Gun Laws/Control Don't work........Harvard

[JustRalph]

Ok Libs, your beloved Harvard has issued a study. here's a link to the Breitbart page talking about it............But I urge you to read the whole thing from the link in the first paragraph.

I skipped through it.....but the conclusions are important

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

Or cut to the chase here

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

Remember, if gun laws worked........ Chicago would be Mayberry.........

[Clocker]

Ok Libs,

You are addressing people who believe that if gun laws don't work, then we need to pass more gun laws.

[TJDave]

You are addressing people who believe that if gun laws don't work, then we need to pass more gun laws.

Laws work when they are uniformly enforced and penalties consequential.

You could successfully outlaw 'spitting on the sidewalk' if you wanted to get righteous about it. ;)

[Clocker]

Laws work when they are uniformly enforced and penalties consequential.

A DOJ study of convicted armed criminals found that 40% got their guns from friends and family and 40% got them "on the street". Yet the Democratic leadership insists that stronger background checks will reduce gun crime.

How would you propose to uniformly enforce background checks on that 80%?

[TJDave]

A DOJ study of convicted armed criminals found that 40% got their guns from friends and family and 40% got them "on the street". Yet the Democratic leadership insists that stronger background checks will reduce gun crime.

How would you propose to uniformly enforce background checks on that 80%?

First, background checks are BS...If your objective is to ban guns from criminals.

Starting with the first 40%:

Any family member or friend who gives or sells a weapon would be subject to the same penalty as the criminal. No exceptions.

Second 40%:

Those selling or in possession of illegal/unregistered weapons get life.

Sweep the ghettos, confiscate weapons, arrest violators.

[elysiantraveller]

First, background checks are BS...If your objective is to ban guns from criminals.

Starting with the first 40%:

Any family member or friend who gives or sells a weapon would be subject to the same penalty as the criminal. No exceptions.

Second 40%:

Those selling or in possession of illegal/unregistered weapons get life.

Sweep the ghettos, confiscate weapons, arrest violators.

Can't do either without a National Gun Registry though.

[TJDave]

Can't do either without a National Gun Registry though.

The ATF maintains an effective ever-growing gun registry. LE is pretty good at tracing ownership.

As a multiple gun owner I have no problem with a national registry.

[JustRalph]

The ATF maintains an effective ever-growing gun registry. LE is pretty good at tracing ownership.

As a multiple gun owner I have no problem with a national registry.

Now that's funny......... :lol:

[Clocker]

You can't use "ATF" and "effective" in the same sentence. It violates the laws of grammar and the laws of nature.

[HUSKER55]

sad but true......and funny:D

[elysiantraveller]

The ATF maintains an effective ever-growing gun registry. LE is pretty good at tracing ownership.

As a multiple gun owner I have no problem with a national registry.

...okay...

I'm not really looking for an argument but the most restricted type of firearm is a handgun and how has that worked out historically?

Don't get me started on the upper/lower debate on so-called assault weapons.

[TJDave]

...okay...

I'm not really looking for an argument but the most restricted type of firearm is a handgun and how has that worked out historically?

Don't get me started on the upper/lower debate on so-called assault weapons.

Wouldn't think of it. I think the real problem with handguns is that there are so friggin many of them. Especially the cheap, small caliber, easily concealable ones.

[Tom]

Laws work when they are uniformly enforced and penalties consequential.

You could successfully outlaw 'spitting on the sidewalk' if you wanted to get righteous about it. ;)

Explain the war on drugs.

[TJDave]

Explain the war on drugs.

What's to explain?

We threw a bunch of expendable Blacks in prison. White recreational users went, for the most part, untouched.

We never prosecuted the war.

Drugs won by default.

[newtothegame]

First, background checks are BS...If your objective is to ban guns from criminals.

Starting with the first 40%:

Any family member or friend who gives or sells a weapon would be subject to the same penalty as the criminal. No exceptions.

Second 40%:

Those selling or in possession of illegal/unregistered weapons get life.

Sweep the ghettos, confiscate weapons, arrest violators.

