Article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy

[Deut6:5]

Article from spring of 2007.

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence


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



I know this is almost the definition of preaching to the choir... but I thought it might be a good resource for some. It's academic but very readable. Worth a skim for sure.

Basically, it says there is NO positive correlation between stricter gun control and lower violent crime. There is some evidence in the U.S. that there is a negative correlation. So where gun ownership is least dense, violent crime tends to be higher.

It's just another tool to use against gun-grabbers. Of course, that assumes they listen to reason...

 

[cbrgator]

I've read it. Great read.

 

[InkEd]

Wow! An expensive Harvard study confirms what regular common sense working clas people have said and known for years. BFD. There are probably a hundred liberal college dbags writing up bs papers to disprove that one as we speak. The older I get the more frequently question the "education" most people get in "top tier" colleges. I remember constantly arguing with liberals, hippies, and other leftist morons in school. It was really annoying listening to upper middle class kids give their .02 on the problems of the real world. I respect real world experience over a sheepskin in almost any situation. (This is not a stab against any college or education; rather the political leanings of most involved with them.)

 

[belus]

Wow! An expensive Harvard study confirms what regular common sense working clas people have said and known for years. BFD. There are probably a hundred liberal college dbags writing up bs papers to disprove that one as we speak. The older I get the more frequently question the "education" most people get in "top tier" colleges. I remember constantly arguing with liberals, hippies, and other leftist morons in school. It was really annoying listening to upper middle class kids give their .02 on the problems of the real world. I respect real world experience over a sheepskin in almost any situation. (This is not a stab against any college or education; rather the political leanings of most involved with them.)

Law review authors rarely do the study themselves and this is no exception. This is a compilation and summary of other studies. Neither of these authors is a professor at Harvard either. Harvard merely owns the publisher. This is similar to the Oxford University Press: they publish books that are not written at Oxford and do not necessarily endorse the conclusions or views they publish.

My liberal college education has taught me to read more than the title/headline before drawing conclusions.

edit: This article is still good news because many policy makers and members of think tanks read these publications and use them to inform their decisions.

 

[InkEd]

My liberal college education taught me to hate liberals even more. It also taugt me to laugh when a person points out a dumb mistake I made in a careless effort. Touché.

Still no shock about college surveys and research confirming common sense things at a cost of thousands of dollars from tax dollars funded research grants.

(Off subject did anyone else ever have to fight the genuine urge to smack a liberal bs spewing professor or student in the mouth?)

 

[Deut6:5]

As to the article, I think it's helpful. It's still a well-named peer-reviewed journal. You're not going to get a lot better than that in terms of academic support. We know it's common sense. We also know too many people lack that common sense. It's just another tool to use to beat over the head of gun-grabbing tools.

As to wanting to smack liberals in the mouth... I remember a high school English teacher going off about how owning guns was stupid because "that's what the police are for." The older I get, the deeper into the depths of dumb that comment appears. (pardon the alliteration)

Finally, as belus points out (good link btw), we can't just blame liberals. Plenty of so-called conservatives have drunk deeply at the Kool-Aid fountain.

 

[svtruth]

If guns caused gun crime

the problem would be self limiting. Gun owners would commit felonies and become ineligible to own guns.

 

[billybobjoe]

Whether anybody likes it or not. Legal or illegal, on moral grounds I will always keep guns.

 

[billybobjoe]

Remember we are talking about "small arms" here. The primary use of "small arms" is personal self defence. They can only be used offensively in limited ways on "unarmed" people. The truth is an angy man with a gallon of gasoline is more dangerous than an armed man. My post would probably be deleted if I say more.

 

[Jim K]

That is just another indication that there has been a sea change in the gun ban issue. Thirty, maybe even twenty years ago, such an article would never have appeared, or such a study made. Any Harvard editor who even suggested running the article would have been run off campus, and probably lynched by the liberal establishment.

Jim

 

[Isher]

I would observe that

Banning people, i.e., humans

Would eliminate this problem and

Several others, entirely.

isher

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Note that the John Lott perspective of "More Guns, Less Crime" is not supported by this article, FYI. Depending on your sense of common sense, this is contrary to what many gun owners believe. The authors note that socio-economic and cultural factors are the engines behind such trends, not firearms.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

The authors note that socio-economic and cultural factors are the engines behind such trends, not firearms.

And that's the truth. There's more to a safer society than just putting holes in dirt bags.

 

[rbernie]

While every problem has a multitide of causal factors and therefore has many potential vectors for resolution, only those that are gun-related are appropriate for this forum.

That does tend to slant the dialog perhaps to a single-note solution, but it's simply the way that it is.

 

[Mike J]

Good Article. While I believe most of us on this forum already believed the conclusion of the article I do believe it is good that this was published. If a person is sitting on the fence or even has somewhat Anti feelings about firearms reading this might be enough to open their eyes somewhat.
Banning guns is just something politicians can do to make it look like they are taking action. It is much easier to do than addressing the real problems.

 

[westcoast362]

This article, like the Lott study a few years ago are very useful to show to fence sitters. They will do no good against hard core anti-gun people, but the others can be moved in the right direction.