Harvard Publication On Gun Laws Resurfaces As Talks About Firearms Continue

A study comparing international gun laws shows that getting rid of firearms might not be the solution to reducing overall violence.

As Boston—and the country as a whole—looks for ways to reduce gun-related deaths and violence, a study from 2007 published in a Harvard University journal is suddenly regaining increased attention for its claims that more control over firearms doesn’t necessarily mean their will be a dip in serious crimes.

In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates. While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“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 [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.

In the 46-page study, which can be read in its entirety here, Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don’t mean there is less crime. As an example, when looking at “intentional deaths,” or murder, on an international scope, the U.S. falls behind Russia, Estonia, and four other countries, ranking it seventh.  More specifically, data shows that in Russia, where guns are banned, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the U.S in comparison. “There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, [the latter] is, in fact, false and [the former] is substantially so,” the authors point out, based on their research.

Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they “observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.”

The study goes on to say:

…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

The paper resurfaced at a time when Boston itself has been looking for ways to combat gun violence, and gun-related deaths, after a sharp uptick in shootings in the city this year.

As of July, more than 100 people had been impacted by shootings in Boston in some way, and more than 17 people had been killed in the city by someone with a firearm. The increase in incidents showed a nearly 30 percent increase in gun-related deaths compared with the same time period in 2012. That number has gone up slightly since then.

In order to quell the violence, officials have been mulling a gun buyback program, and increasing community outreach, but based on Harvard’s latest findings, that may not be the answer.

While the research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun-related incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged gun crisis, overall, stricter rules on firearms in Massachusetts has seemingly led to fewer deaths, according to the latest data available, putting the state in the second to last slot for the lowest number of reported fatalities nationwide.

But when it comes to examining nations as a whole, the Harvard study suggests otherwise. “If more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death, areas within nations with higher gun ownership should in general have more murders than those with less gun ownership in a similar area. But, in fact, the reverse pattern prevails,” the authors wrote.

Correction:
August 30, 6:00 p.m.: A previous version of this story labeled this study as "new," when in fact, it was first published in 2007. The study has regained the attention of gun advocates in recent days and is being used as an argument for less stringent laws in the U.S.

  • Guest

    caught without one by someone else. This is where the change needs to take place, make it so its just as bad being caught by police with a gun. And even this might only stop some of the accidental deaths. The laws we have now need to be enforced and with greater punishment.

    • Bowserb

      As you say, “The laws we have now need to be enforced and with greater punishment.” If that were done with all criminals, the prisons would be overflowing, but crime would be drastically reduced, since MOST violent crimes are committed by prior offenders who are out with our pitiful catch and release justice system. Enforcement of existing immigration laws would also help many things: unemployment, high welfare costs, AND high crime rates.

  • Bevin Bell

    Guns are just a tool. Criminals will use whatever is there. Most gun crimes are committed by those who shouldn’t even have guns. We need to focus the punishment for breaking the laws not infringing on law abiding citizens. I have heard more than once that these criminals would rather be caught by the police with a gun than caught without one by another criminal. This is where the change needs to take place, make it so its just as bad being caught by police with a gun. And even this might only stop some of the accidental deaths. The laws we have now need to be enforced and with greater punishment.

  • sundog50

    This study has been available for eight years. Despite its obvious validity and relevance, the anti-gun proponents continue to repeat their flawed mantra of “more guns=more crime”. It is refreshing to see a media outlet actually examining this issue factually rather than emotionally.

    • Guest

      As opposed to it being an obviously flawed “study” without any validity or relevance (gun ownership and genocide in third world Africa is not relevant to our society and its particular issues with guns, sorry.)

  • Lawrence

    The study just didn’t look at nations as a whole. It looked at states, cities and counties and found the same result, gun control does nothing.

  • ohio man

    Correlation does not equal causation, and this is a right-wing argument, not a peer-reviewed study. It is published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which describes itself as “one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.”

    There are a million places where you can find substantial criticism of this study and its methodology if you take 2 mins, as well as solid, peer-reviewed Harvard studies finding very different results. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

    You should retract this piece in full, not just correct it to note that the study is old. It does a major disservice to your readers and is damaging to Boston Magazine’s brand as an intelligent news source.

  • lorimakesquilts

    You’re citing a partisan paper written by two people who are ardent gun enthusiasts that is based on false assertions. This paper was published in a conservative/libertarian student journal (not a publication of the University) that is not peer-reviewed and it shows. It is clearly partisan and has pulled data to support that viewpoint.

    Guns are more widely available in the U.S. and gun ownership is much higher than any other Western country despite what they say in the paper. Homicide rates are substantially and consistently higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the Western world. Gun homicides display an even larger gap. The only way this paper justifies it’s statements is by pointing to Russia — a country not considered part of the Western world.

    Serving as an example of biased and generally poor scholarship is the only thing this paper is good for.

    • Mind_Blown

      “The only way this paper justifies it’s statements is by pointing to Russia — a country not considered part of the Western world.”

      The study, in fact, uses all western European countries. For example, Norway has the highest gun ownership rate in Europe but has one the lowest crime rates. It uses Russia as an example of a country that has no guns but has extremely high murder rates. Apparently, and maybe I’m crazy, it seems you can murder and kill without a gun???

      “Guns are more widely available in the U.S. and gun ownership is much higher than any other Western country despite what they say in the paper. Homicide rates are substantially and consistently higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the Western world.”

      The Paper does not dispute this fact. It is simply stating that gun ownership rates have no correlation to murder and violence. The evidence they present backs these claims. You should read it.

      • Weblin

        Russia has no guns…..? I think that statement alone destroys any credibility to your argument.

        • Mind_Blown

          Did you read the paper? There is a major section that discusses homicides and violent crime in Russia. Guns were banned during the Soviet days yet murders were astronomical. Since the end of the Soviet Union gun ownership is only 8.9 per 100 people yet they have an extreme amount of violent crime. They have way fewer guns but way more murders. Plus it is illegal to own a handgun in Russia…they have the toughest gun control regulations in the world!! Norway and Sweden have the highest gun ownership. Roughly 30 per 100 but have the lowest violent crime rates in Europe. There is example after example to prove the main point of the paper….More guns do not equal more crime. Until we get past the ridiculous notion that somehow guns create crime we will never be able to have a ‘grown up’ conversation to resolve our crime problems.

          • https://twitter.com/mne__povezlo G L

            Well, Norway and Sweden also have a working legal system, whereas there has been virtually no rule of law in Russia in the 1990s. It’s easier to commit crimes if you can buy yourself out of prison. It’s easier to kill if there is no police to go after a murderer.
            I don’t know how many guns there are in Russia, but I know there are plenty of criminals. A lay person cannot possess a gun, but a policeman can. So what happens is you buy a fake policeman ID and get a gun.

  • Beel

    Steve Annear, changing the title from “Harvard Gun Study…” but leaving “Harvard” in for its cachet is still disingenuous at best. The “study” was done by a member of the National Firearms Association and published in a campus journal run by conservative and libertarian students. Now that you know the answer to four of the “Five Ws” for responsible journalism, perhaps you might ask yourself “Why?” though I suspect that, too, is pretty obvious (even for you).

    • Mind_Blown

      Why don’t you read the study? Just because it challenges your beliefs you instantly dismiss it? If you do indeed read the study you will find it cites similar study’s that reach the same conclusions. You see, criminals don’t care about gun laws. They don’t care about laws because they are criminals! Gun violence and violent crimes are a reflection of societies…you could ban every gun and confiscate every gun from every law abiding gun owner and gun violence would not change in the USA. Why? Cause guns have been invented…the cat is out of the bag. Drugs are illegal, yet drugs are everywhere. Crime is increased by our dumb drug laws. If you outlawed guns you would have similar results. This is common sense people…..

      • Beel

        When you assume it makes one of u not me. Read it long ago and it’s mostly cherry-picked nonsense, including using the higher murder rates (genocide) in Africa (lower individual gun ownership) as pretense for why fewer guns in America might not mean fewer murders. It also is irrelevant for gun control today is directed at the types of guns available for legal purchase and registration, not how many. I hunt and own five.

        I also know it’s best not to engage those who childishly, and, yes, lamely attempt to make a case for not having laws because people break them, so after this you may have the last word.

        • Mind_Blown

          Thanks for the last word..You shouldn’t engage in talks with people who exercise common sense…Get real Beel! Criminals will always have guns and will always be able to get guns…I guess supply and demand is ‘lame’ and ‘childish’…. how many murders do you think were committed with legally bought handguns in Chicago or Detroit? ..Here is a fact for you…more people are killed every year, in the USA, from hammers and clubs than so called “assault rifles”. Do you think federal background checks and confiscations of hammers would reduce the number of hammer deaths every year?? I think we should do that…I mean if we could save just one life by it’s worth it…right? Common sense approach..right? Now you tell me who’s childish?

          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

          • Beel

            “You shouldn’t engage in talks with people who exercise common sense” – Here, I didn’t.

            Despite FBI numbers actually showing guns are used to kill over 14x the number of people as all blunt objects, had I engaged one with common sense, he’d realize hammers and frying pans are objects of convenience. They are not weapons of choice for mass killings, etc.

            Sorry, but even after a month I couldn’t let such foolish reasoning masquerade as common sense, but just so you still have the last word:

            “Do you think federal background checks and confiscations of hammers would reduce the number of hammer deaths every year? …Now you tell me who’s childish?”

  • David F

    In 2009 Massachusetts ranked fifteenth in the US for rates of homicide by firearm. The Brady Campaign ranks MA as number 3 in the country for best gun laws. Of the 14 states with lower firearms related homicide rates, two of them get a 0 from the Brady Campaign. Only four of them manage a score above 10, (Best being 100) only two of those score above fifteen. California has the best score from the Brady Campaign, 81. They also beat the National firearms related homicide rate of 3.7, CA’s rate of homicides with a firearm is 4.0. Go to the CDC and check for yourself.

    So how would you go about making the argument that more gun laws equal less gun crime?

    It’s a very simple fact; more guns do equal less crime.

    • Beel

      No, that’s a very simplistic analysis of a small bit of data. You don’t even provide any information about the number of guns, let alone a causal relationship between more guns and less crime.

      • David F

        From November 1998 to August 2013, there have been 1,770,932 NICS checks run in MA.

        That’s a rate of roughly 26,646 per 100,000, in just MA. That of course does not account for guns already in the state prior to fall of 1998.

        In just the past 15 years alone, enough guns have been sold to arm 26% of the MA populace.

        The average rate of homicides in MA from 1999 to 2010 was 1.5 per 100,000 according to the CDC.

        So you could say that very roughly 0.006% of guns purchased in MA over the past 15 years were used in homicides in MA. However you would be wrong, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence says: “Boston Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives report that over 65 percent of guns traced to crime in Massachusetts come from out of state.”

        So with those new numbers we now know that less than 0.002% of firearms legally purchased in MA over the past 15 years were used in homicides.

        Are those the numbers you were looking for?

        • Beel

          It’s a start, but then those high numbers only further refute your claim that it is a simple fact more guns equals less crime. Especially given you also stated Massachusetts has very high gun crime. That’s even before you have shown a causal relationship. Regardless, none of this is simple, hence why it is so hotly disputed, and I say this as an honest gun owner. It just isn’t.

          • David F

            I never said “Massachusetts has very high gun crime” I said we were 15th in the nation for firearm homicides.

            This should further clarify:

            The Brady Campaign ranks each state by how strict it’s gun laws are, best possible score is 100, not one state achieves it. MA scored a 65 in 2011 and is the third highest ranked state, behind California and New Jersey.

            New Jersey’s rate is 2.6 per 100,000 firearm homicides.

            California with the best score from the Brady Campaign of 81 (and the only one with 4 stars) has a rate of 4.0 firearm homicides per 100,000 (the national average is only 3.7.) So passing more gun laws clearly is not the answer.

            Which 14 states have lower rates of firearm homicide than MA? I’ll list them along with their Brady Campaign score in order of lowest rate
            of firearm homicides to highest:
            New Hampshire 6, North Dakota 2, Vermont 6, Alaska 0, Hawaii 50, Idaho 2, Iowa 7, Maine 7, Rhode Island 44, South Dakota 4, Wyoming 4, Minnesota 14, Utah 0, Oregon 15.

            The Brady Campaign only gives a score of zero to three states; two of them have lower firearm homicide rates than MA. All three have lower rates of firearm homicides than California. Apparently criminals haven’t gotten the message about stricter gun laws meaning less gun crime.

          • Beel

            Okay, I stand corrected, substitute my “gun crime” with “gun homicides” and obviously my point still stands. And you still haven’t made the leap from this “Brady Score” (which is probably more PAC nonsense anyway) to the number of gun homicides.

            Edit: I looked into this “scorecard” and it also appears rather arbitrary, simplistic, open to much subjectivity, and even has “extra credit” points. In other words, it is virtually worthless for anything other than as a political tool and fund-raising. Find something with at least some statistical validity – on both sides of the equation.

          • David F

            MA Alcohol-Induced Deaths
            In 1999 it was 5.6/100,000
            In 2010 it was 7.4/100,000
            Average from 1999-2010 6.1

            MA Homicide by discharge of firearms
            In 1999 it was 1.1/100,000
            In 2010 it was 1.9/100,000
            Average from 1999-2010 1.5

            Which is the greater problem?
            Which one has prompted 65 different pieces of legislation pending in the State House this year alone?

            I say this as a collector and honest owner of 13 various bottles of single malt scotch. Which I’m also not about to give up my right to purchase.

            More laws will not fix the problems.

          • Beel

            Don’t ask inane questions. It isn’t either/or – they are both problems that need to be addressed (and your drinking yourself into a stupor doesn’t cause me to die of liver failure, nor does it mean we should abolish our laws against DUI because you drive in such a state).

            The “more laws will not fix the problems” is also a too simplistic and weak assertion to use as your summary statement. While no law can “fix” problems, the right laws can, and do, lessen them.

            P.S. I am a bourbon man myself.

          • David

            Beel, there is overwhelming proof that heavily regulating firearms lead to much more crime. The ironic thing here is majority of gun related murders are black on black, majority of gun murders are gang related and the majority of gun murders used illegally obtained firearms, and snoop dog, someone whos made millions promoting such culture, wants to get rid of guns. All that aside anti-gun rather than attacking handguns go after long rifles which make up a drop in the bucket to gun homicide.

          • William G.

            Your premise begs the question for while I’d welcome (scientific) proof, there is no convincing evidence, let alone “overwhelming” proof. When making a valid point, one needn’t resort to lying – but even this article uses sophism (“Harvard publication”) to suggest an unbiased, valid study when it most certainly was not.

            And disregarding your lack of understanding of what “ironic” means, “gang on gang” violence and “criminals break the law” is not an argument for having fewer laws, let alone fewer gun laws.

            I’d also like to see the evidence backing your claim that a majority of gun murders are by illegally obtained guns – not that it’s a valid argument for no new gun laws (it isn’t), but because I’m a curious gun owner. All deregulation would do would be to ensure gun murders are more likely committed with a gun legally obtained (i.e., a slap-head ridiculous argument for no further regulation of firearms).

            And, as for “long rifles” vs. “handguns,” background checks apply to both, as do registration so that argument is invalid. And, were it true, irrelevant anyway. To use another analogy, just because excessive speed is a drop in the bucket compared to all other traffic fatalities, including driving too slow, it is not a valid reason for doing away with “long” speed limits.

            Please use logic when engaging what you think might be considered “commons sense” explanations and comparisons.

