A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.
Let's see who these guys Kates and Mauser are? Unbiased academics who are seeking the truth or rabid gun-rights fanatics who know how to get results with overly-complicated statistics?
Don Kates is a retired American professor of constitutional and criminal law, and a criminologist and research fellow with The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. His books includeArmed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence (with Gary Kleck). As a civil liberties lawyer he has represented gun owners attacking the constitutionality of certain firearms laws.
Gun control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_controlThese include Don Kates, Gary Mauser, John Lott, David Mustard, Joyce Malcolm and Gary Kleck. For example, a 2002 review of international gun control...
As I suspected.
As you suspected, you can't attack the logic, so you go for the ad hominem.
ReplyDeleteAll gunsuck researchers cheat. Thomas Lott? A serial data faker. These turds? Liars and propagandists. You can't work with fake data, and that is the gunsuck method.
DeleteI think it's fine to label individuals for being bias, but only after you've discovered bias in their work. Mike, naturally, starts off criticizing the person instead of the work. He hasn't said so much in regards to me, but maybe that's his problem with my "no correlation" threads. He knows me to be pro-gun so whatever I do can not possibly be right, and it's not even worth trying to find what's wrong.
DeleteAm I on to something, Mike?
Nail on the head, man.
DeleteWell, at least you've admitted to being completely, irrationally prejudiced against anything we say, Mike.
DeleteMikeb, which one are you agreeing with? The statement that you're too prejudiced to consider anything that doesn't come to your pet conclusion, or the nonsense from Anonymous?
DeleteMiguel De Cervantes Saavedra, a contemporary of William Shakespeare, was a soldier for Spain and a prisoner and galley slave to the great Moorish captains who stood up against both Spain and the Ottoman Turks. He was no stranger to hardship or the profession of arms. His magnum opus, Don Quixote, is often autobiographical, although not always in the character of Don Quixote. In this, the first modern novel, Quixote's peculiar form of madness often puts to shame an ordinary man in its unchecked exaltation of the spirit of gallantry and self-sacrifice. Quixote was also described as serene in the face of danger and supremely humble in matters of personal comfort, needing only his imagined love for Dulcinea of Toboso to sustain him through cold and hungry nights. Even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, these remarks are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, yet persist to this day as a condemnation of the cowardice of those who would slay by the bullet. Translation by Edith Grossman, 2003.
ReplyDeleteHappy were those blessed times that lacked the horrifying fury of the diabolical instruments of artillery, whose inventor, in my opinion, is in hell, receiving the reward for his accursed invention, which allows an ignoble and cowardly hand to take the life of a valiant knight, so that not knowing how it comes, or from where, a stray shot is fired into the courage and spirit that inflame and animate a brave heart, sent by one who perhaps fled in fear at the bright flare when the damned machine discharged it, and it cuts off and ends in an instant the thoughts and life of one who deserved to enjoy many more long years. When I consider this, I am prepared to say that it grieves my very soul that I have taken up the profession of knight errant in an age as despicable as the one we live in now, for although no danger can cause me to fear, it still fills me with misgivings to think that powder and tin may deprive me of the opportunity to become famous and renowned throughout the known world for the valor of my arm and the sharp edge of my sword. But God’s will be done, for I shall be more highly esteemed, if I succeed in my purpose, for having confronted greater dangers than any face by the knights errant of old.
In that same book, Don Quixote praises the right of the nobility to bear arms. That's one of the elements of the Second Amendment, the idea that we're all equal under the law, rather than having separate legal statuses.
DeleteMike, you bring up a good question. How does credible research about gun violence get done? There are obviously biased studies such as those from the NRA, VPC, and the Brady Campaign.
ReplyDeleteThere has been a recent study from the CDC, however, it seemed to be mostly to be a rehash of other already published studies. I always thought that the peer review process was supposed to help eliminate bias, or to at least insure accuracy.
The peer review process is political bullshit.
DeleteIt has been extremely difficult until recently to get funding for new research into gunsuck criminal NRA gunloons and their pathological sexual fixations. This may be changing, after Sandy Hook. I haven't applied for any grants, although I will be looking for RFAs.
