Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: More Guns Does NOT Mean More Murders or Suicides
Well, I wanna see how the anti-gun tools and fools gun control advocates are going to spin this one. I ran across it on Breitbart.com and found it interesting as hell.
It seems as if some folks from academia recently decided to study the issue of whether the prevalence of guns in a nation’s population is related to that nation’s murder and suicide rates. The study is published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 30 (2), pp. 649-694. It examined data from both the US and Europe relating to both suicides and murders involving guns.
The anti-gun lobby ain’t gonna like the results. But they certainly made me smile.
The Harvard study found little or no connection between the the prevalence of firearms among a nation’s population and the rate of murder or suicides. And they found some other interesting other bits of information as well.
Here are some quotes:
Since at least 1965, the false assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate has been an artifact of politically motivated Soviet minimization designed to hide the true homicide rates. Since well before that date, the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them. Yet, manifest success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun-less Soviet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun-ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998-2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. (pp. 650-651)
Malcolm presents reliable trend data on both gun ownership and crime in England for the period between 1871 and 1964. Significantly, these trend data do not at all correlate as the mantra would predict: violent crime did not increase with increased gun ownership nor did it decline in periods in which gun ownership was lower. (p. 684)
Also of interest are the extensive opinion surveys of incarcerated felons, both juvenile and adult, in which large percentages of the felons replied that they often feared potential victims might be armed and aborted violent crimes because of that fear. The felons most frightened about confronting an armed victim were those “from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” (p. 686)
Consider Norway and its neighbors Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Norway has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is even higher, though only slightly. (p. 687)
The mantra more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death is also used to argue that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Once again, this assertion is directly contradicted by the studies of 36 and 21 nations (respectively) which find no statistical relationship. (pp. 690-691)
There is simply no relationship evident between the extent of suicide and the extent of gun ownership. People do not commit suicide because they have guns available. In the absence of firearms, people who are inclined to commit suicide kill themselves some other way. (p. 691)
The mantra referenced in these quotes, of course, is the false assertion that “more guns mean more deaths and, therefore fewer guns means fewer deaths.”
There are many more such gem quotes in the study. For anyone looking to counter the anti-gun lobby’s propaganda with facts, it’s a keeper – and it’s in downloadable PDF format, so it works on a Kindle or Nook.
Our liberal “brethren” should accept it as Gospel, too. After all, it was published by freaking Harvard! (smile)
These results don’t surprise me whatsoever. I wrote much the same here myself, over a year ago, concerning domestic gun laws and their correlation with murder rate. I found essentially the same results – no correlation.
Kudos to Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, the study’s authors, for their work. Anyone with half a brain or some amount common sense already knew this – but that leaves out much of academia and virtually all of the libidiot anti-gun tools and fools gun control advocates. Now it’s been documented and published yet again.
It’s not the guns that are causing the problem, folks. It’s the society.
Mauser!?! Why that alone obviously indicates bias! We can safely dismiss this so-called study comrades. Nothing to see here, nothing at all.
The above is my approximation of how any response from a lefty to this study is likely to go.
Welcome to Reality, Harvard. Population: You.
Holy objectivity, Batman!!
I find this part of study VERY telling: While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drastically that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Between 1998-2004 (the latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R. (pp. 650-651)
I think that says it all.
Illinois has now legalized medical use of marijuana and is doing its best to take self-defense away from its voters. Since Mayor Rahmbo’s gun control stuff started taking effect, the increase in violent crimes is also telling.
But you want common sense about this kind of thing from the liberal end of the spectrum? Sorry, people, they just don’t have it. It’s been bred out of them.
It’s more indicative than you realize for a broader reason, Ex-PH2.
Restrictive gun laws in the US actually reached their peak in the 1980s; then things began to change for the better. This can be best observed by looking at concealed carry laws.
