Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control And Less Violent Crime

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from Lucrum:

Only in your own mind fart sniffer. "Semi auto rifle" at the bottom refers to the assault rifle statistic at the top of the poster. You went on a rant about semi-auto's. Ignoring the fact the poster was comparing assault rifle deaths to begin with. Is it my fault you know nothing of firearms?

You're going to need more than your usual word games and semantics to wipe this egg off your face.

"You're cracking me up on this one, Lucster.

I have to think you're just being clowny.


If not, just ask any of your buddies to have a look at the poster and ask them whether it's referring to assault rifles or SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles, as the poster clearly states.

They'll either tell you that the poster is referring to semi-automatic rifles, or we can safely conclude they are lacking comprehensively as well.


You might try to check the FBI facts too, before you continue to distribute your propaganda.

FBI says that in 2011, 323 deaths were caused by rifles of ANY type- and not just assault rifles.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ok-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/



You know, If you were actually able to understand what the poster is conveying, it would actually make your argument for a non-ban on assault rifles even stronger-

Why? Because I'm sure the number of deaths in 2011 attributed to assault rifles is far less than 323. Just ask the FBI and they'll tell you the same thing."

Quote from Lucrum:

So this statement of yours was wrong then?

"No.

The poster's intent is to convince others that banning assault rifles won't make much of a difference in the murder rate as people will just use hammers and knives instead if they can't get the rifles, correct?

Isn't that what you want others to realize when you post it?



But it doesn't tell others to take into consideration the expense of buying a rifle, which is on average at least dozens of times higher than the kitchen knives and hammers.


IOW, the propagandist who made it, only put in the information he feels is pertinent to convince others of his cause.


He leaves out the information that would hurt his cause, such as price comparisons.

This is propaganda 101.

If rifles were as cheap and easy to buy as kitchen knives and hammers, then the number of deaths from rifles would surely be much higher.

Think about it- if you could get rifles at every family dollar store for under ten bucks (like you can hammers and knives), then every household in America would likely have at least a few.

People would be shooting each other left and right with them if they were cheaper.

Thus the death count attributed to rifles would escalate.

Look at it another way-
Lets imagine the rifles each cost ten thousand dollars or more to purchase- then the death count from rifles would drastically drop- probably be less than a few dozen per year.


So by leaving out the prices of the weapons, most morons who see the poster will never even take into consideration that price DOES play a major factor.

This is how the propagandist convinces so many to see things his way, instead of the logical way."

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from Lucrum:

This poster is manipulative in its propaganda in more ways than one.

First, as I've already pointed out, the poster does not take into consideration that price plays a major factor determining the number of deaths attributed to each weapon.


But also, take another look at the statistic which says "195,000 by Medical Mal-practice"


This insinuates that medical mal-practice is the reason for 195,000 deaths, which is simply not true.

A great many of these people were dying, or would have died without medical help to begin with.

This is like saying that someone stopped breathing and the nurse administered improper CPR, so the nurse is now the one to blame for this person's death.

Many of the cases come from those who had a terminal cancer but perhaps did not receive the proper treatment, and thus the doctor was blamed for their death.


This is NOT to say that all of these patients were just fine until a dumbass doctor came along and killed them with the wrong medication.



When are the blind sheep going to start thinking for themselves, and stop buying and selling all of this deceitful information?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

This poster is manipulative in its propaganda in more ways than one.

First, as I've already pointed out, the poster does not take into consideration that price plays a major factor determining the number of deaths attributed to each weapon.


But also, take another look at the statistic which says "195,000 by Medical Mal-practice"


This insinuates that medical mal-practice is the reason for 195,000 deaths, which is simply not true.

A great many of these people were dying, or would have died without medical help to begin with.

This is like saying that someone stopped breathing and the nurse administered improper CPR, so the nurse is now the one to blame for this person's death.

Many of the cases come from those who had a terminal cancer but perhaps did not receive the proper treatment, and thus the doctor was blamed for their death.


This is NOT to say that all of these patients were just fine until a dumbass doctor came along and killed them with the wrong medication.



