Harvard Study Shows More Guns, Less Crime

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

A new study just came out that will basically make gun control activists heads explode. And weirdly enough, that study comes out of Harvard.

The gist of the study? Gun laws may actually INCREASE death rates, and the "mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns means fewer deaths" is a complete load of monkey crap.

The study "shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000. Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.”

And then...."when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th–behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine–in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides. The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8."

And again, this is a Harvard study. I think I mentioned that above, but I just wanted to mention it again. Because it's just kind of fun to do that.

The authors of the study "conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should “at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).” But after intense study the authors conclude “those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world.”

And then there's this: "....the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates."

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

[kutter]

Not even a little bit surprised by those results.

[senorgordoburro]

None of this is really new information, lots of studies out there have said roughly the same thing. This is just more impartial I am assuming and that is why people care.

In today's world talking about guns is the same as politics or religion, people already have their mind made up and no matter the evidence, they won't change opinions.

[Warriorbird]

You do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, right? I'm not sure you or the no more guns people do. Most studies on both sides have hideously flawed methodology. This study isn't impartial at all, either.

[senorgordoburro]

Forgot to mention that I am no scholar or historian, but I believe that people killed people with other stuff before guns.... like rocks, then swords, then arrows... maybe some other shit in between. Murder is a mentality not a inanimate object.

[senorgordoburro]

Regardless of any of this though, guns are here to stay. People are making them with 3d printers now. If you want more gun laws, fix the economy so they can afford to fight them. But the billions of dollars that local, state, and federal law enforcement spends on things like drugs, prostitution, DUIs and many others are not taking them off the streets.

[Warriorbird]

On the one hand you have people who stupidly think that "gun control" laws have a tremendous impact. On the other hand you have people who think unrestricted access to military hardware is a good idea, who don't want to discourage the insane from having weapons, and who want the government to be less able to assign liability and track criminals "FOR FREEDOM!"

[senorgordoburro]

Military hardware is a bad term. An AR-15 is not military hardware. It is primarily chambered in .223 wylde (civilian term for 5.56 Nato) which in the American hunting world is a varmint cartridge. Also, the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that created the weapon and not Assault Rifle.

The other thing is that a lot of this is how you interpret the second amendment. Gerorge Washington has been quoted saying things along the lines of needing weapons to keep the government from taking advantage of its citizens. That sounds like he thinks civilians should have the same shit the military does.

I don't think anyone needs a fucking tank or gatling gun, but this whole 'black rifle' craze is absurd. Most anti gun people think the second amendment should be thrown out, or it only means black powder rifles because that is all you need to hunt with. Interpreting a document that was written fresh off of a revolution probably had some influence in the emotions behind the words so we are not thinking like they were.

I don't give a shit either way, I don't think guns will ever be banned, and if they are, they literally do not have the assets to confiscate all the ones out there so I that doesn't matter either considering how many are already floating around in the American society. On top of that, people can make precision firearms in their garage, and a lot of companies even sell 80% AR lowers that do not have to have a serial number by law on them.

Once again, my whole thing is, guns will always be a part of our society. Either accept to spend countless billions fighting them, or a hell of a lot less teaching responsibility.

[Drazaan]

I think it is important to point out that the first author of the article is associated with the Pacific Research Institute which is a conservative and free market think tank. Additionally, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy places an emphasis on publications related to conservative and libertarian issues.

I'm a gun owner, enjoy the Havard JLPP, and have nothing negative to say about this research (though I haven't looked at the methodology thoroughly). This publication just doesn't seem to be anything removed from what the journal or the authors would have published anyways. Nothing shocking or out of place here at all.

[Warriorbird]

Military hardware is a bad term. An AR-15 is not military hardware. It is primarily chambered in .223 wylde (civilian term for 5.56 Nato) which in the American hunting world is a varmint cartridge. Also, the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that created the weapon and not Assault Rifle.