          • Debbie Lass

            so when someone works out every day but still cant drop that last 30 pounds they wish to drop, should they just stop working out? will NO EXERCISE bring those pounds off? no…is working out daily dropping those pounds they want to lose? no…but whats lacking in the data is….if they stopped working out how many additional pounds would they obtain as a result? people claim gun control doesnt work because they say data says they still have higher murder rates than states with less gun control…and what if those cities and states alreayd had higher murder rates to begin with? then even a decrease in their rates may still result in a higher murder rate in the state than other states…..and it doesnt mean the number of murders wouldnt be higher if they had no gun restriction…..sure one can review past numbers in the states before gun laws and also those after and try to make a causal link but as anyone who has basic statistics understanding knows, when more than one variable is acting on something you cant say just one variable is the cause of something…..people often try to assert data showing that after gun restriction laws murder rates didnt go down…but many factors affect crime rates in a city or state…..and those factors all need to be ruled out as having no impact on murders by guns before one can say gun laws are the causal link….

  • Ron A.

    One reader commented (in part) that the issue in this decade is not anti-gun but gun control, and that the current issues are directed at the types of guns available for legal purchase . . .” I agree with him that whether more gun laws reduce certain crimes is irrelevant. I also believe that whether restricting certain types of guns, magazine capacities, etc., would reduce crime and innocent deaths, etc., is also irrelevant because the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing such restrictions even if they would reduce crime, save lives, etc. Bear with me, read on.

    The “gorilla in the room” that people seem not to want to talk about is one of the REASONS the Founders of our country put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, i.e., to ensure that “The People” will always have the right to keep and bear arms so that they will have the ability to effectively “fight tyranny,” i.e., overthrow, their own government if it became tyrannical. The basic theory was that as long as the government knows that it can be overthrown by the People, it will be less likely to become tyrannical or dictatorial. That being the case, it logically follows that the Founders did not intend the government to have the authority under the Constitution to limit the types of arms the people may own to the extent that the People’s weaponry would be inferior to those carried by the typical government soldier and to thereby give itself an edge if the People tried to abolish the government by force. Plain ole’ common sense.

    If your knee-jerk reaction is to think that I’m full of crap, consider this. In the Heller decision the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the Constitution must be interpreted today to mean what the Founders intended it to mean, not what modern-day politicians and others would like it to mean, and thus contemporary judges do not have the authority to rewrite it for the Founders. Therefore, anyone who wishes to voice an educated opinion on what the Founders intended would have to have seriously studied the history of the Second Amendment, otherwise their opinion is essentially worthless. If anyone has the intellectual curiosity to delve into the subject, a well-researched book to read to start such a study is The Founders’ Second Amendment by Stephen P. Halbrook.

    • Beel

      Please, were we ever in a position that’d need to bear arms to fight our own government, we’d have bigger problems than if we were able to legally own a shotgun vs. an AK-47. That is an outlandish and far-fetched premise reserved for those who wear tin foil hats. You might as well suggest the drunk down the street have access to grenade launchers. The line obviously has to be drawn somewhere.

      Disregarding the fact that at the time the founders had in mind muzzle loaders and a newly formed government with no means to protect its citizens, reasons change over time hence why we have the ability to amend the Constitution – and have. Regardless, the document does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent our elected officials, or us by majority vote, from restricting the types of weapons we citizens may legally purchase and who may not.

      And if, as you say, we must defer to the Constitution as originally crafted, then perhaps we should place the restrictive clause regarding a well regulated militia back into judicial interpretation. You then would have a right to own a gun if you were a member of your state’s National Guard, otherwise owning guns, and restrictions thereof, is a privilege we give ourselves through our vote.I say that as a lifetime hunter and gun owner who eschews tin foil justifications.

      • Ron A.

        To reply to your various comments . . . Yeah, we WOULD have some pretty big problems if we had to fight our own government. Hopefully, that will never happen, and I’m not advocating that it’s time to do so now. But that doesn’t change the facts regarding WHY the Founders put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution. Remember, we did it before, . . . that’s how we became the U.S. rather than remaining part of England. When the Founders wrote the Constitution they had just recently gotten through overthrowing British control over the colonies, and England’s government WAS “Our” government at the time . . . but it became “tyrannical.” The Founders referred to the inherent right of the people to overthrow their government when they wrote the Declaration of independence. After declaring that Governments are instituted to secure “certain unalienable Rights” and that “Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” they stated “ That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to ABOLISH it,” and they proceeded to whip England. But the Founders were aware that ANY government might become corrupt, IF IT COULD, including the new U.S. government, and to prevent that from happening they gave the People the right to keep and bear arms to keep the government in check. Patrick Henry said “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. . . Unfortunately nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Thomas Jefferson said “. . what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Another framer of the 2nd Amendment said “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms. . .” And there are many mre such quotes to back-up my position.

        I didn’t follow your comment that “we’d have bigger problems than if we has a shotgun or an AK-47.” I don’t know where you live, but I’ve lived in 6 states, and owning either one (or both) of those guns was and is not now a problem. I also didn’t follow your comment that “perhaps we should place the restrictive clause regarding a well regulated militia back into judicial interpretation.” That clause HAS been judicially interpreted. In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED with service in a militia. But if the type of weapon an individual may personally own has to be one that would be appropriate if they were in a militia that could be activated in case the need arose, say, a foreign invasion (which is unlikely as long as citizens may be well-armed), that is all the more reason not to limit the types of hand-carried arms or the capacities of magazines individuals may “keep and bear.” If YOU were in a militia and were called-up to put your life on the line and fight with your own weapon (as our Founders did), what would you rather be able to purchase . . . a puny “pea-shooter” with a 10-round capacity like the “anti-gun crowd” proposed in the last gun-ban legislation, or an AR-15 or AK-47 (for ex.) with a 30 or 40 round magazine? That’s a rhetorical question, because if you have half a brain I already know the answer.

        For the reason stated in my first post, I beg to differ with your comment that “the Constitution does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent our elected officials from restricting the types of weapons citizens may legally purchase.” And if you were paying attention during the recent Congressional hearings on the last “gun-ban” legislation, a lot of smart folks in Congress disagreed with your view. And, since there two sides to any controversy, some folks didn’t. The Supreme Court hasn’t had an occasion to rule on that issue yet, but if they ever do, and if they read the history of the 2nd Amendment and base their decision on the law and not their own preference as to what they think the Constitution SHOULD say, they will rule that Congress cannot restrict the types of hand-carried handguns and long guns that people may purchase. The fact that a few local governments may be doing it and getting away with it (for the time-being, at least) does not make it Constitutional.

        Finally, I don’t know how or why you worked the Bible into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment, but here’s mine. Like it or not, this country was founded on Biblical principles. (Unfortunately, in my opinion, those principles are no longer taught to the extent they were when the Constitution was written.) John Adams said that “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Another signer of the Declaration said that “Without the restraints of religion . . men become savages.” The bottom line is that criminals will always have access to guns, and all of the gun restrictions in the world will not prevent criminals from committing the senseless mass killings that have been in the news for several years. (For example, I’ve read that Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws around, and they still have one of the highest gun-related crime rates in the nation). The main thing that keeps people from shooting other people is their morals, and religion is the foundation of high morals. I’ll end with a quote from John Quincy Adams: “[T]here points of doctrine . . . form the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments . . . [L]et a man disbelieve either of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark.”

        • Beel

          “Hopefully that would never happen” and “I’m not advocating that it’s time to do so now” is just more tin foil hat talk, and to imply such should be considered, even as remotely possible or successful today, is sheer nonsense.

          The founders spoke to a time, and in protecting and defending a newly formed nation, with a continental army and what they saw as an unruly militia, not as a future vehicle for the overthrow of that nation.

          That you would claim so is the revisionist history. In fact, the Constitution gave the government the right to maintain a standing army – in the original document. It was amended later to include the 2nd. The militia clause was seen as a first defense to repel an invasion or insurrection, not as a vehicle to overthrow our very government. So tired of hearing that rubbish.

          • OlieGoalie

            Beel, to Open the 2nd Amendment up for debate and to say that the founders spoke to “a time” would allow the gov’t to interpret the very principles this country was founded on.

            Perhaps they should revise the First Amendment? I’m sure the founders never intended to protect your right to speak freely via emails, mobile phones and the internet. After all we’re talking about protecting mussel loader tech here, right?

          • Beel

            Too funny on several counts. First, are you unaware the 2nd is itself an amendment to the founding principles? Are you also naively claiming our courts haven’t been interpreting the document from from the beginning? Perhaps you should actually research the history of Supreme Court decisions, but especially the recent two regarding the 2nd.

            Throughout our history the first clause trumped the second, which is usual in law, and had always been interpreted as a state right to maintain its own militia – “the right of the people” not “the right of the individual.” After over 200 years, along comes the activist decisions of ’08 and ’10 and suddenly the first clause is now declared meaningless. So much for your call for “originalism.”

            Are you suggesting as well those decisions were correct and the founders did not mean what they wrote even as they were creating the document? If so, what else might you think they did not mean?

            And, obviously, the 1st Amendment has been revisited and reinterpreted, as well – many more times than the 2nd. Don’t pretend that hasn’t been the case, to suggest otherwise is but the province of fools.

          • OlieGoalie

            Clearly you know you stuff. So how is it we have to revisit simple language? “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

            How is this not a right of the individual? If not the individual than who were they referring too?

            And, how can you say it’s a living document but say this implied to mussel loaders? Clearly the modern weapon at the time of it’s writing and not still cover modern guns of our time.

            But, then you go off the deep end and talk of slaves, powdered wigs and infallibility….Tin foil hats as you said earlier. I don’t see the relevance in bringing that up.

          • Beel

            Clearly you know your sophism. I’m sure you understand by now that is not the sentence, but that it is written specifically in a military context. Check out the earlier drafts, too. That should give you a clearer picture of the issue they were addressing.

            Setting aside the military context, rarely does any right granted to the people extend to each and every individual, even during the times of those who wrote the Constitution. Certainly none were extended to individuals who were black and few to those who were women.

            Incidentally, though they certainly had mussels back then, too, the guns were muzzleloaders, and the word you were looking for was “applied” not “implied.” Obviously, my mentioning the type of weapon came with the implication that, had they the weaponry of today, they might not have agreed to amend the document just to appease anti-federalists who were concerned the federal government might seek to disarm state militias in favor of a federal army. At the very least they probably would have been a bit more specific.

            Lastly, while I can play in the deep end, I don’t think you know what “tin foil hat” means or is meant to imply. They were fallible, did own slaves, and wore powdered wigs. They also were not of one mind. The process of creating and agreeing on the words and their meaning, even back then, was extremely contentious.

          • Mind_Blown

            So your saying that the 2nd amendment is the only amendment in the bill of rights that isn’t an individual right? You realize you’re saying that jammed in the bill of rights is this meaningless amendment that guarantees the rights of state militia? That’s actually amendment 10 fyi. What you failed to mention is that the term militia is defined much different than 230 years ago. If you read the federalist papers they clearly state that the 2nd amendment is for the sole purpose of individual self-defense. You have to realize that these ‘rights’ aren’t given to us by the government we are born with these rights as should every person on earth. But the bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and has been defended in the court of law.

          • Beel

            No, my saying is, “Don’t put words in other people’s mouths.” If I didn’t believe that I might think your saying is, “When you can’t address the argument, build a straw man and take a stab at that.”

            It’s irrelevant how we define militia now, the point of the discussion is what the founding fathers intended. I suggest your read their writings on the subject. This bit was about states having the right to maintain militias at a time when some anti-federalists (states’ rights) were concerned the federal government would raise a standing army and do away with state militias.

            (and states’ rights are certainly not meaningless to those of us who believe the federal government must defer to states for anything not enumerated in the Constitution)

            Regardless, no right in the Bill of Rights hinges on any other right or rights within that document, so what other rights entail is irrelevant.

          • Mind_Blown

            The difference here is that you view the 2nd amendment as a collective right and not a individual right. My point is that the bill of rights are a list of individual rights. You’re trying to make the point that the militia is tied to the state which it is not. The militia is neither federal or state…it is completely separate. The militia is each individual citizen. The federalist papers address each item of the bill of rights in detail. Look no further than these writings to determine what the founders intended.

          • Beel

            I researched the the history of the 2nd and why it was written that way in particular. Yours is apparently mere opinion, as a (counter) point would have supporting evidence. The militia clause was tied to the states at the time – and was written for that purpose. Read the country’s founding history, and earlier drafts of the 2nd.

            “…every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” – 2nd Continental Congress

            And this article is over a month old now, move on. I won’t be back.

          • Mind_Blown

            “Congress have
            no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
            implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword
            is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I
            trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

            -Tenche
            Coxe

            Like
            I said before go read the federalist papers they explain everything. You have
            this idea that the militia is the national guard. This argument has been made
            over and over and just simply isn’t fact. To be frank, it’s just backwards
            thought from illogical people who wouldn’t know truth if it was slapping their
            momma. Since you won’t be back I’ll leave you with this….The District of
            Columbia vs. Heller has basically settled the argument and the 2nd amendment is
            an individual right….game over…Cheers!

          • Beel

            Alright, you wooed me back. Obviously you have never read the Federalist Papers as that wasn’t in them, nor did the British sympathizer and firearms dealer, Tench Coxe, write them.

            This, in fact, is in the Federalist Papers (No. 29 to be exact, and the capitalism is preserved from the original document):

            “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.”

            That’s what was meant by the super-ceding clause, which the second clause depended on. Now, one can argue, strongly, that there may have been no separate individual right expressly stated in the Constitution because, heck, that’s the way it always had been and nobody thought that aspect might become an issue one day. What they did think about, and were concerned with, was State and. Federal power – and that was what they were addressing.

            Now, you won’t get me back again, even with more sophism.

          • Debbie Lass

            Bravo Beel, I bet he had to look up the word” sophism”

      • Bob in Boston

        Chances are most people reading this are *already* in the militia. You’re choosing to misinterpret “militia” as the ‘organized militia’, which has morphed into the National Guard, but if you read documents from the time like the Federalist/anti-federalist papers and the constitutional ratification debates, it’s crystal clear that the founders were talking about the UNORGANIZED militia, which to this day is still defined in the US code as everyone between the ages of 18 and 45. So if you want to limit it to “militia” that’s fine with me – I’m already a member by default. Oh, and after you do some reading you’ll also come to realize that “well regulated” means they know how to use their weapons – it has nothing to do with government regulations.

        • Beel

          As opposed to you choosing to redefine what both “well regulated” and “militia” meant both then and now – and, no, it has not morphed into the National Guard.

          There were then, as now, those who argued over the idea of an armed populace. What is crystal clear is you haven’t read the documents of the time, including the Federalist Papers. You might start with #29.

  • Nick
    • K1985

      Many of the links did not present any studies. Any that did could not find any reductions in violent crime due to gun laws and they could only claim more guns leads to more GUN crime. The reduction in non firearm homicides more than offset any increases in firearm related homicides.

      Is it better for your friend to be beaten or stabbed to death than shot to death? If there are more guns in a community it would be rational that when the desire to murder arises a gun would be used more often but it is not the gun that creates the desire nor give the ability achieve it. The human body is fragile and any tool or physical attack is more than adequate to kill. The rare instances where using a gun is the only way to commit a homicide are far offset by defensive gun use which is between 300 thousand and 2.5 million times per year.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

      The reduction in non firearm homicide rate more than
      compensates for any rise in the firearm homicide rate

      Firearms can help make a place safer, provide immense recreational opportunities, and help preserve liberty.

      • Charles Vincent

        Don’t forget the CDC study it refutes anti-gun rhetoric as well.