When are the blind sheep going to start thinking for themselves, and stop buying and selling all of this deceitful information?

"But also, take another look at the statistic which says "195,000 by Medical Mal-practice"

"This insinuates that medical mal-practice is the reason for 195,000 deaths, which is simply not true.

"A great many of these people were dying, or would have died without medical help to begin with."

This appears to be an excellent counterattack (good fight, by the way), but do you have any back up on it?

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from Ricter:

This appears to be an excellent counterattack (good fight, by the way), but do you have any back up on it?

Only my God given common sense, Rictster, which sadly many fail to use.


I know what the standard definition of Medical Malpractice is, which is BS because it doesn't take into consideration that patients are sick and dying to begin with.

Medical malpractice is: professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which care provided deviates from accepted standards of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient.

Just the fact that negligence is part of the definition, tells us that if a doctor simply doesn't act to save a life, then he/she is deemed responsible for the death.

Even if a doctor does act to save a life but doesn't do what is considered standard practice, he/she can and will be blamed for the death.


There is just no way to accurately say whether or not the patient would have lived with better practice.



I'm also quite sure that Lucrum and many others who are pushing it are ignorant of its sources.



Here wikipedia says "Statistics show that approximately 195,000 people are killed every year by medical errors in the US"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice

It then goes on to say "Between 15,000 and 19,000 malpractice suits are brought against doctors each year"


Now you tell me Rico, How is that they can say 195,000 people are killed by malpractice every year, yet only 15,000- 19,000 suits are filed?

If only 15-19k charges are brought about, how can it be successfully determined that another 170,000+ deaths are caused by it?


It is obvious to me that the extra 170,000+ cases can only be pure speculation.


It does not even say that out of the 15-19k lawsuits that are filed, how many of those cases were proven to actually be the medical staff's fault.

 

[piezoe]

There are several things one would like to know, and the Kates and Mauser report (The "Harvard" report) is not helpful in providing answers. What is the rate of all criminal gun deaths relative to all criminal non-gun deaths. In other words, are criminal gun deaths relatively unimportant?

What is the rate of all crimes committed using guns, relative to the same kinds of crimes committed without guns? Is the rate of crimes committed using guns significant, and how strongly is it correlated with the rate of gun ownership, if at all? Is there evidence suggesting substitution? If you don't have a gun, will you rob a bank with a toy pistol, or a shovel. Will you rob a home owner with pepper spray or a stun gun?

Some of the studies needed to answer these questions might be difficult to carry out without unintended systematic errors creeping in. The results could be largely meaningless if a number of ancillary factors are not controlled for. How many high quality, well controlled studies already exist? Are we ignoring them?

For the present, the Kates and Mauser report has convinced me that the overall murder rate among countries is not correlated with the rate of gun ownership. In retrospect, this is not as surprising as it at first seemed, if countries with relatively high rates of non-gun murders were included in the study. Non-gun murders would logically not be correlated with gun ownership. Such an inclusion would have the affect of covering up correlation between smaller numbers of gun murders with gun ownership, especially if those correlations were weak to begin with.

Should we list our unnecessary death problems in priority order, and tackle them in that order? If so, we ought to worry far more about the quality of medical care in the U.S. then gun violence.

Or should we make the list in order of ease of fixing? In that case, we would start with those problems that don't have an entrenched special interest group behind them. Are there any such problems that can go to the top of the list? Off hand I can't think of any, but there must be some.

Though virtually all problems are fixable, there may be none that we are going to fix. In that case, could we at least appear busy. Another Liddy light, anyone?

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from Ricter:


This appears to be an excellent counterattack (good fight, by the way)

I don't consider it to be a counter attack, as I am in no way expressing advocation for any potential gun bans.


I am simply pointing out that the poster ad lacks any real substance if using it to actually discern whether or not a firearms ban should be implemented.


It only serves to:

mislead others by the nose;

to persuade the ignorant non-thinking masses into viewing things in the way the propagandist intends for them to be viewed.