In 1986, precisely 1 state (VT) allowed unrestricted concealed carry, while 8 were “must issue” permit states (permit must be issued by local LE if individual meets statutory requirements). 25 states were “may issue” states (essentially, the local LE could issue or deny as they saw fit), and 16 states banned concealed carry altogether – including (as absurd as this will seem to most) TX, OK, MS, AR, AK, AZ, and MO!
Today, 5 states allow unrestricted concealed carry, while the vast majority (over 3/4) of the rest (39) are “must issue” states. Only 8 states today are “shall issue” states for concealed carry, and none today ban concealed carry outright. The last holdout – IL – was slapped hard by the Federal courts a couple of years ago on exactly that issue and has since changed their laws.
An excellent graphic representation of the above can be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif
The decline in US murder rates is essentially coincident with that change in state/local firearms laws with at most a slight time lag.
Well done, Hondo. Thanks for the “ammo!”
Between this and the CDC report that Jonn posted on 8/28/2013, it seems the anti-gun Left would be silenced in this matter…
…but that would require sweet reason and logic. My bad.
I am shocked, shocked, that as usual the mainstream media has not reported this or the CDC report yet.
Hondo-I love that gif! It’s a bright ray of hope in a generally otherwise gloomy political landscape
Wow, talk about your inconvenient truths……
While I’ve never been a fan of comparisons to European nations or a rapidly disintegrating Russia of the late ’90s for a variety of reasons I do believe the only way for some idiots to understand the obvious is to have that comparison to their precious European Union spelled out by a perceived liberal bastion like Harvard.
Studies from our own nation should have made it clear from day one that excessive gun control and oppressive regulations surrounding legal ownership are doomed to fail as a preventative measure for acts of violence. Gun control legislation is a false flag move in my opinion because it is a rallying point for discussion of crime that mis-directs the attention of the electorate from real root cause issues.
It’s easier for liberals to blame the tools used in the commission of a crime than it is to face the possibility that the policy decisions over the last 40 years has created a sub class of less than equal citizens who have no opportunity for a substantial education and no real opportunity to access the options that come from a decent secondary education. Those policies have also destroyed the black family, and have made an impact on the hispanic community as well. If any liberals actually believe that 75% single parent families is a desired outcome of social policy I would argue they are more racist than any member of the KKK.
Guns are an easy target, self-examination of ruinous policies and dismantling of teachers unions that have completely failed the communities they are tasked with aiding are difficult, non-sexy conversations, but they are long overdue.
68W58: yeah, that’s a keeper too. It’s especially useful and persuasive when combined with the data in the Harvard Journal article showing the the decline in US crime rates since 1990s.
Well, it’s persuasive for those with half a brain. That leaves out many in academia and most libidiots.
I was wondering if anyone else would catch the second author’s name. Hat tip to ya, amigo. (smile)
VOV: the libidiot left has been denying that for nearly 50 years now – ever since the Moynihan report was first published. What makes you think they’ll “get it” any time soon?
@13 Call it my everlasting faith and optimism regarding the ability of the human brain to adapt and learn even when it doesn’t necessarily wish to do so…that or I’m still as naive a fool in my golden years as I was in prime…
Que claims of NRA influence in 3….2…..1…..
The left is generally against science simply because it is fact and logic based. Part of me thinks that they should absolutely love science because it changes all the time as additional knowledge is gained, but they don’t. It requires thought, conclusions based upon facts and all that other stuff.
Kudos to Harvard for even publishing this information!
OWB: have to admit I thought about writing something like your last sentence above in the article too. Couldn’t bring myself to do it, though.