The other thing is that a lot of this is how you interpret the second amendment. Gerorge Washington has been quoted saying things along the lines of needing weapons to keep the government from taking advantage of its citizens. That sounds like he thinks civilians should have the same shit the military does.

I don't think anyone needs a fucking tank or gatling gun, but this whole 'black rifle' craze is absurd. Most anti gun people think the second amendment should be thrown out, or it only means black powder rifles because that is all you need to hunt with. Interpreting a document that was written fresh off of a revolution probably had some influence in the emotions behind the words so we are not thinking like they were.

I don't give a shit either way, I don't think guns will ever be banned, and if they are, they literally do not have the assets to confiscate all the ones out there so I that doesn't matter either considering how many are already floating around in the American society. On top of that, people can make precision firearms in their garage, and a lot of companies even sell 80% AR lowers that do not have to have a serial number by law on them.

Once again, my whole thing is, guns will always be a part of our society. Either accept to spend countless billions fighting them, or a hell of a lot less teaching responsibility.

I don't particularly think the average citizen needs an RPG. That'd be more along the lines of what I was thinking of.

[Gelston]

I don't particularly think the average citizen needs an RPG. That'd be more along the lines of what I was thinking of.

I use them for squirrel hunting.

[Whirlin]

If you need an AR-15 for hunting... you're an amazingly shitty hunter.

I have to agree with both sides on this one though... On one hand, correlation is not causation. There are a myriad of factors that go into crime rates, and death via gun measurements. How it's measured, whether or not it was all crime and/or accidental deaths, etc. On Paper, the US doesn't look any different from a lot of other countries, and yet the efficiency and economic ratings out of our country are vastly different by most measurements.

However, at the same time... with such a complex system, with so many variables, how can you make a truly educated decision? At what point is there sufficient data to show correlation?

One thing that I will point out though is that Source 131 is a series of 4 articles published by the NRA, with lobbyist information regarding laws and correlation studies that they've done regarding gun ownership and crime statistics. To me that's akin to quoting an Obama newsletter on health care reform, or the Westboro Baptist Church on abortion statistics.

[Gelston]

Does WBC care about abortion? I thought they just hated gay people.

[Warriorbird]

I use them for squirrel hunting.

Stay classy, Louisiana.

[cwolff]

I think it is important to point out that the first author of the article is associated with the Pacific Research Institute which is a conservative and free market think tank. Additionally, the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy places an emphasis on publications related to conservative and libertarian issues.

I'm a gun owner, enjoy the Havard JLPP, and have nothing negative to say about this research (though I haven't looked at the methodology thoroughly). This publication just doesn't seem to be anything removed from what the journal or the authors would have published anyways. Nothing shocking or out of place here at all.


And then there's this: "....the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates."

We do have lower crime in places where people have a lot of guns. I always wondered if that's because it stopped crime or the criminals just went for a relatively softer target. Australia clamped down on guns because of a mass-shooting rampage in 1996. They haven't had one of those since. Of course mass shootings aren't statistically a threat but their murder and suicide by gun have dropped too.

One thing that stands out in this study is the heavy comparisons with former Soviet countries and even Scandinavia and then it uses data from the year 2000. I think the article was first published in 2007 so that makes the 2000 data a little more realistic of course it's also coincidental to a big election year. This strikes me as a red flag on the "research".

oh ya, I'm reading more about this. This is not a harvard study. It's not affiliated with the school in any way. It was just printed in their magazine and this does not necessarily imply an endorsement.

Here's information on the group who wrote the article:

The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) is a California-based free-market think tank founded in 1979 to promote "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government.[1] The Pacific Research Institute has been associated with other politically conservative think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Fraser Institute, and the Cato Institute.

[Gelston]

Stay classy, Louisiana.

Pft, they use this in Arkansas and Mississippi

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/665/44Big_Bertha_2_.jpg

[crb]

If you need an AR-15 for hunting... you're an amazingly shitty hunter.
.

Uhhh... what?

