Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
F3SS

Harvard Study: GunControl Is Counterproductiv

107 posts in this topic

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

.....

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

More... http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

A link to the actual study. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Haven't thoroughly read it but skimming through pretty much trounces all Second Amendment opposition and the flaming mantras they use so matter-of-factly. Even worse for them, this is an Ivy League study.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:gun:
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: I'm not sure when this study was conducted but the latest reference I happened to notice in the study was 2006.

A handy table...

post-117199-0-00244200-1401488481_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats sad is it takes a study from Harvard to get people to see this, even though its been hidden in plain view this whole time. Whats even worse, there will still be people who refuse to see it still.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whats sad is it takes a study from Harvard to get people to see this, even though its been hidden in plain view this whole time. Whats even worse, there will still be people who refuse to see it still.

Funny enough is that at the end of the article the Ivy League professors who conducted and published the study still couldn't admit their own confirmation.

Here, from the end of the article, not the study.

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

The lefties can't even acknowledge their own facts if it doesn't fit the agenda! Ok, they do a little on the last sentence but you know that was a reluctant admission.

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure some of the resident experts will have some way of distorting this,the anticipation is killing me.... :gun:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that it's from Harvard it ain't gonna be easy for 'em.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny enough is that at the end of the article the Ivy League professors who conducted and published the study still couldn't admit their own confirmation.

Here, from the end of the article, not the study.

The lefties can't even acknowledge their own facts if it doesn't fit the agenda! Ok, they do a little on the last sentence but you know that was a reluctant admission.

Actually, they can't say it because it wouldn't be statistically correct. In any kind of statistical study, correlation does not equal causation (pretty sure that was lesson 1 of my statistics class). Two men with their credentials know better than to make that mistake. Not everything has to do with an "agenda".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, they can't say it because it wouldn't be statistically correct. In any kind of statistical study, correlation does not equal causation (pretty sure that was lesson 1 of my statistics class). Two men with their credentials know better than to make that mistake. Not everything has to do with an "agenda".

When it comes to these Ivy League schools it most certainly can. What wouldn't be statistically correct though? I'm not sure I get the drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

When a study showing the opposite was posted here, pro-gun people just completely disregarded it and claimed it was invalid. Now that a study supports their view, they act like its hypocritical to ignore studies... http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-07/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-studybre92617d-20130307_1_gun-ownership-gun-control-states-with-strict-gun

Interestingly enough, when people mentioned other western nations to support the gun-control argument, pro-gun people argued that you can't compare other nations to the US. Now, in this study that uses other western nations, pro-gun people claim that that is completely valid... Hmm....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to these Ivy League schools it most certainly can. What wouldn't be statistically correct though? I'm not sure I get the drift.

They just can't say their study proves anything. When I say statistically correct, I'm not talking about their numbers...they just aren't allowed to say it. If you want to prove causation, it has to be a specific study with the population, and a control group. I am not disputing the paper at all, just saying that they had to word it like that as not to discredit themselves.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

When a study showing the opposite was posted here, pro-gun people just completely disregarded it and claimed it was invalid. Now that a study supports their view, they act like its hypocritical to ignore studies... http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-07/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-studybre92617d-20130307_1_gun-ownership-gun-control-states-with-strict-gun

Interestingly enough, when people mentioned other western nations to support the gun-control argument, pro-gun people argued that you can't compare other nations to the US. Now, in this study that uses other western nations, pro-gun people claim that that is completely valid... Hmm....

This study wasn't about shooting deaths. Your link provides the obvious in that stricter gun control results in less deaths by guns. Duh. The study I provided says the same exact thing. The difference is whether gun control results in less deaths overall. The article containing the study posted in the op touches on exactly what your link says...

Didn't you read this?

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

When a study showing the opposite was posted here, pro-gun people just completely disregarded it and claimed it was invalid. Now that a study supports their view, they act like its hypocritical to ignore studies... http://articles.chic...with-strict-gun

Interestingly enough, when people mentioned other western nations to support the gun-control argument, pro-gun people argued that you can't compare other nations to the US. Now, in this study that uses other western nations, pro-gun people claim that that is completely valid... Hmm....

I don't believe anyone here paralleled Holland, Norway, and the USA.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, when people mentioned other western nations to support the gun-control argument, pro-gun people argued that you can't compare other nations to the US. Now, in this study that uses other western nations, pro-gun people claim that that is completely valid... Hmm....

As for this part, if I say something to that effect it's more along the lines of principles. You over there don't care about guns but we do. If your cool with a ban that doesn't mean we are.

Or, it could have to do with the way certain stats are accumulated such as this...

As an aside, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US.

If taken literally, a simple comparison can be made. In 2012, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000, a total of 14,827. Arrests amounted to only 7,133. Using only people who were arrested (not just convicted) would lower the US murder rate to 2.26 per 100,000. More information on the adjustment for England and Wales is available here and it suggests that while many homicides are excluded it isn’t as large as it would appear (in 1997, the downward adjustment would be about 12 percent).

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just can't say their study proves anything. When I say statistically correct, I'm not talking about their numbers...they just aren't allowed to say it. If you want to prove causation, it has to be a specific study with the population, and a control group. I am not disputing the paper at all, just saying that they had to word it like that as not to discredit themselves.

Well said,a lot of these studies prove nothing yet at the same time show that those who invest far to much time into being correct are left wondering....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Actually, they can't say it because it wouldn't be statistically correct. In any kind of statistical study, correlation does not equal causation (pretty sure that was lesson 1 of my statistics class). Two men with their credentials know better than to make that mistake. Not everything has to do with an "agenda".

Not trying to pester you but I just happened upon this.