I admit I’m not perfect. (smile)
VOV, the left is the bastion of racism in this country. Sen Byrd, a democrat, was a card carrying member of the clan and a recruiter for them. the democrats openly tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 64, tried to implement eugenics in the 30s-50s to “cure the black problem”, push for abortion mills with no health code requirements in poor and predominantly minority neighborhoods, again, as Susan Coleman said to “cure the black problem”, and eliminate educational opportunities for minority and low income families. (obamoa’s abolition of the private school voucher program)
what makes you think the democrats might not be as racist as the clan? most of them are still members!
here is a democrats view for ya
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
this guy was still in the senate as a democrat until his death rather recently. he sat as the longest seated senator in american history and never once apologized for this letter
i like this little piece
Byrd maintained his pro-segregation stance into the mid-1960s. Most notably, he and other Democrats attempted to obstruct the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by means of a filibuster; Byrd personally filibustered the bill for more than 14 hours. As the floor manager for the segregationists, Byrd made the argument that the writers of the Declaration of Independence “did not intend that these words should be taken literally to be true” when they wrote that “all men are created equal.” “Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision,” Byrd added. “One man is born blind. Another is born lame. Geniuses are not made; they are born. Between two individuals, as between two races, there are broad differences.”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=640
what makes you think the democrats might not be as racist as the clan?
Frankly I find that to be the case most of the time.
Who pushes for easy and cheap abortions? The Dems.
Who opposes charter schools which have been shown to help poor kids learn better? The Dems.
Who tries to make economic crutches easier and easier to get ahold of, thereby killing the “need” for someone to work and better their situation? The Dems.
Frankly, their days of helping minorities out are long past and now they just seek to keep them in their control economically and ideologically so they can continue to get them to vote for the big D.
The Dems always counter that by saying that all of those racist Dems went over to the Republican party in the late 1960s and early 1970s because of JFK and LBJs civil rights policies.
Here’s the thing about that-it wasn’t until the Republicans took over the NC legislature that W.W. Holden-who was impeached by the Dems in 1871 for sending the militia out after the Klan which was terrorizing black citizens-was posthumously pardoned. Also that same Republican dominated legislature took action to make restitution for those who were forcibly sterilized by the Dem controlled state government in the mid-20th century-a group that is disproportionately black,
So, my question to those who claim that the parties changed in the late 1960s and early 1970s is: why did the state legislature which was controlled by that supposedly newly liberal Democratic party up until 2011 or so not take those actions and why would the newly ascendant Republican party-vile racists in this presumption remember-care about right those previous injustices? Just my state, but it puts the lie to that particular meme.
“…care about righting those previous injustives?”
ive never understood the argument that the parties flipped, there is nothing to justify that. the left just did a better job of fooling the uneducated, than the right did of educating them.
Smitty-it’s because the left considers itself so self-evidently non-racist (actually they consider themselves completely pure from all political sin, but I digress) and they attribute the most base motives, such as racism, to those who oppose them. God knows, it’s not like there weren’t plenty of other reasons besides civil rights policy for southern Democrats to abandon that party in droves in the late 60s to early 70s (they also fail to acknowledge that many southern Republican strongholds, especially those in Western NC and Eastern TN, had been so since just after the Civil War).
we can also go with Time’s man of the year 1938 Adolph Hitler, the progressive movement’s front man. beloved by the left and member of the National Socialist Party. some how he get blamed on the right now too. i read an article earlier about right wing extremists murdering turks in german. apparently the neo-nazi group is registered as socialists! explain to me how that makes them right wing anything
Until 1865, blacks in America depended on “Massa” to provide food, clothing and shelter. 150 years later, they’ve replaced “Massa” with the US Government.
Hondo: I do understand, and would probably have made the same decision while making a post. In a comment? Isn’t it nice that slightly different rules apply? 😉
Meanwhile, back on topic! Have forwarded the study to a couple of significant (to me anyway) folks. Some legislators need to see it as well, and will provide a few of them with this study as well.
May I suggest that others also make certain that their legislators also get copies of this study?
Democrats dont like history, so they invented ‘revisionist’ history. it works out better for them that way.
And, still, even after they ignored Britain’s rise in violent crime after banning guns and 85% of Britons wanting their guns back thereafter!