DeleteThe peer review process is political bullshit? Peer review is one of the fundamental aspects of scientific research. Your problem with it is that it doesn't insist on confirming the desired results.
Delete"The peer review process is political bullshit."
DeleteMike, If that is the case, then why should we take those that challenge Lott's study of concealed carry and crime seriously? I'm talking about those who challenges his methods for collecting and processing data. Not those who claimed the arms industry somehow controlled the study because he got a grant from Olin.
We need to take them all with a grain of salt and some of them we can dismiss outright.
DeleteThat's why I rely more on common sense and analytic thinking.
So, can you name any from the anti gun side that you would dismiss outright? I'm curious because when I use data sources here I try to avoid places like NRA, and VPC.
DeleteBut the fact that peer review is a part of the whole scientific process isn't what you mean by analytical thinking? Mikeb, you never use analytical thinking, and what you call common sense is guesswork guided by your beliefs, not the facts.
Deletess, no not off the top of my head, but there may be some.
DeleteGreg., I disagree.
I'm shocked.
DeleteYeah, they should do something nice and unbiased like comparing gun laws to "gun deaths" instead of violent crime and murder.
ReplyDeletePart of my comment from the Starbucks post 8/10:
ReplyDelete"If an "accident" can happen putting your gun in the glove box, it can happen jarring the weapon while you reach in your pocket for money, or catching your weapon on a counter top edge while you walk by. Curious children might walk up and grab a holster while you are talking to the clerk ordering your coffee."
TN's reply to me:
"I'm calling concern troll on Jim and his supposed carry permit."
Greg's reply:
"carrying is like wearing a seatbelt."
AND
"carrying is like wearing a cross or a yarmulke."
So my ideas of when and where to carry are so out of line that You guys call me a liar, Mike's sock puppet, and my examples ridiculous.
Coffee shop, or SWAT exhibition; the kid walked up and pulled the trigger. Gee, my example was so wrong! As I said the other day, no need to have someone catch their weapon on a counter top edge, all that was needed was for a woman to drop her purse.
I get a kick out of Greg's reasoning. He once compared the gun right argument to the civil rights of gays. Then, carrying a gun is like wearing a seat belt. Then carrying a gun is like wearing a cross.
You can't change my mind guys when I keep getting proven correct by reality, or by making your ridiculous comparisons.
You will change my mind (negatively towards you) when you call me a liar and other vulgar verbal, false accusations.
I also said, I agree with Steve. You are sock puppets of the NRA. You have their talking points down, make ridiculous comparisons, have no regard for your fellow citizens when espousing your unmovable gun positions, ignore and deny the facts of gun violence and "accidents" and relentlessly attack Mike on a daily basis. No matter how illogical you sound, you won't even consider a different viewpoint.
Thanks for proving me correct and shining a light on the tactics of gun loons. I'm going to go out in public this beautiful Sunday afternoon, and no, I'm not afraid to go in public with out my gun. I will leave it at home. Try it some time. Get the courage to walk among your fellow human beings without a deadly weapon strapped to yourself.
Gunsucks are cowardly turds, who are afraid of mice, dust, and fairies. I am a man, a gunsuck is a piece of crap.
DeleteYou said, "your ideas of when and where to carry"...
Delete...so where and when do you carry?
Jim, when you parrot the gun control line, how do you expect to be distinguished from gun control freaks?
DeleteBut here's a lesson in math. One event or even a small number of events does not show a broad trend. Accidents are rare. Suicides are the most common of gunfire deaths, and those are deaths by choice. Removing one technique will only remove that one technique. Of the number that remain, rates of violent crime, including homicide, have been going down while gun laws have loosened. Good policing, taking lead out of gasoline, allowing abortion--whatever the reason, the situation is improving, and more guns aren't causing an increase in violence.
If you choose not to carry your gun, that's your choice. I won't try to force you to make a different one. But don't try to force me to change my choice. You leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone. When you challenge my rights, though, you're not leaving me alone.
