Harvard Study: Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?

[Howzit]

"International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so...."

Full article at link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[MADem]

1. Until people come up with better ways to kill themselves and others....NT

[TheWraith]

2. Which takes about seven seconds.

Britain did this a few years ago. Net result, their murder rate didn't even budge. Some criminals switched to knives. Now they're trying to ban kitchen knives.

[iverglas]

8. substantiate

Now they're trying to ban kitchen knives.

Are you really relying on a years-old suggestion by some in the medical profession that certain types of knives not be sold to make this ridiculous false statement?

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/27/health.politics

"Meet culinary needs" my ass. Try carving up a ham with a blunt tipped 5" blade. I'll wait.

Edit: Hahaha fuck, I misread it, 5 CENTIMETER knife, lol

[iverglas]

11. fail

Your statement:

Now they're trying to ban kitchen knives.

Your link:

... 2005/May/27 ...

Accident and emergency doctors today call for the banning of long, sharp kitchen knives, arguing they account for at least half of all stabbings.

So when you said "they're trying", you meant "over six years ago, some doctors recommended".

Sad.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. It's an ongoing debate.

They've gotten it to the point where you need ID to purchase kitchen knives. That's just the first link I got.

I've seen a couple different blunt tip designs for that market, that are wholly unsuited to stabbing.

Edit: I take it back, some places knife sales have indeed been banned.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9311820.Axe_and_knives_sold_to_14_year_old_boy/

[iverglas]

15. try that again

The sale in the article to which you link was to a 14-year-old.

The sale of knives to minors is indeed banned.

He said: “This small snapshot paints a worrying picture on the availability of knives to children at car boot sales.

“With a 100% failure of sellers to act within the law, we are now contacting the organisers of the major car boot sales in West Sussex urging them to adopt and enforce a ‘No Knives’ policy for their sellers.

“So far the response has been encouraging with seven car boot sales agreeing to a full knife ban. Two others already have such a ban and are working with us to improve its effectiveness.”

The "ban" is a voluntary one by organizers of boot sales, requested and agreed to because of the widespread violation of the ban on sales to minors at such sales. Kind of like if a gun show promoter in the US decided not to allow private sales at their shows without NICS checks.

I'm rather disappointed in you.


html fixed

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Um, we have that.

WAC shows self-regulate in the manner you describe, and we don't call it a ban.

I had to look up what the fuck a 'car boot' was, actually.

Here a 'car boot' is something locked onto the car to prevent the owner from driving it away before a tow truck can show up to haul it to impound.

[iverglas]

26. I grow increasingly disappointed

WAC shows self-regulate in the manner you describe, and we don't call it a ban.

"We" can call it what "we" like. WAC, whatever it is, bans private sales w/o NICS checks at its shows, too obviously.

It is impossible to read the article you linked to as referring to anything but a voluntary ban on sales of knives, imposed by boot sale organizers on the people who pay to sell goods at their events.

Perhaps now that you know what kind of event is in question, it all makes sense to you.

There is NO ban on the sale of knives in the UK, other than to minors, that being the obvious reason why ID is required for a purchase: to prove age. Just like for buying booze and cigarettes in the US.

[Remmah2]

16. The mere fact that they tried speaks loads.

I've lived in England, more socially dysfunctional than Canada.

[iverglas]

27. every word you type shouts

The mere fact that they tried speaks loads

The actual fact is that NOBODY tried.

Emergency doctors -- the ONLY "they" in issue here, despite your apparent inability to admit that -- do not have the authority to ban anything.

Accordingly, they cannot TRY to do it.

Any more than I can TRY to fly to the moon.

Or than you can say anything factual, obviously.

[rl6214]

50. You could TRY to fly to the moon.

I would suggest going to the tallest bridge you can find, climb to the top and leap off, flapping your arms as fast as you can and see what happens.

:rofl:

[PavePusher]

3. Which of course hasn't slowed Japan down a whit.... n/t

[cleanhippie]

4. Even in the face of hard evidence, we still hear the same, old, tired, throughly debunked nonsense.

Cognitive dissonance, I guess.

[iverglas]

32. exactly!

As brought to you by Kates and Mauser and their acolytes. ;)

Over, and over, and over, and over again ...

[petronius]

5. MaDem, I think your best posts are the ones with no content

Not because you have nothing to say, but because that way the juxtaposition of your avatar and that thieving cat is hilarious (now if you could just get an avatar where Brian turned around after the X was gone... :rofl:

[MADem]

49. I like that cat! He looks just like my Little Buddy who travelled all over the world with me.

I'm also a sucker for Family Guy!

Simple delights!

[wtmusic]

6. Wow. Someone actually got Harvard to publish the nonsensical ramblings

of two gun addicts. Did they really believe anyone would accept drivel like this at face value:

"1) Russian homicide data given in this article (for years 1965–99) were kindly supplied us by Professor Pridemore from his research in Russian ministry sources (on file with authors). See also infra Table 1 (reporting Russian homicide data for 2002)."

My response:

"Data which shows authors' to be wholly specious was kindly supplied me by Dr. Heywood Jablome from his more extensive research in Russian ministry sources (on file with wtmusic)."

This is fun! :rofl:

onedit: I defy anyone to find one (1) reference in Kellerman as shoddy as this.

[DanTex]

7. Actually it's much worse than that...

Most incompetent pro-gun "researchers" tend to try to use at least slightly subtle methods for distorting and misrepresenting data. A good example is Gary Kleck, comparing estimates of defensive gun uses arrived at using one very loose methodology versus gun crimes estimated using a tighter methodology in order to come to the absurd conclusion that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses, despite the fact that any "apples-to-apples" comparison shows that there are far more criminal gun uses.

But Kates and Mauser raise the bar by simply using false data. It makes propagandizing so much easier! As has been pointed out on this board before, the authors quote the homicide rate of Luxembourg as 9.01/100K. Of course, as anyone even marginally knowledgeable about international crime statistics knows, this is completely out of the question, unless there were some kind of anomalous mass killing in that year. It is common knowledge that the only first-world nation with a homicide rate even close to that is the USA (which, not coincidentally, has far higher gun ownership than any other first-world nation).

What happened was there was a decimal point error: the Luxembourg homicide rate is actually 0.9/100K. Now, if this was some number hidden away in some table, maybe it wouldn't matter much. But it's not: they refer directly to this supposedly sky-high homicide rate of Luxembourg in the text, and they even highlight the number in Table 2. And with good reason: if that actually were the homicide rate of Luxembourg, then it would deserve to be highlighted.

This leaves us with the standard two possibilities for pro-gunner propaganda:
1) (Dishonesty) Kates and Mauser knew the number was bad, but chose to highlight it anyway, perhaps because it felt so good, for once, to have a statistic that didn't have to be further manipulated in any way in order to support their case.
2) (Incompetence) Kates and Mauser really didn't double check the number despite the fact that even an amateur would instantly be able to spot this as way out of line with reality.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is. For most people I'd say dishonesty is the only possible answer, because it's such an egregious error. It would be like a climate scientist citing an increase in temperature of 8 degrees Celsius as opposed to 0.8 over the last century. But, based on the quality of the rest of this paper, along with other things I've seen by Kates and Mauser, in this case it is possible that these guys are actually clueless enough to slide by with the incompetence defense.

[gejohnston]

19. I'll give you the third paragraph

although if it were one of the Joyce people, you would have some rationalization for it.

Please elaborate on the first two. So are all scientists who come to conclusions that you don't like incompetent? How is it absurd that more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses? Not that Mauser is a scientist, he is not.

Most incompetent pro-gun "researchers" tend to try to use at least slightly subtle methods for distorting and misrepresenting data. A good example is Gary Kleck, comparing estimates of defensive gun uses arrived at using one very loose methodology versus gun crimes estimated using a tighter methodology in order to come to the absurd conclusion that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses, despite the fact that any "apples-to-apples" comparison shows that there are far more criminal gun uses.

For example? Please explain in your own words instead of copy and pasting Cook. What methods are those? What would be Kleck's motivation? Please explain in detail.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is. For most people I'd say dishonesty is the only possible answer, because it's such an egregious error. It would be like a climate scientist citing an increase in temperature of 8 degrees Celsius as opposed to 0.8 over the last century. But, based on the quality of the rest of this paper, along with other things I've seen by Kates and Mauser, in this case it is possible that these guys are actually clueless enough to slide by with the incompetence defense.

I'd say it is an honest mistake, at least in Kates' case.

Any criticism of your Joyce hacks brings howls of "prove it" and accusations of anti-intellectualism. When we point out the stupidity or dishonesty of basing your entire study based on numbers from a advocacy group (of questionable honesty, even more so the number of felons among its members) instead of an official source you whine about us being to stupid or uneducated to understand the science. So, let's see it.

I am not saying anything about the study itself, other than show me a place where such laws actually effected murder or suicide. As in before/after. Changes in use of means does not count.

[wtmusic]

33. "What would be Kleck's motivation?" That's funny.

Who cares? The science is solid, or it's not. Kleck's is not.

The most thorough, objective research indicates a positive correlation between gun laws and reduced crime:

"The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on all variables. Twenty-four states as of 1990 did not have any gun control laws and regulations while 26 states had some type of regulation. The average firearm deaths per 100,000 population for states which had some type of gun control laws and regulations was 19.6 as opposed to 24.4 for those states which did not (p = 0.043)."

Gun control reduces firearm deaths by 8%. And that's only in the short term.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n1_v56/ai_19266179/?tag=content;col1

[gejohnston]

39. not funny at all

Kleck has been accused of dishonesty.

The most thorough, objective research indicates a positive correlation between gun laws and reduced crime:

show where Kleck and other criminologists are not objective, thorough. You can't. Some of the people mentioned on the other side, not so much. Who they receive their grants from is always a good indicator.

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on all variables. Twenty-four states as of 1990 did not have any gun control laws and regulations while 26 states had some type of regulation. The average firearm deaths per 100,000 population for states which had some type of gun control laws and regulations was 19.6 as opposed to 24.4 for those states which did not (p = 0.043)."

Every state had gun control laws of some type, even Vermont. That is before you get to the federal laws. When you look at the federal laws in place, they all have regulations.

Gun control reduces firearm deaths by 8%. And that's only in the short term.

They do? Show one country or state where it actually happened. At most, decreased suicide by firearm but other methods filled the vacuum keeping the rate the same.

[wtmusic]

42. Again. I don't care whether Kleck is objective, he draws shitty conclusions.

You seem to be agenda-driven, which is always a lousy way to conduct science.

Find fault with the research I've provided - which indicates gun control saves lives, period - or we have no discussion.

[gejohnston]

47. works both ways

You seem to be agenda-driven, which is always a lousy way to conduct science.

I am, but Kleck was not. Kellermann (on of the researchers mentioned, certainly did. His grant from the Joyce Foundation was depended on it.) Other than you agenda driven conclusions of "shitty conclusions" find fault in his research. Works both ways.

Find fault with the research I've provided - which indicates gun control saves lives, period - or we have no discussion.

Look at the before and after of any country or state. Can it explain why even though gun sales in US and Canada are reaching all time high, murder rates are dropping in both countries? Why the jurisdictions that have the worst murder rates also have the strictest gun laws? No, I am not going into John Lott land. No, you can not simply drive from Chicago to a gun shop in Wisconsin. That has been federal law since the 1930s. As for the science itself, I'll get back with you.

[SteveM]

52. "I don't care whether Kleck is objective." No surprise, here. nt

[iverglas]

36. please consider the word "tiresome"

Also "juvenile".

You're behaving like a two-year-old who starts the day every morning by asking their mummy "why?"

For some reason google will only give me a bunch of subthreads in results, but here's one complete one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x440281#440517

That's from July. The others I see are from late May and October 2 of this year.

If you seriously think that anything you say was left unaddressed in any of those discussions, you might want to identify the point specifically and address it.


edit

a bit more ... quite a bit more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=428044

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=448172

and so on

[gejohnston]

41. Project much?

thought so, and addressed in a very lame and unconvincing way. The "you must be a stupid rube who also does't believe in evolution" does not address shit other showing the person has nothing to say and has his or her head up their ass. Repeating the words of some shill, rather than saying in their own words and why does not address shit.

So, no.
Also, his objections were addressed in the Kleck study, which I am guessing he never bothered to read, assuming he would be able to understand what he read to begin with. He did not give his thoughts, only parroted the Joyce funded one. I have always found that those with those who try to act better or smarter is about as real as a three dollar bill. So, no, that is not addressing anything. Neither does attacking my character or intellect, which is why many of those that "addressed" were deleted.
Avoiding direct questions does not address anything either.

[iverglas]

43. well that was enlightening

Perhaps you missed my point.

You persist in saying the same thing in every thread where you see an opportunity, pretending that everything you are saying has not been thoroughly addressed from every angle about 10 times already. (I added a couple more links to my post above, in case you missed them, and that was just all I decided to have time for.)

Civil discourse does not work this way. One does not demand that one's interlocutor respond to something that has been responded to over and over and over and pretend that no response has ever been given. One does not attempt to start debates over from the beginning and demand that one's interlocutors play one's game.

[gejohnston]

45. you missed the point

You persist in saying the same thing in every thread where you see an opportunity, pretending that everything you are saying has not been thoroughly addressed from every angle about 10 times already.

I explained, and simply repeating the same lame bullshit is not addressing anything. In fact, the "addressing" was total bullshit and did address anything. Parroting and personal attacks are not responses.

Civil discourse does not work this way. One does not demand that one's interlocutor respond to something that has been responded to over and over and over and pretend that no response has ever been given. One does not attempt to start debates over from the beginning and demand that one's interlocutors play one's game.

you are the last person on the planet that has any business lecturing me or anyone else on civil discourse.

[rl6214]

51. In looking at posts like hers all I see is

blah, blah, blah...

An aweful lot of talking and not a single thing was said.

[SteveM]

53. I think it's called "a dog's breakfast," but served any time of day. nt

[Remmah2]

48. I've never met a two year old who could discuss gun rights.

Go figure.

[DanTex]

12. Also, "Harvard" didn't publish this.

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a law review edited by a conservative/libertarian student group at Harvard Law School. It is not a "Harvard Study" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is not a study at all.

The standards for publication in a law review are completely different than for peer-reviewed academic journals, since law review articles are not refereed by veteran experts in their field, but rather by law students. And in this case, given that the law students involved are conservatives, there is all the more reason to be suspicious of the factual accuracy of a right-wing opinion piece like this one.

There is pretty much no way this article would have made it through an actual peer-review, because any referee that knew the first thing about crime statistics would have rejected this. This is a piece of conservative propaganda, plain and simple.

[wtmusic]

14. Thanks for background, Dan.

The word "mantra" in a supposedly-scientific paper should have been a red flag.

I guess I'm amazed that Harvard allows them to use their name (?)

[DanTex]

28. As you pointed out, the background info is not really needed...

...in order to figure out that this "study" is a piece of junk. You just have to read it.

But it does serve as a lesson that academic standards and peer-review and all that actually are important. Despite all it's flaws (and there are many), the peer review system does manage to filter out most obvious crap.

As far as the word "Harvard", they are after all a group of Harvard students, so I don't really object to the use of that name. But, if you're interested, there is actually a research group of Harvard professors that studies gun violence:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

[Remmah2]

30. as funded by the Joyce Foundation. nt

nt

[Remmah2]

22. Are you captain of the Yale debate team? nt

nt

[wtmusic]

23. As DanTex pointed out, this is a misappropriation of "Harvard" anyway

so yes, I represent "Yale".

Fun with words.

[Remmah2]

24. Yallow? Is there anybody in there?

Yup, fun with words.

[iverglas]

10. pretty funny

I am going to bet $2 billion that none of the cheering section who replied in this thread so much as clicked on the link.

The paper is some 5 years old and has been discussed at length in this forum I don't know how many times in the past. And as DanTex points out, he and I have thoroughly demolished this piece of trash, repeatedly, beginning in 2007 in my case. (Anybody click on those links in his thread?)

Slow news day, I guess.

[Remmah2]

18. You owe me $2 Billion.

You can pay me in US or Canadian funds. The first thing I did was open and archive the article. You can send it to the Peace Bridge on the US border in Buffalo and I'll pick it up. Tell you what, I'll donate it all to the soup kitchen I volunteer at. Not one penny in my pocket.

[iverglas]

29. you understand verb tenses?

none of the cheering section who replied in this thread

You see the timestamp / post number on my post? And the times of posts added between the opening post and my post?

I don't believe you were here.

But hm, are you implying you had not seen this bit of trash and the demolition of it any of the gazillion times it has been posted here in the past? Hm.

Do see the links in DanTex's first post, and of course he has also done the job here more recently as well.

[Remmah2]

34. We knew you'd worm your way out of this one.

$2billion would have bought a lot of ham sandwiches.

[iverglas]

37. and I know that every word I type will be

... uh ... misrepresented.

So I wasn't disappointed, was I?

[petronius]

38. Then of the nine posts ahead of yours, which are you calling "the cheering section"?

[iverglas]

40. uh ...

the ones that are ...

[petronius]

44. C'mon now, don't be shy. Define your terms and/or name names

I want someone to collect on this $2 billion... :)

[Remmah2]

46. It's my $2billion I claimed it.

Poor contract language, I win.

I've even offered to donate 100%.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Of course it would.

All you have to do is look at the murder rate of other industrialized nations who ban guns. Murder rates by firearm are much lower.

Obviously, if there were no firearms, then at least firearm murder rates would decline.

But I don't care how many people do bad things with guns. I'm not going to give up MY guns because of the actions of criminals.

[wtmusic]

20. You give up all kinds of things because of the actions of criminals

but that's because society doesn't know (or care) what a swell person you are.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. 99 problems, but a gun ain't one. n/t

[wtmusic]

35. Crack isn't the problem for a crack addict either.

It's always something else.

[iverglas]

31. "other industrialized nations who ban guns"

Now, when you say "ban guns", are you being tricky and muttering "ban (some few particular kinds of) guns" up your sleeve?

What you actually seem to be saying is that there are industrialized nations that ban all guns. Since that's what the subject of the thread actually is.

Can you name two? one, even?