Mr. Large Donkey had it right:



Military hardware is a bad term. An AR-15 is not military hardware. It is primarily chambered in .223 wylde (civilian term for 5.56 Nato) which in the American hunting world is a varmint cartridge. Also, the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that created the weapon and not Assault Rifle.

AR15s aren't often used for hunting, because most hunters consider it cruel, because it is too weak of a round. In many states it is in fact the smallest minimum round allowed for deer hunting. You might use it for killing ground hogs or rabbits or something, something small and fast where the round capacity and low recoil makes it easier, but not any large game.

Why do people buy AR15s?

1. Cheap small ammo, makes it cheaper to practice.
2. Low recoil makes it easier and less tiring to shoot.
3. Accessories. People like customizing their shit. Compared to other guns, the AR15 has a very large "app store" with lots of cool things. They're tacticool. This is normal human behavior. But a gun with a lot of accessories doesn't generally become more dangerous, it still shoots bullets barely more powerful than a .22LR.

Warriorbird also had it sorta right, though, he isn't consistent generally when applying this principle.



You do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, right?

I say he had it sorta right because what this study really showed was not correlation, that it then applied causation too, but rather a lack of correlation or an inverse correlation, with which it said there was no causation (obviously). The conclusion you can draw from it, thus, is not that more guns equals less crime, but rather that gun ownership has very little to do with the murder rates of a society.

[Gelston]

Well, the round is a lot more powerful then a .22LR.

http://www.moveleft.org/dog_ban/22lr_vs_223.png

The round itself isn't much larger, but it has a lot more punch and is far more deadly.

[AnticorRifling]

lol @ barely more powerful than a .22LR

[AnticorRifling]

AR15s aren't often used for hunting, because most hunters consider it cruel, because it is too weak of a round. In many states it is in fact the smallest minimum round allowed for deer hunting. You might use it for killing ground hogs or rabbits or something, something small and fast where the round capacity and low recoil makes it easier, but not any large game.

Why do people buy AR15s?

1. Cheap small ammo, makes it cheaper to practice.
2. Low recoil makes it easier and less tiring to shoot.
3. Accessories. People like customizing their shit. Compared to other guns, the AR15 has a very large "app store" with lots of cool things. They're tacticool. This is normal human behavior. But a gun with a lot of accessories doesn't generally become more dangerous, it still shoots bullets barely more powerful than a .22LR.




Source?

[cwolff]

Source?

Well in CO we used to have a minimum of .222 for big game but now that is up to .224 (6mm), so the .223 isn't even legal for big game here.

I was surprised to see this because we do have a small population of hunters who go with the lightweight rounds.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if they just carved the AR15 out of the hunting regs after the Aurora Movie Theatre shooting.

[AnticorRifling]

What's CO's classification of big game? Is big game hunting the only hunting you're allowed to do?

[cwolff]

What's CO's classification of big game? Is big game hunting the only hunting you're allowed to do?

No you can hunt anything. We have a blanket law that covers all animals so for any hunting you do need a license. The small game license covers everything from rattlesnakes up to coyotes.

Big game includes pronghorn up to bear. We have a very very small and protected Moose population so they are big game but tags are limited and it's been a 1x per life tag. Big Horn are also 1x per life.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I use them for squirrel hunting.

It's really handy when you want to get all the squirrels at once.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

If you neg rep people without owning up to who you are. You're a pussy. 5494

[Gelston]

Was it funny at least?

[Latrinsorm]

The only thing that makes my head explode is how I was berated for cautiously comparing America to the United Kingdom (America Sr.) and Australia (Canada Jr.), but the same people have no complaint about comparing America to the Soviet Union.

[AnticorRifling]

Didn't you read? They don't want explosions. Please keep up.

[Tisket]

If you neg rep people without owning up to who you are. You're a pussy. 5494

I just obliged your request for signed neg rep. You are welcome.

[Tisket]

I would encourage anyone else who finds it annoying when people whine about unsigned neg rep to give them what they want.

