New Harvard study--More Gun Control does not equal less violent crime

It's just Harvard. It's not like they're smart or something.

Is that the "new" Harvard study from 2007?

Still a good read, if you have the time.

It was published in a Harvard law journal. That doesn't make it a Harvard study. Notice the footnotes on the first page about the authors; they're not at Harvard. Law professors (and criminologists and others who publish in law journals) send their manuscripts to different schools' journals, which are run by law students. Publication doesn't mean that a school agrees with a position, funded a study, or employs the authors. In fact, those things are hardly ever the case.

Doesn't diminish the strength of the article, just be careful claiming that it's a Harvard study. It ain't. Thought you guys might like to know.

yep, old study

By far we need to minimize the evidence presented that more guns does not equal more violent gun crime. Things like this have convinced me that this organization has a death wish.....

Interesting that an old study is suddenly getting media attention from multiple sources.

Noted that the authors didn't go to Harvard-one went to yale and the other UC Irvine. They both have fairly impressive resumes. It's not like this came out of el toro or Phoenix university.

hpluseleven said:

Noted that the authors didn't go to Harvard-one went to yale and the other UC Irvine. They both have fairly impressive resumes. It's not like this came out of el toro or Phoenix university.

Click to expand...

Besides, this really shouldn't matter much. Either their methodology and conclusions are sound/supported by the evidence, or they are not. Where they went to school or where they teach may be slightly predictive of that, but it's irrelevant compared to the argument and evidence itself.

I only pointed out the "not a Harvard study" thing because I don't want anyone to get embarrassed or lose credibility by making an understandable, but plainly false, statement characterizing this as "a Harvard study."

Gun control isnt about reducing violence, its about disarming citizens

Being a FREE person is a crime in the eyes of government.

I know a Harvard guy who once shot someone.

I know a Harvard guy that wants to restrict gun purchasers.

I know a Harvard guy that did restrict gun purchasers.

Gun control has little to no impact on crime statistics. The number of available criminals in a given area almost exclusively drives crime statistics. The city of Chicago has more available criminals than the entire state of Wyoming.

Cannot possibly trust one of the authors to be unbiased!

After all, his last name is Mauser!

I know both of them fairly well. We have broke bread together (not really - Indonesian food and a Wolfgang Puck's pizza and chocolate lava cake). Shot together also.

Scholarship like theirs is quoted in the professional literature. Legal texts on lethal force in self-defense and the sociological/criminological literature of violence and aggression cite their work.

Of course, antigun folks are immune to such scholarship - confirmation bias in action.

Glenn

"Gun control isn't about reducing violence, it's about disarming citizens". Couldn't agree more. I'd just add "so they're defenseless in front of their government".

ANY type of violence is closely related to how violent that society is. Once people decides to use violence, they'll use whatever is at hand. These are facts. Go see the violent crime statistics they have in the UK, and they have the worst gun laws in Europe. On the other hand, we have a mock of a democracy in my country, where gun laws are stupid and restrictive, and where citizens h have little to say but voting every four years. Violent crime statistics are low compared to other countries, yet whoever has access to a firearm will use it to defend himself or commit crime if he so decides. Those who don't will just get a knife from the kitchen.

ATLDave said:

It was published in a Harvard law journal. That doesn't make it a Harvard study. Notice the footnotes on the first page about the authors; they're not at Harvard. Law professors (and criminologists and others who publish in law journals) send their manuscripts to different schools' journals, which are run by law students.

Click to expand...

That's not how academic journals work. The reviewers are not students. They usually have PhD's in the field that they review submissions for.

They may be professors at Harvard, but are chosen based on their merits within their field of research. Once the paper has been vetted by the reviewer, it is sent off to the editor to decide whether or not to include it in an upcoming publication.

Anyone may submit a paper to any academic journal, but few submissions are are accepted for publication.

I hope it cost someone a lot of money to come up with this staggering data.

Bill50 said:

That's not how academic journals work. The reviewers are not students. They usually have PhD's in the field that they review submissions for.

Click to expand...

I did not say that is how peer-reviewed academic journals work. But what I described is precisely how legal journals (which is where this article was published) work. They are NOT like most academic journals. The law school journals are student-run by students who are on their way to J.D.'s, not Ph.D.'s.

taliv said:

yep, though no surprise breitbart can't tell the difference. also beware the obnoxious auto-play commerical


here's a link direct to hte doc so you can skip the commercial and breitbart commentary

Click to expand...

Why the attack on Breitbart?

And are you referring to the NRA/Liberty Alliance PSA?

I have a real problem with so-called pro-gun people who regularly attack pro-gun groups and organizations. Makes me wonder just who's side they are really on?