A Must Read! High Murder Rates Correlate to Gun Bans

benedict1 · August 17, 2007, 04:53 PM

As many of us have argued for years, having guns around prevents crime, especially violent crime. Now a Harvard team proves it from the data--

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...-Ownership.htm

Let's see if we can keep the media from "burying" this.

Wildalaska · August 17, 2007, 05:04 PM

Just more BS statistics.

WildivesaidthatbeforeAlaska TM

Manedwolf · August 17, 2007, 05:25 PM

We already knew this locally, and "harvard scientists" should too. NH with its "lax" gun laws and MA with its draconian gun laws have similarly-sized cities close across the border, Nashua and Lowell. Nashua's violent crime rate is quite low, while Lowell is an absolute hole, with lots and lots of violent crime.

Some of Boston's suburbs like Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan are so bad that you can literally hear 9mm pops every night in the distance, despite the fact that they're all illegal.

Abishai · August 17, 2007, 05:39 PM

Who said "....gun's dont kill people - people kill people."?

CDFT · August 17, 2007, 05:47 PM

We've all seen the statistics cheering on the liberalization of firearms laws, but I'm curious to know how diligent these scientists were. I would be interested, for example, for someone to go and seek out as many of the Nahua/Lowell comparisons like ManedWolf brought up, and see how often they fall in the favor of one side or the other.

Basically, did they properly attempt to defeat their conclusion of "gun control = bad" and try to "break" their conclusion by seeking out rigorous* evidence to the contrary? Or did they see their conclusion and smile because their test was then over with that set of statistics?

*I say rigorous, because copying and pasting Sarah Brady's webpage wouldn't count, by a long shot...

applesanity · August 17, 2007, 06:56 PM

It doesn't matter if the statistics are rigorous, valid, infallible, and smack every burden of proof thrown against it.

You're not gonna win any argument with statistics.

Take that anti, that you know, to a gun range.

TheFacts · August 17, 2007, 07:21 PM

Statistics alone cannot substantiate conclusions. They have their place when trying to back up conclusions that are drawn from empirical data. Unfortunately, many socialogical studies only utilize statistics when trying to make their point, and when the media picks them up, they run with them is if they are gospel.

Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

elrod · August 17, 2007, 07:28 PM

"Well,..Duuh" (Maybe if people see it enough times, in enough places......)

snaptafar · August 17, 2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Who said "....gun's dont kill people - people kill people."?

ConfuseUs · August 18, 2007, 05:30 AM

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Bear in mind too that most people never took statistics. Most of those who did slept through class and only absorbed enough to "survive" and not have to take it again. So no matter how properly done your statistical studies are you can count on people's eyes glazing over when you trot out your prized multivariate regression models with confidence level aleph nought, err, I mean, alpha in the 99.999% range, etc, etc.

I might add that the quality of the statistical study and the ability of laymen to understand and accept the methods are inversely related. If you don't believe me then go and find the math majors specializing in prob and stats at your local college and ask them about their studies.

The statistics are good for AFTER someone has been convinced via other means. Then they have a more scientific justification for their new position on the issue and feel better about it.

FirstFreedom · August 20, 2007, 02:02 AM

Let me see if I have this straight, WA - your position is that the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy allows "BS statistics" in your words, to be published? Then where's your published response, mercilessly reducing those BS stats to just so many meaningless numbers?

TexasFats · August 20, 2007, 06:17 PM

I have read the article. Actually, the article by Don Kates and Gary Mauser says that THERE IS NO CORRELATION between gun ownership and either murder or suicide rates. It is probably the best cross-sectional study done to date on the issue and ends up saying that rates of gun ownership have nothing to do with either murder rates or suicide rates. What the article does say is that other factors than gun ownership drives both murder and suicide rates.

To my mind, this is good news. It shows that gun laws won't help lower death rates from either murder or suicide, and it keeps us from making wild claims that might turn out to be false, costing us our credibility.

Somebody should read the article before they post.

Glenn E. Meyer · August 20, 2007, 06:26 PM

I know both of them and consider them friends. We have eaten at Wolfgang Puck's restaurant together and Gary and I went to see the Grand Ol' Opry.

They are excellent researchers and in the forefront of supplying data that supports the RKBA.

Without efforts such as theirs, one could have rants about the RKBA but some data helps.

Alleykat · August 20, 2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

I know both of them and consider them friends. We have eaten at Wolfgang Puck's restaurant together and Gary and I went to see the Grand Ol' Opry.

They are excellent researchers and in the forefront of supplying data that supports the RKBA.

Without efforts such as theirs, one could have rants about the RKBA but some data helps.