[Gelston]

Someone just gave me an unsigned handy.

[Whirlin]

I would encourage anyone else who finds it annoying when people whine about unsigned neg rep to give them what they want.
What if I whine about unsigned positive rep? Do I get signed positive rep?

Positive Rep makes me feel good... Negative rep makes me feel bad :(

[EasternBrand]

If you neg rep people without owning up to who you are. You're a pussy. 5494

I didn't neg rep you, but I do think presenting a conservative think-tank authored piece published by a student-run journal describing itself as "the nation's leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship" as some sort of non-partisan "Harvard study" is egregiously misleading.

And again, this is a conservative think-tank authored piece published by a student-run journal describing itself as "the nation's leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship." I think I mentioned that above, but I just wanted to mention it again. Because it's just kind of fun to do that.

Edited to add: Okay, I went ahead and neg repped you.

[Tisket]

What if I whine about unsigned positive rep? Do I get signed positive rep?

Positive Rep makes me feel good... Negative rep makes me feel bad :(

Answered in a rep comment.

[Latrinsorm]

Someone just gave me an unsigned handy.Someone is a copycatty son of a bitch. :grr:

[Gelston]

Someone is a copycatty son of a bitch. :grr:

WHAT!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????

[Gelston]

And Taernath just repped me with a Handy. Well, this didn't go as planned at all.

[Kranar]

It's not a peer reviewed study and it's already been shown that the data the study uses was incorrect, as in literally the study misinterpreted various criminal statistics by entire decimal places. For example Luxembourg's murder rate isn't 9 per 100k, it's 0.9 per 100k.

The study was made by an undergrad student at Harvard, likely part of an assignment, and then published by a student run conservative/libertarian publication, but some how people think that this report is the result of formal research that was peer reviewed and whose results were validated the same way actual formal studies get validated. It's not, it's basically a project/assignment done by an undergrad at Harvard that some people are latching onto, which is rather odd because undergrad assignments are not meant to actually be used as the basis for formal research or peer review.

[AnticorRifling]

Kranar it was done by a student at Harvard so they're a good person by default. Please keep up.

[KranarsFriend]

It's not a peer reviewed study and it's already been shown that the data the study uses was incorrect, as in literally the study misinterpreted various criminal statistics by entire decimal places. For example Luxembourg's murder rate isn't 9 per 100k, it's 0.9 per 100k.

The study was made by an undergrad student at Harvard, likely part of an assignment, and then published by a student run conservative/libertarian publication, but some how people think that this report is the result of formal research that was peer reviewed and whose results were validated the same way actual formal studies get validated. It's not, it's basically a project/assignment done by an undergrad at Harvard that some people are latching onto, which is rather odd because undergrad assignments are not meant to actually be used as the basis for formal research or peer review.

Hey Kranar,

Did you know that Anticor banned me for copy/pasting something that IW said while he was banned.

Now that IW is no longer banned, shouldn't any ban for copy/pasting something he said also be voided?

[Latrinsorm]

This thread just went to 11.

[Tisket]

Lol Inspire

[Keller]

This study is the result of liberal academic propoganda aimed at turning our children into communists.

I urge my fellow real Americans, including former semi-conservatives like CrystalTears, to unequivocally reject this study and its conclusions.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

I would encourage anyone else who finds it annoying when people whine about unsigned neg rep to give them what they want.

Tisket has bigger balls than all of you.

[~Rocktar~]

You do understand that correlation doesn't equal causation, right? I'm not sure you or the no more guns people do. Most studies on both sides have hideously flawed methodology. This study isn't impartial at all, either.

You do understand that you are making excuses right? You also understand that you have used "study" results and other statistical analysis to back previous points of yours when it suits you, right? I am not sure that you understand how meaningless your commentary is. Most of your posts, like this one, are simple or mildly complex distractions from you actually offering anything of value to the conversation and are veiled or not so veiled insults directed at your target. Your comment is as vapid as always.

