Gun Control Reduces Crime? Not According the Harvard Law.

[black_squirrel]

This isn't a study. It's a review of other studies with conclusions.

Did anyone bother to look at the sources at the bottom of each page? The vast majority of the sources are pre-2000. Have you looked at the data from the FBI on violent crime statistics...

Between 1992 and 2011 almost every column has decreased significantly! Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, for example, has dropped by over 60%:
FBI — Table 1

Nothing new in this review. And please... it's not a study! It's not research. It's "we read some mostly out-dated-old stuff, and here's what we've concluded!"

It was not done by Harvard either.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, you make the assumption that killing is inherently a bad thing without understanding the difference between killing and murder.

There is nothing wrong with shooting people as long as the right people get shot

Inspector "Dirty" Harry Callahan

 

[TurtleDude]

It was not done by Harvard either.

Its far more reputable than any of the anti gun studies that are spewed by the anti gunners because the anti gunners aren't even honest in what motivates them

 

[blackjack50]

Source


[/FONT]

Did you just read this from YouTube? Lol I just mentioned this in a YouTube thing lol.

 

[Risky Thicket]

No, I saw it at Raw Story, web site.

 

[black_squirrel]

The article is biased.

First, the study/literature review was not done at Harvard, as the article suggests.
It was published in a journal edited by Harvard law students, which prides itself to
be conservative and libertarian. In other words, it is a biased journal.

About the article itself, it seems to only cite anti-gun-regulation researchers. It cites Gary Kleck 15 times,
and John Lott Jr. 9 times (two prominent anti-gun-regulation researchers). But it completely ignored
research of David Hemenway, an actual Harvard Professor, who has done extensive research in related areas, and
who is one of the prominent researchers that favor certain gun regulations.

 

[Black Dog]

The article is biased.

First, the study/literature review was not done at Harvard, as the article suggests.
It was published in a journal edited by Harvard law students, which prides itself to
be conservative and libertarian. In other words, it is a biased journal.

About the article itself, it seems to only cite anti-gun-regulation researchers. It cites Gary Kleck 15 times,
and John Lott Jr. 9 times (two prominent anti-gun-regulation researchers). But it completely ignored
research of David Hemenway, an actual Harvard Professor, who has done extensive research in related areas, and
who is one of the prominent researchers that favor certain gun regulations.

So you can't refute what it says?

 

[LaMidRighter]

The article is biased.

First, the study/literature review was not done at Harvard, as the article suggests.
It was published in a journal edited by Harvard law students, which prides itself to
be conservative and libertarian. In other words, it is a biased journal.

About the article itself, it seems to only cite anti-gun-regulation researchers. It cites Gary Kleck 15 times,
and John Lott Jr. 9 times (two prominent anti-gun-regulation researchers). But it completely ignored
research of David Hemenway, an actual Harvard Professor, who has done extensive research in related areas, and
who is one of the prominent researchers that favor certain gun regulations.

Hate to break this to you, but John Lott was on the gun control side prior to doing his research. He is a criminologist and was looking to prove less guns = less crime. Unlike the typical anti gun zealot he looked at the data, concluded the opposite of his theory, and changed his mind on the subject. You actually couldn't have picked a worse name to throw out to prove bias against gun control research.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hate to break this to you, but John Lott was on the gun control side prior to doing his research. He is a criminologist and was looking to prove less guns = less crime. Unlike the typical anti gun zealot he looked at the data, concluded the opposite of his theory, and changed his mind on the subject. You actually couldn't have picked a worse name to throw out to prove bias against gun control research.

same with Klett. Hemenway starts with the premise that guns are bad and works backward to "prove" his assumption

 

[LaMidRighter]

same with Klett. Hemenway starts with the premise that guns are bad and works backward to "prove" his assumption

I wasn't sure about Kleck, I thought he was anti as well but was going off of memory, I know Lott did a complete 180 based on his data, in fact John Stossel was anti gun early in life and a liberal, after doing his own research he became a pro second advocate, then did even more research and became a Libertarian.

 

[black_squirrel]

So you can't refute what it says?

It is a long article and it would take more time than I would care for to list everything that is
wrong with the article, but here are a couple of things.

Comparing the USA with Russia does not make sense. Russia is a corrupt country recovering from communism,
and I also would trust their data. I doubt that Russia has much lower gun ownership compared to Germany as
the article claims. comparison to western European countries like Germany, UK and France make more sense.
Comparing US to the tiny city/nation Luxembourg does not make sense either.

 

[Black Dog]

It is a long article and it would take more time than I would care for to list everything that is
wrong with the article, but here are a couple of things.

Comparing the USA with Russia does not make sense. Russia is a corrupt country recovering from communism,
and I also would trust their data. I doubt that Russia has much lower gun ownership compared to Germany as
the article claims. comparison to western European countries like Germany, UK and France make more sense.
Comparing US to the tiny city/nation Luxembourg does not make sense either.

