PDA

View Full Version : (Kates/Mauser) Harvard Study on the 2nd Amendment: More Guns Do Not Mean More Crime


Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-31-2012, 11:31 AM
And isn't Harvard one of the most liberal universities we have? I was always under the impression it is.

Anyway, excellent read and excellent information. Especially for the lurking anit-gun crowd out there.




Some excerpts:

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



Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.

So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States.

Between 1998‐2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now‐independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. Thus, in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current‐day Russia, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”

While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed 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 kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,” that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:



[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates:
across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like
England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7)
population subgroups....


A second misconception about the relationship between firearms and violence attributes Europe’s generally low homicide rates to stringent gun control. That attribution cannot be accurate since murder in Europe was at an all‐time low before the gun controls were introduced. For instance, virtually the only
English gun control during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the practice that police patrolled without guns. During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high.

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant studies.

Stringent gun controls were not adopted in England and Western Europe until after World War I. Consistent with the outcomes of the recent American studies just mentioned, these strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever‐growing violent crime throughout the post‐WWII industrialized world including the United States and Russia. Professor Malcolm’s study of English gun law and violent crime summarizes that nation’s nineteenth and twentieth century experience as follows:



The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws. When it had no firearms
restrictions [nineteenth and early twentieth century] England had little violent crime, while the present
extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in
armed violence. Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned
but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new
willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.


In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that 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. Today, English news media headline violence in terms redolent of the doleful, melodramatic language that for so long characterized American news reports.


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

HondaMasterTech
12-31-2012, 11:49 AM
Logic rarely defeats ignorance.

speedrrracer
12-31-2012, 12:20 PM
great article; wasn't there a Harvard study recently which came to exactly the opposite conclusion?

Anyways, this thread is a dupe of:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=667109

and probably others

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-31-2012, 12:28 PM
Anyways, this thread is a dupe of:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=667109

and probably others


Ooops sorry about that. My bad. And thanks for the heads-up speedrrracer.