You’re going to want to read all of this (PDF).
“Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence” in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is the stuff of gun grabber’s nightmares. Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser have compiled a heavily foot-noted academic report that is nonetheless very compelling and relatively easy to digest...
The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.
Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher tahn in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.
The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.
The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”
The authors also took a look at the effect of gun control laws in various U.S. states, gun ownership in rural and urban areas, and across racial lines. The long and short of it is that a small number of extremely active criminals with lengthy criminal records are responsible for the overwhelming super-majority of all gun crimes, and these criminals are psychopaths that ignore all laws.
The study also cited a previous report that was unable to find a single gun control law implemented in the United States that is proven to have reduced violent crime.
Perhaps someone could forward the study to Chicago Mayor Rahm "Tiny Dancer" Emanuel, not that facts ever influenced a Democrat's policy position.
Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News - Your Real-time Source for Firearms and Second Amendment News
the murder rates for Luxembourg are grossly misrepresented they are in fact 1.7/100,000 in 2002 not 9.01/100,000 - Kates and Mauser's paper has been debunked and FYI its not a Harvard study - neither Kates nor Mauser are affiliated with Harvard - this paper was published in a conservative/libertarian student journal at Harvard. Not peer reviewed nor credible. http://fce.ufm.edu/catedraticos/jhcole/Cole-Marroquin.pdf
It's the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy - not a student journal, genius.
It's more than credible. Kates ain't a student, dummy:
Nor is Mauser, "Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Business Administration and the Institute for Urban Canadian Research Studies at Simon Fraser University"
Now, dummy, begone and don't let the blog's door hit you on the ass on your way out.
Google intentional death rates for countries Luxumbourg is listed as 0.90 for 2002 - looks like Kates and Mauser misrepresented the data by entire order of magnitude, conveniently in favor of of their argument. "Hahvahd" would never be that sloppy.
Google Journal of Law and Public Policy it IS a conservative/libertarian STUDENT published journal- What do law students know about scientific studies, anyways? Why so rude? you can fact check and see for yourself. Nothing personal just want the facts, don't you?
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.
You know, brave anonymous, I'd be a lot more polite if you and your ilk weren't destroying my country.
Kates and Mauser are not students, dummy, they're elderly, tenured professors with the highest of academic credentials.
And you're an anonymous troll on the Internet.
Oh: and why do you hate your children?
So you don't dispute the facts that its not a Harvard study and it misrepresents the data. Look man its my country too. I also happen to be a gun owner and a loving parent. What I am not: is willing to deceive people or myself, or engage in personal attacks that are beneath me. Its about the truth, that is all.
My job here is done.
So you're a gun control advocate who has to resort to a dispute over a single country's law enforcement statistics to find fault in a study that definitely proves gun control doesn't work?
Oh, well then don't read _More Guns, Less Crime_. And don't visit Chicago. And don't visit Washington, DC. And don't visit Detroit.
Dude since you insist on being a dick about it. Here is some REAL research on guns from the REAL Harvard. Whadda ya know they come up with exactly the opposite of what the bogus study asserts. sorry man I know that being called out your confirmation bias is embarrassing and all esp on your own blog.
Anonymous miscreant, I would like nothing better than to let you and your children live in and suffer the consequences of your way of life. I would consider it natural selection.
Is there no way we can co-exist, in different parts of the country, with you living your way of life and me living mine?
But I have a feeling that you would not permit the same for me and my kids. You would say that I "am not entitled to my own set of facts" and would claim that you must pursue gun control policies "for the children" -- my children.
You would pursue national gun control policies so that there would be no place within these borders left for me and mine to live the way we choose. In fact, you would (and are) pursuing world-wide gun control measures via the UN, making sure there is no place left on this earth where we could be left alone.
Give some advice. What should me and mine do in such an environment?
Seriously you want kids to suffer? because you didn't like their parent correcting you about well known debunked pseudo-science paper. I did mention I was a gun owner right? NO ONE is entitled to their own FACTS- FACTS don't work that way - you can have all the opinions you want but facts are objective. I did mention I own guns right? The UN and I are not after your guns - not after anyones guns I got my own - just thought you should know the paper was debunked. It was published in 2007 but every 6 mos or so somebody "discovers" it on the internet and thinks its news.