[~Rocktar~]

On the one hand you have people who stupidly think that "gun control" laws have a tremendous impact. On the other hand you have people who think unrestricted access to military hardware is a good idea, who don't want to discourage the insane from having weapons, and who want the government to be less able to assign liability and track criminals "FOR FREEDOM!"

And on your hand, we have a nutjob who likes to argue the extremes for his own purposes and ignores any and all rational arguments.

[Warriorbird]

And on your hand, we have a nutjob who likes to argue the extremes for his own purposes and ignores any and all rational arguments.

At least I didn't double post to myself. Or accuse me of all sorts of things without a source. I mean, we wouldn't want to look like a nutjob here. Not that you'll ever be free of that. It's also a bad look to try to reach for some sort of moral high ground or purity with a clearly invalid claim at the start of a thread... which I was even nice to for the purposes of discussion.

[Nieninque]

Wow...arent people who go to Harvard supposed to be smart or something? That looks to me to be the most poorly argued piece of crap I have ever seen. "Country A only killed X amount of people and yet country B killed Y amount of people.

Maybe if they compared murder rates before and after cun controls were introduced IN THE SAME COUNTRY, it might mean something, but right now that study is about good enough to wipe my arse on. If I print it out, of course. Fuck taking my laptop to the bathroom.

[Nieninque]

And by cun controls, I mean gun controls, or maybe it was cunt controls. WTFevar

[Nieninque]

Also, I love this part "The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th–behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine–in murders"

Such high aspirations, countries with high amounts of corruption amongst law enforcement and significant black markets where guns can be bought...oh wait, is this study a troll? Did I get trolled? Damn, now I think I got trolled, because that had to be a joke.

[Nieninque]

"The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6"

One begs the question, what is the manner of these murders? Is it by handguns? If so, is the banning of handguns the problem or the ineffective upholding of said law? If not, surely allowing people to then have handguns would simply be offering to up the murder rates?

[Nieninque]

"That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000"

That's because no-one lives in Finland and those that do live about 5000 miles away from their neighbour.

[Nieninque]

"And then there's this: "....the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.""

And you would think that people from Harvard would be able to differentiate between correlation and causation.

[crb]

Source?

Reality.

[Methais]

You can quote different things all in the same post, as opposed to making 6 separate posts in a row.

If only England had looser gun laws, you would know this.

I'm suddenly craving waffles.

[Latrinsorm]

Anticor, you may know how to herd weiners, oppress Inspire, and pick up blitz packages, but maybe you should leave the gun talk to the experts.

[AnticorRifling]

Anticor, you may know how to herd weiners, oppress Inspire, and pick up blitz packages, but maybe you should leave the gun talk to the experts.

You might be correct. I mean if his source is "reality" how can I even begin to question any of his "facts"?!

[Jeril]

I am surprised no one brought it up really, but how many of these places with lower deaths also have the death penalty? I know it exists here in the US but even states who have it don't use it all the time. My guess would be that people are a bit less likely to commit murder knowing they'd face the same end if caught. I am not saying that alone is the cause though because it wouldn't surprise me if Russia had the death penalty. The general mood, atmosphere, or what have you of the area/country likely plays a big role as well.

[Latrinsorm]

I am surprised no one brought it up really, but how many of these places with lower deaths also have the death penalty? I know it exists here in the US but even states who have it don't use it all the time. My guess would be that people are a bit less likely to commit murder knowing they'd face the same end if caught. I am not saying that alone is the cause though because it wouldn't surprise me if Russia had the death penalty. The general mood, atmosphere, or what have you of the area/country likely plays a big role as well.As you point out, though, they don't know they'll get the death penalty even if caught. Maybe they won't get convicted, maybe they'll get a plea deal, maybe they'll win an appeal, maybe they'll get a pardon.

As it turns out, though, only Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe) has the death penalty, so this isn't a great data set for investigating that question even if the many other problems with it didn't exist.