Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

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

  1. #1

    Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

    Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong
    By: Joe Sanders
    Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?
    Probably not, if the Harvard man is Barack Obama, and what Harvard’s saying flies in the face of liberal pieties – and misconceptions and lies – about gun ownership, gun violence and gun control in the United States.
    Gun study like the recently reported CDC study about gun violence Obama commissioned himself, the message to gun grabbers is clear:
    They’re wrong.
    A Harvard study released in the spring – to virtually no media attention – focused on the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States versus those strict gun-control countries in Europe the left is so fond of talking about.
    It was called, with disarming bluntness, “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?”
    Its answer was: “No.”
    Looking at historical patterns in the United States from the colonial and post-colonial days, and in Europe going back to the time before guns were even invented, two Harvard researchers came to a clear conclusion:
    “Nations with higher gun ownership rates … do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership.”
    That’s just a fact, even in those European countries the U.S. left is so fond of citing.
    Heavily armed Norwegians, where gun ownership is highest in Western Europe, have the continent’s lowest homicide rate, researchers Don Kates and Gary Mauser wrote.
    Russia, where the civilian population was virtually disarmed by the communist government for 80 years, has one of the highest homicide rates in Europe – and one four times higher than in the United States.
    In the United States, homicide rates were relatively low, despite periods when firearms were widely available – the colonial era, when Americans were the world’s most heavily armed population, the post-Civil War years, when the country was awash in surplus guns and filled with men trained to use them.
    Homicide rates in the United States didn’t increase dramatically until the 1960s and ‘70s, which correlated with a rise in gun purchases, but Kates and Mauser point out that fear of crime could just as easily have sparked a rise in gun purchases, rather than more guns causing more crime.
    And today?
    Communities where gun-ownership rates are highest are where the homicide rates are lowest, Kates and Mauser wrote:
    “Where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”
    That’s not what the gun grabbers want to hear.
    And the two researchers know it. In their conclusion, they launched a pre-emptive defense, quoting another researcher who found similarly unwelcome (to the left) results when he studied crime in the United States versus gun-restrictive Canada:
    “If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to ‘exonerate’ hand‐ guns, but there it is — a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.”
    The study takes up 45 pages in the spring issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
    This description of it takes up to 541 words.
    But when it comes to gun-grabbers, the whole thing can be summed up in two:
    You’re. Wrong.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Link?
    ........................
    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. #3
    Yeah, the request for a link would be a help. I goegle'd Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and neither the spring 2013, nor the winter 2013, editions carried any article that I could match. Please add some more info.

    Thanks.

  5. #4

  6. This is readily available on the internet. I just downloaded a free copy. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

    Notice that it got virtually NO media attention. None at all - or at least none that I saw or heard. But then since our 'free press' is actually controlled indirectly by the White House, I wouldn't expect to have seen it on the nightly news show or the front page of any paper or magazines.

  7. #6
    Just a further note. I DID find the document, but I was surprised to see it was in Vol 30 Num 2 (Spring of 2007!). Thanks for link, as I would NOT have found it other wise!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by rev. dave View Post
    This is readily available on the internet. I just downloaded a free copy. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

    Notice that it got virtually NO media attention. None at all - or at least none that I saw or heard. But then since our 'free press' is actually controlled indirectly by the White House, I wouldn't expect to have seen it on the nightly news show or the front page of any paper or magazines.
    Obama wasn't in office when this study came out in 2007. There was no link for the text quoted in the original post, which is what I wanted to see. Whoever wrote that text was obviously either grossly mistaken or was attempting to deceive people by making it sound like Obama was deliberately avoiding a study that contradicted the position of his administration and the study from the CDC that the author credits Obama with sponsoring (there's been more than one). Whatever the case, the text in the original post, as it pertains to Obama, is false.
    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

  9. #8
    ezkl2230 Guest
    OK. First of all, this study was released back in 2007, which is why it has received no attention recently.

    Second, while it is true that this study appeared in a Harvard publication, it hardly demonstrates that Harvard has somehow changed their minds regarding this issue. If you go to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, you will find four publications listed that supposedly "prove" that states and households with higher numbers of firearms also have higher incidences of firearms related homicide and injury, Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Homicide.

    In short, Harvard has not changed their minds.

    Now, if you want to see a study that at least partially disproves the administration's ideas on gun control and that has truly been ignored by the administration and the press, then you want the publication, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. This is the study that was commissioned as a result of Obama's executive order to research "gun violence" after the Sandy Hook shooting. Alexandra Ladas wrote the following for BearingArms.com:

    A study conducted by the National Academies Press on firearm-related violence shows that not all Americans who own guns have murderous intentions. The institute was requested by an executive order from President Obama to investigate the topic in light of the Sandy Hook shootings. There were many positive points about gun ownership in the study. It concluded that most gun deaths in the US are due to suicide, not violent crimes. It also proved that mass shootings are one of the rarest forms of violent crime in the country, and that self-defense happens at least as much as violent crimes do. This disproves the main argument from gun-control advocates that using guns self-defense almost never occurs.
    Remember - this study was commissioned by executive order to bolster the gun control argument, but it doesn't appear to do that, and as a result has been ignored by the MSM. I'm quite sure that the administration will commission a new study to be done by a more ideologically friendly organization.

    Download the full study here:

    Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

    If that link doesn't work, then go here and click on the download link (it's free):

    Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    1,043
    Well, Obummer wanted the study and he got it. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Now, if you want to see a study that at least partially disproves the administration's ideas on gun control......
    .
    ......Download the full study here:
    .
    Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
    .
    If that link doesn't work, then go here and click on the download link (it's free):
    .
    Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
    I don't know about free, but it asks for a login if you click the download link. You can download it without logging in or paying for it by going here:
    .
    http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_...lence_2013.pdf
    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 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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