In no way does it represent any kind of truth, other than some specifically chosen numerical statistics; and the largest of those statistics being speculative.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from piezoe:

There are several things one would like to know, and the Kates and Mauser report (The "Harvard" report) is not helpful in providing answers. What is the rate of all criminal gun deaths relative to all criminal non-gun deaths. In other words, are criminal gun deaths relatively unimportant?

Pie, take a look at these reports from the CDC (A MUCH more reliable source than Lucrum's poster stats, eheh).


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm


Here's the pdf for their Deaths: final data for 2010 report.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

A good many variables are included in their report, although I'm sure they haven't covered all of them.


Look at the chapter titled, Injury Mortality by Mechanism and Intent starting on page 16.
There you'll find the numbers of deaths attributed to intentionally inflicted firearm deaths for that year.


This may give you and others a more accurate account of the ratios you're seeking.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Well, first of all, it's not a Harvard study. It's a study conducted by two scholars at the Pacific Research Institute, a "free-market think tank" in California. It was published in a Harvard-student-run conservative-libertarian journal, but that does not make it a Harvard study. Gary Mauser's research is funded by the NRA.

Actual Harvard studies are available here: Link.

Secondly, there are factual errors in the article. Luxembourg didn't have a murder rate of 9.01 per 100,000 people in 2002; it had a murder rate of .901 per 100,000 people in 2002. Their claim that there has been "constant and substantially increasing" gun ownership in the United States is refuted by other sources: Households reporting gun ownership has actually declined since the 1970s. Kates and Mauser's study is also disturbing in another way, as noted in this 2012 peer-reviewed article:
In their article, Kates and Mauser argue that murderers are not ordinary citizens: “There is no reason for laws prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults because such people virtually never murder.” They also review existing data showing negative correlations between gun ownership and violence: “That is ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’” Concerning African Americans, Kates and Mauser state, “Per capita, African-American murder rates are much higher than the murder rate for Whites. If more guns equal more death, and fewer guns equal less, one might assume gun ownership is higher among African-Americans than among Whites, but in fact African-American gun ownership is markedly lower than White gun ownership.” Difficulties in measuring gun ownership aside, Kates and Mauser go on to say that murderers are, “A small minority of extreme antisocial aberrants who manage to obtain guns whatever the level of gun ownership in the African American community.” “Small minority” notwithstanding, the reader is left to understand that since normal people don’t commit murder and since murder cannot be explained by gun ownership, murder is more common among African Americans for one of two reasons: either “extreme antisocial aberrants” are more common among African Americans or “social aberrants” in the African American community, while not more common, are particularly lethal. Either way, the Kates-Mauser-Harvard logic appears to be built on negative racial stereotyping.

Thirdly, no one is calling for a "ban" on firearms. Reasonable people are calling for greater regulation of firearms. Typical hyperbolic use of language in a study that's more political than scientific.

Negative stereotyping? How about reasonable observation.


When you hear on the news there were 100s of murders in chicago last year.

Do you you think the guys in the financial pits are at again?
Or do you think wow the gang violence must be out of control?

Now.. I live in CA I have not been to Chicago in over a decade.
so my hunch is formed by info I gather form the media..

and one previous et member who said it was gang members killing each other off. (who was the opposite of p.c. so I gave his statement some weight but not a ton.)


lets see if the internet can confirm the study or if it was negative stereotyping by some conservatives... as fc the leftist drone would have us believe.

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

Forty-two homicides have been logged so far this month. Fifty-seven homicides were logged in August 2012, according to RedEye data.

Victims

Aug. 28 – Dwan Long, a 35 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Avalon Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 28 – Elvis Canfield, a 51 year old black male, caused by a stabbing in Humboldt Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 27 – Pierce Curry, a 17 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Greater Grand Crossing.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 27 – Andre Bradford, a 26 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in West Englewood.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 27 – James Haarman, a 53 year old white male, caused by a stabbing in Portage Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 26 – Lakeisha Tate, a 28 year old black female, caused by a gunshot in East Garfield Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 26 – Ernest Pritchett III, a 51 year old black male, caused by a assault in Englewood.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 25 – Tayshaun Dyson, a 3 months old black male, caused by a child abuse in Washington Heights.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 25 – Telkia Burns, a 33 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in South Chicago.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 25 – Lavender Hearnes, a 14 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in West Garfield Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 23 – Omar Castel, a 17 year old white male, caused by a gunshot in Mckinley Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 21 – Ronald Henry, a 22 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Englewood.
> Read more about this homicide.



then the next post


Aug. 20 – Lenardo Allison, a 26 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in West Englewood.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 19 – Darius Oliver, a 21 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Uptown.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 18 – Jerrell Brooks, a 28 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Washington Heights.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 18 – Bearling Robinson, a 36 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Roseland.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 18 – Jeremy McGrone, a 24 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in West Garfield Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 18 – Antione Green, a 19 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in East Garfield Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 17 – Willie Bush, a 49 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in North Lawndale.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 17 – Daquan Boyd, a 18 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Austin.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 17 – Jose Delafuenti, a 34 year old white male, caused by a gunshot in Hermosa.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 16 – Alameen Muhammad, a 75 year old black male, caused by a trauma in West Englewood.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 16 – Kyle Hogan, a 23 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Morgan Park.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 16 – Name Unknown, a 25 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in Washington Heights.
> Read more about this homicide.
Aug. 15 – Dequantay Bingmon, a 29 year old black male, caused by a gunshot in West Pullman.
> Read more about this homicide.


So it looks like all but one of those victims was black and just about all by gunshot.

Now... if this was not black on black crime....

We can be sure the race hustlers would be on t.v. talking about it.

So...


I ask you is it the guys in the financial pits or anti social aberrants.

Frankly I thought anti social aberrants was P.C. for psychopathic gang members.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Ouch, this one is going to leave a mark on all the liberals pussies.

by AWR HAWKINS

A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."

And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)."

But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."

In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

More bullshit propaganda comparing the gun death rates of the u.s. to very specifically chosen countries.


The countries they use for comparison are ideally chosen for their particular stats in order to present the propagandists views in the best light.


When will this nonsense come to an end?

Are your only intentions to deceive?


Or are you just too stupid to see the blatant deception that has befell you?


Let us examine just one of their stats:


"The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

Since Russia has strict gun laws, it seems that less guns equals more murder.

Isn't that what you see?


Now let's simply pick another country to compare with besides Russia.

Let's look at Japan's murder rate, shall we?

For those who are ignorant, Japan has strict bans on firearms with only very few exceptions. They are quite successful in enforcing their laws too.

IOW- Very hard to get gun in Japan.

Just compare their murder rate with the U.S.

Japans murder rate:0.4

U.S. murder rate: 7.8

Now it looks like less guns equals less murder, don't it?

It seems that strictly enforcing anti-gun laws can really make a difference don't it?

Pure bullshit deception.



Intense study my ass...

 

[wjk]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

For those who are ignorant, Japan has strict bans on firearms with only very few exceptions. They are quite successful in enforcing their laws too.

IOW- Very hard to get gun in Japan.

Just compare their murder rate with the U.S.

Japans murder rate:0.4

U.S. murder rate: 7.8

Now it looks like less guns equals less murder, don't it?

It seems that strictly enforcing anti-gun laws can really make a difference don't it?

This should be considered when discussing Japan. When I lived there (late 80s), I noticed an incredible level of respect that they had for each other. They wore face masks when sick so as not to infect others (by comparison, someone my wife works with claimed they came to work when sick to "share the wealth"). When sitting at red lights at night, they turned off their headlights and left parking lights on until the light was green so as not to blind other drivers. You could walk the streets of Tokyo and not fear for your life. The list goes on. It has less to do with guns and gun control than most would have you believe (you are correct regarding laws...don't even point a toy gun at someone in Japan, or risk being shot by police). It has to do with ethics, morality, and respect for one's fellow man...something that seems to have died on this country.

Our murder rate is the result of the collapse of family and religion, not the amount of guns in the system. It is also a result of allowing mentally ill people to assimilate into society, and the checks on keeping guns from them are not good enough. Address these issues, then we can have a real talk about gun control.