Harvard University Study: Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

[Max R.]

Interesting Harvard University study regarding private gun ownership. The result? More private gun owners = less crime.


http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens......

...“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”...

 

[Arkady]

Interesting Harvard University study regarding private gun ownership. The result? More private gun owners = less crime.


http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens......

...“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”...

Did you read the study, or rely on Beliefnet to summarize it? If the latter, that's not a good idea, for obvious reasons.

First, this isn't a Harvard University study. Neither Kates nor Mauser is affiliated with Harvard, nor has either ever been. They simply published an opinion piece in a Harvard law journal; that's all. There are obvious reasons that propaganda sites would want you to regard it as a Harvard study, since Harvard's name provides such credibility. But facts are facts.

A more accurate description is that this is a non-peer-reviewed paper by a retired gun rights lawyer and a "fellow" at a right-wing organization called the Fraser Institute (one of those Koch Brothers-funded outlets for libertarian propaganda.) But, obviously, citing the paper to a couple of obscure gun enthusiasts doesn't have as much swing as saying it's a Harvard study.

As for the paper, it's a pretty sloppy piece... mostly just posting standard-issue right-wing talking points as if they were academically established facts. For example:

reducing gun ownership by the law ‐ abiding citizenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce violence or murder
​

I guess I admire their discipline in avoiding the boilerplate formulation that "when guns are against the law, only criminals will have guns," but the sentiment is the same, and it totally ignores the obvious counter-points: those who commit gun crimes were often "law abiding citizens" at the time they acquired them, and many of those criminals who get their hands on guns got them from law abiding citizens, so reducing gun ownership among law abiding citizens actually does result in fewer criminals using them.

Still, as bad as the study is, even they have to admit that the supposed correlation of high gun ownership and low crime IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE US, likely has the reverse causation as what gun enthusiasts would like to imagine:

"….but the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws."​

 

[Max R.]

An expected reply: dismiss the study because it was in the Harvard JLPP. Dismiss the study because Attorney Kates and Dr. Mauser aren't Harvard students (Kates went to Yale and Mauser is a Canuck).

Disregard the fact Harvard published it. Mainly, disregard it because you disagree with it.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐ den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, espe‐ cially 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.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:

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 nega‐
tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources.150
​

 

[Arkady]

An expected reply: dismiss the study because it was in the Harvard JLPP.

Reread the thread. Nobody dismissed the study because it was in the Harvard JLPP. So, if you expected that reply, you were disappointed.

Dismiss the study because Attorney Kates and Dr. Mauser aren't Harvard students (Kates went to Yale and Mauser is a Canuck).

Nobody ever mentioned whether or not they were Harvard students. The question was simply whether it was a Harvard study, as you'd falsely claimed. It was not. It was an independent study by two people not affiliated with Harvard.

 

[Max R.]

Reread the thread. Nobody dismissed the study because it was in the Harvard JLPP.....

You thought it important enough to bring up:

Did you read the study, or rely on Beliefnet to summarize it? If the latter, that's not a good idea, for obvious reasons.

First, this isn't a Harvard University study. Neither Kates nor Mauser is affiliated with Harvard, nor has either ever been.....

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Interesting Harvard University study regarding private gun ownership. The result? More private gun owners = less crime.


http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens......

...“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”...

From your link: “Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed."

Apparently, your authors have a hard time with elementary arithmetic. How many people died in the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut? Was it more than 18?

 

[Max R.]

From your link: “Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed."

Apparently, your authors have a hard time with elementary arithmetic. How many people died in the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut? Was it more than 18?

26. The study was published in 2007. Sandy Hook was in 2012.

 

[as seen on tv]

actually, I think "more private gun ownership by law abiding citizens" = lower crime.

if you passed out free glocks to everyone in the hood, the results would be the opposite.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

26. The study was published in 2007. Sandy Hook was in 2012.

They should probably UPDATE the report, then. Wouldn't you think? At any rate, you are citing a report which contains false statements.

 

[Max R.]

actually, I think "more private gun ownership by law abiding citizens" = lower crime.

if you passed out free glocks to everyone in the hood, the results would be the opposite.

Agreed. I think that was the idea since law-biding citizens far outnumber criminals.

 

[Max R.]

They should probably UPDATE the report, then. Wouldn't you think? At any rate, you are citing a report which contains false statements.

You should write them a nasty memo.

 

[Arkady]

You thought it important enough to bring up:

I was pointing out your error. Any attempt to lend the paper credibility by way of it being a Harvard study is counter-factual. That doesn't mean that I believe we should dismiss the study because it was in the Harvard JLPP. Nobody suggested we dismiss this study because it was in the Harvard JLPP, so, as I said, if that was the response you expected, you must be disappointed by the response you actually got.

 

[Arkady]

actually, I think "more private gun ownership by law abiding citizens" = lower crime.

if you passed out free glocks to everyone in the hood, the results would be the opposite.

If we could somehow distribute guns just to those we knew would use them in a law-abiding way and wouldn't have them stolen or otherwise transfer them to someone who isn't law-abiding, it would PROBABLY make people safer (unless somehow the rate of accidents exceeded that of defensive uses). But, in the real world, when a society has high gun saturation, that means the criminal element is more likely to be armed as well.

 

[Max R.]

...Nobody suggested we dismiss this study because it was in the Harvard JLPP, so, as I said, if that was the response you expected, you must be disappointed by the response you actually got.

It seems you like to talk more about it than the paper itself.

 

[Max R.]

If we could somehow distribute guns just to those we knew would use them in a law-abiding way and wouldn't have them stolen or otherwise transfer them to someone who isn't law-abiding, it would PROBABLY make people safer (unless somehow the rate of accidents exceeded that of defensive uses). But, in the real world, when a society has high gun saturation, that means the criminal element is more likely to be armed as well.

Since law-biding citizens far outnumber criminals, as long as all are armed, the criminals would be at a strong disadvantage.

This is why banning guns is counter-productive: it leaves only criminals armed.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

You should write them a nasty memo.

Nah. I'm not gonna write them a nasty memo. But you should stop citing a report that is woefully outdated, and contains demonstrably false statements.

 

[Max R.]

Nah. I'm not gonna write them a nasty memo. But you should stop citing a report that is woefully outdated, and contains demonstrably false statements.

Name one demonstrably false statement.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Name one demonstrably false statement.

Such an easy question. This one:

“Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany.” The fourth worst? Columbine.

 

[Arkady]

Since law-biding citizens far outnumber criminals, as long as all are armed, the criminals would be at a strong disadvantage.

This is why banning guns is counter-productive: it leaves only criminals armed.

In societies where fewer people are armed, criminals are a lot less likely to be armed than they are in the US, resulting in a much smaller share of violent crimes being deadly.

There's also a key fact right-winger don't tend to like to address: that guns are great offensive weapons, but only useful for defense in a limited number of circumstances. You could literally be one of the finest marksmen in the history of the world, with years of combat experience, and a gun right at hand, and if the other guy draws first at close quarters, you're dead. You can be armed to the teeth with the finest arsenal of small arms known to man, and I can be some yahoo with a Saturday Night Special who has never pulled a trigger in his life, and I can still kill you any time I want. The gun gives the criminals a strong advantage, because they're the ones willing to act first. By the time you realize there's even a threat justifying the drawing of your gun, it will already be too late in the majority of situations.

 

[Craig]

Name one demonstrably false statement.

Interesting Harvard University study regarding private gun ownership.

Interesting Harvard University study regarding private gun ownership. The result? More private gun owners = less crime.


http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1
According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens......

...“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated," the statement “is, in fact, false.”...