Former New York City Mayor and powerful gun control advocate Michael Bloomberg delivered a surprisingly bold message about the dangers of suppressing different political ideas during his commencement speech at Harvard University on Thursday.

In fact, he called out the entire Ivy League for attempting to shut out all conservative thought, nearly making conservative faculty members an “endangered species.” He also called the act of repressing free expression a “natural human weakness” that must be fought “at every turn.”

“There’s a word for that idea: censorship. And it is just a modern-day form of McCarthyism,” Bloomberg told Harvard graduates. “Think about the irony: In the 1950s, the right wing was attempting to repress left wing ideas. Today, on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species.”

Bloomberg argued that attempts to censor conservative ideas are common in the Ivy League, noting that 96 percent of all campaign contributions from Ivy League faculty and employees went to Barack Obama in 2012. Bloomberg also supported Obama in 2012.

“There was more disagreement among the old Soviet politburo than there is among Ivy League donors,” he added.

Neither Republicans or Democrats have a “monopoly of truth or God on its side,” Bloomberg continued. But when 96 percent of Ivy League donors are choosing one candidate, “you really have to wonder whether students are being exposed to the diversity of views that a great university should offer,” he said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/30/without-this-video-proof-you-might-have-a-hard-time-believing-who-went-off-on-ivy-league-schools-for-suppressing-conservative-ideas/

That might be thread worthy itself.

Edited by F3SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of a week is this? Reverse discrimination lawsuits are being won in the middle of New York, Harvard University is furthering the pro-gun argument whether they like it or not and Michael freakin Bloomberg is calling out the entire Ivy League for possibly having a political agenda?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This study wasn't about shooting deaths. Your link provides the obvious in that stricter gun control results in less deaths by guns. Duh. The study I provided says the same exact thing. The difference is whether gun control results in less deaths overall. The article containing the study posted in the op touches on exactly what your link says...

Didn't you read this?

Regardless, the point is, a large number of the vocal pro-gunners completely rejected the previous studies because it worked against their cause... So those same pro-gunners shouldn't be holding the pro-gun-controllers to a different study with regards to accepting or dismissing studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, the point is, a large number of the vocal pro-gunners completely rejected the previous studies because it worked against their cause... So those same pro-gunners shouldn't be holding the pro-gun-controllers to a different study with regards to accepting or dismissing studies.

I addressed your issue. You're either blissfully ignorant or I don't know what but I've addressed the matter you present, so does the op article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Regardless, the point is, a large number of the vocal pro-gunners completely rejected the previous studies because it worked against their cause... So those same pro-gunners shouldn't be holding the pro-gun-controllers to a different study with regards to accepting or dismissing studies.

I'll bet the rejection from the right you speak of was in the vein of that doesn't mean there'll be less crime or death which I'm sure the opposite is the rejectable argument you present and that this opinion I hold against you is now supported in the archives of academias finest.

What I'm saying is who could deny the blanket statement that if there are less guns there are less gun deaths...?

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a few problems, yes... (to be rather unkind, we have two lawyers who are arguing for select parts of data to support a position that they strongly support.) I see them citing statistics from 1998 on crimes to show countries with higher crime rates than the US (ignoring the more recent international statistics.) They say that "after the Civil War there were a lot more guns" and then they say that they can't really judge the murder rate because data is so spotty.

I think we have two lawyers arguing a case they feel passionately about.

I'd feel more comfortable if they were scientists and statisticians.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet the rejection from the right you speak of was in the vein of that doesn't mean there'll be less crime or death which I'm sure the opposite is the rejectable argument you present and that this opinion I hold against you is now supported in the archives of academias finest.

What I'm saying is who could deny the blanket statement that if there are less guns there are less gun deaths...?

First of all, let's be clear on the statement: gun control reduces gun deaths. Gun control can mean many different types of restrictions and regulations. People argue that that won't work because criminals will get the guns anyway and commit crimes. The article says that the regulations do work in reducing gun deaths, and postulates that the leading cause for that is that there are less guns as a result of said regulations. Nevertheless, people do deny that regulations would reduce gun deaths, and also denied those studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to these Ivy League schools it most certainly can. What wouldn't be statistically correct though? I'm not sure I get the drift.

The problem with statistic is that while they can be useful, they can also be made to say pretty much whatever you want.

Here are a few examples of statistics and good examples of why correlation =/=causation, from Spurious Correlations:

xqOt9mP.png

q54sO25.png

UIVCmCi.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gun issue in this country has become a paradox,we are a country split down the middle almost exactly 50/50 between the the extremes of left and right.I personaly do not give one ounce of s**t for anyones team views.

"Things are not always what they seem;the appearance deceives many;the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden"

Phaedrus

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it was said above...this is not new to anyone that has two brain cells to rub together. The violent mind WILL find a way. What harsh restrictions does is hinder a law abiding person from having the proper tools to stop those violent minds.

It's been beaten to death on here and just about everywhere else so it's almost pointless to say it...but I will anyway.

If you were to melt all the guns into chunks of steel...then people would kill you with knives or hammers or clubs or arrows or darts and poison from a blowgun...getting the point yet?

When a mind has sunken to the point that violence and murder is the answer they seek, nothing is going to stop them. Yes, guns are very efficient at carrying that deed out, but they are not the cause, they are the most efficient tool. Remove it and then the second most efficient tool will be used...be it a sword, a bow and arrow, a knife, a hammer...etc...etc...etc.

You cannot ban all the possible tools...you cannot ban violent behavior because it is unpredictable and can pop up out of no where.

I just want people to let it go and move on. You cannot have the gunzzzz....best drop it and try pushing your liberal buddies to get some free and effective mental healthcare for people that are at risk....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.