Gun Bans Don't Mean Lower Murder Rates, Finds Harvard Study

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Countries with strict gun laws often see higher murder rates than those with permissive gun laws.

That's one of the findings in a study done by researchers at Harvard University.

The study found that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate nearly four times higher than that in the United States.

The study also found that in Finland and Norway, where more than 1/3 of people own guns, the murder rate is near zero.

The study looked at gun laws in several European countries, and at the rate of all deaths caused by gunfire in those countries. It then took those findings and compared them to laws and statistics in the United States.

The study's findings were that tough gun laws don't mean lower murder rates or lower instances of violent crime in many cases.

You can read the entire Harvard study here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
 
p.s. the above was from a news article linking to the study. I closed the window though. the relevant link is obv the study itself tho
 
/k/ said:
It's painfully obvious to everyone now that Ivy League schools are just NRA shills.
Click to expand...


The study is kinda hilarious, though. Basically, Russia and other former Soviet Socialist Republics are totally fucked and so they make the US look ok in comparison to Europe as a whole.
 
Also, too, the researchers aren't from Harvard. The piece was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The lead researcher is indeed a right-wing shill.
 
Dungheap said:
The study is kinda hilarious, though. Basically, Russia and other former Soviet Socialist Republics are totally fucked and so they make the US look ok in comparison to Europe as a whole.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the best methodology, because you can't replicate our culture in other nations, nor our national conditions (which are pretty huge factors when studying societies and their problems). But it is still useful to show the idea that gun laws do not meaningfully affect crime (either up or down).
 
/k/ said:
I don't think it's the best methodology, because you can't replicate our culture in other nations, nor our national conditions (which are pretty huge factors when studying societies and their problems). But it is still useful to show the idea that gun laws do not meaningfully affect crime (either up or down).
Click to expand...


But it doesn't really show that, in my view. It shows that Russia and the former Soviet Socialist Republics are fucked up places notwithstanding the existence of their gun laws.
 
Dungheap said:
But it doesn't really show that, in my view. It shows that Russia and the former Soviet Socialist Republics are fucked up places notwithstanding the existence of their gun laws.
Click to expand...

Which proves my point....that guns/gun laws are not ways to solve problems.
 
Dungheap said:
Also, too, the researchers aren't from Harvard. The piece was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The lead researcher is indeed a right-wing shill.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one graduated from Yale, the other from Cal Irvine... right wing shill headquarters...
 
Don Kates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist and research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. His books include Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence (with Gary Kleck). As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.

Don B. Kates, Jr., attended Reed College and Yale Law School. During the Civil rights movement, he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler. Thereafter, he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure at Saint Louis University School of Law, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law, teaches, and writes on criminology.

He is editor of Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy (San Francisco: 1984, Pacific Research Institute) and the Winter 1986 issue of Law & Contemporary Problems. He is author of the entry on the Second Amendment in M. Levy & K. Karst, The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution; "Firearms and Violence: Old Premises, Current Evidence," in T. Gurr (ed.), Violence in America (1989); and "Precautionary Handgun Ownership: Reasonable Choice or Dangerous Delusion," B. Danto (ed.), Gun Control and Criminal Homicide, forthcoming (1990).
Click to expand...

Clearly a right wing shill...
 
Superfreak said:
Yeah, one graduated from Yale, the other from Cal Irvine... right wing shill headquarters...
Click to expand...


Uh, you honestly think that the fact that one guy graduated from Yale in 1966 and the other guy graduated from UC-Irvine in 1970 disqualifies them from being right-wing shills? Jesus.

Also, too, I said that the primary author is a right-wing shill because he's "associated with the Pacific Research Institute," a right-wing think tank. The thing about think tanks is that if you work for one, you are by definition a shill.
 
Dungheap said:
Also, too, the researchers aren't from Harvard. The piece was published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The lead researcher is indeed a right-wing shill.
Click to expand...

do all right wing shills get an easy pass for being published in the rinky dink harvard journal of law and public policy?
 
Thought Thieves said:
do all right wing shills get an easy pass for being published in the rinky dink harvard journal of law and public policy?
Click to expand...


You should probably google "Harvard Journal for Law and Public Policy" and find out what it is first before asking that question. In the meantime, I'll LOL at you.
 
Dungheap said:
Uh, you honestly think that the fact that one guy graduated from Yale in 1966 and the other guy graduated from UC-Irvine in 1970 disqualifies them from being right-wing shills? Jesus.

Also, too, I said that the primary author is a right-wing shill because he's "associated with the Pacific Research Institute," a right-wing think tank. The thing about think tanks is that if you work for one, you are by definition a shill.
Click to expand...

link us up to his 'association'.

It is quite humorous that you once again rely on your attack the messenger bullshit, rather than addressing the topic. You proclaim them right wing shills, yet provide nothing to back that up other than another attack on the Pacific Research Institute proclaiming it is 'right wing'.
 
And, Grind, why don't you post the full text of the "About" page for the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy for the edification of the assembled.

Dumbass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top