Gun Ownership v. Violent Crime, by Harvard

B

bigbromskier

Active member
I haven't read the other threads much, but I was referred to this article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:

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

It is long, but very well written and cited a huge amount of stats, figures, and articles from around the world--their conclusion is that, in the end, there is no correlation between more guns in society creating more violent crime. They admit it themselves that they were surprised to have to report that a greater prevalence of guns, statistically speaking, has very little relation to rates of homicide and other violent crime.

Rather, they suggest that it is the socio-cultural and economic situation of an environment that produces more violent crime. Interestingly enough, they state that areas with greater rates of violent crime indeed have stricter gun control laws, and that such areas have lower quality socio-cultural and economic situations.

Furthermore, while I see guns as solely being necessary for hunting, sport, and armed forces, the study states that states in the US that allow concealed firearms have seen lowered rates of violent crimes as such. This is because the general population is not murderers, and the vast majority of murderers isn't your average person who just snaps all of a sudden and has access to a gun, as per popular belief. Rather, the population of murderers, by and large, has a criminal history, has had multiple run-ins with the law, has social or psychological problems, and/or has been continuously exposed to areas of socio-cultural and economic distress and could probably gain access to a gun no matter the legality of the situation.

Sorry if this has already been pointed out, and I don't want to create more argumentation, but this is a well-researched fact-based report from probably the most highly respected institution in the world. Give it a read or skim through it and maybe it'll change your opinion on gun control laws; it certainly changed mine.
 
SPIDEY ALL UP IN THIS BITCH

9ee2ebcf8c6a29ccc8057d70ae3f5637_13152781.jpg


26893674.jpg


ngbbs5011dfccc9536.jpg
 
that was quite possibly the most well wrtitten OP i have ever read.

im not aure how this will turn into a shit show but its bound to happen. Thanks for the abstract OP
 
Thanks OP. Great read that I must delve into more when I have more time. This is exactly the kind of article I've been looking for. Hope this thread doesn't turn into all the others.
 
threads to read the study later.ultimately OP, it doesn't matter. Anthama or whatever his name is, Mike-O, and a few other NON-AMERICANS will still come in here and tell us how stupid we Americans are, how fucked up our views on the Second Amendment are, and how we should all have our guns taken away from us regardless of any evidence you present to the contrary.

Please note that I have nothing personal against these dudes, but I have differing views than they do on this subject.
 
In the past almost 40 years, homicide rates in the United States have moved in cycles. The gender and race of victims and offenders have not changed significantly over time with males committing approximately 90 percent of all homicides and representing 75 percent of the victims. According to a Federal report, the homicide rate is higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Over 60 percent of all homicides in the United States in 1999 involved a firearm and firearm ownership in the United States, particularly handgun ownership, is much more common than in other developed nations. This article provides a review of the most commonly cited, representative, and empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the association between gun availability and homicide. The article begins by describing individual case control and cohort studies. Then, it describes international ecological studies that have compared the United States to other countries. Lastly, it describes ecological studies of the United States that have contrasted the levels of gun availability and homicide across regions, States, and rural and urban areas. The available evidence is quite consistent. The few case control studies suggest that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates. Most studies, cross sectional or time series, international or domestic, are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate.

Here's the abstract if you want it. Not that it matters, because people usually just read articles to reinforce their own opinions.
 
Maybe you should question your views. The unexamined life is not worth living.

I'm saying this not because I have strong opinion on the topic (I really don't). I have just noticed that your posts generally lack insight that would convince someone of your views.
 
i dont want to take the time to read the article because well, its winter break and im not reading anything substantial for the next 3 weeks. Thanks for the abstract but i wanted to to tell me about it. What you posted did not convince me nearly as much as what the OP posted. Thanks though
 
This is not something I need to question. And to be blunt, I really do not give a single fuck about convincing anyone of my views on the internet. No matter what I spew, you're not going to change your position on firearms just as you'll never be able to convince me that I should give mine up.

 
Man that's cool and all but most of it is completely IRRELEVANT in the context of these psycho school shootings. Who gives a fuck about gangbange clapping gangbangers or Africans killing each other in civil wars? Of course that shit will happen regardless of gun laws. But that isn't what we're talking about. I didn't even open that study, just based on what you wrote it is intellectually disonhest. America has a fucking gun problem
 
we cant control the drugs, people, and guns coming into the country illegally as it is. its a very valid argument.
 
because guns are non perishable and inherently harmful (aka easier to track and harder to hide than drugs and will be taken more seriously by law enforcement). a deterrent for guns, which stricter control would be, seems like it would be more potent than one for drugs. guns are also pretty useless for the average joe, no smart person is going to risk getting thrown in the slammer so that they can keep a gun in their closet for some fucking doomsday hypothetical.

ill stop there but seriously if you think about it for two seconds its such a dummy comparison.

and again, right now the discussion isnt about criminals killing criminals which most of you guys are referencing with your arguments. its about protecting innocent civs from getting shot up by guns that people are buying with their twinkies at kmart.
 
of course you cant control guns and illegals cause theyre blackmarket from day one. guns are a legal commodity, the demand for and supply of guns should react to tighter regulations.

also, idiots claiming how easy it is to buy an illegal gun, as if its weed. yeah right, you are sixteen year old stoners shut the fuck up.

anyways i think both sides can acknowledge there is a gun problem in the US (if anyone here refutes this well i dont know what to say to you). status quo isnt working, so why keep it up? that is a popular definition of insanity btw.
 
removal of the serial numbers makes guns no easier to track than drugs. the only reason they're traceable now is because they are legal.

also, stricter punishments for drugs have not worked as a deterrent, so why would it be more potent for guns?
 
Can drug dogs smell unused firearms at the border? It seems that both

Mexico and the US are treating the fact that US weapons are smuggled

into Mexico pretty seriously. However, I dont think its doing much.

Furthermore, people can make guns themselves to supply a black market.

Also, the "average joes" arent the ones we should be most worried about. The criminals, who seek guns, are the ones committing the crimes. Most crimes are committed with guns that were purchased illegally.
 
true, but i do need to look into this a little more before i can't say anything 100% sure about the op's study. Every study i have ever found states otherwise but they could all be wrong give me 3 hours and ill come back here.
 
because you cant compare drugs and guns like its apples to apples. i said it above theyre different. drugs are basically impossible to track, guns arent. guns are non perishables, if youre getting searched for a gun you cant just shove it up your anus or flush down the toilet. guns are made by legal manufacturers not in underground dens. different risk/reward

whatever, saturday night an losing my thoughts. its just such as stupid comparison. supply and demand (elasticity) for guns can be legislated easier than drugs. second amendment is dumb as fuck. peeps are dumb as fuck is they think guns being "cool" and "fun" is worth the human lives cost (and no guns for civilians are not useful we have foodmarkets and insurance companies its fucking 2012). also retarded is thinking nothing needs to be done. op's article is misleading.
 
except they are, these are the people shooting fucking schools and shit bro.

fyi, i would probably agree with most of the pro gun people here if we were talking STRICTLY about gangs and shit. but we are not. if shooting guns is what gets your rocks off then yeah that sucks that a few individuals are spoiling the party but fuck man its a worthwhile sacrifice to make. try telling a parent of one of those kids that guns are groovy your soul will literally melt away
 
so you are telling me if guns are illegal engineers wouldnt start making them to fulfill the demand, much like scientists produce lsd? If youve ever gone to a police department and saw the amount of confiscated homemade guns it would surprise you. Furthermore, if guns are made illegal in the US, they are still going to be made in other countries in legal factories. Guns that are smuggled in or made illegally are impossible to track.

Guns are pretty easy to hide as long as youre not using them (peoples houses dont get randomly searched everyday without reason).
 
we should be talking about the entire picture, not just certain cases. i guarantee that far more people are murdered by the standard "criminal" than by the nutcases in these particular instances.
 
Everyone is bitching that the guns are the problem and blaming them, hence the lightsaber. Was it the lightsabers fault or Anakin's that the kids died?
 
I'm still very on the fence on gun laws and frankly I don't know enough to come to a definite decision. The one thing I know is no citizen should have a automatic weapon. If you wan't to protect your family from an armed robber I assure you a handgun will do the trick. Assault rifles and other automatic weapons only seem to lead to these sort of mass killings as we've seen recently. People talk about prohibition and I agree I doubt this will change much in terms of events like this, people twisted enough to kill twenty elementary kids will find their methods.
 
no that has to be 1 of the fucking stupid arguments I've ever heard. maybe it is people and not guns but if you have to resort to using star war movies scene to prove your point you don't have a valid argument, stop posting that picture in every thread.
 
again you have no argument so you using a defense mechanism to avoid the actual argument. there are good reasons to say that guns should still be around, there's also good reasons to say gun shouldn't still be around you're not making any valid points for either side. gtfo
 
I'm going to stop you right there the definition of automatic doesn't matter the point is you can get off a lot of rounds very quickly that's the argument people are making
 
guns are not inherently bad. A gun cannot load itself, point at a target and fire. Thats what he was getting at and heaven forbid someone try and bring some humor into one of these threads. jesus dude, learn to take a joke.
 
I guess my meters off because I didn't even remotely pick up after reading it again but that was a joke. but even though you are in support of guns can you give me a real reason you need a semi automatic weapon?
 
Ok, so tell me why the only reason my uncle is alive today is because he had a legal hangun in his car. Some guy got out of his car at a stoplight and began to pull my uncle out of his car and beat the shit out of him because he had roadrage saying my uncle was tailgaiting him, my uncle got away and went into the glovebox, loaded the clip while the guy goes back to his car to grab a knife, the guy came back and my uncle showed him the gun and told him to stop multiple times, but the guy kept coming at him with the knife. As the guy went to stab my uncle he put one round in his chest and called the cops to get help.
 
I agree that nobody needs weapons such as these (and the world would be a much better place if there werent guns at all) but as it stands, trying to ban guns or restrict them far more is just going to cause additional problems.

 
I'm glad you uncle killed someone so he didn't get punched in the face. what he should have done is drove away if the guy went back to his car to get something, and again that's a dumb argument because what is the guy who had road rage legally had a gun your uncle would be dead. BUT HEY GUNS FOR EVERYONE especially in the glove compartment of cars because cars never get stolen.
 
so when somebody attacks you, you do not have the right to defend yourself, you should be forced to run away because of the attacker's choices lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top