Wouldnt this be called something like "disinfranchise, or keeping people in chains"....lol But I'm sure you get the gist. Seems to me your now targteting "certain groups"...shame shame :lol:

[mostpost]

Let's start with the fact that this was not a Harvard run study. It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The JlPP describes itself thusly:
"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 authors of the study have no connection with Harvard. Mr. Mauser is a professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Kates works for the Pacific Research Institute-a conservative think tank which has been linked to The American Heritage Institute, The Cato Institute and other conservative think tanks. So that gives you some idea where the authors are coming from. The idea that they were unbiased researchers is just so much nonsense.

And the scholarship is atrocious. They are comparing murders of all types with gun ownership. Some examples:
They said Hungary has 2,000 guns per 100,000 people and the murder rate was 2.22 per 100k. But the murder by gun rate is only .07.

Finland 39,000 guns per 100K Overall murder rate 1.98 by guns .45
Sweden 24,000. Overall 1.87 With guns .41

Clearly the countries with more guns have a higher rate of murder by gun.
I created the table below from the following.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

It is clear that, generally speaking, as the number of guns per 100 persons decreases, the number of gun homicides per 100,000 persons also decreases

Country guns per 100 persons Gun homicides per 100,000
USA...................88.8........................ ..... 2.97
Switzerland 45.7............................. 0.77
Finland............... 45.3 .......................0.45
Serbia/ 32.8/ .46
Sweden/ 31.6 /.41
Norway/ 31.3/ .05
France / 31.2 /.06
Canada/ 30.8/ .51
Germany/ 30.3 /.19
New Zealand/ 22.6/ .16
Greece/ 22.5 /.26
Northern Ireland / 21.9/ .28
Croatia/ 21.7 /.39
Latvia / 19 /.22
Bosnia Herzo/ 17.3/ .48
Belgium/ 17.2 /.68
Czech Republic/ 16.3/ .19
Slovenia/ 13.5 /.10
Armenia / 12.5 /.29
Denmark / 12 /.27
Spain /10.4 /.20
Estonia /9.2 /.24
Ireland /8.6 /.48
Albania /8.6 /1.76
Slovakia /8.3 /.18
Israel /7.3 /.09

[mostpost]

It defies logic to think that more guns will result in less gun violence. That is like thinking more water will result in less drownings.

[JustRalph]

It defies logic to think that more guns will result in less gun violence. That is like thinking more water will result in less drownings.

Professor Lott proved it years ago. Try picking up his book

"More guns, Less Crime"

He was a professor on the same faculty as Obama

[TJDave]

It defies logic to think that more guns will result in less gun violence. That is like thinking more water will result in less drownings.

I own twice as many guns as 10 years ago yet my compulsion toward violence has diminished 20%... maybe more!

[Capper Al]

Ok Libs, your beloved Harvard has issued a study. here's a link to the Breitbart page talking about it............But I urge you to read the whole thing from the link in the first paragraph.

I skipped through it.....but the conclusions are important

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

Or cut to the chase here

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

Remember, if gun laws worked........ Chicago would be Mayberry.........

Oh just shoot me.

[mostpost]

Professor Lott proved it years ago. Try picking up his book

"More guns, Less Crime"

He was a professor on the same faculty as Obama
Here is an article which summarizes the many flaws in Lott's research. Flaws which include coding errors that reverse his findings; inconsistent phrasing of survey questions and changing his statistical models to coincide with his previously held opinion.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/12/17/who-is-gun-advocate-john-lott/191885

[Clocker]

And the scholarship is atrocious.

:lol::lol::lol:

Unlike your own, where you take numbers collected by the UN from dozens of different sources, based on unspecified methodologies, with no attempt to show comparability, and arrive at the conclusion that because two sets of numbers move in the same direction, one causes the other.

I have a number that trumps all of your numbers. That number is :2:.

As in the :2:nd Amendment. Learn it, love it, live with it.

[hcap]

Let's start with the fact that this was not a Harvard run study. It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. The JlPP describes itself thusly:
"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 authors of the study have no connection with Harvard. Mr. Mauser is a professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Kates works for the Pacific Research Institute-a conservative think tank which has been linked to The American Heritage Institute, The Cato Institute and other conservative think tanks. So that gives you some idea where the authors are coming from. The idea that they were unbiased researchers is just so much nonsense.