      • Leonidas

        If I may interject, the notion of crime or more specifically homicides isn’t something that is preventable with a simple ban. However, consider the scenario you have presented about a friend being beaten or stabbed to death. In the unlimited scenarios where this event was to take place, what sort of variables can affect the outcome. The friend, potentially could have a better chance at defending themselves, or perhaps someone else could step in to help defend against the attacker(s). When a gun(s) is added to the equation, the probability of either self defense or outside assistance is less likely. If we consider the same scenario where the attacker and the victim were to both have guns, then the element of surprise is the real variable that would most often determine the outcome. It is a simple as rock, paper, scissors, only you can not always account for the element of surprise. Of course, the element of surprise exists in all scenarios with or without guns or knives, so what other ideas must be considered? How about the innocent bystander? Again, with the unlimited scenarios, which form of battery do we expect to generate more unintended consequences? In the scenarios where weapons of any kind are not involved it seems as though there would be less unwilling participants (the original victim(s) aside) than if a gun(s) were involved. The reason I make this assertion, is because individuals that are not directly involved in the event can choose to insert themselves into a potentially fatal situation. In those scenarios where a gun(s) is involved, the same can be true, but also the opposite is true too. So since crime cannot be prevented, why no attempt to reduce the probability of other unintended consequences that often arise in crime with guns? Of course, I am interested in anyone else’s thoughts on the matter.

      • Debbie Lass

        “they could only claim more guns led to more crime” isn’t that the point? the argument is that MORE guns doesn’t lead to LESS deaths…..why would they need to show gun control laws lessen gun crime? because to do that you have to factor in the increase in population, as more people in a country will possibly increase more deaths naturally…..so numbers will increase even if gun control laws due lessen the number of deaths caused by guns….just as inflation will always increase despite what things may be done to keep down prices of things….. heres an analogy to show how this works….if someone works out every day and never lose a pound, would we say “see working out doesn’t cause one to lose weight” and then stop exercising? fact is while they may not drop a pound of what they already have, they could in fact be prevented additional pounds being added by working out. Once they stop and see how much weight it increases when NOT working out can we see the true effect something is having. But only if you control for all variables. The problem with statistics and issues like gun control is so many variables come into play that could be causing changes in numbers. Unless all variables are accounted for and factored in one cannot ascertain a conclusion of cause and effect on just one variable…..to say a reduction in non homicide crime rate lowered after more fire arms were acquired is not entirely factual….have they accounted for all factors that could also have occurred at that time, such as laws in states and federal laws or police forces increased etc that may be contributing to why a drop in crime happened? is the data being analyzed differently or by a different means than it was when the previous data was analyzed…..sometimes different methods of analyzing data will reap different results so it must be analyzed the same way for both sets of numbers in a comparison to also be accurate…..if in 2005 they used one way to analyze and in 2014 another way to analyze death rates by guns etc this could have skewed results…as one way may factor something differently…thus changing the outcome….

  • Michael

    Harvard should know better than to publish rubbish research without researching!
    Private gun ownership is NOT Banned in Russia! As an American living in Russia, I can attest that not only are guns allowed, but they are in use. I spent a recent weekend shooting skeet with a beautiful 12 gauge pump shotgun… at a public range with many others.
    A more useful statistic is that UK has less than 3% per population of gun related homicides than the US… one cannot dismiss this fact, unless it is paid to do so by gun lobbies.

    • Mind_Blown

      There’s plenty of research in the study and there are many more studies that reach similar conclusions. You cannot own a handgun in Russia…that’s a fact! Russia has some of the most harshest gun control laws. And stop mentioning England as an example of gun control laws working because they’re not! Go chart the murders in the last 30 years. It hasn’t changed much. This ‘England Example’ has zero logic because it’s based on the myth that fewer guns means less violent crime and murders. Norway has the highest gun ownership in Europe yet has some of lowest crime and murders. That don’t fit the ‘England Example’ does it? The US has higher non-gun violent crime too. Guns did not make the U.S. a violent country and taking guns away will not change that. The facts and logic do not support gun control advocates.

      • Debbie Lass

        so your contention is that murder rates have remained the same in the UK despite gun control laws increasing in the uk? has the population increased? as we know when population increases, usually crime rates do also…so the fact that the murder rate stayed the same all this time, despite the population increasing which would increase numbers of possible murderers…..then this means gun control laws did work there…..otherwise you would see increase in murder rates signficant with increase in population numbers……you cant just manipulate statistics to fit what you want as the outcome….cripes…people, including you, really dont get statistics do they…..

        • Mind_Blown

          What statistics do you refer to? You might want to do some research before running off at the mouth. In fact, the UK experienced their highest murder rates following their gun ban laws. So what stats did I manipulate? And what is this huge population increase the uk has experience? Oh yea that’s it…you solved the riddle!! Haha!

          • Debbie Lass

            First of all mind blown, I come from a family of mathematicians, engineers and statiticians, as well as have a masters degree myself so I think I have a grasp or handle about statistics to know what I am talking about. Here is factual data(maybe you should do research before YOU run off at the mouth.) The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.04 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2009. In in 2011 there were 146 homicides due to fire arms. The last record of number of firearms owned by civilians was over 4 million. Compared to the US at the time who had 300,000,000 civilian guns owned. Statistics suggest that the gun bans alone did not have an immediate impact on firearm-related crime. Over time, however, gun violence in virtually all its guises has significantly come down with the aid of stricter enforcement and waves of police antiweapons operations. So dipshit, this is what I was referring to about people who “try” to analyze statistics when they don’t know what they hell they are doing. You look at a date when gun control laws went into effect and gun deaths at the time and then gun deaths right after they went into effect and if the number is higher then you claim those gun control laws had no impact. When in fact since that time it HAS gone down in the time frame from the laws implemented to now. Certainly making a law and NOT implementing it will render a law useless so the key will be enforcement and other factors that help support gun control. First you say the murder rate stayed virtually the same, now you contend that it went up after gun control policies…..so you change your story to suit the outcome you want. The point is statistics can be analyzed or read in different ways to give someone an outcome they want. If they leave out a factor their numbers look better than if they factored something in. It is important when you go to a website and look at data that’s ONLY put out by gun advocates lets say, that chances are they have worked the statistics to suit what they want to prove….but unless you have an understanding of statistics and how data should be analyzed correctly, you as an average reader wont be able to understand the data you read is in fact not entirely accurate…..a chart may show increase in murder rates after gun laws implemented but not break down murders by gun versus other means…therefore one cant say gun murder rates went up after gun control laws…..etc…thats the type of misleading statistical analysis I am referring to. In the UK half the guns used in crimes are air guns…..so does crime exist yes, is it as likely one will be hurt by air guns versus real guns, no, but it is important to know that half their incidences of crime with “guns” were by air guns when discussing crime statistics etc….there are many factors in data that people leave out. Or they assert something erroneously from the data…..The population of UK has increased over 3 million people from 2004 to 2014. I would say an additional 3 million into the population is a significant increase in number of people. here is some data for you. Uk has 3 times as many civilian owned guns as Norway. So how is it you claim Norway has the highest percentage of guns own in Europe? Where are you getting your data from?http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/192/number_of_privately_owned_firearms/136

          • Mind_Blown

            Oh this is some really good stuff here.

            “I come from a family of mathematicians, engineers and statiticians”

            The apple has certainly falling far from the tree haha! Norway has 33.1 guns per 100 residents…a little higher than Canada 30.8 and a little lower than Irag 34.2. This is COMMON knowledge…just Google it! More guns does not equal more violence. Is this that difficult to understand! The uk has declining violence across the board. Less robberies and deaths. This is not the result of their gun laws but more to do with their ‘aging population’. It seems when people get older they tend to do less crime. This has happened in the US too. Since the 1980′s overall crime and murder has decreased. Why? well the baby boomers have aged out. The US is getting older. These are cold hard facts. You keep believing all the propaganda that is being fed to you. Please do some research and look at ALL the facts. More guns does not equal more murders! Anyone who analyzes statistics would look for a pattern to make a conclusion. The fact that countries like Switzerland, Finland and Norway have high rates of firearm ownership yet very low crimes committed with guns totally debunks everything you believe. The data does not support your argument. You call me a ‘dipshit’? Oh btw…The UK has roughly 6,2 firearms per 100 residents yet still has far more crimes committed by firearms than Norway and the other countries listed above. How is this possible!!! Guns kill people not people!!!

          • Debbie Lass

            Youre telling someone to google it lol…increasing guns does not show less crime either, and you cannot accurately claim less crime is ONLY attributed to more guns in the areas that show less crime but have more guns….as again anyone with basic knowledge of statistics knows that you cannot say ONE variable is the causal effect when other variables are also acting on something…without controlling for the effect those variables have on it…..for cripes sakes THATS COMMON knowledge. Yes I call you a dispshit because you are claiming the mere fact that Norway and finland and Switzerland have high gun ownership and low deaths by guns as a basis to say that increased gun ownership lowers crime and death rates by guns. You have not factored any other variables in there that impact the death rates …….because according to your flawed logic if the us owns 50% of the firearms in the world, and increased gun ownership lessens death rates by guns, then the us should have 50% less deaths than other countries with lower gun rates do…..we have similar number of gun deaths as many south American countries whose civilians own far fewer guns than we do…..so by the same chart we are reading where you try to contend that a few countries with high ownership of guns have fewer deaths, well the us has high ownership too and 900 times as many deaths as those countries you named…..this is what I am saying about how one can analyze or read data to suit their argument which is what you did….it does NOT mean youre analyzing data correctly….again here is data regarding fire arms and deaths for each country………so your stating that since England has 6.1 guns per 100 people versus norways 30.1 guns per 100 people that more guns means less crime……because norway has less deaths than England…..41 deaths for England to 2 deaths for Norway…….of course England has 3 times as many people as Norway…thus why when one is saying a percentage per 100 people the number will be less when there is more people…..Norway has 1/3 fewer people so if they own a lot of guns in Norway then of course number of guns per 100 people will increase…as the numbr of people gets bigger the number of guns per person shrinks….what you aren’t factoring in is how many people own guns…those numbers you questioned and that I just mentioned only go based on an average of guns per person for every 100 people based on number of guns owned and number of people… it does not go based on the number of guns owned by those who own guns…,.the majority of guns owned could be a small number of people with a large arsenal…the data doesn’t account for distribution of guns….for example americans own 300 million guns but may only be owned by 50 million people….increasing the number of guns among the same 50 million people isn’t going to impact crime rates or be a deterrent more………and contending increased gun ownership ina country means it went to more people rather than the same gun owners buying more guns is false…without showing that indeed was the case..which you have NOT shown with data is the case…..so your making assertions from this chart erroneously without accounting for all factors……..the data on gun control and gun ownership versus death rates is inconclusive….for as many studies as you want to post(mostly done and backed by NRA money im sure) that contends more guns equal less crime, there is also data that shows in countries that more guns don’t equal less deaths by guns…the US being the biggest example….the point is, be careful when analyzing data based on one aspect as it may be erroneous in its conclusion because you aren’t accounting for other variables that impact the data………..http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

          • Debbie Lass

            more guns most certainly can cause more deaths to increase depending how you look at the data. If we examine data for gun deaths after taking out all deaths by gang activity or black on black crime, the data may well show increase in deaths of suicide, accidental shootings in homes, and mass murders for the last ten years. However, if you just do a sweeping look at all deaths by guns with the gang deaths in there also you may say death by guns has decreased….well yeas death by guns in black on black crime may have decreased…so because that’s factored into the data it makes one think that death by guns decreased with increase gun ownership. However, you haven’t factored into that data of black on black crime that more incarcerations, bigge rpolice forces etc may have caused death by guns in black on black crime to go down despite increase in guns owned in us……then put those deaths in with all gun deaths and you want to make the assertion that means increased guns cause less deaths by guns. Really? yet mass shootings have increased since gun ownership has increased…that’s a fact…..while it may not be large numbers of deaths, the fact mass shootings have been increasing despite increased gun ownership is a concern….and one could then claim just looking at that data alone, without any other factors in it, that more guns increase mass shootings…see how this works? so if we cant make that claim that more guns increases mass shootings based on those two numbers only, you cannot claim that increased gun ownership and decreased death by guns overall means increased gun ownership causes death crimes to go down…..

          • Debbie Lass

            you just stated my point for me, that other factors affect decrease in crimes . yet you were contending that increased gun ownership was what was causing the decrease. You now have stated what I have been advocating and showing proof of in all my repsonses, that when analyzing data people need to look at ALL factors and not take one chart and say ok these three countries have more guns but less crime therefore more gun ownership means less crime ……there are many factors that play into data….and why rates increase or decrease and all must be factored in. Most studies you find done or analyzed by gun advocates will leave out the other factors as a cause and try to convince people with swayed data analysis that more guns equal safer better and less crime….which isn’t true when all factors are factored in in many cases. as we both have stated it is a complicated issue because of this reason….so you just verified much of what I was saying but then claim im the one who doesn’t get it…..when you are the one claiming the misleading analysis means increased guns means decreased crime…..to which I was refuting with facts and explanations of factors you left out in your data you used to support your claim…..

          • Debbie Lass
          • Debbie Lass

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation we agree correlation doesn’t mean causation yet you contended that high gun ownership and low death by guns in a country means that more guns in society is better as it decreases crime…don’t look now but you just asserted that correlation of those two factors equaled causation……

          • Debbie Lass

            “Norway has the highest gun ownership in Europe yet has some of lowest crime and murders” Italy and England have more guns than Norway and their death rate is higher also….http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

          • Debbie Lass

            This shows more reported gun ownership from 1991-1994 than now…and that after 1994 the numbers dropped some and stayed fairly constant….until 2012 when newton happened and the NRA was making everyone panic that the government was coming for their guns…which only managed to make the NRA and gun makers richer., not our society safer……so lower percentage of people owned guns from 1994-2011 yet the crime rates went down…..murder rates by guns went down….kind of throws a wrench in the NRA and conservatives claim that increased gun ownership caused those declines………..not to mention that while the amount of guns owned may have increased, it doesn’t necessarily mean a huge leap in numbers of people who own guns…..according to the NRA 60 million people own 300 million guns…..that’s an average of 3 guns per person…….http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

          • Debbie Lass

            When someone works every day and never loses a pound, should they contend that working out doesn’t work as it hasn’t lowered the pounds on their body? while one may not drop a pound by working out, it very well could have been preventing them GAINING weight. Same with gun control laws. You contend that the murder rates in UK stayed the same despite gun control laws…implying they didn’t go down because of gun control laws. The factors you aren’t factoring into your data analysis is that 1.) the population increased 3 million but murder rate stayed the same according to you…when in fact increased numbers of people would naturally increase crime rates…so therefore since crime rates didn’t rise according to you, one can say gun control may have contributed to that 2.) Gun control laws may not drastically drop the current rate of deaths by guns but well could prevent an increase in those numbers….as working out can prevent additional gaining of pounds. Background checks could be preventing some who shouldn’t have a gun form having one and avoiding issues that way…..so one cannot say that a murder rate remaining the same after gun control laws implemented is evidence they don’t work…as you aren’t examining all the data….any studies done must be reliable and valid and have a statistical significance to make assertions as true….ther eis much data out there that is not reliable and valid and statistically significant…sample sizes small, or data that contradicts other data that shows maybe other factors weren’t considered. this debate is difficult because most studies cannot control for all factors that may affect rates of crime or gun deaths when they do them and therefore the outcomes aren’t entirely factual…as anyone knows in basic statistics…if you have more than one variable acting on something, you cannot say definitively that one variable is the cause unless you control for all other factors and make sure they are NOT impacting the data results….and that’s almost impossible to do regarding guns and deaths by guns because there are laws, police enforcement etc that are different state to state and country to country and how those impact certain demographics of people make a difference also…

          • Mind_Blown

            There is zero evidence of anti-gun laws having an impact of gun crimes! It’s difficult to have a conversation like this with irrational and emotional characters like you. All your points above are based on assumptions…not evidence. Crime is a complex subject. Their is no magic bullet to solve this riddle. But the overwhelming evidence suggest that more guns does not equal more gun violence. So let’s stooping wasting energy on this subject. And criminals will always have access to firearms no matter what laws the gov’t implements. If a person is going to the gym everyday and does not lose weight then they should stop stuffing their fat face with biscuits and washing it down with a coke….cheers have a nice life…ya fascist fatty.