But Glenn, do you REALLY think they're as well-educated and qualified to do their research as say, a gun shop employee might be?

ZeroJunk · August 20, 2007, 07:20 PM

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure"

Statistics are great in the hands of someone who has absolutely no opinion about the subject.

If they have any pre-existing belief it seems they cannot help but skew the data to support whatever they want to be true.

Glenn E. Meyer · August 21, 2007, 10:23 AM

Did I mention they are both progunners and shooters? If one is well trained in research, you know that bias can alter what is published and accepted. In general, though - modern scholarship is self-correcting.

Look what happened to Bellesiles - a major antigun event and book. He was taken down by progun folks like Cramer but the death blow was from academic scholars who weren't particular progun but knew his methodology was crap.

DOJ research clearly demonstrated that the AWB was crap. It was done by antigun folks. Their conclusion might be for a different set of laws but they reported straight out.

I find arguments supported by quality research better than the rant.

Pat H · August 21, 2007, 10:30 AM

I think using stats to support access to a right isn't a good idea because it's an argument of utility, which means the right goes away if one cannot show utility. A phrase I've used before, "Gun possession, use, and ownership is a part of the right to self defense; rights are not and cannot be subject to arguments of utility nor to the democratic process."

Glenn E. Meyer · August 21, 2007, 11:27 AM

Unfortunately, that point of view is just one for the choir. If you live outside the choir, you need to convince fence sitters or those uninvolved that an increase in firearms is a benefit.

This usually leads us down the rabbit hole of natural rights and "God' given rights. Real world politics don't work that way.

Gun rights are not going to be established by divine intervention. Legislatures have to vote and they have to be convinced. Evidence convinces enough folks to signficantly aid the process.

somechick1980 · August 21, 2007, 12:16 PM

i liked this article. i felt it had really great points. anyone who attended college knows all about statistics. the problem is not with the numbers it is how the reader interprets what the article is saying with regard to those numbers. the research is meant to prove correlations. it cannot prove anything with certainty due to human error. therefore, take it for what it's worth.

the bottom line is that over the last couple of decades, the crime rate has been on a steady decline. there has been numerous studies done on this subject. unfortunately, the statistics taken into consideration do not include unreported crime. the end result is the appearance of a lower crime rate. my point is, who really knows if crime is up or down??? you can do all the studies you want but not everyone reports when a violent crime has been committed.

furthermore, if someone is going to commit a violent crime, do you really think they give a **** about gun laws? gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the whole concept is ridiculous in my opinion.

Derius_T · August 21, 2007, 04:26 PM

somechick1980 wrote:

Quote:

furthermore, if someone is going to commit a violent crime, do you really think they give a **** about gun laws? gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the whole concept is ridiculous in my opinion.

If only we could get the political anti-gunners to get that one simple statement through their little heads. But that would require them pulling thier heads out of the sand first....or other dark places....

Justme · August 21, 2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

What the article does say is that other factors than gun ownership drives both murder and suicide rates.

Something that has been supported over and over by statistics cited by both sides of the debate. In fact, there have been enough studies to suggest that this is a virtually universal axiom at this point.

The problem with most people in the legal and journalistic communities is that they know just enough statistics to be dangerous. Oddly enough this is also true in the psychology field. As a quality control and reliability engineer my life is probability and statistics, but my wife was a psychiatrist. I read here monthly journals for a while and got so disgusted by the sloppy stats that I quit before I had a stroke or something.

The single most important thing to remember when readiing stats in the paper of magazines is that correlation does not equal causality. If you can keep this in mind the stories start to look really silly.

joab · August 21, 2007, 08:31 PM

But are the violent crime rates high because of the gun restrictions or are the gun restrictions there because of the high violent crime rates?

TexasFats · August 22, 2007, 01:08 PM

I think that we need to consider that gun restrictions are less about crime and more about making sure that the "proletarian peasants" are kept in place. Japan instituted "sword control" at the beginning of the Tokagawa Shogunate, IIRC. The purpose was to solidify the power of the Samuri and freeze the class system and eliminate upward mobility. Just after the Civil War, a number of Southern states passed gun laws to make sure that freed slaves were unarmed when the KKK came calling. A good number of European countries passed or strengthened their gun laws just after WWI because they were afraid of Bolshevik-style revolutions. This includes the UK. New York passed the infamous Sullivan Law to make certain that only Tammany Hall thugs would have guns on election day. The list could be expanded if I had time to look for other examples.

Gun laws are about controlling citizens--not criminals. And, most anti-gun politicians know that, but good luck getting them to admit it.

The nice thing about studies like the one in HJLPP is that they give us some ammunition to make the point that gun laws don't reduce crime. This won't make any difference to the politicians, but it might help educate ordinary citizens.

As for biases in the study, I have noticed that folks who do studies that come up with pro-gun ownership conclusions tend to use all available data. The anti-gun people are the ones most likely to cherry-pick their data.

August 17, 2007, 04:53 PM	#1
benedict1 Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 245	A Must Read! High Murder Rates Correlate to Gun Bans As many of us have argued for years, having guns around prevents crime, especially violent crime. Now a Harvard team proves it from the data-- http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomli...-Ownership.htm Let's see if we can keep the media from "burying" this.

August 17, 2007, 05:39 PM	#4
Abishai Member Join Date: August 8, 2007 Posts: 30	gun stats'. Who said "....gun's dont kill people - people kill people."?

August 20, 2007, 06:26 PM	#13
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,061	I know both of them and consider them friends. We have eaten at Wolfgang Puck's restaurant together and Gary and I went to see the Grand Ol' Opry. They are excellent researchers and in the forefront of supplying data that supports the RKBA. Without efforts such as theirs, one could have rants about the RKBA but some data helps. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 21, 2007, 10:23 AM	#16
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,061	Did I mention they are both progunners and shooters? If one is well trained in research, you know that bias can alter what is published and accepted. In general, though - modern scholarship is self-correcting. Look what happened to Bellesiles - a major antigun event and book. He was taken down by progun folks like Cramer but the death blow was from academic scholars who weren't particular progun but knew his methodology was crap. DOJ research clearly demonstrated that the AWB was crap. It was done by antigun folks. Their conclusion might be for a different set of laws but they reported straight out. I find arguments supported by quality research better than the rant. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

August 21, 2007, 11:27 AM	#18
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,061	Unfortunately, that point of view is just one for the choir. If you live outside the choir, you need to convince fence sitters or those uninvolved that an increase in firearms is a benefit. This usually leads us down the rabbit hole of natural rights and "God' given rights. Real world politics don't work that way. Gun rights are not going to be established by divine intervention. Legislatures have to vote and they have to be convinced. Evidence convinces enough folks to signficantly aid the process. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; August 21, 2007 at 04:28 PM.

August 17, 2007, 05:04 PM	#2
Wildalaska Junior member Join Date: November 25, 2002 Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 14,171	Just more BS statistics. WildivesaidthatbeforeAlaska TM

August 17, 2007, 05:25 PM	#3
Manedwolf Junior member Join Date: May 28, 2007 Posts: 3,266	We already knew this locally, and "harvard scientists" should too. NH with its "lax" gun laws and MA with its draconian gun laws have similarly-sized cities close across the border, Nashua and Lowell. Nashua's violent crime rate is quite low, while Lowell is an absolute hole, with lots and lots of violent crime. Some of Boston's suburbs like Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan are so bad that you can literally hear 9mm pops every night in the distance, despite the fact that they're all illegal.

August 17, 2007, 05:47 PM	#5
CDFT Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 232	We've all seen the statistics cheering on the liberalization of firearms laws, but I'm curious to know how diligent these scientists were. I would be interested, for example, for someone to go and seek out as many of the Nahua/Lowell comparisons like ManedWolf brought up, and see how often they fall in the favor of one side or the other. Basically, did they properly attempt to defeat their conclusion of "gun control = bad" and try to "break" their conclusion by seeking out rigorous* evidence to the contrary? Or did they see their conclusion and smile because their test was then over with that set of statistics? *I say rigorous, because copying and pasting Sarah Brady's webpage wouldn't count, by a long shot...

August 17, 2007, 06:56 PM	#6
applesanity Senior Member Join Date: March 17, 2007 Location: Commonwealth of Virginia Posts: 1,134	It doesn't matter if the statistics are rigorous, valid, infallible, and smack every burden of proof thrown against it. You're not gonna win any argument with statistics. Take that anti, that you know, to a gun range.

August 17, 2007, 07:21 PM	#7
TheFacts Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 2006 Location: 40 degrees North, 75 degrees west Posts: 158	Statistics alone cannot substantiate conclusions. They have their place when trying to back up conclusions that are drawn from empirical data. Unfortunately, many socialogical studies only utilize statistics when trying to make their point, and when the media picks them up, they run with them is if they are gospel. Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

August 17, 2007, 07:28 PM	#8
elrod Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 2007 Location: Heart of the heart of Dixie Posts: 234	"Well,..Duuh" (Maybe if people see it enough times, in enough places......)

August 18, 2007, 05:30 AM	#10
ConfuseUs Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2007 Posts: 461	There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. Bear in mind too that most people never took statistics. Most of those who did slept through class and only absorbed enough to "survive" and not have to take it again. So no matter how properly done your statistical studies are you can count on people's eyes glazing over when you trot out your prized multivariate regression models with confidence level aleph nought, err, I mean, alpha in the 99.999% range, etc, etc. I might add that the quality of the statistical study and the ability of laymen to understand and accept the methods are inversely related. If you don't believe me then go and find the math majors specializing in prob and stats at your local college and ask them about their studies. The statistics are good for AFTER someone has been convinced via other means. Then they have a more scientific justification for their new position on the issue and feel better about it.

August 20, 2007, 02:02 AM	#11
FirstFreedom Junior member Join Date: May 31, 2004 Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A. Posts: 12,451	Let me see if I have this straight, WA - your position is that the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy allows "BS statistics" in your words, to be published? Then where's your published response, mercilessly reducing those BS stats to just so many meaningless numbers?

August 20, 2007, 06:17 PM	#12
TexasFats Senior Member Join Date: June 12, 2007 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 130	I have read the article. Actually, the article by Don Kates and Gary Mauser says that THERE IS NO CORRELATION between gun ownership and either murder or suicide rates. It is probably the best cross-sectional study done to date on the issue and ends up saying that rates of gun ownership have nothing to do with either murder rates or suicide rates. What the article does say is that other factors than gun ownership drives both murder and suicide rates. To my mind, this is good news. It shows that gun laws won't help lower death rates from either murder or suicide, and it keeps us from making wild claims that might turn out to be false, costing us our credibility. Somebody should read the article before they post.

August 20, 2007, 07:20 PM	#15
ZeroJunk Senior Member Join Date: August 14, 2006 Location: Browns Summit NC Posts: 2,589	"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" Statistics are great in the hands of someone who has absolutely no opinion about the subject. If they have any pre-existing belief it seems they cannot help but skew the data to support whatever they want to be true.

August 21, 2007, 10:30 AM	#17
Pat H Junior member Join Date: July 21, 2007 Location: Travelers Rest, South Carolina Posts: 1,039	I think using stats to support access to a right isn't a good idea because it's an argument of utility, which means the right goes away if one cannot show utility. A phrase I've used before, "Gun possession, use, and ownership is a part of the right to self defense; rights are not and cannot be subject to arguments of utility nor to the democratic process."

August 21, 2007, 12:16 PM	#19
somechick1980 Junior Member Join Date: August 21, 2007 Posts: 14	i liked this article. i felt it had really great points. anyone who attended college knows all about statistics. the problem is not with the numbers it is how the reader interprets what the article is saying with regard to those numbers. the research is meant to prove correlations. it cannot prove anything with certainty due to human error. therefore, take it for what it's worth. the bottom line is that over the last couple of decades, the crime rate has been on a steady decline. there has been numerous studies done on this subject. unfortunately, the statistics taken into consideration do not include unreported crime. the end result is the appearance of a lower crime rate. my point is, who really knows if crime is up or down??? you can do all the studies you want but not everyone reports when a violent crime has been committed. furthermore, if someone is going to commit a violent crime, do you really think they give a **** about gun laws? gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. the whole concept is ridiculous in my opinion.

August 21, 2007, 08:31 PM	#22
joab Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2002 Location: Orl Fla Posts: 3,254	But are the violent crime rates high because of the gun restrictions or are the gun restrictions there because of the high violent crime rates?

August 22, 2007, 01:08 PM	#23
TexasFats Senior Member Join Date: June 12, 2007 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 130	I think that we need to consider that gun restrictions are less about crime and more about making sure that the "proletarian peasants" are kept in place. Japan instituted "sword control" at the beginning of the Tokagawa Shogunate, IIRC. The purpose was to solidify the power of the Samuri and freeze the class system and eliminate upward mobility. Just after the Civil War, a number of Southern states passed gun laws to make sure that freed slaves were unarmed when the KKK came calling. A good number of European countries passed or strengthened their gun laws just after WWI because they were afraid of Bolshevik-style revolutions. This includes the UK. New York passed the infamous Sullivan Law to make certain that only Tammany Hall thugs would have guns on election day. The list could be expanded if I had time to look for other examples. Gun laws are about controlling citizens--not criminals. And, most anti-gun politicians know that, but good luck getting them to admit it. The nice thing about studies like the one in HJLPP is that they give us some ammunition to make the point that gun laws don't reduce crime. This won't make any difference to the politicians, but it might help educate ordinary citizens. As for biases in the study, I have noticed that folks who do studies that come up with pro-gun ownership conclusions tend to use all available data. The anti-gun people are the ones most likely to cherry-pick their data.