Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

Treasure_Hunter

Administrator
⛮ Administrator
⛭ Moderator
🥇 Charter Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
50,289
Reaction score
60,247
Golden Thread
0
Location
Florida
Detector(s) used
Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
[h=2]Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive[/h] I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Onlinearticle following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

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.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union
 

I'll watch for a full report on CNN tonight.......
 

"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? ........By firearms? Undoubtably.

"Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership." - Your favourite Euro country, Switzerland, has the highest suicide rate "by firearms" in Europe.

..But then this study purposely twists and demands us not to speak of "death by gun"!...Why is that? Well because these clowns know that if we look at it from a "death by gun" perspective the USA stands out a country mile above anyone else in the western world...and everyone would know this entire project was a complete waste of time and money!
 

I wonder how many English men injure theirselves ever year with knives, it might be interesting to do a google search on that just to see...Maybe it is time England took the knives away from the English subjects, they already gave up their guns....
 

No harness on my back. I die a free man at the time of my choosing.
 

Dano you can not post documents on the forum.....
 

Going to set the record straight about the English and guns. You tied with Germany in WWI, beat them because we helped you in WWII or else you and the French would be eating schnitzel every day instead of sheep's tummies with the ground up organs inside(haggis) and now you genius people have built a tunnel under the channel so that when and if some country with guns, like Lichtenstein or maybe the Vatican decide to attack you, they will just drive over and what will you do? Wave your pretty little flags or maybe your weenies at them? You couldn't stop a troop of girl scouts from taking your country. Now, although I am mouthy toward treas-hunter and his pals, mostly because I don't see a problem coming up with the constitution or any real gun control bills and feel they are ruining their nerves for nothing, I suggest that we all take heed. These guys are right. If they come for us or our guns in the morning, they will be coming for YOU and your peace loving people that night...
 

Can I interest you in joining our list?
 

Going to set the record straight about the English and guns. You tied with Germany in WWI, beat them because we helped you in WWII or else you and the French would be eating schnitzel every day instead of sheep's tummies with the ground up organs inside(haggis) and now you genius people have built a tunnel under the channel so that when and if some country with guns, like Lichtenstein or maybe the Vatican decide to attack you, they will just drive over and what will you do? Wave your pretty little flags or maybe your weenies at them? You couldn't stop a troop of girl scouts from taking your country. Now, although I am mouthy toward treas-hunter and his pals, mostly because I don't see a problem coming up with the constitution or any real gun control bills and feel they are ruining their nerves for nothing, I suggest that we all take heed. These guys are right. If they come for us or our guns in the morning, they will be coming for YOU and your peace loving people that night...

THAT night...? Sit around a campfire, drinking COW BOY COFFEE, singing KUM-BA-YA...?
 

Last edited:
Dano you can not post documents on the forum.....

From Google images, but ok. As long as the "British Citizen" on them got through to you it's all good?

Austin mate - There are more heavy demolition charges along that tunnel than were in the twin towers! (if you believe RJC and his gang) We'll be fine. ;)
 

I know they were not family members, but it violates our rules to post that kind documents on TN.....
 

No harness on my back. I die a free man at the time of my choosing.
You may. But keep one thing in mind while you're bragging about what you are. If you have no means to defend yourself, you have no control on your life. The only reason you're safe is because a bad guy hasn't yet targeted your home. So you have already turned your life over to another's whim. When the bad person gets that whim...you've had it. And, to top it off, when it comes to security, you aren't even an asset to your own community, because you can't defend anybody else. To get right down to it, when bad people show up, you're a liability, as somebody else will have to step up and defend you.
Jim
 

Last edited:
You may. But keep one thing in mind while you're bragging about what you are. If you have no means to defend yourself, you have no control on your life. The only reason you're safe is because a bad guy hasn't yet targeted your home. So you have already turned your life over to another's whim. When the bad person gets that whim...you've had it. And, to top it off, when it comes to security, you aren't even an asset to your own community, because you can't defend anybody else. To get right down to it, when bad people show up, you're a liability, as somebody else will have to step up and defend you.
Jim

Got to admit. That is the first time I have been called a liability. Congrats! It takes hard work to come with an insult for me I have not already heard. Since you went ahead and made it personal I'm going to roll with it.

