A Must Read! High Murder Rates Correlate to Gun Bans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Harvard Journal Study of Worldwide Data Obliterates Notion that Gun Ownership Correlates with Violence
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Confirms that Reducing Gun Ownership by Law-Abiding Citizens Does Nothing to Reduce Violence Worldwide

By now, any informed American is familiar with Dr. John R. Lott, Jr.'s famous axiom of "More Guns, Less Crime." In other words, American jurisdictions that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms are far safer and more crime-free than jurisdictions that enact stringent "gun control" laws.

Very simply, the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms has helped reduce violent crime in America.

Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon. According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths." In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world's highest murder rate.

To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia's extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian."

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."

Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." In America, on the other hand, "despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s."

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that "the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world," where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

Furthermore, the authors highlight the important point that while the American gun murder rate often exceeds that in other nations, the overall per capita murder rate in other nations (including other means such as strangling, stabbing, beating, etc.) is oftentimes much higher than in America.

The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors. "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.

Therefore, "banning guns cannot alleviate the socio-cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates." According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."

John Lott couldn't have stated it better himself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted August 17, 2007 ]

Dr. Mauser I laughed when I saw that name. Classic.
 
The reason that gun ownership doesn't correlate with murder rates, the authors show, is that violent crime rates are determined instead by underlying cultural factors(emphasis mine). "Ordinary people," they note, "simply do not murder." Rather, "the murderers are a small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership" in their society.
This came from Hah-vard? Impressive.
 
A Must Read! High Murder Rates Correlate to Gun Bans

The must read really isn't the summary article in the link provided, but the actual article by Mauser and Kates. The review article puts a definite political spin on things that isn't completely true to the article. You can find links on Google for the original or from Mauser's web site (see below).

This came from Hah-vard? Impressive.

Don't be so impressed that something came from Harvard. It did not. It just came out in one of their journal series. The journal series does not represent the school or its institution in any way.


It is a bit misleading in the review article, I understand, as it says...
Now, a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy study shows that this is not just an American phenomenon.

This was NOT a Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy study per se. It was a study published in the journal, not conducted by the journal, its staff, or the school. So, this was not an article by a couple of Harvard liberals who are shocking the world with an epiphany. Instead, the article was produced by two authors with a long history of writing pro-gun materials. I didn't check everything for both, but Kates writes for the NRA and Mauser has several similar pro-gun publications as well. This is not to say that they would bias their writings, but that just because it came out of a Harvard publication that the article is somehow an unbiased epiphany of liberals.

Similarly, impressive credentials, publications, etc. are not a good justification or basis for believing something to be correct. Michael Bellesiles had a fairly impressive vita noting his long publication record employment at a well respected university as well, Emory, but we all know what happened to him and his credibility once folks actually took the time to check the validity of his statements.

With that said, their two basic themes seem intact. Here is Mauser's summary of them...
This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.

This summary can be found on Mauser's web site. http://www.garymauser.net/papers.html

For Kates, see
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=739
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

I sort of did have to laugh at the data set that showed the least gun ownership and the highest murder rate, Russia. It was more than double the nearest country (Luxembourg) in murder rates, but given the state of Russia in 2002 when the data were collected and I would be hard pressed to believe that either the murder rates or gun ownership rates were even remotely accurate.

I also looked between articles to see if their findings were necessarily consistent. In looking at the murder rates by country for their recent article, the overall trend seems to be that more guns do not correlate with more murder and they intimate the opposite is true. However, data from 1991 in Kates NRA paper (see link above) showed some quite different rates...
Country 2000s Data 1990s Data
Russia 20.54 15.3
Luxembourg 9.01 2.1
Hungary 2.22 N/A
Finland 1.98 3.3
Sweden 1.87 1.3
Poland 1.79 N/A
France 1.65 1.1
Denmark 1.21 5.0
Greece 1.12 N/A
Switzerland 0.9 9 1.1
Germany 0.93 1.8
Norway 0.81 N/A
Austria 0.80 1.5

The point here is that depending on what data were used from what year, the results would vary a goodly amount.

I am curious as to why there are significant changes in the countries of Finland, Denmark, Germany, etc. While Luxembourg was the worst non-Russian country in the 2000 series, its rate in 1991 was just 3/100 higher than Finland in 2002 that had the absolute highest number of guns per 100,000. In fact, the murder rate in Luxembourg in 1991 was more than 30% than Finland's in 1991.
 
According to Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser, "there is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults because such people virtually never commit murder. If one accepts that such adults are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than to commit it, disarming them becomes not just unproductive but counter-productive."

That was my favorite part. If we could only teach our misrepresentatives to read...
 
The OP I believe has misinterpreted the findings of the Mauser-Kates Study.

While Lott comes to the conclusion that More Guns = Less Crime, Mauser-Kates concludes that there isn't necessarily a correlation between general gun ownership/gun control and murder rates.

The point being that Gun Control is NOT an effective way to control Crime, that the underlying social issues are the problem not the Guns.....

The article helps us because it proves what WE all know....Gun Control IS NOT the solution to Violent Crime.

While its a rather long article I suggest you read it in its entirety yourself.
 
only fairly recently has gun control been presented as a measure "to control crime". Historically it has been to ensure compliance to social engineering, or to prevent rejection of opressive rule.

Politicians know this, they also know gun control doesn't work, but they will push the issue none the less to both support their party's platform, and to ensure compliance to social planning by the government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top