First, allow me to establish my pro-gun cred: http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/essays/gun-collecting/
That done, I see little point in quibbling over their data. Plain common sense and voluminous anecdotal evidence right here in America, would certainly validate their premise. An armed society tends to be a polite society, and an effective deterrent to thuggery. That said, your anonymous commenter is correct that there is nothing new here. I first encountered that study several years ago. Google the title, and you will find that it was first published in '07. ◄Dave►
I hate it when liberals in America constantly complain that the reason for the murder rate is "the easy availability" of guns.
Prior to 1968 anybody, 10 year old kid or serial killer, could send a money order to any gun manufacturer and get a gun sent to them in the mail.
Guns were much more available in the past than today and our murder rate was much lower.
Stop blaming the guns.
The USA is large and diverse enough to give any clear thinking researcher more than enough data to see what works and what does not. It is abundantly evident that those cities states, and areas that regulate legal gun ownership become the most dangerous areas to live in. Not only murder rates but violent crime, robbery, and burglary increase in these areas. Of course there will always be those that insist on telling us to believe their scholarly research instead of our lying eyes.
Hold on a second...
...lists a research study claiming "[Boston school system] Adolescents who drank more than five cans of soft drinks per week (nearly 30% of the sample) were significantly more likely to have carried a weapon and to have been violent..."
Good grief, I hope hard-earned money from tuition or taxpayers wasn't spent creating this earth-shattering example of "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation".
I suspect next Liberals will want to ban finger guns, as kids get injured, have fingers which can be made to resemble guns, and, of course, guns are dangerous.
The authors are nothing more than shills for the gun industry, with Mauser being their Canadian representative. The study doesn't compare violent crime rates using similar definitions, which would change the outcome significantly. European violent crime rates include offenses we classify as simple assaults, so the comparison is flawed.
Their basic data comparisons are faulty and suspect, which makes their conclusions similarly suspect.
In fact, a Eurostat study found that Luxembourg City has the highest murder rate in Western Europe, only Tallinn and Vilnius in Eastern Europe have higher homicide rates in the European Union. The rate is officially 4.24 per 100,000 from 2007 to 2009 and there has been a very high upswing in violent crime in general. For Luxembourg, the study recorded a significant rise in violent crime, from 2,124 offenses in 2003 to 3,264 in 2009, a 53% increase. Gun control not working so good, just like Chicago.
the murder rates for Luxembourg are grossly misrepresented they are in fact 1.7/100,000 in 2002 not 9.01/100,000
You are incorrect, at least as far as this study is concerned. The data comes from the Canadian Centre for Justice, their annual report. So if the number is incorrect, blame -them-
Which if anyone would actually look up the references instead of blindly claiming the data is wrong...
Here is some REAL research on guns from the REAL Harvard. Whadda ya know they come up with exactly the opposite of what the bogus study asserts.
Nope. That Harvard study doesn't refute the original. Since the study you reference limits the data solely to firearm homicides, instead of -all- homicides, the two studies do not correlate or compare with each other. Different data for different premise.
End result... the study is as valid as the data presented. The data in the study is *exactly* as presented from the source documents.
Although as others have indicated, all one needs to do is look at the US city data to see that the stronger the gun control, the higher the homicides.
@Anonymous - nice attempt to red herring & ad hominem the Harvard findings.
While the study you mentioned was published in a journal - it is not applicable. In addition, just because a study is published doesn't make it true. It simply assists with the credibility of the findings.
If you can discredit the findings of the Harvard review - go for it.
In summary, your premise to discredit the findings is ex-facie.
How disappointing that such an otherwise reputable organisation should lend its name to a litany of logical fallacies from beginning to end.
While there are already accepted reputable academic studies showing how gun controls work, the authors would have been better off trying to find fault with them; the fact they they didnt is presumably why they engaged on a diatribe of logical fallacies.
Perhaps the fact that Harvard itself is unable to justify gun ownership is the greatest argument there is to support gun controls.
Post a Comment