We had this same discussion months ago
The real Harvard study was posted from the "Harvard School of Public Health" which does the actual stats and is highly respected.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/striking-relationship-between-gun-safety-laws-and-firearm-deaths/4902/

And

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

....Just this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would make it a federal crime to traffic guns (one of four gun control bills being discussed by the committee). This comes on the heels of an important new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that documents the strong connection between stricter gun control laws and lower rates of gun deaths at the state level.

The study, by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard School of Public Health, uses a measure of state-by-state "legislative strength" of gun control policies tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, including measures to: (1) curb firearm trafficking; (2) strengthen background checks on purchasers of firearms beyond those required by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; (3) ensure child safety; (4) ban military style assault weapons; and (5) restrict guns in public places. It conducted a detailed statistical analysis (via a clustered Poisson regression) to examine the effect gun control laws on firearms fatalities.

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2013/03/07/maplarge.jpg

[Clocker]

It conducted a detailed statistical analysis (via a clustered Poisson regression) to examine the effect gun control laws on firearms fatalities.



Gun control laws don't have any effect on people that don't obey gun control laws. Exhibit A: Chicago.

Insanity is repeating the same actions while expecting a different outcome. Guns don't cause crime. Guns control laws don't stop crime. To stop crime, you need to eliminate the source of crime. And it ain't guns.

[mostpost]

Gun control laws don't have any effect on people that don't obey gun control laws. Exhibit A: Chicago.
Chicago is Exhibit A of nothing you think, because you have no clue as to crime statistics in Chicago. Particularly statistics involving homicides committed using a firearm. All the following up to 2010 come from here:
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports

Chicago passed its strict gun law in 1982.
In the five years prior to that there were an average of 513 murders each year.
In the five years after that there were an average of 409 murders each year.

Moving forward to the present, in 2009 and 2010 there were a total of 730 gun homicides. In 2010 the Supreme Court overturned Chicago's strict gun laws. The next two years (2011 and 2012) saw an increase to 797 gun homicides. In early 2013 the Chicago city council passed a new tough gun law. So far the GHR is down 34% over the same period in 2012.

That link above is to the Chicago Police Department's official crime statistics web site.

Of course none of this will convince you. You will continue to blindly follow your biases and ignore official statistics in favor of flawed studies that reinforce your flawed opinions.

[Clocker]

In early 2013 the Chicago city council passed a new tough gun law. So far the GHR is down 34% over the same period in 2012.


Wow!!! That must be the most effective law passed in the history of Western Civilization. That is almost unbelievable. That's even more effective than Prohibition.

[Clocker]

He was a professor on the same faculty as Obama

Lott was a professor at the University of Chicago when Obama was hired as a lecturer. Lott ran into Obama and introduced himself. Lott says that Obama responded by saying, oh, yeah, you're the gun guy. Lott quotes him as saying
I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.
Biased, evil gun-loving source. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/07/John-Lott-Obama-said-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-To-Own-Guns)

When Lott tried to talk to him about gun rights, Obama "grimaced and walked away."

In discussing his latest book, Lott says,
“The book relates a couple out of the dozen-and-a-half conversations that I had with him,” Lott told The Daily Caller. ”But they were all very short, cut off by Obama turning his back on me and walking away.”

“He wouldn’t shake hands. It was very clear that Obama disagreed on the gun issue and acted as if he believed that people who he disagreed with were not just wrong, but evil. Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama simply showed disdain.”



This from the most open, transparent president in history, who has repeatedly said that he doesn't want to take anyone's guns away. Which is to say, a man who was elected president without ever stating his true beliefs on a highly controversial issue.

And that last quote from Lott speaks volumes about the general gridlock in Washington today.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
In early 2013 the Chicago city council passed a new tough gun law. So far the GHR is down 34% over the same period in 2012.

Wow!
What was it before that?
Normandy?

[JustRalph]

The Supreme court overturned the way they regulate guns.

It had no effect on the streets........... as Clocker Points out, bad guys don't care about the supreme court........or any laws.

Again, If gun laws worked.........Chicago would be Mayberry........