A Harvard Study on Banning Guns

[rushmc 23]

Quote

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE
MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND
SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

A couple of interesting quotes from the paper

Quote

No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to
the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in
crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when
there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted
criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm
without restriction.52

Quote

III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?
The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible
only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve
ordinary people who kill because they have access to a
firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might
well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but
the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and
51. COLIN GREENWOOD, FIREARMS CONTROL: A STUDY OF ARMED CRIME AND
FIREARMS CONTROL IN ENGLAND AND WALES 243 (1972).
52. Id.
666 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30
areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder
rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53
Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a
“gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be
used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is
you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun possession
only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us
from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citizens;”
55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of
impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no
criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that
“the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result
of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people
who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of
gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed
law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58
These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually contradict
facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide
studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “criminological
axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they
show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers
are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60 Rather, almost all murderers
are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of
violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous
behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in lifethreatening
violence have a long criminal record with many prior
contacts with the justice system.”

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 897]

I posted this before.
It was generally ignored.
As suspected.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I posted this before.
It was generally ignored.
As suspected.

I missed it

Sorry

but it must be time to bring it up again

Of course is was ignored

The gun banners (generally lefties) do not want to bash Harvard so they loose the bash the source tactic off the top

So, best to ignore

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

Going for 10

YAHOO!!!!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

Yeah. You could have done much better. What were you wasting the other 56 minutes on?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

That's an interesting piece. Seems much more authoritative than most of the crap I've seen lately. I notice it still uses the term 'ownership' when dealing with statistics. I got to thinking this morning after seeing a headline...many people are ignoring States where ownership is lower because possession is higher. What I mean is, Israel and Switzerland have a higher rate of possession than ownership because so many households possess firearms that are owned by the government. I wonder if anyone has attempted to analyze data where the prolifieration of firearms was tracked in a more accurate manner. Availability of firearms and legal title to them are different things. Some of the ways the dats is being used clearly does not lead to sound conclusions about availability and use for illegal purposes.

All of this is fairly moot in my opinion. The ultimate reason for private possession is to provide the power to 'the people' to start over with a different government if needed.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 897]

Well it's clearly not working for those that oppose my constitutional right to defend my life.

[beowulf 1]

That is by far the best gun control study, as unbiased as it gets. Well worth reading.

[wmw999 2,589]

It's in a conservative/libertarian magazine; that means that any bias it might have (I haven't read it) would be in that direction.

But when the magazine states it bias up front (which is honest and good -- that doesn't make the article biased, BTW), you have to take that into account when evaluating the article.

"I agree with it" doesn't necessarily equal "unbiased."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

It's in a conservative/libertarian magazine; that means that any bias it might have (I haven't read it) would be in that direction.

But when the magazine states it bias up front (which is honest and good -- that doesn't make the article biased, BTW), you have to take that into account when evaluating the article.

"I agree with it" doesn't necessarily equal "unbiased."

Wendy P.

What magazine are you talking about? I didn't see any magazine of any kind? Did you even read the study?

Just noticed you said you didn't read it. Well try reading it. You don't even know why I would consider it to be relatively unbiased.

[wmw999 2,589]

I glanced at it -- I think I said I didnt' read it. But it came from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. According to its website, it's "The nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship." (right at the top of the first page of the website).

Which makes it scholarly, and worth reading (I plan to, but not right now). But they do state their up-front position, which is a sign of good scholarship.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

It's the shotgun approach.
I like it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

It's the shotgun approach.
I like it.

skeet gun. collarbone. ouchie.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

It's the shotgun approach.
I like it.

skeet gun. collarbone. ouchie.

ONLY if you hold it like Obama does

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

It's the shotgun approach.
I like it.

skeet gun. collarbone. ouchie.

Skeet gun. Pocket of shoulder. Go back to the range and try again. Even then, though. I admit a day of skeet can make your shoulder sore.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

That is by far the best gun control study, as unbiased as it gets. .

"Unbiased" does not mean that it agrees with your preconceived ideas.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

That is by far the best gun control study, as unbiased as it gets. .

"Unbiased" does not mean that it agrees with your preconceived ideas.

BOOM

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[beowulf 1]

You are assuming that I agree with everything it says or that I didn't learn anything new in it.

We all know what happens when we a assume.

Did you even bother to read it?

[beowulf 1]

Your credibility is sorely lacking. All you do is ridicule anyone who says anything you disagree with. Put your two cents out there and tell us what your solution is. Why don't you finally come out and say something that has any substance to it. Or are you just going to stick to your usual empty critics.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Your credibility is sorely lacking. All you do is ridicule anyone who says anything you disagree with. Put your two cents out there and tell us what your solution is. Why don't you finally come out and say something that has any substance to it. Or are you just going to stick to your usual empty critics.

Ah man, I'm sorry but...





I just cant help it


see below

http://www.hilariousgifs.com/guy-bangs-head-on-wall/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Jesus Christ, Marc. You've started FOUR SEPARATE NEW GUN THREADS in here in the space of just over an hour. That's just nuts.

No, I could show you nuts, but it's socially inappropriate, and in most places considered indecent exposure.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Bertt 0]

I didn't have to read it. The minute I saw the name Mauser, I knew it was written by a guy with a great rifle.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[davjohns 1]

I had the same thought about Mauser.

I would not describe the article as unbiased. Everyone has a bias. Some people delude themselves to think they do not.

I did think the article was well reasoned and supported. It lacked the emotional arguments that I often see offered as reason in the media.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.