• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Harvard Study Concludes: Gun Control does not Prevent Murders or other Violent Crime

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
Harvard study concludes that gun control does not prevent murders, other violent crime

The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.
Kates and Mauser claim in the study that while some international comparisons have been viewed as evidence that more guns equals more deaths and therefore to reduce guns will reduce deaths, they indicate that some of these studies use inaccurate or misleading information to obtain the results.
According to the study, the so-called fact that the reason the murder rate is so high in the United States compared with other modern developed countries is due to the U.S. having uniquely easy access to guns, is simply not true. The study indicates those homicide rates are not an accurate representation and moreover, that those rates have nothing to do with the number of firearms in the country.
Yet, according to the study, what fails to be acknowledged is that first, England was already experiencing an all-time low in violence before gun control measures were introduced. Secondly, in the late 1990s England started to initiate stricter gun control policies, resulting in a complete ban of handguns as well as many long guns. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were confiscated from law-abiding citizens. By the year 2000, violent crime in England had increased so much that it had one of the highest violent crime rates in all of Europe, evening higher than that of the U.S.
In addition, England’s most recent crime statistics have been grossly misrepresented. In 2006 the criminal justice system, in an attempt to conserve resources, initiated a policy in which the police would no longer investigate “minor” crimes, such as burglary and minor assault. If a mugger, robber, burglar or others engaged in minor criminal activities are caught, the police simply give them a warning – a virtual slap on the wrist – then send them on their way, without filing charges, arresting or prosecuting them. In other words, crime has not gone down in England, but rather “minor” crimes are simply no longer counted as crime.
And as states adopted statutes to allow the carrying of firearms, the U.S. saw a dramatic drop in violent crime, particularly homicides. Additionally, states that approved residents to carry firearms saw a greater decrease in crime than those who did not.
The study then skims the surface of the societal problems of violent crime, citing that most violent criminals – and especially murders – almost always have a long history of criminal behavior. “So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”
a CDC study released earlier this year showed that even with the U.S. owning half the guns on earth, those guns are more often used in self-defense than for violent crimes.

Moreover, in addition to the Harvard study, at least two other studies have come up with similar conclusions. In 2003 the U.S. Center for Disease Control and again in 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences both concluded that they “failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicides, or gun accidents.”
 
Last edited:

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,797
36
86
The stat I am most interested in is the murder rate against innocent strangers.

If a husband is going to kill his wife he's going to do it with whatever. If a gang is going to take out a member of another gang a gun is optional (probably where the Russian murder rate comes in).

What I don't know is if gun control reduces the number of random killings. I think this is the fear that drives most gun control laws.

"I'm not involved in any criminal work, my SO isn't going to kill me but I don't know if that stranger that walked into the store is a crazy person with a gun or just a regular person" This is what motivates background check gun control laws.

Secondary would be the magnitude of random attacks (ie how many wounded and how many killed during a single attack). This is what motivates assault weapons ban gun control laws.

To assuage the fears you have to at least answer those two questions. I'm not sure this study does that, though it may and I just missed it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,203
136
Facts! No spin.

PDF of actual study good read.
Not an actual study, not from an independent peer reviewed social science journal.

I love how entries from self avowed conservative advocacy groups not subject to peer review are suddenly 'Facts! No spin.'

You are a clown.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
135
106
Well harvard is full of crap. Everyone knows that banning guns makes you safe. I mean, duh? If everyone but the criminals turns in their guns, then why wouldnt you be safe? Like omg why cant people get it?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,203
136
Well harvard is full of crap. Everyone knows that banning guns makes you safe. I mean, duh? If everyone but the criminals turns in their guns, then why wouldnt you be safe? Like omg why cant people get it?
It's not Harvard, it's this:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,342
2,018
126
It took smart people at Harvard to waste time and money on something I could have told them for free along time ago?
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
The stat I am most interested in is the murder rate against innocent strangers.

What I don't know is if gun control reduces the number of random killings. I think this is the fear that drives most gun control laws.
It doesn't.

* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

* Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.

* Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.


* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

“Compared with other developed nations, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate and higher rates of gun ownership, but not higher rates for all other crimes,” the Pew study says.

Secondary would be the magnitude of random attacks (ie how many wounded and how many killed during a single attack). This is what motivates assault weapons ban gun control laws.
Not a major issue. Look at green line.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,203
136
You'd think with the amount of time crying biased source on this forum, something like this wouldn't get touched with a ten foot pole... And yet...
Sources are only biased when they come from nonpartisan, peer reviewed journals. Those are librul strongholds. When social science studies come out of conservative advocacy student law journals, they are 'all facts'.