          • Debbie Lass

            evidence and correct statistical analysis of data also shows that increased gun ownership in countries doesn’t make deaths by guns or crime decrease as a factor all by itself….at all….and calling names indicates youre the one being “emotional” lol as for assumptions versus evidence…I gave the evidence with links provided and explained how analysis of data is skewed and how , depending how one analyzes something might sway the results to be what they want when leaving out factors. I also provided evidence that showed what you stated in some cases was wrong…if you choose to ignore facts that’s your choice, but makes you look foolish to those who do look at facts…..I know it must burn your butt that an educated white girl from a strong middle class catholic family may disagree with you about your assertion of increased gun ownership decreases crime…..I am sure you had hoped I would be some uneducated unemployed minority disputing you so you could some how make me fit into some stereotype you have about those who disagree with you……so mind blown, what do you do for a living? what degree did you achieve from what university? and lets see your picture. or are you ashamed of what you look like? its a coward who hides behind his words of attack…..without revealing himself…..

          • Mind_Blown

            I have not promoted an increase in gun ownership! Stop putting words in my mouth! I have simply stated the fact that high gun ownership does not equal higher gun violence. I have produced overwhelming evidence that supports this hypothesis. You have not proved your point…I don’t even know what your point is??? You have not refuted this evidence and have made gross assumptions. What facts have you produced? You have made assumptions and produced zero facts.

            “I am sure you had hoped I would be some uneducated unemployed minority disputing you so you could some how make me fit into some stereotype you have about those who disagree with you”

            This is what I am talking about! You’re delusional… And keep dreaming that I would ever describe anything about my private life to a person of your character.

            Remember this…there is a difference between education and intellect. You’re a perfect example of this difference.

          • Debbie Lass

            Oh, you mean like when you put words in my mouth by claiming I stated that gun control caused current crime rates to decrease? That’s what one calls a hypocrite. You put words in my mouth then turned around claiming I did to you. Pot meet kettle. The facts I presented are numerous, and certainly more facts than you have presented here by far. Remember this…a person who hides behind a screen insulting others while hiding factors about themselves is a coward. If you are an expert between what is intellect versus education, why not start showing some of it in your own writings instead of merely insulting someone you disagree with. Truly intelligent people can read what you typed and see absolutely no facts or data with links to this data supporting what you have been saying, because all you have been doing is putting words in my mouth, and giving your opinion and insults….nothing intellectual about that……

          • Mind_Blown

            I never put words in your mouth that you did not put there yourself…

            ‘claiming I stated that gun control caused current crime rates to decrease’

            You have made this assumption over and over…it’s in your posts. You defend it…and then claim I ‘put words in your mouth’…disturbing to say the least. I never advocated increased gun ownership as a means to decrease gun violence. Yet you repeated this lie in multiple post.

            ‘giving your opinion and insults….nothing intellectual about that’

            You have done nothing but insult me from your very first post and every post thereafter. Don’t sling mud at someone and then cry because they sling mud back at you. You seem like a troubled person so I will leave it at this….best of luck to you in the future!!

          • Debbie Lass

            now I am done with this nonsensical banter to nowhere. so ramble if you must to get your last “dig” in like angry self loathing hateful people do……but I shall not continue dancing with a man/woman who cannot dance.

      • Mgooboo

        Im from the UK and live in NYC, there has been more accidental shootings of innocent people by POLICE in the last year in NY than there has been shootings in the entirety of the UK.

        Norway is a very economically well off (per capita) and very sparcley populated country with very little crime in general that encourages responsible gun ownership and does not have the mad culture that persists today in the USA. The problem isn’t necessarily the guns themselves but the USA deffinently has a problem, and the majority of gun owner are in complete denial.

        There is a huge gang problem in this country (the US is the highest consumer of illegal drugs), there is an arrogant culture around guns where people treat them as toys or the same as a power tool and are unwilling to accept any responsibility. Your health care system is messed up compared to the UK and Norway, mentaly Ill people get denied care and are overly prescribed drugs. People are so arrogant in this country around guns they are unwilling to even restrict criminals getting guns and refuse to properly enforce and respect the laws that are already in place! There are far too many loopholes.

        It is too easy for a child to get a gun in this country, it is too easy for a mentally ill person to get a gun in this country and it is too easy for a criminal to get a gun in this country. (It’s not like this in Norway). There is vastly more poverty in the USA (than in norway), a huge black market and everything i listed above, paired with easily accessible guns and you’ve got the situation we’re in now, the wealthiest country in the world with one of the most shameful homicide rate in the western world. Yet even when 20 children are slaughtered people are STILL in complete denial that there is a problem at all.

        Seriously no one needs an arsenal of weapons and to have one on them 24/4, your creating this wild west senario which is spiralling worse and worse and screaming about freedom, grabbing the pitchforks and torches when anyone talks about responsibility, its almost impossible to talk to anyone pro gun on this topic.

        My solution isn’t to ban guns, but to close the loopholes that persist today, enforce gun laws on a federal level and take steps to restrict access to guns to the wrong people while eliminating this idiotic arrogant gun culture that persists today – a gun is NOT a toy! Too many people are burying there head in the sand, There IS a problem with guns in this country and it needs to be addressed!!

        • Mind_Blown

          I absolutely agree with most of what you’re saying. The US has a distinct gun culture. But someone owning an arsenal isn’t a bad thing. That is their right and the vast majority aren’t harming anything but their bank accounts. Most gun owning people are extremely responsible gun owners who do not treat weapons as toys. Now, I won’t deny that some do…but the exception is not the norm.
          Does this gun culture feed the gun violence in the US? I don’t think so..poverty and drug laws have more of an impact. I believe certain criminals will always have access to guns no matter what the law says. Because of this, the people should be allowed to defend themselves…the cops won’t…they just show up and rope off a crime scene. The mental handicapped should never have access to firearms. This needs to be addressed. People found in possession of an illegal firearm should face mandatory and lengthy federal sentences. And last, complete and total reversal of all current drug enforcement laws. These laws have created great violence in our cites and have destroyed millions of lives. These are good starting points…I just think it’s a waste of energy to try and tackle the US gun culture…a lot of work and all it would do is disarm law abiding people…

          Now I will make an analogy that may make some people angry. Pointing a finger at the NRA or blaming gun owners because of what these lunatic killers do and then blaming the ‘gun culture’ is no less bigoted then a white man blaming ‘black culture’ because a black guy stole his wallet.

          • Mgooboo

            Yes i agree with what you said about drug laws and so on but disagree that gun culture is completely innocent in this. To use you’r analogy about black culture again (I’m mixed raced) there ARE problems with certain elements of black american culture that contribute towards crime, (mainly the idiotic ideal of aspiring to be an ignorant “gangster”) just as they are problems with certain elements of Pakistani culture (of marrying 13 year old girls) and mexican culture and white American culture and so on

            Culture is a good thing but they are certainly bad elements to all cultures around the world and i don’t think American gun culture is exempt from this – there is an ignorant and arrogant side to gun culture – Obviously not every gun owner is but these are the ones that are stifling progress, the ones who are fighting against any form of responsibility, fighting against the closing of loopholes, fighting for guns being to be sold in every super market, fighting against any form of licensing, background check or registration, fighting for almost all weapons legalised and scream that your un-american and trying to claw there guns away if your suggest any form of responsibility. We want to close a loophole to prevent straw purchases for criminals thats facilitating the market for illegal arms? BUT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUY A NON REGISTERED GUN! why?!?! it doesn’t make sense! no responsibility at all!

            Countless other industries are regulated and registered more than the firearms industry – they do need to be regulated more than they currently are. Thats not taking anyones guns away, but ensuring they don’t get into the wrong hands. We shouldn’t just accept mass shootings as the norm – and hope a citizen is there with his gun and Clint Eastwood reflexes to hopefully take him down, more on prevention needs to be done. It depresses me how theres armed guards and metal detectors in schools.

          • Mind_Blown

            I would disagree that firearms are not regulated. You cannot buy a pistol without a mandatory background check and waiting period. Yes, even at gun shows. We have a gov’t agency that is entirely focused on guns….its called the ATF. I don’t understand the registration argument. When you buy a firearm you have to fill our paper work that is submitted to the state. That’s how the newspaper in New York published the records of firearm owners…so technically you are a REGISTERED gun owner. All gun types are NOT legal in the US. You cannot own a fully automatic firearm and that type of firearm has been illegal to own since the 1930′s. I don’t hear anyone saying that type of firearm should be legal. In fact, many anti-gun people try to make it sound as if that’s what a AR-15 is. AR-15′s and other so called assault rifles account for so few deaths that’s it’s a complete waste of energy. Hand guns are by bar the most used weapon in murders.
            I still believe that the best means of tackling gun violence is ENFORCING the current laws. Harsh punishments for those who supply illegal guns and harsh penalties for those who carry illegal firearms. Why should we add more regulations when the gov’t does not enforce the current ones? It’s like complaining about a diet that’s not working because the person isn’t even trying to stick to the diet. And then saying…this diet doesn’t work so i’m going to try another diet….so is the folly of gov’t. Bottom line…we need to get the illegal guns and their distributors off the streets. Where are you ATF.

  • pacohope

    It seems to me that one question not answered by this study is what would happen if stricter laws were imposed. It talks about violence levels now and the laws in place now. It does not look at the levels of violence in these places before and after the laws were enacted. If we are using this information to inform our own debate about enacting laws, we should not look at simple numbers, but rather numbers that changed (or didn’t) in response to laws that were enacted. What if a place had a horrible amount of violence, enacted laws, and the violence went down? They might still have a total amount of violence worse than the US in per capita terms, but the laws they enacted would have been a good thing. What we wouldn’t know, from simply looking at a single number, is whether the violence went down in response to the law. Likewise, there could be a place where there was a moderate amount of violence, they enacted strict laws, and the violence didn’t change much at all. If they had less violence per capita than us, it would actually be an argument against the effectiveness of the laws. I don’t think this study helps us debate the value of gun laws very much. We need before and after studies, not snapshot-in-time studies.

    • Mind_Blown

      I see your point but the main focus of the study is to illustrate that more guns does not equal more crime. There is no correlation between guns and crime. This is for policy purposes. Murders have been in decline for two decades now…this is more to do with population changes. i.e. the baby boomers (biggest population surge in our history) have aged out. But we still have too much violent crime. How do we solve this? Some think it’s simply guns and that is the only answer. This study shows that guns do not make a society more prone to violent behavior. Out politicians try to ban assault rifles which only account for less than 500 murders a year.

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

      There are numerous study’s that reach similar conclusions.

      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1

      This would lead to a rational conclusion that guns are not the problem. Again, this is for policy purposes. These and similar study’s should guide lawmakers in the proper direction to confront problems. The burden of proof is in the gun-control advocates to show that gun control does work. Our violent crime problem is much more complex than simply guns. Maybe, as a society, we don’t value lives as much as we think we do.

      • K1985

        There are far fewer than 500 modern rifles (“assault rifles”) deaths annually. The FBI figures show only 323 rifle murders a year and modern rifles or only a portion of rifles meaning that there is at most 200 modern rifle homicides a year.

        Modern rifles represent over 10% of firearm sales and only involved in less than 2% of homicides which shows they are one of the safest firearm category in existence. Demonizing and banning firearms based solely on cosmetic features is bad policy. Certainly lacking in common sense.

        • Debbie Lass

          lets analyze data by removing the murder rates and gun violence rates of those crimes that are gang related or black on black crime…. remove those then analyze data about how many numbers are kille din mass murders because of rifles…yes rifles may only account for 2% of murders by guns when you include gang action, remove gang action, what is the percentage? and how are numbers of those killed by rifles compared to numbers of those killed in acts of crime unrelated to gang on gang shootings…….you will see a drastic difference in data….especially after 20% of mass shootings in america occurred just in the last year 2013……

          • Mind_Blown

            I guess the evidence doesn’t fit the imaginary world you live in. Brain dead illogical liberals fight reality everyday. But their is hope for you…educate yourself! If you want to eliminate mass killing…banning an ar-15 is the worst place to start. Why doesn’t president pass an executive order or demand the FBI investigate the medications these killers were on? All theses mass killers have something in common…they were mentally disturbed. Doctors fed these guys meds that change their chemical ballance. Then they run off and shoot up a bunch of people and the liberal morons blame the gun? It makes no sense. Oh wait it does…big pharma is a much more difficult target than the NRA. There interest is not to stop mass killings but to demonize law abiding citizens. They have mindless puppets, such as you, to go along the ride with.

          • Debbie Lass

            all you do is insult and repeat sound points you hear from those advocating for everyone to own guns. You call someone you don’t know a liberal, based on what? an assumption that if someone disagrees with your stance about guns that they MUST be liberal…that’s not based on facts. You don’t provide factual evidence or cite sources you simply insult and then call someone else emotional lol…psychologists would say the person who gets so riled up in a discussion to call people names and insult and belittle are the ones with the emotional instability in the discussion and who are the ones being “emotional” lol. You claimed that “Norway has the highest gun ownership in Europe yet has some of lowest crime and murders.” and I provided factual evidence available on the google you like so much that showed you were incorrect about that. That many other countries in Europe had more guns than Norway and you feel you know your facts while refusing to accept the true and factual facts presented with evidence to go look it up yourself. lol that’s the mindset you deal with. Then you tried to claim well yeah but norways shows to have 30.1 guns per 100 people…sure and 30 guns could be owned by ONE Norwegian in that 100 persons….versus a country that has 30 people who own one gun per 100 people…..you didn’t account for that variable or factor…..the bottom line is…Norway owns a lot fewer guns than other European countries and has fewer deaths…those euro countries with more guns have higher death rates than Norway, so your supposed logic more guns lowers death rates by is debunked by that data alone and analyzing the data the same way you are….without factoring in any other variables that may impact decreasing deaths by guns….such as police, laws, etc…..by your own flawed analysis the data in the chart I shared debunked your argument anyway lol…….yu mentioned people need to look at patterns…ok heres a pattern for you…..Norway has 1 million and some people who own guns and 2 deaths by guns reported……Italy civilians owns 7 million guns with 417 deaths…….England has 3 million 400,00 civilians who own guns with 41 deaths…..so so far we have those with fewer guns had fewer deaths and those with more guns had higher deaths in Europe….yet 25 million german civilians own guns with 150 some odd deaths reported…….spain has 4 million civians that own guns and 90 deaths….Switzerland has 3 million 400,000 civilians who own guns with 57 deaths…..so the pattern appears to be in euope majority of countries with more guns have more deaths….youe trying to claim that smaller countries with smaller populations who own more guns have fewer deaths lol…fewer people may mean fewer deaths anyway despite gun ownership…..you haven’t accounted for that factor…..secondly the ratio of 45.1 guns per 100 as used to indicate fewer deaths exist because there are 45 guns per 100 people…doesn’t factor into the fact that all 45 guns could be owned by one person not 45 people which isn’t increasing gun ownership over a population, it merely shows increase in gun ownership of the same persons….which wont be what deters crime….another factor you haven’t counted in…youre the one contending that increased guns lower crime and deaths by guns, I contend that you cant claim without evidence that gun controls haven’t prevented crime rates from increasing…I never stated they would make current rates decrease….but you provided no factual evidence to say they aren’t preventing increase by being in place…..

