"[2] Conversely, Roger Lane's review in the Journal of American History said that the book's research was “meticulous and thorough.” He wrote that Bellesiles had "attacked the central myth behind the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment."

"[4] Clayton Cramer, a history student, software engineer, gun enthusiast and early critic of Bellesiles, later argued that the reason "why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well...

Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didn’t even pause to consider the possibility that something wasn’t right.

[9] He pointed out that Cramer was "a long time advocate of unrestricted gun ownership" while he was a scholar who had "certain obligations of accuracy that transcend current political benefit.

[11] As Hoffer later wrote, Bellesiles was convinced that whether the entire profession agreed with "his stance on gun ownership (and I suspect most did), surely academic historians would not let their expertise be impugned by a rank and partisan amateur like Cramer.

"[13] As critics subjected the historical claims of the book to close scrutiny, they demonstrated that much of Bellesiles' research, particularly his handling of probate records, was inaccurate and possibly fraudulent.

[14] This criticism included noting several serious errors in the tables published in the book, as well as in the Journal of American History article, namely, that they did not provide a total number of cases and gave percentages that "were clearly wrong.

The external report on Bellesiles concluded that "every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed" and called his statements in self-defense "prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory."

[26] In 2010 he published his first book since the scandal, 1877: America's Year of Living Violently, with The New Press while working as adjunct professor at Central Connecticut State University.

"[31] Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively in the Journal of American History,[32] offered a similar opinion: "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records.

[4] Jon Wiener claimed in his book Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower that Bellesilles had been the victim of a politicized witch hunt.

[25] As Hoffer concluded, "Bellesiles's condemnation by Emory University, the trustees of the Bancroft Prizes, and Knopf provided the gun lobby with information to blast the entire history profession....Even though H-Law, the Omohundro Institute, the OAH, and the AHA rushed to his side and stated principled objections to the politicization of history, they hesitated to ask the equally important question of whether he had manipulated them and betrayed their trust.