons at. I hate to admit it but my wife is a better shot than I am. We are both members of the NRA. They fight for our second amendment rights. If you own a hand gun or a rifle please join the NRA. They need your support. It takes a lot of money to protect our rights. Politics is expensive and everthing is political. It's as simple as that. One more thing I would like to say. There is no such thing as an assault weapon! I am a Vietnam veteran. In basic training my DI never used the term assault weapon. He called it a rifle! He handed me a rifle, not an assault weapon. I'll bet today's DI calls his weapon a rifle, not an assault weapon. Only fools and draft dodgers call a rifle an assault weapon. I also own a compound bow and a cross bow. I own several knives. They are all weapons that can and do kill people. Mine don't. I wonder why. Lets try a thought experiment. I put one of my rifles, my compound bow, my cross bow and one of my knives on a table in a room for 10,000 years. This room is sealed and locked. Will one person be killed by one of my weapons? No, none of my weapons will kill anyone. Now lets give all those weapons to a human. Depending on the brain inside the head that controls my weapons one or more of them may kill. I think it is the human that is the problem. There are people in our government that do not see the real problem. They want to take away our second ammendent rights! That is their "fix" to bad people killing people. You will learn this and much more if you read Glen Becks book "Control: Exposing the Truth About Guns". Glen hits the bull's eye with his book. It is a good read. If you do not own a gun and you are thinking about buying one may I suggest you buy this book before you buy a gun? Please? It is a real good book. Glen also asks that you share his book with your friends.

"Control" by Glenn Beck is well written and well researched. Glenn is right, it is not about "guns" or "the gun" it is about "control" of the American people. We are the only people in the World who still have a modicum of "freedom" and we have been letting it slip away. I have seen this progression. It has happened beginning with Clinton, somewhat during Bush, and escalated dramatically during Obama. Bureaucracy feeds on itself, more laws means more regulations to enforce those laws, which means more government bureaucrats, lawyers, and employees to enforce those laws. Homeland Security was a good idea (who could be against being secure) which is steadily going bad because the people who work there rotate out over time, missions change, and the first thing you know we have our own "police state" with various agencies with police power competing with each other to enforce whatever stupid law comes down the pike. Take for example the case of "Gibson Guitar Company" vs US Fish and Wildlife. What could be more American than a "Gibson Guitar"? Gibson uses "ebony" a black wood from India as the fret, I believe. It is not endangered and it is shipped to many companies in the US along with other decorative exotic woods for many uses. It is important economically to those Countries who ship the wood. Picture this: A bunch of highly skilled craftsmen busily and happily down at the Gibson factory turning out very expensive iconic American Guitars and in comes a swat team in full combat gear from US Fish and Wildlife of all agencies to accost and intimidate people, stop their work, confiscate wood products, shut down the factory, and it all turns out to be a false allegation. Obama's Govt' has cost Gibson $5 MILLION to date in legal fees and countless product sales and hurt those peaceful employees who were content to spend their lives turning out the DAMN BEST GUITARS ON THE PLANET ! I don't play any instrument, let alone a guitar, but I identify with those people and I am PISSED that our government would do such a thing. You know, I felt sorry for Carter, he was inept and wore rose colored glasses. I laughed at Bill's antics and worried about his policies, but I didn't think that he was Un-American, He was just being Bill. Bush was talked into Homeland Security which will be a huge mistake for us. Under Miss Janet, they recently ordered 1&1/2 BILLION ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, part of Obama's FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE, I guess. Here's the process, First they need to take the guns, which they must have to ensure COMPLETE CONTROL which is their goal. It's for Gun safety you say, they couldn't give a flying f@#%^& about safety, or accidental death of children or the govt' would be advocating training of young people in how to be safe with guns. Well it's to keep CRAZIES from killing school kids, you say. If that were true they would be putting retired law enforcement in the schools. My county has had SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS from the Sheriff's Dept. in the schools for 15 years and local taxpayers pay for it. Obama can't abide with locking up the CRAZIES for our safety and their own safety and "heaven or Allah forbid" that we protect ourselves and family from these nuts or JIHADISTS. I'm an old guy and the govt' once trained people on good hygiene, food safety, the necessity of immunizations, to not pollute ground and surface water on the farm, etc. That was a good thing, government did that from the 1920ties until recent times. What in the "H E double Tooth Pics" has happened? We now need the boot of our govt' on our necks? People, the United States of America, the greatest Country the World has ever know, once "the land of the free" and "home of the brave" is turning into a POLICE STATE. WAKE UP AMERICA !!!! Read "Control, Exposing The Truth About Guns" to reach a more clear understanding of where we are and where we are going under this over reaching administration!

All of the interviews that pro-gun and anti-gun advocates are giving in the media are starting to reveal there's something rotten in Denmark. This book neatly summarizes tangible facts, and arguments (albeit some rather specious) exposing many gun control "facts" as fabrications. John Lott, one co-author bravely goes on the talk shows and is lambasted, insulted and shouted down by Piers Morgan, Wolf Blitzer and others, when trying to communicate the falsity of facts presented by gun control advocates. When Lott tried to counter the Brady Campaign spokesperson's claim that 1.6 million felons and mentally ill persons were denied guns by an effective NICS background check system, Blitzer called him a liar, denied the facts that the DOJ reports indicated 95%+ of the 1.6 million were false denials and that only 13 prosecutions resulted, and said Lott was the only one making such false claims about the supposedly true gun control facts. Not only does the media enable and spread the lies, but they lie about their lies. The book rightly condemns the media for colluding to advocate political ends rather than reporting the news. Many, if not most journalists can be more aptly labeled as media-funded lobbyists attempting to sway opinion by suppression and distortion of facts. Senators are not stupid. The 90% of the public that supposedly supports (or supported) extended background checks (including a supposed 80%+ of NRA members) should lend any politician comfort that voting for more such gun control would only aid their re-election efforts. But Senators didn't fear supporting the bill based on the 10% that opposed the bill, or the 4 million NRA members, because they knew the 90% statistic that the Obama Administration and media touted was bogus. A pollster fabrication. This is a book that will be vehemently trashed by anti-gun advocates and lauded by pro-gun advocates. But it will help the truth emerge.