I agree it is long and figured you would take a section or two etc. So that is not the problem. The problem is you are stating why you don't like the data based on your opinion, not any facts. Can you refute what it says with some data of your own? Based on solid facts and evidence. So far going even by your comments, I think you are a little confused on the data.

1. Comparing Russia with the US makes perfect sense due to size and population.
2. We have no reason at all not to trust Russian crime data, none. Because you "feel" they are corrupt is not a good reason.
3. You would be wrong on the gun count between Germany and Russia.
a. Total number of estimated guns in Germany legal and illegal: 25,000,000.
b. Total number of estimated guns in Russia legal and illegal: 12,750,000
c. Total number of estimated guns in Germany legal and illegal per capita: 30.3 per 100.
d. Total number of estimated guns in Russia legal and illegal per capita: 8.9 per 100

All stats from - Gun Policy Facts and News

This puts into question the rest of your observations as the stats do not bear them out.

So again... Can you using real tangible data prove the study wrong of even biased at this point?

 

[black_squirrel]

I agree it is long and figured you would take a section or two etc. So that is not the problem. The problem is you are stating why you don't like the data based on your opinion, not any facts. Can you refute what it says with some data of your own? Based on solid facts and evidence. So far going even by your comments, I think you are a little confused on the data.

1. Comparing Russia with the US makes perfect sense due to size and population.
2. We have no reason at all not to trust Russian crime data, none. Because you "feel" they are corrupt is not a good reason.
3. You would be wrong on the gun count between Germany and Russia.
a. Total number of estimated guns in Germany legal and illegal: 25,000,000.
b. Total number of estimated guns in Russia legal and illegal: 12,750,000
c. Total number of estimated guns in Germany legal and illegal per capita: 30.3 per 100.
d. Total number of estimated guns in Russia legal and illegal per capita: 8.9 per 100

All stats from - Gun Policy Facts and News

This puts into question the rest of your observations as the stats do not bear them out.

So again... Can you using real tangible data prove the study wrong of even biased at this point?

I dont have to, because you already did that for me. According to the article, gun ownership in Russia is 4 per 100.
According to your source it is 8.9. So it is off by more than a factor 2. So my gut feeling that the Russian numbers
are off was correct.

If you add civilian guns and army guns, then the figures in Germany and Russia are similar.The German army has few guns, but the Russian army has lots. Since Russia is quite corrupt, it seems that the Russian maffia would have easy access to guns.

But the main reason why we should not compare russia with the usa is the fact that Russia is a corrupt and fragile democracy.
In countries with a lot of corruption, there is usually also a lot of crime.

 

[Black Dog]

I dont have to, because you already did that for me. According to the article, gun ownership in Russia is 4 per 100.
According to your source it is 8.9. So it is off by more than a factor 2. So my gut feeling that the Russian numbers
are off was correct.

That is an excuse and yes you do have to. The articles data used for comparison is from 1988-1991. The article was written awhile ago. The data from Gun Policy is from the latest data from 2010-2013. Which would account for the difference as more than 20 years have passed. So your "gut feelings" are still wrong and obviously checking data is not your forte.

If you add civilian guns and army guns, then the figures in Germany and Russia are similar.The German army has few guns, but the Russian army has lots. Since Russia is quite corrupt, it seems that the Russian maffia would have easy access to guns.

Logic is also not your forte I see? That is absolutely ridiculous. This information is based on? Oh hot air.

But the main reason why we should not compare russia with the usa is the fact that Russia is a corrupt and fragile democracy.
In countries with a lot of corruption, there is usually also a lot of crime.

This has nothing to do with anything. You still have shown squat, nothing. About all you have accomplished so far is making yourself look uninformed and having no argument at all.

 

[MACS-24]

I dont have to, because you already did that for me. According to the article, gun ownership in Russia is 4 per 100.
According to your source it is 8.9. So it is off by more than a factor 2. So my gut feeling that the Russian numbers
are off was correct.

If you add civilian guns and army guns, then the figures in Germany and Russia are similar.The German army has few guns, but the Russian army has lots. Since Russia is quite corrupt, it seems that the Russian maffia would have easy access to guns.

But the main reason why we should not compare russia with the usa is the fact that Russia is a corrupt and fragile democracy.
In countries with a lot of corruption, there is usually also a lot of crime.

And the USA is free of corruption? Ha. As with the rest of anti-guns, facts just don't sit well with you folks.

 

[black_squirrel]

And the USA is free of corruption? Ha. As with the rest of anti-guns, facts just don't sit well with you folks.

United States has very low corruption, and Russia has very high corruption. This is measured by the "Corruption Perception Index".
On a scale from 0 to 100, where 100=no corruption and 0=extreme corruption, USA scores 73 and Russia scores 28.
If we list countries, from the least corruption to the most corruption, then, among 176 countries for which there is data,
USA is ranked 19, and Russia is ranked 133. It is not hard to see a correlation between the corruption perception index and murder rates.
USA, Germany, UK, France have similar corruption perception index, so it is OK to compare the USA to those countries, but comparing
it with one of the most corrupt countries in the world like Russia does not make sense.

2012 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results