    • K1985

      Great article that shows the sharp rise in crime after Massachusetts stringent gun control law of 1998. It is the very time series data you were looking for and shows while the rest of the country and Massachusetts neighboring states saw dramatic reductions in homicides Massachusetts saw a significant rise.

      http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/02/massachusetts-murder-rate-has-risen.html

      Rather compelling that both time series and cross sectional analysis show that less gun control and higher firearm ownership rates are tied to lower crime.

      • https://twitter.com/mne__povezlo G L

        I don’t see how it is compelling. Data analysis is not just about plotting one variable against the other, it’s also about understanding the processes that determine the relationship between the variables.

        Once again, it’s virtually useless to compare murder rates across countries or states without controlling for income levels, quality and amount of policing and similar factors that definitely have impact on crime rates.

        In the same vein, there is no point in comparing MA crime rates before and after gun laws were introduced. The reasonable question is ‘would the murder rate in MA in 1999 (and later) be higher if the gun control laws had not been implemented?’. It requires some counterfactual analysis which quality would depend a lot on the discretion of the researcher. But in any case such analysis hasn’t been performed, and the analysis mentioned (Kates and Mauser or Lott) is incapable of either refuting or supporting any reasonable hypothesis relating gun control and crime rates.

      • BaconMakesItBetter

        Not sure I’ve seen anything compelling in either direction. I can say this for sure, I grew up in a small town in the midwest, had relatives and friends in many other small towns.

        In most of these towns you had anywhere from 500 to 30000 folks living together. I’d guess nearly every single household had firearms, not sure, can only go by people I met and spoke with.

        Most of these towns had maybe one homicide every ten years or more.

        Something other than just firearm ownership rates is in play in this country, for sure.

  • Dennis M

    What is being touted as a “Harvard Study”, is not a research study done by Harvard University. It is an article (if you read it you see the authors themselves call it an article) that was published in 2007 in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which is published by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. Neither author has any affiliation with Harvard, whatsoever. It was not peer reviewed, and they are pro-gun ideologues, neither of whom have ever published a peer reviewed study on the effect of guns.
    Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser try to disprove what study after study has shown, that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns mean fewer deaths. They attempt to do so by cherry-picking and conflating data out of context then adding some falsehoods.
    Calling their article pseudoscience would be a generous description

    The REAL HARVARD School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center has numerous peer reviewed academic studies published in a variety of professional Journals contradicting most all of the conclusions Kates, Mauser, Lott, Kopel et al present as facts.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/…/guns-and-death/index.html

    • Charles Vincent

      AND the CDC Study Obama ordered contradicts these “The REAL HARVARD School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control
      Research Center has numerous peer reviewed academic studies published in
      a variety of professional Journal” and supports these “conclusions Kates, Mauser, Lott, Kopel et al present as facts”

    • Bill

      All that but not one concrete example, pulled directly from the work, of the “pseudoscience” or “data out of context?”

  • GDS

    Also, the evidence is mainly based on per capita murder statistics from Luxembourg, a country with a smaller than the city of Philadelphia. The sample size is far too small to make any real comparisons with the United States(population 580 times that of Luxembourg). Examining the results of the gun ban in Australia would be far more telling and would yield far different results. The Journal of Law & Public Policy should enlist the help of anyone who took at least 1 statistics class in highschool before publishing an article with any numbers in it at all.

  • jr023

    since most of the mass shootings / bombings have been done by either people who were in contact with mental health,police or homeland security, collage adm, military and they did nothing i think a relook at the procedures when there is a contact with a troubled person.
    and familys can help if you have a family member remove the weapon from the troubled person and in domestic when a protection order is issued do not voluntarily let someone violate it and arm yourself

  • osbjmg

    increased attention for its claims that more control over firearms doesn’t necessarily mean their will be a dip in serious crimes. … “their” ?

  • pickedupapencil .

    If you compare Massachusetts to Massachusetts of yesteryear, it’s clear that all our crime is up since 1998 when our stricter firearm laws were passed. Check out the data for yourself. It’s sad. They blame it on the other states around us with lax gun laws, but their crime isn’t up.

  • Benjamin Gunnells

    Hmm…how about this correlation…the more news time we give the names and faces of the assailants…the more shootings we get. Maybe stop giving them their 15min?

    • Kurt Carver

      Very well said .

  • IAmRoot

    This was published in a law journal, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. It is a student run publication. What’s been published by Harvard itself says something quite different: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/policy-evaluation/.

    • Kurt Carver

      Yeah I seen that study as well and there is plenty of studies out there that will overturn that study . More gun laws ie: restrictions does not or will not mean safer streets or a Nation. It simple means more gun Laws period . A criminal does not consider laws when he commits a crime .

    • David_Smith

      The link you provided goes to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center which is directed by a virulent anti-gun nut who advocates diminishing the Bill of Rights through a “collective” (e.g. communistic) approach. The center is not interested in the discussion other than how to remove firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens (as criminals will always have them even if they have to make them from parts at the local hardware store) and the only “evidence” they provide is dedicated to accomplishing that. Fail for pretending that link was in any way neutral.

      • Lorcan Bonda

        However, they reference other studies which are conducted by experts in this field and are peer reviewed (unlike a student law journal). In addition, they are cited by hundreds of researchers in the field. Kates and Mauser do not have that anywhere near that recognized expertise (in fact, they have no expertise in this field.)

        • David_Smith

          It’s a scholarly university publication subject to editorial review that conforms with scholarship which is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy. It’s results don’t align with your political ideology and that’s the basis of your attempt to demean it. That’s all that’s occurring here

  • Tim

    This was a student publication of a paper written by two people who have nothing to do with Harvard, one of whom was a gun lobbyist.

    • David_Smith

      Even if what you say is true, it was formally peer reviewed before publication meaning the data, statistical analysis, information, argumentation, and even the thesis were all carefully and competently evaluated and verified before publication ultimately by the scholarly individuals that oversee the student publication. Nice exercise of ad hominem on your part though.

      • Lorcan Bonda

        No, it is not peer reviewed. It’s not even a scientific journal.

        • David_Smith

          It’s a scholarly university publication subject to editorial review that conforms with scholarship which is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy. It’s results don’t align with your political ideology and that’s the basis of your attempt to demean it. That’s all that’s occurring here.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            All of that may be true, but it is not ‘formerly peer reviewed’. This is where scientists of the field review your information and data to verify that it is accurate and meets scientific standards using appropriate methodology. These peer reviews occur when scientific papers are published in scientific journals.

            Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy is not one of those.

            Opinions have a place in scholarly university publications, but they are not ‘formerly peer reviewed’. Nobody would claim they were, either. Peer review also does not guarantee scientific accuracy — which is why scientific studies with merit are normally repeated by another scientist who references their work.

            My political ideology has no bearing on this concept. I could publish a poem in a scholarly literary journal which claims that the sky is orange and grass is made from old sneakers. That poem might have scholarly merit, but it is not scientifically accurate. ‘Formal peer review’ is a phrase which has real meaning — in other words, your claim is factually incorrect.

          • David_Smith

            A large body of very good studies that have benefitted humanity underwent an editorial review process conforming to good scholarship instead of “formerly peer review.”

            The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is one of the five most widely circulated student-edited law journals in the country AND since it can take a year for an article to move through the peer-review system and become published: it makes sense in many cases to bypass formal peer review for scholarly editorial review when dealing with studies this nature and level of complexity. This isn’t a study in astrophysics making assertions on Higgs boson.

            Your assertion that this study underwent scholarly editorial review instead of the lengthy formal review process is accepted.

            AND the study is fine.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            But there are scientific and medical journals which include peer reviewed studies on this exact same subject. For instance, here is a peer reviewed study on the subject:

            Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

            You discount this peer reviewed study in favor of one from a Journal of Public Law and Policy. Harvard Law School Publishes 18 separate such journals. In addition to this one, their offerings include, “Harvard Journal of the Legal Left” and “Harvard Journal of Law and Gender.”

            I would wager that you don’t consider their articles as equivalent to the journal which declares itself “the leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.”

          • David_Smith

            I haven’t discounted it simply because I wasn’t aware of its existence. A wise person wouldn’t make a false assertion that someone had discounted something without knowing if they were even aware of it’s existence. You chose not to be that wise.

            And honestly, that report doesn’t tell the real story.

            I’m looking a the UNODC data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdExSbktqRWpLMjNUMkFGVk5VODRyTnc#gid=0

            and the United States is down the list for ‘homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop.’ at 2.97. Compare that with say Venezuela which is 38.97 or Ecuador at 12.73 or Columbia at 27.09.

            But even that 2.97 number must be understood within the context that gun crime (including firearm homicide) has been declining in the U.S. even as gun ownership has increased.

            http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

            http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

            But let’s drill down farther:

            1. FBI Expanded Homicide Data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expandhomicidemain

            2. U.S. Census QuickFacts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

            3. Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

            How interesting. It looks like though African Americans account for only about 13% of the U.S. population they account for about 53 percent of the homicide offenders and about 50 percent of homicide victims.

            “The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1). Males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The off ending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).”

            It doesn’t make sense for the government to launch a costly unpopular unconstitutional needless war on all U.S. gun owners affecting more than three hundred million U.S. citizens because of a tiny criminal element in an otherwise law abiding relatively small demographic of a much larger law abiding population and it’s disingenuous of people like yourself to pretend otherwise.

            Deal with the tiny criminal element in the small demographic and leave the rest of us alone. Molon Labe.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            “I haven’t discounted it simply because I wasn’t aware of its existence. A
            wise person wouldn’t make a false assertion that someone had discounted
            something without knowing if they were even aware of it’s existence.
            You chose not to be that wise.”

            Two months ago you responded vehemently to IAmRoot about the article in the Harvard Injury Control Research Journal. (on my page it is the one just below this one.) The article I cite in on that page. Forgive me for believing that your response meant you actually checked out his link.

            I’m well aware of the homicide rates in different countries. If you notice the citation, they compare the United States to economically equivalent nations. It is not very scientific to compare the United States to Columbia — or even any one other country.

            “It doesn’t make sense for the government to launch a costly unpopular unconstitutional needless war on all U.S. gun owners…

            Nobody is talking about ‘declaring war on gun owners’ — holy cow where do you get your outrageous hyperbole! This is like saying ‘How dare you declare war on safe drivers by insisting they follow traffic signals!” I mean we use ‘war’ for everything we don’t understand (‘war on terror’, ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on poverty’), but you know none of those are real wars, right? In fact, it was only rhetoric to make us feel like somebody was doing something.

            A better use of the words would be ‘gun owners have declared war on America’ — because you are too selfish to put up with any sort of gun control to save the lives destroyed by violence.

          • David_Smith

            I cover a lot of ground and don’t recall that incident. There are a number of David Smiths on Disqus. Are you certain is was not one of them?

            In any event, you are inserting a red herring (per capita income). Yes, let’s also compare the number of tamales each nation consumes annually. Or perhaps Try to focus on the per capita gun homicide rate. It’s what we are discussing. An example would be pointing out that Norway gun ownership is common while gun violence and gun homicide are not. See how this works?

            You may not be talking about a war on US gun owners but you’re engaging in a political one against them nonetheless. Simply because you’re in deep denial of your political behavior and how it leaves firearms in the hands of criminals who will never follow your laws and can make them from hardware store items if need be while simultaneously disarming the law abiding populace leaving them defenseless against those criminals and their criminal organizations (not to mention defenseless against government totalitarianism should it ever arise) shows that your ignorant, morally blighted, and a dangerous person to the innocent law abiding people of the U.S..

          • Lorcan Bonda

            The post is in response to IamRoot. I responded to yours there, too — then you responded back. I’m sure you can find it, but it was not ‘another David Smith” unless discuss allows the same exact names for different people.

            “Per capita” is not a red herring. Scientific Studies should seek to control variables outside of the study’s parameters. I’ve noticed gun arguments which seem to miss this very fundamental idea (ex. gun control may reduce gun homicides, but they don’t reduce violent crime — thereby hiding the data among random variables, which is the opposite of understanding. it would be like arguing that gun control did not affect total deaths (because total deaths is a much, much larger number.)

            Perhaps this is why the study cited in this article is not ‘peer reviewed’, whereas the Hemenway/Miller study is.

            “Engaging in a political war” is exactly the opposite of real war. Freedom of speech does not apply only to people who agree with you. You’re the one who doesn’t seem to mind a few thousand gun deaths every year. Even basic restrictions as favored by 74% of NRA members are off limits.

            Yet, you have the gall to call me “morally blighted” — it seems to me that anyone who can casually accept gun deaths in society as a basic human right is “morally blighted”. Yet, we never hear anything from gun rights advocates about reducing gun deaths — it’s all about ‘me’, as though you believe gun control is some sort of punishment.

            We need a comprehensive to gun violence in this country, but that discussion can’t have everybody pointing figures at another group. Any discussion on limiting gun violence, needs to include options on gun control

          • David_Smith

            In Mexico, “comprehensive gun violence” resulted in skyrocketing gun homicide rates as criminals illegally armed themselves and the now defenseless law abiding citizens were powerless to do anything about it.

            The worst of the worst are the cartels and their illegally armed member criminals have gotten so bad they now kidnap children at will and harvest their organs for sale. At least one cartel is also murdering the children in initiation rites. The parents, of course, are powerless to stop them.

            The reason why you are morally blighted is because you are agitating to duplicate the situation, via strict gun control legislation that ensures law abiding moral citizens are disarmed in the face of illegally armed criminals, in the U.S..

            Fortunately, after many years of this insanity, Mexico has begun permitting sections of its populace to rearm. The result has been nothing short of staggering. They’ve caught numerous cartel leaders and driven the cartels from their areas. Crime has plummeted in these areas. So has gun homicide. Nobody’s snatching up children in THOSE neighborhoods anymore.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            You are comparing apples to oranges. I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to Mexico — I have. Civilian guards protected everything with machine guns. The police were completely ineffective.

            We have nothing like those cartels here. There is no comparison. Now, if Australia or England saw such a rise in cartel violence after they restricted guns, then you would have a point. But they didn’t. In other words, you paint another shell game that ignores the root causes and possible solutions to any of these problems. Instead, you pour kerosine on the fire and call it “rights.”

            I remember once believing in a country that solved problems. You call me “morally blighted” because I am not a fan of this culture of violence. One more time — how would you solve our gun problems? Live with it? More guns? That is insane.

            I don’t live in an area with a risk of children being captured for their organs. I live in a neighborhood similar to George Zimmerman. Children are shot walking to and from a service station, not kidnapped for their organs.

          • Jim Bennett

            Some gun control is acceptable, but should be done so to allow the law abiding citizen to protect themselves, and property and keep them out of the hands of criminals. That isn’t easy.

            What I believe “guest” is trying to say, but don’t quote me, is typically people who talk gun control really want a gun ban or at least that is how it is perceived. So where do you fall Lorcan Bonda?

        • Gar Bonzo

          Isn’t that a genetic fallacy? Can you attack the paper rather than attacking the source please? Thanks.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            I can attack the paper, but my point was in response to David Smith who stated that the article was “formerly peer reviewed before publication”. That phrase has clear meaning in scientific journals. David Smith’s claim is simply not true.

  • disqus_uhhPBOWzf4

    Having a position on an issue does not mean one is incapable of being objective in finding and analyzing data on that subject and it certainly doesn’t disqualify one from presenting arguments. If having a position automatically disqualifies one from the discussion, then the only people “qualified” to comment on anything would be those who are so “open minded” that they fail to come to a positive conclusion about anything, in which case we would all probably question their ability to think. We all have bias. Taking care to recognize (and correct for) the bias in ourselves and in others helps us to engage thoughtfully with new information. Ad hominem attacks on the messenger spare us the real work of thinking and blind us to new information and the enlightenment that could result.

  • Rebecca Flynn

    More people die from car accidents and heart attacks than from guns in this country. That’s what people who want to ban guns in this country forget to mention. Criminals who want to rob you are going to get their guns unregistered and from the black market; therefore, prohibiting gun laws only hurt the citizens who buy them legally and use them for self defense. It’s common sense. Crime typically goes up in countries that don’t allow citizens to defend themselves, because criminals know their victims will be defenseless. If you want to figure out why horrible shootings happen in malls and in schools, you need to look closer at the mental health of the shooters not just the tool (the gun, knife, etc). Any tool can be used as a weapon to do harm. I find it interesting that the media never talks about how the shooter is on some prescribed anti-depressant (SSRI) which clearly says may cause increased suicidal thoughts which typically correlate with homicides. We need to examine how these drugs can effect people while on them and understand the horrible withdrawl effects they can cause. Of course, the powerful pharma companies are never questioned by the media, despite many of these drugs being banned in other countries.

    • Lorcan Bonda

      Rebbecca — those are all a logical fallacy of false analogies. There is no comparison between cars and heart attacks vs. guns.

      If cars had no other purpose than to killing (or practice killing), then they would be banned. As it is, there are 2000 some-odd regulations to make them much safer than they would otherwise be. There is no such requirements for guns — plus guns can’t get you to work, drive you to the doctor, or the hospital.

      • 613and802

        But guns serve a greater purpose than just murder, which is the only lens that liberals see them through. Guns are tools, just like a car is, and when mishandled, as a result of intent or neglect, people can lose their lives.

        • Lorcan Bonda

          Guns are designed to shoot. Period. Some are designed to shoot people, some are designed to shoot animals — but either way, they maim or kill. You can try to argue that you shoot at a range, but that is pretty close to just training to shoot people.

          So when I point a gun at somebody in anger (or lets say twenty kids in an elementary school) that’s neglect? Adam Lanza simply wasn’t properly trained?

          It is hardly comparable to a tool needed to get to work and function effectively in society. Even at that, you have to have a license to drive a car and insurance. To get the license, you have to pass a written test, vision test, and a practical test. What do you need to buy a gun? A pulse.

          • 613and802

            OK last point first. Have you ever been through the gun buying process? I highly doubt it, so I don’t think you can really comment on that. You need a lot more than a pulse.

            Second, you can’t really compare guns to cars in terms of licensing, because gun ownership is a constitutional right, driving a car is not.

            Lastly, believe it or not, but guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, help to prevent crime every day. Gun ownership in the US has continued to rise and gun crime has continued to drop. We don’t have a gun problem in this country, we have a mental health problem and a gang problem.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Yes, I’m aware that typically you need more than a pulse to buy a gun (although the gun show exception is still there) — sarcasm is a lost art on the internet.

            I didn’t compare cars to guns — Rebecca Flynn did in her opening post. I was responding to that comparison. However, if guns are a “constitutional right” why can’t former felons buy a gun? Don’t they qualify for “constitutional rights”? (It’s a rhetorical question — I know why they can’t buy a gun, but they can get a driver’s license.)

            Crime is dropping because of demographic changes. I’m not sure guns have an effect on crime, but I’m very sure guns have an effect on homicides. It would be nice if the NRA allowed this sort of independent research to be conducted.

          • pickedupapencil .

            You are correct. Guns are designed to shoot, but there have been psychological tests done that prove that shooting at a range does not prepare you to take a life.

            The person you’re responding to definitely said as a matter of intent or neglect. Why choose the one that simply sounds ridiculous?

            Cars may be used for getting us around, but they are still responsible for far far more deaths than guns, so it begins to look like you don’t care about the total number of people killed, just about banning a tool that actually, according to the research, makes us safer.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Right — but we have restrictions on cars (licenses, registration), yet we have very little restrictions on guns.

            My point about the gun range was only that the utility of guns is all about shooting. They can’t help you get to work, convey goods around the country, or take people to the hospital/doctor. There is a utility to cars which shooting at a gun range doesn’t match. Cars are fundamental to a modern economy — guns have no such fundamental usage. That is why they are not comparable.

            It is a logical fallacy of false analogy. The relative comparison of the number of deaths from cars is unrelated to the number from guns.

          • pickedupapencil .

            If I had a big enough property and enough money, I could purchase a car, and drive it around my property with 0 restrictions, registrations, or licenses. Those are mostly in place to tax you.

            The utility of a gun is a show of power. A power that if not wielded would make you vulnerable to anyone who would like to take your life or property. Calling the cops? Sure. That’ll work. If you can call them, if they can get there in time, and if they can save you or your property without putting themselves in harm’s way. I am a completely law abiding citizen, and I chose not to be a cop which means I can’t have a gun because why..? The cops have their guns to protect themselves, and maybe to protect you too. I have mine for the same reason. Training? I can get the same training. Safety? I can demonstrate the same, if not better safety practices than most cops. My safety is my responsibility, not yours, and not the boys in blue. You have no right to tell me I can’t have the best means to do so. Cars, and firearms are tools that have 0 utility without human intervention. They both serve their purposes, and cars happen to kill far more people. What do people do when people die from accidents? They educate, and try to eliminate the cause of the accident, not ban the features of a car. You could perfectly get around by limiting all cars to a low speed, doesn’t happen.

            And they again are both tools that can cause death when misused, neglected, or by freak accident. So yes, you can compare them.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Driving on your own property is known as a farmer’s exemption for a reason. You still have to register a car, even if you only drive it on your property.

            Yes, I get the macho self-protection attitude. And, if it didn’t cost our society so much, I’d be all for it. Of course you can get training, but that has nothing to do with gun-deaths in the country. Unless we can have a way to ensure that all gun-owners are trained, then there are no guarantees.

            But, if you don’t believe that cars are more important to our society than guns — I think you are fooling yourself, but you’re not fooling anybody else, Imagine going for a typical week without a gun. No problem, right? Now imagine going for a week without a car. Most of us couldn’t get to work, we couldn’t go shopping. That’s a pretty big deal.

            There is no comparison economically. Cars open up the entire country — guns do none of that.

          • Jim Bennett

            Why do you have to denigrate a persons point of view to prove yours? There is nothing Macho about protecting ones self or family. A respectable person would say it is a noble cause. And there isn’t much worse than to be incapable of protecting your family, Consider Dr Petite in CT and his ordeal, I would want a gun in my hands in that situation. I wouldn’t want to shoot, but I certainly want the freedom if I need it.

            A car has uses, but so do guns. The USA quite frankly would not exist without guns. Right or wrong, in fact most countries borders are enforced by them. Europe would be all Germany now if it weren’t for the American GI and his gun.

            Can I live without both, YES, would I enjoy it, NO. As for which is worth more, that would depend on who you ask, where they live, and what they do for a living. A soldier in Afghanistan is going to want the gun, A secretary in South Bend, IN probably wants the car.

            In my opinion, there is no correlation between crime rates and the # of guns in a given area. Anyone can make an argument for one, but it is difficult to prove that any one change will have a significant impact. I think economics, the Law, mental health, and society in general play much bigger roles than guns.

            Besides to ban guns is to remove a freedom protected by the constitution, and freedom in the USA is regarded as sacred regardless of which freedom is being reduced. Which has more to do with the reason people become so passionate about it than cars. But then again I know some really passionate car people.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Yes, it is a macho-tough guy attitude that only you can protect your family. The opposite view point is that we need to make society safer so that it isn’t necessary. That’s the future I would like to see.

            It is noble to provide for your family and raise your children in a nurturing environment. But it is not noble to descend to a vigilante, every one out for themselves mentality.

            Having a nation’s borders enforced by trained security is not the same thing as everyone inside the border armed and dangerous. Consider an airport — we expect security to be trained, but we don’t allow everyone to carry guns on the inside. Most people agree with that strategy for an airport.

            Correlating crime to gun ownership is a statistical red herring. Most crime is not gun related. It’s like saying that there is no relationship between bone cancer and total deaths, therefore we should stop working on bone cancer.

            If guns are such an important right, why are felons prevented from owning them? Freedom is important, but I don’t worship the Constitution. It was meant to be amended based on a changing world (hence things like “2nd amendment”.) Right to life is much more important than the right to bear arms — that’s why Joe the Plumber looked like an imbecile.

            Besides, I’m not talking about eliminating guns, I’m talking about restrictions for safety. Like airbags or seat belts. Remember when people argued that if they didn’t want to wear seat belts, they should have the right. It didn’t stop seat belt laws. Yet, the NRA stops any consideration of gun laws.

          • Jim Bennett

            The desire to protect my family in the case of an intruder breaking into my home is not Macho at all, if anything I feel it is simply required. I could not live with myself if anything happened to any of my children if I didn’t take the necessary steps to protect them. Safe neighborhoods simply don’t exist anymore, even gated communities have been targeted.

            As for being called a vigilante, “a person who is not a police officer but who tries to catch and punish criminals,” does not at all describe my situation. If they break into my home I’m not out looking to punish anyone, actually the law as written puts me in a precarious situation because the law stands squarely on the side of the intruder and not mine. Say if I shoot him in the legs or even break his legs with a bat, because I don’t want to kill him, he can sue me in civil court and probably win. That’s ridiculous.

            As for the Airport concept, they are protected by armed guards, dogs, security barriers, personnel scanners, etc. Most houses don’t have that level of security. Many houses have a security alarm but that is just a deterrent that can be overwhelmed. So your left with arming yourself, as the police can’t intervene until the intruder does something.

            I think making our communities safer is a great goal, but it is a very difficult goal that requires the buy in by its members. Some communities do it by increasing the number of guns and other do it by reducing them. Which one is most effective depends more on the community and how guns are perceived than the laws themselves.

            As for your comparison of guns to driving a car, there is a major difference in that the 2nd amendment affords the “right” to bear arms. However, there is no line in the constitution or bill of rights that affords us the other than that of property to drive your car on the street. Which, implies that the government, rightly or wrongly doesn’t agree with your analysis.

            As for safety of firearms, there are some, such as the safely lever required on most firearms, restrictions of firearms to be located away from its ammunition, the newest pistol requires the user to keep a secured watch within a certain distance, about arms length away to activate the trigger. Firearm safes, trigger locks, now they have finger print locks and training courses to name a few. But just like a car’s safety device they can be overcome by stupidity, or the intention to due harm. You will find in general that firearm owners are very particular about safety.

            With that said, what changes to the current regulations would you make to improve safety? Please be as specific as possible! I believe in background checks at all levels of purchase, stores, gun shows, and the like.

          • Candace Zingg

            Do you think if the media focused on ALL the stories where guns saved people, that the ” gun debate” would be dead? Do you ever wonder why the media doesn’t report these stories? They only report the gun stories where innocent” people were killed, yet innocent people are saved much more often by guns, than killed by them. Media perception shapes the argument, you have to use your critical reasoning skills. http://www.offgridsurvival.com/truthaboutguns/

          • Jeremy Banchiere

            You keep missing the point: the cost of life due to cars is something we can’t live without. We NEED cars to keep our society running.

            No one “needs” a gun to do anything. The loss of life is unnecessary.

          • Candace Zingg

            There are millions who don’t follow the laws… Millions driving without a Lic and Ins., just because we have ” laws” doesn’t mean people automatically comply. If ” laws” worked, we wouldn’t have crime. There are truly ” sick ” people in this world. As a women, and a mother, I want the RIGHT to protect myself with gun’s!!! The man back East who lost his wife and two daughters, wished he had a GUN! Those two men, did unspeakable things to his family, before killing them! But he didn’t own a gun……. You liberals don’t like guns, that’s your right, but STOP trying to take ” OUR” rights away!!!

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Of course there are millions who don’t follow the laws, but that is no reason not to have them.

            I’m not sure why the right to own a gun is more important to the right to not walk down the street unthreatened by random shooters.

            I don’t know anything about the “man back East” except for the on in Newtown. The few studies that have been conducted say that a handgun is more likely to be used by an intruder against a family member than vice versa.

            You are more interested in your right to own a gun, than in anyone else’s right to live. That strikes me as the most selfish attitude possible.

            Why must it be a gun? Why not pepper spray or taser?

      • dockilldare

        there are over 50,000 regulations on guns nation wide.

        but cars cant defend you from a home invader, a rapist, or a tyrannical government. but a gun can.

  • bricko

    More cowbell

  • Alisha Fox

    This is my very first time that I am visiting here and I’m truly pleasurable to see everything at one place.ppi claim

  • maryann26

    Anyone with any sense knows that criminals do not care about any laws, including gun laws. Only law-abiding people would be left defenseless if Americans gave up their guns, which will not happen. The right to self-defense in inalienable.

    • bkydcmpr

      I agree. I was searching for what percentage of the murder weapons are legally owned, but the data I found included suicide weapons made it pointless.

    • dockilldare

      all one needs to do to see the truth of your statement is look to Detroit, NYC, Chicago, DC etc. all have strict gun control laws all have extremely high violent crime rates. something the left wing anti gun folks never want to discus.

      • maryann26

        Absolutely correct. Gun control is a farce.

    • Jeremy Banchiere

      Availability is the issue.. and enforcement. They literally compared Russia and Estonia but not the UK or Japan. You don’t think the education, infrastructure and the economy are key components to this? You don’t think it would be easier to get a gun in Russia than the UK no matter what the circumstances are?

      You can’t compare nations that are a hot mess with the US. “See! Columbia has less guns than the US and their homicide rate is higher!!”

      You need to compare like-for like. And when you compare nations that have similar levels of infrastructure, education and economy, you will find that the US has far higher homicide rates.

      London and NYC are nearly an identical size and have nearly identical populations. They have very similar levels of education as well. In London, you are 2x as likely to be the victim of a violent crime than in NYC. But in NYC, you are 4x as likely to be the victim of a homicide.

      So in London, you are far more likely to be attacked, but in NYC you are even MORE likely to be killed. Why? What makes the violent crime in NYC more fatal than the crime in London? What took do we have that they don’t?

      • maryann26

        NYC has some of the “toughest” gun laws in the nation. The problem is the NYC ghettos. I work in NYC, and I have never seen anyone using a gun. I would never go into the ghettos, and I would advise people to stay out of the ghettos. There are beautiful areas of NYC, and I enjoy NYC very much. The ghettos are infested with gangs, drugs and people who should not have guns.

        • Jeremy Banchiere

          I am not disagreeing that gun violence happens in certain areas, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reduce it. The same is true in London for the violent crime. It’s in the rougher, poorer areas. So the comparison is still valid.

          Also, the reason the gun laws in NYC are tainted:
          1) there are already guns in NYC and 2) there are borders withing 1-2 hours of NYC where you can buy a gun legally much easier.

          So when I talk about NYC, it is a “gun” city regardless of the laws in place now. So comparing London and NYC is comparing a gun city and a non-gun city.

          • maryann26

            I do not see how anyone can get guns out of the hands of drug dealers, gang members and violent criminals of any kind. Criminals do not obey the laws, but law-abiding citizens do. Criminals find a way to smuggle anything they want. NYC is proof of that too. You are right that purchasing guns very close to NYC is much easier. It is also true that guns are smuggled into NYC and NYS from other states that have very loose gun laws.

            I do not see Americans giving up their guns since the only people with guns would be criminals. Many Americans see gun ownership as part of our history. Americans hunt, target practice and collect guns. Americans want to be able to defend themselves.

            I do not see Americans willing to address social policy that might make it less likely for certain members of society to turn to drug dealing, gangs violence, etc. I really do not see Americans addressing reducing the violence from guns at all.

      • Candace Zingg

        Did you read the entire 45 pages? Page 655, discusses London in the early 90′s and their complete gun control, but how violence spiked! This is a very thorough study, and even the foot notes should be read….. They use Europe to show, the differences in gun control vs gun freedom, and the relationships to actual crime. More crime in ” gun control” area’s. Just like here in the US. The highest areas of crime, have the strictest ” gun control”. Besides more people are killed by hammer’s than guns, more by knives, more by bat’s…. MORE by automobiles…… So should we ” ban” those too? Really it’s not the ” gun” that kills people, just as its not the ” hammer”. This issue is fueled by a very corrupt govt. that wants total control. However they know, ” we” US citizens comprise the largest army, and as long as we are armed, they can’t implement their true agenda. Propaganda works well. The ” progressive democrats”, and I say ” progressive” because I believe the ” average” Democrat doesn’t understand the new party, want to take away the ” Constitution”. These people have been working very methodically for about a 100 years…. They took over our education system, and have implemented Cloward and Pivens ideas, and Salinsky style tactics. It seems to be working on a segment of the population.

        • Jeremy Banchiere

          Ok, but my stats on TODAY still stand. Are you saying you would rather live in a city where you have 4x the change of being murdered than 2x the chance of being mugged?

        • Lorcan Bonda

          Just like here — every time you hear a mention of gun control, sales spike. This is the sort of distortion that the NRA uses. After the spike gun violence dropped. In other words, you can’t just look at the first year after a law changed.

          More people are not killed by hammers than guns. That is absurd. However, it is all opportunity costs — Hammers have a utility outside of killing, so do cars. Yet, we are working constantly to reduce fatalities in driving — unlike guns. Cars have seatbelts, air bags, and a reinforced frame structure compared to a few decades ago. In the same period, guns have gotten deadlier.

          I can’t imagine anyone saying with a straight face – “I’ve never had an accident, why am I punished by forcing me to follow speed limits?”

          FYI — “Here are the facts; In America in 2011, 8583 people were murdered by one
          type of weapon, guns (an additional 18,000 + committed suicide with
          firearms). Less than half that amount, 4,081 were killed by every other
          weapon known to man including knives, blunt objects, poison, fire,
          pushing out a window, cars, hands, explosions, drowning, narcotics,
          strangulation, asphyxiation and the mysterious “other” category.

          • EyingTheLies

            We should disarm our armed forces because less would be killed or injured if we sent them to war without their guns!

          • Lorcan Bonda

            There is a reason the 2nd Amendment includes a “well-regulated militia”. Otherwise your point is just silly.

  • Lucy gray

    There is good collection of the articles with informative stuff

    http://www.ppiclaimshandler.org.uk

  • Donnertparty

    Number of gun homicides in U.S., 2012: 8,855 or 3.6/100,000 population.. Number in Japan, 2008: 11 (prior years seem to be 40 to 60), 0.0/100,000 (0.0 because the numbers or so very low, prior years about 0.04). So, the U.S. has a gun homicide rate that is 90 times higher than Japan. Japan has very restrictive gun laws, especially for handguns.

    • Cliff Rice

      We own more than 200 times as many guns as Ethiopia per person, yet they have a homicide rate 531% higher than ours, Colombia owns 6.6% as many guns as US citizens, yet a 642% higher murder rate. El Salvador, 6.5% as many guns, and a 1442% higher murder rate, and yes they have very restrictive gun laws too. Switzerland has half as many guns as we do, yet only 15% of the US murder rate. Stricter gun laws will do nothing, and have done nothing. People will find other ways to kill if they want. Cars, bombs (think Tim McVeigh…I wish he had used a gun), knives. The latest crazy used a knife to kill half his victims unbeknownst to anyone until he started shooting and was then stopped quickly. If he had continued a silent attack with a knife, he might have killed far more people. Attacking the second amendment and saying it’s outdated would be no different in saying freedom of the press is outdated and needs to be changed to protect people. These last crazies appeared very much to want to go down in history and make themselves famous in their last acts. If the press were not allowed to report these stories, we would likely save lives. If police weren’t restricted by search warrants, they could routinely search homes or cars and save so many lives. Freedom comes with a price, and our founders knew that. We now have a huge push by a lot of people to make more gun laws restricting the freedoms of 300 million people because of the actions of a couple dozen. Guns are used hundreds of thousands of times a year for protection, yet we rarely hear the press reporting those.

      • Change

        Let´s not compare USA with developed countries then! Stricter gun control laws do make a difference in the rest of the civilized world. And feeling the need to own a gun is not freedom, it´s fear. Opposite of freedom.

        • Cliff Rice

          Let’s not let facts get in the way of your opinion.

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

          • Lorcan Bonda

            That study is not “facts”. it is twisted and distorted data to prove a point which is inherently wrong. Comparing the United States to a gangster lead banana republic is absurd. Yours are random numbers without any context (as reported by paid NRA afffiliates.)

            You can find facts on this subject, but your are not among them. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/09/idea-guns-make-nation-safer-debunked-study

          • Cliff Rice

            Any study that is authored by Hemenway can
            pretty much be discarded as not being objective. Hemenway is an avid anti gun
            advocate and authors studies that are poorly constructed to bolster his personal positions. The second “study” was not overall homicide
            rates, but “gun deaths”. If the study had focused on the relationship between homicide rate and gun ownership by countries it would have concluded that there was no relationship. Instead it reached the mostly obvious conclusion that “gun deaths” are more prevalent in countries with more guns. It would be the same as comparing the gun suicide rate of the US with gun suicide rate in Japan and concluding that the gun suicide rate in the US is 100 times higher than Japan’s which would be true, but it’s also a meaningless statistic since the real suicide rate of Japan is twice that if the US. How about you start looking beyond the studies and look at the figures yourself. If you do that objectively, compare gun ownership rates with homicide rates you will see the very obvious, there is no relationship between the two. For example, the top twenty states in homicide rate have an average of 38% gun ownership rate and a 7.3 homicide rate. The twenty states with the highest gun ownership rate ( 50%), has a 4.7 homicide rate, and that’s even including Louisiana with their 12.6 rate. The twenty states with the lowest gun ownership rate (25%), has a homicide rate of 5.0. How can that be? The twenty states with the most guns had the lowest average homicide rate? Hemenway said more guns=more gun deaths, yet the figures don’t show that at all.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            This is funny — scientific studies in peer-reviewd scientific journals can be “discarded as not being objective.” Whereas an opinion paper which is authored by NRA lobbyists is acceptable. You make me laugh.

          • Cliff Rice

            …and by the way, it’s obvious you did not read the study I cited. If you did you would realize their facts are not twisted and distorted, and they went far beyond comparing a banana republic to the US.

          • An Opinion

            As someone who lives in Norway, which is one the studies prime examples of many guns, low crime, I tell you, the paper is not getting theirs facts right. Norway has very strict gun control laws. If this is science, it is sloppy…

    • Kenny

      That whooshing sound that you just heard flying over your head… that was “the point”.

      Comparing “gun homicide rates” is a meaningless metric. What matters is the overall homicide rate versus the number of guns per capita. What this study says is that when you look at the issue in it’s proper context, the number of guns versus the overall incidence of murder, stricter gun laws do not result in a reduction in violence.

      • Lorcan Bonda

        No, his metric is valid. As you use larger populations of data, the data becomes more muddled and you hide the distinction.

        For instance, you could argue that all of the millions spend on Pancreas cancer research is wasted because the death rate in America is unaffected. But most deaths are not due to Pancreatic Cancer, so any success in that field would be hidden by “total death rate”.

        Which is SOP for the NRA — hide small numbers in comparatively large numbers (like saying that violent crime is higher in the UK than the US, even though hand guns are outlawed. Which ignores the difference in definitions between the countries.)

        However, the US homicide rate is 16 times higher than Japan. That on its own is not enough to prove anything as it does not take into account other differences — however, our gun homicide rate is much higher than most other developed countries. And the NRA still has no answer for that.

        • Kenny

          So you didn’t actually bother to read the study, then, because they actually show their statistical analysis. It has nothing to do with the NRA. It’s Harvard Law. Peer reviewed and published.

          Who are you?

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Yes, I did read the study — quite some time ago.. I can distort statistics better than he can. For instance, showing that Russia has “strict gun laws”, but higher murder rates is absurd because it ignores the massive changes which has occurred in Russia over the past several decades.

            That doesn’t change the statistics. Yes, Russia has a higher murder rate than the United States, but no sociologist worth their degree would compare those two countries.

            It avoids comparing the United States (homicide rate 4.7) to England (homicide rate 1.0), but decides to point out that England has a higher violent crime rate — which misses the fact that England has a much different definition of violent crime than other countries, such as the United States. Plus, no matter how you shake it, the number of “violent crimes” dwarfs gun homicides as to be meaningless.

            So, yes, their statistics are meaningless. If you bothered to read the study critically, then it would be obvious.

            And as far as “peer reviewed” — for some reason this is a big selling point for this article — it was not “peer reviewed” in the scientific sense, it was peer reviewed in a linguistic sense.

            Again, a simple critical analysis makes this clear. It is the sort of analysis which is sorely lacking in the discussion on guns.

          • Kenny

            Well then! Thank heavens you are here to debunk disreputable sources of analytical data like Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy!

            You see what happens when “experts” with their phony balogna degrees like, Don B. Kates, criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University step outside their lifelong areas of study and start researching subjects that they don’t have any training or experience in… like Criminology.

            Thank God you are here to set them strait!

            Umm… Who are you, again?

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Kenny — I tell you what … read the report yourself and decide the validity of it. Do you believe Russia is a good comparison to the United States? That’s what the study says. Could you think of a few other countries in Europe which would provide a better comparison?

            Or you can read these reports which actually are peer-reviewed scientific studies on guns from Harvard — http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            or you can read this blog, which debunks the “study” in its entirety:

            http://my.firedoglake.com/danps/2013/09/05/shoddy-gun-paper-excites-right-wing/

            For instance, it points out ”

            The US has nearly twice the gun ownership of the next closest country. It’s number one by a huge margin, no contest. The only substantially false thing is the very first factual assertion the authors make in their paper.

            Next the authors claim as 100% false the notion that the US “has by far the highest murder rate.” They also spend a good deal of time on Soviet/Russian murder rates, as though that is one of the industrialized
            nations we should be comparing ourselves to and not, say, the UK. There’s also this bizarre statement that seems to have wandered in from a Red Scare pamphlet:

            “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.” ”

            Comparing the United States to the Western nations of Euorpe, he finds, “America’s overall homicide rate is first by a substantial margin, its firearm homicide rate even more so. Once again it isn’t even close – yet
            the authors claim it is a false statement.”

            The point being — you have a brain, right? You are allowed to use it. You can constructively analyze the “study” to develop your own understanding of its bias. But, on any level, comparing the United States to Russia is absurd. Yet, you accept these “criminologists” as experts — just like all of those cigarette experts used to prove the harmlessness of cigarettes.

            If so, you need to ask a refund on any expenses you’ve made toward education. It’s been wasted.

  • priscilladorio

    This ‘study’ is irrelevant. Compare the US to a few dangerous European or Middle Eastern cities and of course the figures will be off. I live in Australia and we have a strict ban on guns. We do not see anywhere near this amount of death and destruction. Everyone who thinks they need a gun to protect themselves from ‘criminals’ is kidding themselves. It’s not the criminals that go on mass shooting sprees, it’s not the criminals that show up at high schools and kill all of your children, it’s KIDS. KIDS from normal families that have access to a dangerous weapon they shouldn’t have access to and don’t have the mental capacity to think through their actions. I’m so grateful that I live in a country where I don’t have to worry about getting gunned down while I try to study at university and I’m grateful that our politicians care enough about our citizens to not allow such a dangerous weapon into society. How many more people have to die before you realise this too?

    • EyingTheLies

      If only we had disarmed our soldiers in the second war they would not have had to die and Japan would have been less provoked into attacking our cities and harming the children!

  • Mick Yisma

    Pricilladorio, what you have types has got to be one of the most stupid posts I’ve ever read. “Its not the criminals that go on mass shooting spress…” Hello if anyone, age does not matter, goes on a shooting spree, that’s a criminal activity so therefore those who do it are criminals! Hello! Knock Knock!! Read the actual study you will see that Canada, the UK and Australia were part of the study as well as the US and guess what the only country with a declining violent crime rate is the US, and yes the only country with a declining murder rate is the US, in spite of the fact the Canada, K and Australia have introduced more and more gun control regulations.

    Banning has never worked & never will work, all that banning does is create a black market and market in which criminals flourish!

    Guns, knives, poisons, cars whatever DO NOT KILL PEOPLE! Period! People kill people. If you ever seen a gun or a knife floating down the street killing people let me know until then, Grow up and actually think about it.

    Murder rate is murder rate doesn’t matter what was used. Punish the criminal not an object or a law abiding citizen.

    • josh

      listen you blithering idiot. The reason why US is the only one with a decreasing crime rate is because they are the only ones that have such a noticeable one in the first place. They have placed strict restrictions on guns and now have some of the less crime rates regarding guns in the world whilst the US still suffers from over 10,000 gun related crimes a year.

      Guns have one purpose and that is to make killing more efficient, there is no other purpose.

      Haven’t you grown sick and tired of watching the news and discovering that even more children have died because of cowards like you can’t be bothered to stand up and make a difference. Instead you hide behind your pathetic excuses!!

  • bjwalls

    Yep this phony “study” has been circulating for over 7 years. This is not a Harvard study and the “Harvard Journal of Public Law” is not an academic journal. The journal is a non-peer reviewed ideological publication created and maintained by a student club organized to promote libertarian ideas. That the club gets funding from student activity fees does not make it a Harvard study. The methodology employed by the two “researchers” makes it interesting exam example for political science students in a Junior Level methodology class. However, one prof. of such a class said he wouldn’t use it because it is too easy, stating, “I hope my students learned in elementary school that you can’t compare apples and oranges.”

    • 48574

      According to this Harvard website this journal is student lead but it is peer reviewed.

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/orgs/journals/#HarvardJournalofLawPublicPolicy

      • Lorcan Bonda

        It isn’t “peer reviewed”. It doesn’t say that (nor could it every be since “peer review” is for scientific literature, which this is not. It is an opinion piece.)

        I don’t believe people understand what “peer review” means. It doesn’t mean a journal where peers could read it if they want to.

        What it does say is that the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is “the leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.” You can take that for what it is, but it is not a scientific study by any stretch.

        However, here are some scientific studies on the subject: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ and here is an article talking about a British study: http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2013/09/idea-guns-make-nation-safer-debunked-study

        In case you are wondering, those are peer reviewed studies.

        • 48574

          According to Harvard that journal is peer reviewed. I quote from the top of the page I gave the link for you

          Students at Harvard Law School produce scholarly journals devoted to
          specific substantive areas of the law and to various approaches to
          examining legal developments. These peer reviewed publications offer
          invaluable practical experience in legal writing, editing, and
          scholarship.

          Your definition of peer received is also incorrect. It can apply to more then scientific studies.

          http://library.sdsu.edu/reference/news/what-does-peer-review-mean

          http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html

          The fact you keep denying this journal is peer reviewed when it clearly is says more about what kind of close minded ideologue you are then anything about this journal.

          • Leigh S.

            I think you’re missing this pertinent point. So, the Harvard student-produced journal is peer-reviewed. The peers of students, then, would be _other students_, by the very definition of the noun “peer” (i.e., “a person of the same age, status, or ability as another specified person”).

          • 48574

            Do you people just not bother to read the links I give? To quote from the first one that gives the definition of what a peer review journal is:

            Peer review means that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject
            area of the journal review materials they publish for quality of
            research and adherence to editorial standards of the journal before
            articles are accepted for publication.

            If you have evidence that this journal works differently feel free to give a link to that evidence. Otherwise, you are just asserting a something that is just not normally true about the term “peer reviewed” in the academic world.

            I would add I am missing nothing. Up to this point the claim is that journal is NOT peer reviewed. I keep proving it is. Now people like you having been shown that it isn’t true want to make unsubstantiated assertions about the quality of the peer review. At what point are you critics required to actually address the facts they have and stop with the ad hominem attacks?

          • Leigh S.

            Okay, this is the last go-around for me. Kindly review what you’ve just written and go back to what I wrote. There was nothing ad-hominem whatsoever in my assertion. On the contrary, your response to ‘us people’ smacks much more of vitriol than mine ever did. I know quite well about the peer-review process; it might even be likely I have edited scholarly medical (peer-reviewed) articles and textbooks for several publishers longer than you’ve been in (or out of) grad school. I made no such assertion that the journal was not peer-reviewed. HOWEVER, the journal itself lays no claim to having been peer-reviewed on its about page (http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/). It does, in fact, say that it is student-edited; that gets buried in the text, perhaps, but it is there. Note the current about page information: “The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times
            annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an
            organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the
            most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s
            leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. . . . The Journal prides itself on developing the writing, researching, and
            editing skills of each staff member from the beginning of 1L year and
            continuing through all three years of law school. ” (http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/) That said, one has to do some digging–perhaps some transparency is in order for the JLPP’s “about” page, with regard to explaining the peer-review process in which they participate–into Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory (which is subscription-only, password-protected, so I can’t provide a link) for you or anyone else to verify that it is currently peer-reviewed. In any case, there are ways of assessing the overall quality of the scholarly journal; here is one: The Washington & Lee University School of Law “Law Journals: Submissions and Rankings, 2006-2013.” (http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx?mainid=108 tick all the boxes under “choose ranking criteria”) You will find that the #48-ranked (out of 680-odd journals, in my search) JLPP has a somewhat middling impact-factor rating of 1.09 (compared with, say, the Stanford Law Review, which garners a 3.68 or the Columbia Law Review, which fetches a 3.19). So, there are the substantiation data for which you called. And if we are talking about this pro-Mauser piece, by the ACRU (http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/), it is an unsigned, unclaimed opinion piece, given dead-away by the use of “I” and “my” and the fact that it gives no corroborating links to data. ACRU makes no claims about its online publications being peer-reviewed that I can see (http://theacru.org/about-mission.html and http://theacru.org/about-staff.html). That it receives nonpartisan, tax-exempt status is laughable. In any case, before you cast aspersions, Mr./Ms.Anonymous 48754, you should look to your own anger level and back up your claims with solid data. I’m done.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            But the “scholars” who review the material are reviewing it for “practical experience in legal writing, editing, and scholarship.” (your quote) They aren’t reviewing for scientific accuracy. In other words, they are twisting the meaning of the phrase as it is normally used in scientific publications.

          • Lorcan Bonda

            Leigh is right. My point is that “peer review” means different things for different publications. Your source agrees with this.

            A student opinion publication has different peer review standards than a student law journal. This “study” was not published in an international medical journal like “Lancet”. It was published in a student law journal — so, that is your peer review.

    • ayydubb

      It’s a student edited journal that IS peer reviewed, according to the Harvard Law website. It was co-written by a criminologist lawyer and a criminologist PhD/professor. What exactly is phony about it? Did they make up their sources? Did they cheat the peer review system? Is peer reviewed material only legitimate when it lines up with your own personal ideologies?

      What specifically is your basis for throwing out the entire study?

      • An Opinion

        For one, the data from Norway is presented falsely. Norway has one of the strictest gun policies in Europe…

  • http://www.johnlhancock.com/ John L Hancock

    Right after Sandy Hook, I was having dinner with friends who were visiting from Australia. They are psychologists who have practiced here and are currently practicing in Melbourne. They said the same thing that this study does. While gun violence is lower in Australia, the overall homicide rate is on par with the US. The only difference is that the weapons of choice are sharp instruments (knives, box cutters, broken bottles, etc). They told me that, for those who survive, the emotional damage is greater because of the personal nature of the attacks. More often than not, the face is the target; thus leaving the victim permanently scared and disfigured.

    They also pointed out that the main reason Australia does not have the mass shootings like the US does is how they treat mental illness. If a doctor determines a patient to be a danger to himself or others, they have a legal process that allows the doctor to put the patient on medication. This is mandatory! The patient must show up at a clinic to take the medication. If he misses an appointment, then the clinic notifies the police and they will bring him to the clinic. This, according to my friends, is how they keep mass killings from happening in Australia. It has nothing to do with guns.

    • ChowdaHead

      A quick Googling says (at least as of 2010) that the US homicide rate is FOUR times that of Australia. In my experience, that doesn’t count as comparable. So, were your friends just mistaken, or did you make all this nonsense up?

  • http://www.biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com BiggerFatterPolitics

    Guns kill 30K people while the medical industry kills over 1 MILLION. You are 10000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than a gun owner.

    Largest Criminal Fines Are In Health Care click here

    • Gregg Leventhal

      Yea, and the healthcare industry is a mess wrought with malpractice lawsuits and restrictive policy pushing good doctors out of practicing medicine, what’s your point? A isn’t bad because C is worse? Not a great argument.

  • Angelina Jullie

    The information in this blog is extremely useful for the people.
    read more

  • Angelina Jullie

    I have learnt various good stuff right here, and I’m sure everyone will get advantage of it.http://www.ppiclaimshandler.org.uk

  • http://www.nile7.com jaklin badr
  • Disrespected Man

    Only the ignorant believe the SOLE purpose for our freedom of arms is for hunting or protection from a burglar. The PURPOSE was to over throw the government as needed. THEN you have the equally ignorant that say something stupid like “what if they have a tank”? Only YOU believe that #1 – we would be fighting against OUR military if We, the People, were to over throw the government. #2 We would be targeting the military if WE, the People, were to over throw the government.

    Think I’m wrong? IF you were informed you would know our constitution LIMITS, and explicitly so, the military to a significant fraction of the people for the PURPOSE of ensuring that We, the People, CAN over throw the government if needed.

    What OBAMA has been doing, to work AROUND that law, is heavily arming instead the NON Military organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration and arming them with literally full auto machine guns, heavily armored vehicles. WTF?!?! Food and Drug Administration??

    We have our OWN Terrorist, and they are the democraps and progressives hell bent on destroying our country, military, financial stability.

    • Lorcan Bonda

      No — the purpose was to provide an immediate military force for until an army could be raised by the Federal government. That is what a “well-regulated militia” is, and that is how Washington used it in the Whiskey Rebellion.

      There were some (notably Jefferson) who felt that the government should not feel too safe from the population. That should keep them honest.

      But I don’t think even Jefferson had a true appreciation for some of the crazies out there.

  • Cbsnyder

    I own guns and have a CHL. Some how i have managed not to committ a violent crime…. Go figure. How many of the anti-gun people commenting below have actual knowledge of fire arms? I appreciate your concern that little ole me can’t make any of my own choices, but i can handle it without your and everyone elses superior intellect guiding me . The person chooses to take a life no matter what “tool” they choose. I personally chose not to, the guns dont get a vote. The problem is people, and if you ever figure out how to keep everyone from killing each other with anything they can get thier hands on, I’m sure someone will actually take you seriously. For now, I’ll use my 2nd amendment rights peacefully.

    • Gregg Leventhal

      Your argument is completely invalid. the point is not that there are not responsible gun owners at all. The point it that by allowing people access to guns, there ARE going to be people who don’t properly secure their guns, and there are going to be people who are not stable, but manage to buy a gun. Your right to own a gun needs to be weighed against the danger to everyone else that is introduced by making guns as easily accessible as they currently are. Outside of bombs, there are not many “tools” that enable an individual to do so much harm to innocents before being apprehended. Don’t you think it is a little selfish to make this about your personal rights to own guns when you see in the newspaper the damage that is being caused in this country by guns being illegal? It isn’t about you, it’s about the nuts that shoot up schools. Sometimes we need to sacrifice things that we care about because they don’t work in our society. If you outlaw guns, you need to really do it, meaning life in prison for possession. That will quickly reduce the whole “only outlaws will have guns” issue.

      • Cbsnyder

        First of all, freedom and rights are selfish in nature that is the point of INDIVIDUAL rights. These rights were secured by forward looking men so that a tyrannical government could not take your INDIVIDUAL rights just because there is a chance u might harm someone or disagree with a government. You’re argument also contradicts innocent before proven guilty. I have done nothing to harm anyone, yet you say I am guilty? When did individuals lose responsibility for their own actions? By ur argument my rights are less important than you’re intuition that someone will be murderred purely because They had access to a firearm, not just weapon, but only because of a firearm. If you can prove that murders will stop without guns, please show us and we can end violent crimes. You are scared of people having access to guns, I’m scared of not being able to protect myself and others. Is ur fear more important than mine.? Am I to be punished for the actions of a few? Unstable people play violent video games, watch action or horror movies, so do we ban these? Adopt a state sponsored media? Are u not aware that crazy people can buy hammers? Knives? Be a good citizen, mind yourself before pointing the finger everywhere else. And maybe actually experiance owning a fire arm befor you judge it.

        • Gregg Leventhal

          Can you drive as fast as you want at any time? No. Personal freedoms end where public interest begins, whether a it is safety or something else. A bunch of the arguments you made were based on you misinterpreting what I said, and I don’t have the energy to reply to your 4 different posts, but believe that I have shot guns, including fully automatic SMGs, and I like to shoot. I just like children’s safety more.

          • Cbsnyder

            I wasn’t aware that driving fast was an amendment to the constitution, my bad. Also people drive recklessly and kill adults and children daily. I assume your way of fixing this problem is to ban driving. Same premis. There are also limits on guns to protect citizens same as speed limit. However people still speed. And yes i messed up on the capital punishment comment. However life in prison is reserved typically for murder, so still an insane suggested punishment. That’s like life in prison for driving without a license and registration. Hope you recover from the tedious task of replying voluntarily to my posts. Btw i like children, have them try to protect them. Just cause i like my 2nd amendment rights doesnt mean I dont care. Typical liberal response to make gun advocates out to be monsters. Glad you have shot a gun, sorry u think yourself nor anyone has the responsibility to use one correctly.

          • Gregg Leventhal

            What makes it tedious is having to explain things more than once. Again, the driving comment was to show that personal freedom isn’t without bounds, nothing to do with amendments. Having illegal weapons can already result in very serious prison time, possibly including a life sentence, I only recommended guns be treated as some illegal weapons already are. I’m not remotely a liberal, I think welfare should all but vanish. I’m actually a gun reform libertarian. Unfortunately people are irresponsible jerks who ruin it for the rest of us. I am capable of responsible gun use, but if it stops one school shooting, then ban them. Until we find a better solution. Or if it is so damn important that rednecks keep their guns, how about if someone kills an innocent with your gun or a gun you bought or sold to them, then you are charged with the murder too. That should make people think twice before buying their unstable kid a gun. I’m flexible on the issue, as long as those remotely responsible get punished.

        • Cbsnyder

          I agree that freedom is not without limits, however that does not mean revoking freedoms because of a few criminals. I agree that the gun owner and or parent is responsible. However life sentences are reserved for homicides as far as I know, maybe some very extreme situations, so that is an extravagant suggestion. Crimes against children are the worst and bother me to no end. But mass murder and other violent crimes are not new nor are they going away. Lack of responsibility is the biggest issue with people today, whether it be drug use/trade, intoxication, bad parenting. These are the biggest contributing factors to violence, not an object. Majority of Americans still believe in the right to bear arms, and so it should stay. Focus on the contributing factors that possess people to commit these horrendous crimes, not the object used to carry out their sickness. I will not pester any longer on the subject. Good luck and stay safe.

      • Cbsnyder

        Also, the ancient Greeks and Romans didnt have guns. I’m pretty sure their society functioned like every society does… With murder. Because it has always happened and will always happen, whether guns are owned legally or not.

      • Cbsnyder

        And it’s comforting that you would award someone with capital punishment (= punishment reserved only for taking a life) just for possessing a firearm. You are convicting an individual of murder before they have a chance to commit it? You sure are more reasonable than pro gun folks. You would make a nice dictator as well.

        • Gregg Leventhal

          Again, I said nothing about capital punishment, I said life in prison for gun possession in a theoretical post ban scenario.

      • Cbsnyder

        And I agree that it is not about me, it is about the nuts shooting up everything. It is that point for which my whole argument is based on, it is not about legal gun owners. The problem is people who set out to harm others for their own reasons. So if its not about me, why are you making it about me (peaceful gun owner) and not the murderor (person murdering)? The problem is murderors, so just put them away for life like we have done since the brginning of civilization.

      • Ray Tubes

        Greg,
        You state that “outside of bombs, there are not many tools outside of bombs that allow such harm to innocents. Our own speech and what we say to a child is one of the most damaging “tools”, or in many cases weapons that damage a psyche to the point that such terrible events occur.
        Perhaps if we as a nation could learn to speak with gentility and respect for humanity, society might have a greater care for life.
        We are a people who slow down to rubberneck a train wreck or auto accident, hoping to see a glimpse of those crumpled bodies.
        When will we pull over to help one another, smell the flowers, or just say good morning?

  • Peter L

    Strange. because this harvard study found that
    “1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide

    2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

    3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

  • machomachoman

    Please point out to the readers as well that the authors of the study were not associated with Harvard. They were not Harvard professors or researchers. Prior to the article, Kates wrote extensively about pro-gun topics. Also, prior to the article, Mauser had been employed as a gun lobbyist. Neither author was an objective researcher. Finally, their study was not peer-reviewed. In other words, other experts did not review the research for credibility in terms of models, methods and findings. This research was never deemed valid until recently when a fringe group of 2A supporters got wind of it. It is reminiscent of the research done by tobacco associated “scientists” who concluded that smoking did not cause lung cancer and that nicotine was not addictive even though all the peer-reviewed objective research showed the contrary.

    • Tim

      Mauser actually worked for the NRA…

  • sapereaudeprime

    More control over media and parenting will bring a drop in violent crime, long before more control over firearms. I’m no supporter of the NRA, but every Swiss and most Norwegian males between 18 and 45 or 55 has a fully-automatic military rifle at home, along with ammunition, and they have a far lower incidence of firearms violence. Ours is a culture that glorifies mindless violence and it is pimped in the media 24/7, while parents glorify winning in sports more than development of reason.

    • An Opinion

      I am Norwegian, and neither I, nor ANY of my MANY and varied friends have anything automatic in their home. We have far lower gun crime because we regulate guns strictly. Switzerland has a very open gun culture. While I am not Swiss, Wikipedia cites some statistics that in the very least shows that they do NOW have “far lower incidence of firearms violence”.
      Speaking of development of reason, I think facts are ok to have at hand sometimes too. Just saying…

    • convivial_interloper

      I absolutely agree with you sapre. Politics – and people in general- look for the quick fix when these incidents occur, but that is only short term and is sometimes privy to the self fulfilling prophecy. We need to look at the big picture, the motivator, the psychology of these mindless acts of destruction. What’s the easiest way to become famous? Become infamous. The media glorifies destruction and posts the criminal all over the news rather than mention the heros. Don’t even mention the criminals name or show his face. Instead, show the police officers, firemen, and people that saved and helped. Use their names and faces. We must eradicate the incentive for I’ll minded people to easily become world renowned. Name events after the heros. It starts with education. Think psychology needs to be a requirement. I know fame isn’t always the motivator for these acts but media control (more so changing the medias presentation perspective) and education is a start.

  • Tim

    The Kates & Mauser article is fraught with inaccuracies. The authors have nothing to do with Harvard and the publication itself is from right wing students, not the university itself. In short, it is a fraud.

  • An Opinion

    Totally agree with Tim. Just to mention one, Norway has a very strict gun control policy. The only “guns” allowed are hunting riffles, and the use of them are strictly regulated. The data presentation, statistical treatment, and discussion is highly biased. It would never fly in an actual peer reviewed journal.