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

[Bonestorm]

link us up to his 'association'.

It's right there in footnote. Allow me to quote: "Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco . . ."

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'.

The PRI is right-wing and I did address the topic.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's right there in footnote. Allow me to quote: "Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco . . ."

So you have no idea what his association is? Thanks for sharing.

The PRI is right-wing and I did address the topic.

No, it is actually more Libertarian. Not right wing.

No, you did not address the topic. You attacked the author.

 

[Bonestorm]

So you have no idea what his association is? Thanks for sharing.

Um, what the fuck are you asking me?

No, it is actually more Libertarian. Not right wing.

I was born at night, SF, not last night.

No, you did not address the topic. You attacked the author.

Actually, I addressed the topic and I didn't "attack" the author. I simply reported the facts about him in response to Grind's comment.

 

[Bonestorm]

Also, too, I'll spare Grind the embarassment:

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. The late Stephen Eberhard and former Senator and Secretary of Energy E. Spencer Abraham founded the journal twenty-eight years ago and many journal alumni have risen to prominent legal positions in the government and at the nation’s top law firms.

Our Board of Advisors includes two U.S. Senators, four U.S. Court of Appeals Judges, and leading conservative and libertarian scholars.

Dynamic recent authors include Viet Dinh, John Yoo, Eugene Scalia, and Judge Guido Calabresi. In the past, we have published pieces by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Journal prides itself on developing the writing, researching, and editing skills of each staff member from the beginning of 1L year and continuing through all three years of law school. In collaboration with our sister organization, the Harvard Federalist Society, we provide guidance and advice on finding summer jobs with law firms, public interest groups, and the government. We also guide members through the judicial clerkship application process, and hold fun social events throughout the school year.

Let's cut the bullshit, guys.


http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Um, what the fuck are you asking me?
I was born at night, SF, not last night.

Actually, I addressed the topic and I didn't "attack" the author. I simply reported the facts about him in response to Grind's comment.

No, you attacked the author. Instead of addressing the topic. Which is standard for you.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, you attacked the author. Instead of addressing the topic. Which is standard for you.

My first comment was on the substance of the study.

Also, too, pretty standard for you to offer nothing of substantive value to the discussion. You're just so fucking boring at this point.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Also, too, I'll spare Grind the embarassment:

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. The late Stephen Eberhard and former Senator and Secretary of Energy E. Spencer Abraham founded the journal twenty-eight years ago and many journal alumni have risen to prominent legal positions in the government and at the nation’s top law firms.

Our Board of Advisors includes two U.S. Senators, four U.S. Court of Appeals Judges, and leading conservative and libertarian scholars.

Dynamic recent authors include Viet Dinh, John Yoo, Eugene Scalia, and Judge Guido Calabresi. In the past, we have published pieces by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Journal prides itself on developing the writing, researching, and editing skills of each staff member from the beginning of 1L year and continuing through all three years of law school. In collaboration with our sister organization, the Harvard Federalist Society, we provide guidance and advice on finding summer jobs with law firms, public interest groups, and the government. We also guide members through the judicial clerkship application process, and hold fun social events throughout the school year.

Let's cut the bullshit, guys.


http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

LOL

Man, what a humiliation, but I see SF has been called in to distract everyone... by making it an even worse humiliation. LOL

 

[SmarterthanYou]

so is the debate here reduced to deciding that all right wing based studies are crap?

 

[Bonestorm]

do all right wing shills get an easy pass for being published in the rinky dink harvard journal of law and public policy?

 

[Bonestorm]

so is the debate here reduced to deciding that all right wing based studies are crap?

No, just this one.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, just this one.

so if I find another 'study' that says basically the same thing, just from another person, then it's legitimate?

 

[Bonestorm]

so if I find another 'study' that says basically the same thing, just from another person, then it's legitimate?

Not necessarily, no.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not necessarily, no.

so the only gun study with legitimacy has to be approved by you?

 

[tekkychick]

Love this paragraph -

But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws.

and

Obviously, many factors other than guns may promote or reduce the number of murders in any given place or time or among particular groups. And it may be impossible even to identify these factors, much less to take account of them all. Thus any conclusions drawn from the kinds of evidence presented earlier in this paper must necessarily be tentative.

Here's another article -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html

The U.S. is not a uniquely violent society, said Wintemute, who practices emergency medicine and conducts research on the nature and prevention of gun violence. Our overall rates of violence are similar to Australia, Canada and Western Europe. Where the U.S. stands out, Wintemute said, is in the homicide rate.

"That's a weapon effect. It's not clear that guns cause violence, but it's absolutely clear that they change the outcome," said Wintemute.

Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents -- was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people.

Wonder why the study didn't look at Australia? Why Russia, which has a very different culture and history than the US?

 

[Big Money]

so the only gun study with legitimacy has to be approved by you?

The only legitimate studies are those that produce results liberals agree with....

 

[Bonestorm]

so the only gun study with legitimacy has to be approved by you?

No, the only gun studies with legitimacy are those that use sound research methodologies. The piece linked in the OP is a law review article, it isn't a piece of research published in a peer-reviewed journal and subject to the scrutiny attendant thereto.

 

[iolo]

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

The question is, how easily can nutters get guns? Bans work when they stop nutters getting guns; it is as simple as that. Bans that don't stop nutters getting guns don't work. It is like Prohibition.

 

[/MSG/]

The question is, how easily can nutters get guns? Bans work when they stop nutters getting guns; it is as simple as that. Bans that don't stop nutters getting guns don't work. It is like Prohibition.

Exactly. And we have a very long, detailed history of prohibition. Also, it's the biggest reason FOR crime to begin with. Meaning that it doesn't work in any capacity.

 

[iolo]

Exactly. And we have a very long, detailed history of prohibition. Also, it's the biggest reason FOR crime to begin with. Meaning that it doesn't work in any capacity.

Prohibition didn't work because too many Americans liked booze. Most of the world gets rid of guns because people hate murder, but Americans seem to like killing one another. Perhaps the country should be divided up under civilized governments?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Prohibition didn't work because too many Americans liked booze. Most of the world gets rid of guns because people hate murder, but Americans seem to like killing one another. Perhaps the country should be divided up under civilized governments?

Generalize much, or is your entire family composed of idiots?