Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

  1. #11
    Alaska, Texas, and Arizona all have violent crime rates and murder rates that are higher than New York State's violent crime rate and murder rate. Thus, if there is a correlation between gun control laws and crime, then that proves that stricter gun laws result in lower crime rates. Perhaps Alaska, Texas, and Arizona need to adopt their own SAFE ACTS.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Alaska, Texas, and Arizona all have violent crime rates and murder rates that are higher than New York State's violent crime rate and murder rate. Thus, if there is a correlation between gun control laws and crime, then that proves that stricter gun laws result in lower crime rates. Perhaps Alaska, Texas, and Arizona need to adopt their own SAFE ACTS.
    Nobody said anything about violent crime rates. Please stop attempting to change the topic to fit your conclusion. The OP was about gun violence, even though the author of the quoted text has been proven a fraud on at least one level already. The original study was about gun violence and murder specifically, not violent crime overall, and the authors specifically stated "There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates..." So they were very much aware that the numbers weren't consistent in every state, and they said so. They were proving the gun grabbers wrong, and they had way more than enough statistical evidence to do that without having every single state showing a positive association. Besides, the association they were disproving was on a national level. Subdivisions below that level were just a minor side topic.

    EDIT: And you'd have a difficult time comparing gun murder rates between states anyway, because not all states report them that way. Those that do don't always use the same reporting criteria, which is why the FBI keeps telling people that such comparisons are rarely valid. They make the same statement for violent crime overall. Even murder figures aren't necessarily valid because states don't use the same methodologies to differentiate between justifiable homicide and murder.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Nobody said anything about violent crime rates. Please stop attempting to change the topic to fit your conclusion. The OP was about gun violence, even though the author of the quoted text has been proven a fraud on at least one level already. The original study was about gun violence and murder specifically, not violent crime overall, and the authors specifically stated "There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates..." So they were very much aware that the numbers weren't consistent in every state, and they said so. They were proving the gun grabbers wrong, and they had way more than enough statistical evidence to do that without having every single state showing a positive association. Besides, the association they were disproving was on a national level. Subdivisions below that level were just a minor side topic.

    EDIT: And you'd have a difficult time comparing gun murder rates between states anyway, because not all states report them that way. Those that do don't always use the same reporting criteria, which is why the FBI keeps telling people that such comparisons are rarely valid. They make the same statement for violent crime overall. Even murder figures aren't necessarily valid because states don't use the same methodologies to differentiate between justifiable homicide and murder.
    What the stats show is that there is no correlation between gun laws and murder rates or violent crime rates. Less strict gun laws don't reduce crime as some cowboys like to claim.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    What the stats show is that there is no correlation between gun laws and murder rates or violent crime rates. Less strict gun laws don't reduce crime as some cowboys like to claim.
    If we are to accept that the stats show there is no correlation between gun laws and murder rates or violent crime then more strict gun laws won't reduce crime as anti gunners like to claim either.

    Which would lead the intellectually honest to question what the purpose of gun laws actually is.....

  6. #15
    Bingo! Now you get it. Arguing about gun laws and crime rates is a waste of time and keeps the focus off the central issues.

    The purpose of all laws is to punish behavior the community finds inappropriate. So the question becomes, why does a community find gun ownership inappropriate? Let them answer then address their concerns rather than making claims that are easily disputed, which just lets them deflect from the issues and keep the focus on unsupportable claims.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    What the stats show is that there is no correlation between gun laws and murder rates or violent crime rates.
    You're the one who brought up violent crime rates, and I already told you nobody was making that correlation, so you're just repeating what I said. And I also pointed out that the authors said there was no evidence the presence of guns increased murders or gun crime, which means your second statement is also just repeating what I said. They were saying that the connection to guns that the antigunners claimed, did not exist. If you were going to agree with me you could have just said so instead of just saying the same thing I did by just wording it a little differently.
    .
    Less strict gun laws don't reduce crime as some cowboys like to claim.
    Haven't seen any cowboys here, but the most recent, peer reviewed empirical research on the topic does indicate that gun ownership rates do tend to reduce crime. There are numerous cites to such in the footnotes of the study that is linked here, even from people who don't like guns, such as the CDC. They refer to that research directly in the linked study. Sticking your head in the sand and denying it exists doesn't change the facts. However, you do hint at something that most people don't seem to grasp. Viewing any sociological issue in microcosm and attempting to draw empirical causation from it is nigh unto impossible. The reason is that every sociological issue is affected by an almost infinite number of influences, many of which are not uniform or even measurable. Producing empirical research with supportable from that is incredibly difficult. The same thing happens with the 'economy' and whichever president is in office at the time. Presidents are routinely blamed or applauded for the state of the economy when in truth they have no power over at all, and usually precious little influence. Sometimes the influence increases to the level where they economical performance can at least be tied to them in some sense, but they never have control over it. Not even close.
    .
    Oops. Of on a tangent. Sorry. I appreciate you agreeing with me, though I seriously doubt that was your intent.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast