Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    Default Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

    WOULD BANNING FIREARMSREDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
    A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
    DON B.KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**


    The answer from the study is no. (Click the above link for the study in PDF )

    “Where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

    One needs not wonder why Adele Kirsten insists on quoting twenty year old research (out of context on top of it)




    The latest study from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention in the States should also be particularly worrying for the anti gunners.

    Study Link:
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=


    Interesting comment on the study.


    DC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative

    Written by Bob Adelmann






    In January, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” along with 22 other “initiatives.” That study, subcontracted out to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, was completed in June and contained some surprises for the president.
    Obama had announced at the beginning of the year his push for three major gun control initiatives — universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines — to prevent future mass shootings, no doubt hoping that the CDC study would oblige him by providing evidence that additional gun control measures were justified to reduce gun violence. On the contrary, that study refuted nearly all the standard anti-gun narrative and instead supported many of the positions taken by gun ownership supporters.
    For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence:
    Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.

    In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study:
    Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

    Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
    Furthermore, the key finding the president was no doubt seeking — that more laws would result in less crime — was missing. The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners.

    Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.”
    There was one startling conclusion which, taken at face value, seemed to give the president what he was looking for. The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, produced a map that compared gun violence rates in the major metropolitan areas of the country to rates of foreign countries. As Graham Noble ofGuardian Express noted, “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings.
    The current report from the CDC echoed findings the CDC published back in 2003 that showed that suicides were responsible for 58 percent of all firearms-related deaths in 2000. Also noted is that back in 2003 Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms, while today that number is estimated to be closer to 300 million, an increase of more than 55 percent.

    Said the CDC back in 2003, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.):
    Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
    Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
    Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
    Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
    Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.

    If the president was looking to the CDC report for support on how to reduce the threat of firearm-related violence through legislation restricting the rights of American citizens, he was sorely disappointed. Perhaps that’s why so few of the media have publicized the report. In fact, the only establishment media even to mention the report was the Washington Post, which criticized it for not answering questions that it wasn't asked to answer!

    A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com


    Source: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/cri...-gun-narrative
    "Guns are just tools, the way they're used reflects the society they're apart of, if you don't like guns, blame it on society" ~Chris Kyle

  2. #2
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Not where I want to be..
    Posts
    12,596

    Default Re: Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

    "One needs not wonder why Adele Kirsten insists on quoting twenty year old research (out of context on top of it)"


    Because she gets paid a lot of money and she needs stuff to help her.
    Last edited by DS; 04-09-2013 at 08:43.

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,717

    Default Re: Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

    I'm sorry, disease control?

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Waterkloof
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweedledee View Post
    I'm sorry, disease control?
    They're the go-to people for all sorts of public health questions, including violence and accidental death and injury. The name is a historical hold-over.

  5. #5
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Re: Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

    At leas the Americans actually do research, even if this won't get much attention due to retarded agendas. Our lot are just 'we're going to make it difficult for you because f*** you' with no hint of intelligent discourse or reason.

  6. #6

    Default

    The fact that illegally obtained fire arms are mostly used in violent crimes is a no brainer. More gun laws that target legal gun owners wont stop firearm related crimes.

    My opinion is that south africa loves adding laws where they fail in policing the ones that are in place. But this is purelu opinion, so please tell me if I am wrong.

  7. #7
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    50
    Posts
    351

    Default Re: Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by n Ander Doring View Post
    My opinion is that south africa loves adding laws where they fail in policing the ones that are in place. But this is purelu opinion, so please tell me if I am wrong.
    Couldn't agree more.

Similar Threads

  1. More guns less crime - Harvard study
    By Engel in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-10-2015, 13:21
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-10-2015, 08:16
  3. Resource: Harvard Law School Study
    By JS4 in forum Gun Free South Africa - The Truth
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-11-2014, 09:43
  4. A study by Harvard - "WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?"
    By ndlovu8 in forum Gun Free South Africa - The Truth
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 19-12-2012, 09:48
  5. You Tube proves it is possible!
    By Craig in forum Small Talk
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-11-2008, 20:13

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •