Harvard Study Causes Media Blackout On Gun Control

[raydog1]

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

 

"Guns are just one among numerous available deadly instruments.

Thus, banning guns cannot reduce the amount of suicides.

Such measures only reduce the number of suicides by

firearms. Suicides committed in other ways increase to make

up the difference. People do not commit suicide because they

have guns available. They kill themselves for reasons they

deem sufficient, and in the absence of firearms they just kill

themselves in some other way."

 

"Nevertheless, 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.

 

149 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."

 

I'm sure this will make headlines nationwide any day now. . .

 

[RED333]

I read the story a few days ago, good stuff.

Want to bet a dollar on when it gets in the lame stream media?

[leroy]

I think this is hilarious....  Even the "anointed ones" at Harvard cant cook the books and make this one work.  They know they are under a microscope and that most folks intuitively understand that more guns doesnt equal more crime.  More than that, there is a mountain of data that says that where there are "Must Issue" gun laws and a high rate of armed citizens, that the crime rate goes down...  Havin said all that, as other wizened opiners have said; dont wait for the big three "lamestreet" (...way to go on the 'lame street media RED!!!... A great characterization.....) media to report this.  HEHEHEHE....

 

leroy

Edited August 29, 2013 by leroy

[Pat]

Well... I'd say that's pretty sweet. Especially coming from a place like Harvard... but unfortunately, I doubt we'll hear about this outside... well, here.

[Worriedman]

When was this published?

 

Found it, 2007.  Good stuff!

Edited August 30, 2013 by Worriedman

[GKar]

Looks to have been 2007...

[Guest Razz]

One thing to consider is that this was not a peer reviewed work. I don't personally think there is anything wrong with the data but you still have to keep that in mind.

Also, I posted the PDF to Facebook a couple days ago and asked for opinions. Not a single taker. I don't know whether to be happy or sad but no one wants to debate gun control with me, any more. :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Peer reviewing can also be over-rated. Look at the example of global warming and how peer reviewing was done there.

It appears that, in some cases, anyway, some peers are more peer than other. The fact that this came from Hahvahd

speaks volumes, and they probably couldn't anyone peer enough to review it without kaleidoscope ultra-liberal eyes.

It is a crack in the armor, though.

[Worriedman]

 I don't know whether to be happy or sad but no one wants to debate gun control with me, any more. :)

 

I could let you borrow a few till you can round up some more on your own...

[GKar]

Oh, I had a taker.  Even acknowledged the conclusions of the study, but couldn't get off the "but we still must do SOMETHING" platitude...of course, she couldn't provide any specifics of what should be done, other than it must be legislative.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh, I had a taker.  Even acknowledged the conclusions of the study, but couldn't get off the "but we still must do SOMETHING" platitude...of course, she couldn't provide any specifics of what should be done, other than it must be legislative.

But you gained some ground, didn't you? Every time you make a valid argument, it makes someone think.

 

That's more than half the battle. Keep up the good work!