Harvard Gun Study
- 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 than 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.
Which means what exactly?
- Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.
People kill people.
We expect a drop in the violent crime rate once all the pieces comes together for Concealed Carry. And we fully expect Rahm and Garry to take credit for it once it happens, regardless of where they might be working at hte time.
Labels: gun issues
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
23 Comments:
The gun-control wonks always liked to use the stark differences in the number of homicides between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Canada.
Canada's gun murders are few. Detroit's are somewhat higher.
Always pointed to the gun laws and trumpeted that as the reason.
Never looked at demographic differences...
When concealed carry becomes practiced in Chicago, it will be a blood bath for 3-5 years followed by peace.
Here's the projected murder totals for 2014= 794 w/ 308 justifiable homicides
2015= 956 w/ 576 justifiable homicides
*projections provided by intheknow.com
From that Harvard study's conclusion:
"Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."
It is increasingly-recognized that proponents of gun "control" often use emotional arguments rather than factual ones in pushing their agenda. Expect even more of this going forward due to the existence of this most "inconvenient" study.
Gun are dangerous. So are criminals. How many animals are walking around in public at any given time when they should be locked up? Do we ban them? Hell we don't even send them to jail. According to Harvard where the militant professor gates is employed they conclude people kill people. Judges won't keep the animals in the cage so we have no choice but to protect ourselves. Can we ban judges? According to the fbi blacks are more likely to commit crimes. Do we ban blacks? Thinking and feeling are two different processes and they are not interwoven. Responsibility and accountability will help us get far. M&P shields is on my next to buy list.
Wow! You can spin anything when it comes to guns. Here is a simple fact you can't spin. Handguns only serve one purpose. They are made to kill human beings. The same is true for assault rifles.
I will give you that a person intent on killing someone will use another means, but a handgun or assault rifle is the most efficient. They serve no other legitimate purpose.
You are right on SCC. Crime will drop as people start carrying guns. And the 2 nitwits running this city and dept. will make some crazy claim about tactics, strategies and what-not that achieved the success. Just watch.
Every study ever done on the effect of allowing guns in a community has come to the same conclusion. It is the do nothing, fear mongering politician that uses guns as a platform of "look I'm doing something about violence." Instead of addressing who and what is causing people to be violent. The political correctness, or as I see it, willful blindness to a group of people who are the source of so much violent crime is leading into a major upheaval in this country. Are you ready for it?
Ever since Zimmerman legally killed an attacker, the forces of gross idiocy now attempt to chisel away at stand your ground, self defence, and any reason to keep the favored constituents at bay. Tax paying ccw people need a version of no-snitch, and shoot and scoot.
I wonder what it cost to be masters of the obvious?
Just for arguments sake, the study was PUBLISHED by a Harvard journal that is student edited, it was not written by anyone from Harvard. Secondly, per its website: "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." Lastly, if you look at the academic profiles of the two gentlemen who wrote the study, you'll see that this is their shtick. I think that articles like this hurt rather than help the debate. Most people are looking for non-bias studies so that they can make the most informed decisions on what to support. This is really only considered reliable to people who are gun proponents to begin with.
Scratch Luxembourg off my list of places to go.
Now, kees me you fool!!!!
This is not a 'Harvard study'. It was simply published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Its two principal authors are a think tank fellow and professor at Simon Frasier.
The paper is worth reading, for anyone interested:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Wow! You can spin anything when it comes to guns. Here is a simple fact you can't spin. Handguns only serve one purpose. They are made to kill human beings.
Um, no shit sherlock. Therein lies the entire concept of "self defense." To remove a threat by use of force greater than that being used against you. What's the problem with that?
The same is true for assault rifles
And once again, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle." Most if not all rifles are designed for hunting or sport shooting. It isn't exactly the most efficient weapon for self defense, but that isn't the purpose.
I will give you that a person intent on killing someone will use another means, but a handgun or assault rifle is the most efficient. They serve no other legitimate purpose.
So self defense isn't a legitimate purpose? You're an idiot. Go away gun grabber.
Wow! You can spin anything when it comes to guns. Here is a simple fact you can't spin. Handguns only serve one purpose. They are made to kill human beings. The same is true for assault rifles.
I will give you that a person intent on killing someone will use another means, but a handgun or assault rifle is the most efficient. They serve no other legitimate purpose.
9/03/2013 06:41:00 AM
I've always looked at my guns as a way of protecting people. That's the only purpose I have ever seen for them. Your view is repugnant to me.
Senate Bill 1693 was signed into law by Governor Pat Quinn. Effective immediately, members can now use their work address for their Illinois Drivers License and/or Illinois State ID Card.
Anonymous said...
Wow! You can spin anything when it comes to guns. Here is a simple fact you can't spin. Handguns only serve one purpose. They are made to kill human beings. The same is true for assault rifles.
I will give you that a person intent on killing someone will use another means, but a handgun or assault rifle is the most efficient. They serve no other legitimate purpose.
9/03/2013 06:41:00 AM
What makes people like this seem so dumb is when they say of firearms "They are made to kill human beings" which is directly contradicted by the fact that while all police officers carry firearms, the majority of them will never fire them at another human being during the performance of their regular work duties. That makes no sense gun grabber geek. Notice this trend in the nightly news: people who use guns illegally rarely have obtained and/or possessed the guns legally. The people that used guns legally in self-defense on the other hand usefully are lawfully in possession of a lawfully obtained gun. Gee that's weird...
People capable of inventing guns are more able to peacefully coexist with them. And what applies to guns also applies to big cities.
With any luck they won't be anywhere near this city.Almost all these morons who call assault rifles like ar's ak's etc. that are on the market in this country are not in that classification they are not fully automatic or burst type weapons wake up you fucking eggheads.
"We expect a drop in the violent crime rate once all the pieces comes together for Concealed Carry. And we fully expect Rahm and Garry to take credit for it once it happens, regardless of where they might be working at hte time."
Nail. Head.
rb
"Tax paying ccw people need a version of no-snitch, and shoot and scoot."
Yes!
"Wow! You can spin anything when it comes to guns. Here is a simple fact you can't spin. Handguns only serve one purpose. They are made to kill human beings."
There are people in the world that need killing.
rb
The two commenters who said the "Harvard gun study" isn't out of Harvard are correct, it turns out- one author (Kates) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute (California) and the other (Mauser) is a Canadian criminologist and university professor at Simon Frasier University (Canada).
That being said, the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy doesn't approve just any old crap for inclusion in its tri-annual law review. According to a 2010 ranking undertaken by the Aussie government/Australian Research Council, that Harvard publication is an internationally A-ranked law journal, in an A*, A, B, C system where A* is the highest rank.
Regardless of what the two authors think about guns, if the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy saw it fit to have the study published in one of their highly-respected reviews, they obviously saw some merit to it.
Wow! You can spin anything when it comes to guns. Here is a simple fact you can't spin. Handguns only serve one purpose. They are made to kill human beings. The same is true for assault rifles.
I will give you that a person intent on killing someone will use another means, but a handgun or assault rifle is the most efficient. They serve no other legitimate purpose.
9/03/2013 06:41:00 AM
Gee, I've fired thousands and thousands of rounds from handguns and scary-looking rifles and not one was aimed at or hit a person.
Was I misusing them according to this imbecile?
Post a Comment
<< Home