[url=http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/]source[/url]
[quote]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)
Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.
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)
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.[/quote]
[url=http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf]link to Harvard study[/url]
So what was that about gun control making everyone safer?
English
#Offtopic
-
America is one of the top countries for murder. But, if you take away Washington DC, Chicago, New York, and New Orleans, America suddenly drops to fourth from the bottom. What's really interesting, though, is that those four cities are the ones with the strictest gun control laws. Coincidence? I think [b]NOT[/b]!
-
Harvard needs to get their shit in gear, even rednecks figured that out.
-
2 RespuestasEditado por RIP delta: 8/19/2013 3:40:29 PMeven I can see the glaring errors in this one: "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)." What, Norway, Switzerland and Finland/Iceland? They aren't very populous places - all of them have a smaller population than London. For them to keep up with the murder rates of the rest of Europe would be really rather difficult simply considering the lack of people and the population density. I'm glad that at the end of the piece is says the authors are trying to be neutral because until that point I was a bit unsure whether they had an agenda simply because they don't mention certain factors. Norway has a very high per capita income, and it is rarely those who live a comfortable life that commit murder. Sweden is going through a transitional phase with a lot of immigration and resultant crime. 45% of crime in Sweden is committed by those born overseas or those of Swedish birth with a foreign background. The issue really is that in this matter, people tend to cite other nations as proof whilst ignoring what makes the situation there the way it is. Honduras is rather strict on guns yet has a massive homicide rate, but again has a problem with gangs and the laws are more than likely reactive. Norway et al are generally wealthy, small nations (in terms of population) that see shooting as sport or for hunting (in the Swiss case as a legally required object) - the difference in the US is that there is the belief that you need one for self defense. Also it mentioned Russia as an example. You should never mention Russia as an example of anything. Thats just the way it is. Russia is bad because Russia is bad. Corrupt and bad
-
Thanks to common sense for prevailing. Look at places like New York and Detroit, some of the highest murder rates and toughest gun laws. Get the stupid shit out of your brain, and realize that gun laws are a -blam!-ing mistake.
-
GO HARVARD!
-
Thaaaaanks Obaaaaama
-
Editado por M37h3w3: 8/20/2013 4:54:00 AM[quote]So what was that about gun control making everyone safer?[/quote] That's a wonderful statement: Stupid, simple, and mocking and makes you look silly. You can have gun control laws without removing the total number of guns in the nation. Not to mention the implication that you're making, that we should remove all gun control laws, is asinine. Nobody wants guns to be freely sold to criminals who will use them to commit crimes. Or that the study is basically saying "Correlation equals causation!"
-
Editado por Quantum: 8/20/2013 4:50:43 AMBe very careful when you say "Harvard study" as if Harvard is an institutional hive mind that personally writes and endorses everything that its students or teachers make. Different viewpoints on the same subject can be posted on a university, [i]you know. [/i] [i]This is not the case[/i], and a quick scan of one of the authors (Gates) shows that he has a history of making gun control claims. This seems to be the first one with the "Harvard" label slapped onto it, in a really, really bad attempt to make it more meaningful. I haven't discussed the specifics of the paper (yet), but looking through this thread I already see a lot of factual errors, downright cherry picking of data, etc.
-
Anyone got some butter? Popcorn is kinda dry
-
3 RespuestasDoesn't need a -blam!-in genius to see that. Kids are shot, so take away guns? People need to know that terrible shit like this is going to happen no matter what we do and theres not much we can do to prevent it.
-
It doesn't make anyone safer, you can conduct your own little research and find out: [i]"Hey, gun control gets innocent people killed!"[/i]
-
Damn, I forgot to bring my -blam!-s today.
-
12 RespuestasDon't care. All guns, everywhere should be banned. Only the police and military need them.
-
Statistics. If it has taught me anything, then it is to not pay attention to them unless you need them to back up what you are saying, but that only happens like 68.68% of the time.
-
[quote]The authors, in noting that the presence of a gun in a home corresponds to a higher risk of suicide, apparently assume that if denied firearms, potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to the numerous alternative suicide mechanisms. The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means.[/quote] That's not true. It's been shown over and over that making suicide difficult decreases suicide rates. The best example of this would be the coal gas ovens they used to use in the United Kingdom. People commonly used these ovens to asphyxiate themselves as a form of suicide. It was painless and convenient. The method was so common that it accounted for a half of all suicides in the UK. When the ovens were phased out in the sixties, the suicide rate dropped by about a third. People had stopped killing themselves because it was no longer as convenient - they had more time to actually think about what they were doing.
-
4 RespuestasOne study hardly proves anything.
-
I wonder if anybody would believe information from FBI databases...
-
10 RespuestasI have yet to see any valid reason to ban an AR-15. The 2 rifles in the picture fire the same round, and are both just as accurate, and can fire just as fast as one another. Yet people want to ban one of them because they say it makes people mass-murders.
-
>study >proof pick one
-
Denmark? High murder rate? You high?
-
3 RespuestasI wish liberals would apply their reasonable to the gun control debate just as they do to the failed drug war. Banning stuff doesn't really work.
-
19 RespuestasHow does crime rates and gun control relate? Giving weapons to every Japanese citizen wouldn't make their crime rate go up or down, it would stay the same but the ease of crimes done by criminals would be much easier.
-
Editado por Infiltrat0rN7: 8/19/2013 8:06:31 PMBased Harvard I can taste dem liberrraalll tears Yep. The most Liberal users just jumped in and started claiming false because meh feellinggss Liberal tears
-
14 RespuestasGun control =/= Banning guns Damn, you're retarded.
-
12 RespuestasEditado por burritosenior: 8/19/2013 8:25:08 PMNot having guns at all =/= gun control. Also, I don't see a single mention of nations with outright bans in the article. Japan, for example, has a COMPLETE ban on guns- not just gun control- and has the lowest murder rates at all. What's up with them focusing on just one continent instead of the rest of the world that contradicts their findings? This thread is silly.