It's just confirmation bias at work.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
Sources are only biased when they come from nonpartisan, peer reviewed journals. Those are librul strongholds. When social science studies come out of conservative advocacy student law journals, they are 'all facts'.

It's just confirmation bias at work.
Facts making you cry? Maybe you are too stupid to read.

a CDC study released earlier this year showed that even with the U.S. owning half the guns on earth, those guns are more often used in self-defense than for violent crimes.

Moreover, in addition to the Harvard study, at least two other studies have come up with similar conclusions. In 2003 the U.S. Center for Disease Control and again in 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences both concluded that they “failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicides, or gun accidents.”
 
Last edited:

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,185
107
106
Well harvard is full of crap. Everyone knows that banning guns makes you safe. I mean, duh? If everyone but the criminals turns in their guns, then why wouldnt you be safe? Like omg why cant people get it?
Some people like to let logic and reason get in the way of emotion, they need a trip to room 101 :colbert:

Not an actual study, not from an independent peer reviewed social science journal.

I love how entries from self avowed conservative advocacy groups not subject to peer review are suddenly 'Facts! No spin.'

You are a clown.
See the above quote, it will explain why YOU are the clown.
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
Our Board of Advisors includes two U.S. Senators, four U.S. Court of Appeals Judges, and leading conservative and libertarian scholars.

Dynamic recent authors include Viet Dinh, John Yoo, Eugene Scalia, and Judge Guido Calabresi. In the past, we have published pieces by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas.
:thumbsup:

vs.

eskimoscrub :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,642
0
0
lol. What do lawyers have to do with social science research?
Let see, whose opinion should people to pay attention to?

1) a dumb-ass idiot online called eskimospy

vs.

2) well known national leaders


Yea, I will go with #2, 100% of the time.
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,299
1,201
126
Let see, whose opinion should people to pay attention to?

1) a dumb-ass idiot online called eskimospy

vs.

2) well known national leaders


Yea, I will go with #2, 100% of the time.
Setting a wonderful christian example. I'm sure your Jesus loves you advertising for him in such a fashion. I've always said the number one thing keeping people from Christianity is Christians, I guess I just got some confirmation bias too.

Do like Jesus does.... LOCK AND LOAD BABY!!!!!!!
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,304
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
You'd be singing a different tune if this article supported your preconceived notions.
This just like the voice stress tests in the Zimmerman case as had he failed the tests those who wanted to hang him would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about them. However, due to the fact he passed both they wanted to discount the results.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,474
2
0
This just like the voice stress tests in the Zimmerman case as had he failed the tests those who wanted to hang him would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about them. However, due to the fact he passed both they wanted to discount the results.
I remember.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,057
17,203
136
This just like the voice stress tests in the Zimmerman case as had he failed the tests those who wanted to hang him would have been screaming at the top of their lungs about them. However, due to the fact he passed both they wanted to discount the results.
This is nothing like that. I'm sure you know what peer reviewed research is and why peer review is done. Additionally I'm sure you know why the independence of journals is important and why it's usually a good idea to take pieces published by advocacy organizations with a grain of salt, particularly when we have been discussing nonpartisan, peer reviewed research that says otherwise in other threads.

Needless to say the argument of "you would accept crap research too!" is unconvincing.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
The stat I am most interested in is the murder rate against innocent strangers.
I would assume that it's strongly correlated with the rates of theft and armed robbery as well as how harsh the punishment for robbery is and how much safety risk is involved in the robbery. I can't picture myself murdering someone for no reason, but I can picture myself robbing someone if I was poor or just lazy and the opportunity presented itself. How I rob someone would depend on the consequences of robbery. If getting caught is a slap on the wrist, I'll just take the cash and let the person go. If I already have 2 strikes and this robbery could mean life in jail, I would kill the person after robbing them so they can't identify me. I might even apologize before shooting them. I think I would also be more inclined to shoot robbery victims if they posed some kind of a threat. Old people are the most likely to fight back while being robbed, so I might shoot first and ask questions later. Young people are less likely to carry guns and less likely to fight back, so I would probably target them first.

Almost all social "science" is a joke.
Homosexuality is caused by having an overbearing mother. I know it's true because a social scientist said it. :awe:
Also, men like stick shift cars because having your hand on the stick is like having your hand on a penis.
And lesbians take female partners to make up for their perceived castration.
Social scientists often have really stupid conclusions, but they find interesting correlations. Freud was wrong about almost everything he said, but he did notice interesting things like a very large percentage of his female clients being victims of sexual abuse at some point.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
100,545
3,820
126
this still isn't a harvard study. it's an article published in a harvard law school journal. the authors aren't on the faculty at harvard.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY