Harvard study on gun control

[devildog 0]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

Quote

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.

More at link.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[quade 3]

So misleading...

"A Harvard Study"
Uh, no. It's not. It's a study by DON B. KATES AND GARY MAUSER and published in the "Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy" which is completely different.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

DON B. KATES is a lawyer for the gun industry.
http://michellawyers.com/attorney-profile/don-b-kates/

GARY MAUSER represents the National Firearms Association which is a Canadian group similar to the NRA.
http://www.garymauser.net/papers.html
http://nfa.ca

I do not see how this can in any way, shape or form be considered a unbiased "research." Not that there's anything inherently wrong with advocating a position, but to attempt to pass it off as "A Harvard Study" and piggy backing on the institution's credibility is purely dishonest bullshit.

Devildog, I do not fault you, but breitbart sucks ass.

Love this quote from the paper itself;

Quote

One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant...

Um...okay. I guess if you say so!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[devildog 0]

Can't remember the last time I saw 100% bias free research. The stats are pretty interesting, however.

The quote your picked out really needs the follow up sentence. "While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except,
perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death
by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but
which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder
overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in sev‐
eral other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by
strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."

So yes, you are more likely to be shot in the US, but in other countries, you're much more likely to be murdered overall. So in essence, the body count is lower in the US per capita.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[quade 3]

devildog

The quote your picked out really needs the follow up sentence. "While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except,
perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death
by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but
which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder
overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in sev‐
eral other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by
strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent."

So yes, you are more likely to be shot in the US, but in other countries, you're much more likely to be murdered overall. So in essence, the body count is lower in the US per capita.

Pretty much only if you cherry pick the data as they have done.

Look at this and scroll down to the list of countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Yeah, there are shit hole countries with higher murder rates than the US. No question. Find me a few civilized ones.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

devildog

Can't remember the last time I saw 100% bias free research. The stats are pretty interesting, however.

.

Big difference between "100% bias free" and deliberately using misleading and fabricated data to advocate a position while lying about the credentials of the authors.

This "study" is garbage.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kallend

***Can't remember the last time I saw 100% bias free research. The stats are pretty interesting, however.

.

Big difference between "100% bias free" and deliberately using misleading and fabricated data to advocate a position while lying about the credentials of the authors.

This "study" is garbage.

You mean like they do with Global Warming?

[devildog 0]

So you're saying that normal people would like to kill more if they only had guns available, and its not at all due to other factors (economic status, mental health, etc) as the study asserts?

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[rhaig 0]

so what do you think of the CDC gun violence study?

The top 10 from the Daily Kos article:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219171/-President-Obama-orders-CDC-to-assess-research-on-gun-violence

Quote

1). We have a firearm violence rate about 20 times higher then other wealthy countries.
2. Crime, including gun violence is getting better, not worse.
3. Out of 300 million or so firearms, 100 million are handguns.
4. Its the handguns, stupid!
5. mass shootings aren't the problem.
6. Gun suicide kills more then homicide.
7. Guns are used successfully in self defense more often then you'd think.
8. More people are buying firearms for self defense.
9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives.
10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers.

yes, I picked a summary from a progressive blogger who would lean away from the typical libertarian position on gun control.

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Pretty much only if you cherry pick the data as they have done.

Did the CDC cherry pick the data when they said that gun crime is dropping not getting worse? Did the CDC cherry pick the data when they said that defensive uses of firearms is at least equal to criminal use?

Did the DOJ cherry pick the data when they said that less than 3% of crimes were committed with so called "Assault weapons"?