Kates/Mauser report proves no link between gun control and reduced crime

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kentucky

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
443
Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this report?

Report claims that firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate
From the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation today said a new report by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada that shows the rate of firearms ownership is irrelevant to the homicide and violent crime rate should be required reading, especially for reporters, editorial writers and elected representatives.

Appearing in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. They conclude that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns.”

“The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “What these two seasoned researchers have revealed is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun laws. It seems hardly a coincidence that here in America, the highest crime rates are in places with strict gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. However, in areas here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership violent crime rates are lower.

“The authors note an earlier study by Kates that showed a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, while overall gun ownership increased 103 percent and handgun ownership went up 163 percent,” he continued. “Yet during that period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.”

Gottlieb said the timing of this report’s release in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is significant due to the renewal of the gun control debate following the recent events at Virginia Tech.

“Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against all the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd,” Gottlieb stated. “While their research will obviously not close the debate, they’ve made a strong case against the traditional anti-gun mantra. Gun ownership is not the problem, and this new report proves it.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
 
Would simply like to emphasize that donations to the 2nd Amendment Foundation are tax-deductable, as is the NRA's PVF, but not the NRA's ILA (thanks to John Mc Cain!:cuss: ).
 
Numerous writings on this subject. Wright, Rossi & Daly first published in 1985, with "Under The Gun". U of Fla Press. They've since published other work.

It's worthwhile reading about FSU Prof. Gary Kleck's research, a statistical survey of incidents where a gun was used to keep a crime from completion--even if no more than a person lying when saying, "Stop! I have a gun!".

And, of course, John Lott's work

Art
 
I haven't read the entire paper yet, but I did notice what appears to be one error:
While American gun ownership is quite high, Table I shows many other nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002
According to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate Luxembourg, in '02 had a homicide rate of 0.90 and 1.36 the prior year. Maybe whoever was reading/typing Table I misread/mistook .90 as 9.0.
 
wikipedia

Interesting. I would NEVER have expected this from Harvard, which by their own admission is one of the most liberal universities in this country. Great, great find!!!

Remember that wikipedia publishes whatever anyone wants to give them. It is NOT a reputable source. I would definately trust Harvard researchers before I would trust whom ever posted that data on wiki. I could go right now and post something on wikipedia and it will not be fact checked by anyone.
 
I've read the entire report. It once again proves that the anti-s are a bunch of self-deceiving fools led by power-grabbing totalitarians.
 
Remember that wikipedia publishes whatever anyone wants to give them. It is NOT a reputable source. I would definately trust Harvard researchers before I would trust whom ever posted that data on wiki. I could go right now and post something on wikipedia and it will not be fact checked by anyone.

More likely the author of the wikipedia piece mistyped.
 
Quote:
Remember that wikipedia publishes whatever anyone wants to give them. It is NOT a reputable source. I would definately trust Harvard researchers before I would trust whom ever posted that data on wiki. I could go right now and post something on wikipedia and it will not be fact checked by anyone.

More likely the author of the wikipedia piece mistyped.

Boy, some of you people are something else. The frigin' wikipedia article is cited with an online reference (the same reference cited by the Harvard article). The reference validates the wikipedia value. In other words the wikipedia reference is correct and Kates got it wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top