Please Jim, tell us all exactly what you do for a living?

How many of your neighbors knock on your door to help during a medical emergency? I think if you walked around your neighborhood and asked then you would find out most would be quite happy to have a doctor as a neighbor. Especially all the families in my neighborhood with little kids. But, you could be right for all I know, maybe they want a paranoid, gun toting, pistol popping conspiracy theorist instead. Anybody want to weigh in on this?

Feel free not to sign up for our list.
 

Jim in Idaho said:
You may. But keep one thing in mind while you're bragging about what you are. If you have no means to defend yourself, you have no control on your life. The only reason you're safe is because a bad guy hasn't yet targeted your home. So you have already turned your life over to another's whim. When the bad person gets that whim...you've had it. And, to top it off, when it comes to security, you aren't even an asset to your own community, because you can't defend anybody else. To get right down to it, when bad people show up, you're a liability, as somebody else will have to step up and defend you.
Jim

Dude I don't know what horrendous place you live but if you think that without guns you have no control over you life than I would encourage you to move if you can. I feel very sympathetic oldie this situation you are in.
 

Saying your a liability in a hostile situtation because your unarmed is NOT an insult according to our rules.

Anyone in a hostile situtation that is unarmed could be considered a liability in general since they can't defend their selves or others, others that may be armed would have to defend them.
 

Saying your a liability in a hostile situtation because your unarmed is NOT an insult according to our rules.

Anyone in a hostile situtation that is unarmed could be considered a liability in general since they can't defend their selves or others, others that may be armed would have to defend them.

So when this theoretical bad guy breaks into my house who else is going to have a gun to defend me? My neighbor gonna notice and make it in time? I doubt it. Besides, I will not have a firearm but I will have a samurai sword and I will be hiding in the shadows. Not exactly a liability.

I did not report it...I chose to handle this one myself. It is a personal cheap shot...let Jim defend himself. I can't wait to here what it is he does that is going to make him that much more valuable to his neighbors then I am to mine.

Crispin
 

Dude I don't know what horrendous place you live but if you think that without guns you have no control over you life than I would encourage you to move if you can. I feel very sympathetic oldie this situation you are in.
He could live anywhere, and this would apply. When a bad guy decides to attack you or your home there is really not much you can do to stop him FROM attacking, if you are armed there is a lot you can do to stop him from BEING successful. Trust me on this. I live in a so called "safe" town but I can assure you it is anything but safe. The only reason I feel somewhat secure is the particular neighborhood I live in. We are all friends and watch out for each other. However I have still had issues. In the last four? years I can think of at least 5 murders in our little "safe" town. Not to mention all the breakins and assaults (of all types). With out my guns who is to protect my family and property? The police are at least 20 mins. away. It is everywhere.......

Oh I forgot to mention the hostage situation we had a few years ago as well......
 

Last edited:
dieselram94 said:
He could live anywhere, and this would apply. When a bad guy decides to attack you or your home there is really not much you can do to stop him FROM attacking, if you are armed there is a lot you can do to stop him from BEING successful. Trust me on this. I live in a so called "safe" town but I can assure you it is anything but safe. The only reason I feel somewhat secure is the particular neighborhood I live in. We are all friends and watch out for each other. However I have still had issues. In the last four? years I can think of at least 5 murders in our little "safe" town. Not to mention all the breakins and assaults (of all types). With out my guns who is to protect my family and property? The police are at least 20 mins. away. It is everywhere.......

Oh I forgot to mention the hostage situation we had a few years ago as well......

Yeh I got to say that I have never dealt unsafe ever in any place that I have lived. I don't know anyone else who does either. If I did feel unsafe to the point where I felt I needed a gun than I would move someplace else. Anything can happen, I feel it's probability is extremely low. Especially for anyone who lives outside an urban area.

I've seen far more people injured severely by getting beaned by a ball on the golf course but I do not play wearing a football helmet.

I guess I "take my chances" fit better got worse.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom