categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

gun control is counter-productive

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I could have told them this:

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

(Emphasis added.)

In fairness, the study (available here, in all its *.pdf glory) went a step farther than I dared to, and actually compared firearm ownership, murder, and suicide rates and gun laws across national borders, rather than here within our own country. The Good Lord Alone knows how they were able to come up with numbers good enough to make solid comparisons, given how some countries… miscategorize, to understate it… certain crimes.

Even better, Professor Don Kates and Professor Gary Mauser (hm?) go out of their way to rip the notion of "gun deaths" away from “gun control” extremists and show it for the idiocy it really is:

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 – emphases in original)

In other words, if you are going to be murdered here in the States, yes, you are more likely to be murdered by someone wielding a firearm than if you were to be murdered in any other country, however, you may still be safer overall here than in countries with stringent "gun control" laws.

If there was ever any doubt that “gun control” is well and truly dead, I would dare say a study coming out of Harvard – not exactly the most firearm-friendly or conservative school in the country – further demonstrating the negative correlation between firearm ownership and firearm-related murders and suicides and all-but conclusively saying that “gun control” is a complete waste of time, money, and energy would be the first shovel of dirt on top of its coffin. The only thing left now is the wailing and gnashing of teeth from bigoted useful idiots who are too ignorant, too narrow-minded, or just too borderline insane to accept a portion of their personal identities being stripped away from them by the cold hard truths of reality. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to your average anti-rights cultist, news like this will only convince them to double down on their insanity

(Courtesy of Antitango.)

7 comments to gun control is counter-productive

  • Formynder

    I’m eagerly looking forward to Joan’s attempted fisking of this report. :D Of course, I doubt that she, or her CSGV buddies could maintain coherence through more than reading the title, if even that much.

  • Archer

    With all the degrees and credentials they have over there at Harvard, it’s amazing how long it takes them to realize what’s painfully obvious to anyone else.

    Much like small children.

    On that note, I’ll say this: Yes, you could have told them that, but it’s more important that they figure it out themselves.

  • @ Formynder: Has Joan ever managed to fisk anything? As you say, I find it very hard to believe that she would be able to maintain a coherent train of thought long enough to accomplish that.

    Hell, she cannot maintain a coherent train of thought through a single sentence.

    @ Archer: In fairness, things that “seem obvious” are often wrong – for example, it would “seem obvious” that more firearms in public circulation would mean more people being killed by firearms, if only through the baseline of negligence… but, in reality, the opposite is happening.

    In either case, yes, people definitely learn things better if they sort them out for themselves.

  • This study has been out for five years. I think Joan et. al., if they are even aware of it, are trying very hard to ignore it to death.

  • Oh. That is what I get for not checking time-date stamps. Time to start clubbing people over the head with it, though, especially since it apparently has not been substantially disputed in those five years :).

  • While I do not necessarily agree that the hypothesis is worth testing – if only because of the loss of life necessary to do so – it is an intriguing take on the concept. “Gun control” is, at its very core, nothing more than another form of authoritarianism, and I can only imagine that the effect of such policies on society as a whole run much deeper than even the unintended outcomes.