Ah, portions of our comments pulled out of context to make a new conversation that didn't happen. Nice honest way you're arguing, Jimbo. I also spent the beautiful Sunday out in public with no fears of my fellow men, including fears of whether or not they might have a nasty, hidden gun somewhere.
DeleteAs for your comments about placing a gun in a glove box vs. reaching for change, etc.: If you seriously want to discuss this, as I had explained, my concerns when drawing and reholstering my carry piece are:
1. Observant criminals might see that I've hidden something of value and come check out my car--they could even see that the target is a gun.
2. The increased handling. I'm not afraid of the gun going off from the "impact" of being set in the glove box. I'm worried about the extra time handling it in which I could fuck up and break trigger discipline, unintentionally firing it; I could get something else caught in the trigger guard--e.g. part of the holster when re-holstering--and accidentally fire it. The chances of these are minor, but the more you handle the gun and take it out and put it up the more likely something like this can happen.
Meanwhile, my holsters cover the trigger and entire trigger guard. They also are made with retention straps or tucked out of sight inside my waistband and under a jacket or even tucked under a shirt. So long as the gun stays holstered like that, it is secured and not susceptible to the accidental discharges you describe. It is also not being handled, so there's no chance of operator error.
Greg won't consider even one change to save one life and TN thinks this is all about him.
Delete1. I've seen no gun control proposal that would save lives without simultaneously creating a police state. That's too high a price.
Delete2. Given that between 800,000 to several million Americans defend their lives with a firearm every year, I have to wonder what you're talking about. I support changes--such as national carry reciprocity--that would save lives.
3. I've yet to see gun control freaks willing to offer anything of value in return for the massive infringements that they demand.
"Given that between 800,000 to several million Americans defend their lives"
DeleteFor fuck's sake, Greg, stop with that nonsense. Even if there were that many legitimate DGUs, which I don't believe for a minute, are you really saying every single one of them would have resulted in loss of life otherwise?
This is just another example of your twisting and spinning and lying. "Defend their lives" is exaggerated bullshit. You count as legitimate DGUs everything from shooting a snake in the road to scaring away a teen-age delinquent who would have done nothing worse than steal the TV. Those are not "defending life."
The National Academies of Science being noted for promulgating nonsense? That's where those numbers come from.
DeleteDid The National Academies of Science also indicate that every one of them was a life or death situation? Or, is that the part that you made up in a lying attempt to make your point sound better than it is.
DeleteThe report's term was defensive gun use or some similar phrasing. I didn't lie.
DeleteYes you fucking well did lie, and now you deny it.
Delete"800,000 to several million Americans defend their lives"
A DGU is not synonymous with "defend their lives." Your slick lie can then be repeated as "a million lives were saved."
Would that be true too?
Mike,
DeleteA DGU implies that their lives were threatened, or that they reasonably believed that they were. Otherwise, pulling a gun is Aggravated Assault. We can't know what the outcome would have been without the DGU, but saying that they defended their lives, or defended themselves, is not inappropriate.
It's interesting how you toss out accusations of Lying for how someone legitimately describes something, but when you make outlandish claims, you fall back on the excuse that it was just "legitimate hyperbole."
T., This is why you're known as a liar.
Delete"A DGU implies that their lives were threatened, or that they reasonably believed that they were."
Isn't it true that in some places you can use a gun in response to property crime? Isn't it also true that lethal threat is not the only criterion, bodily harm is enough?
Please tell us how these other lawful justifications for the defensive use of a gun imply "that their lives were threatened."
To my knowledge, Texas is the only state that allows the use of lethal force in defense of mere property. Yes, that's an inappropriate law.
DeleteRegarding bodily harm--no, bodily harm is not enough. The wording varies but the general idea is that your life must be threatened or you must be in fear of "grave bodily harm" which is typically laid out under case law or by definition, to cover rape and the inflicting of potentially lethal or debilitating injuries--breaking bones, damage to or removal of limbs, beating about the head with blunt objects, etc.
So, yes, you may be able to remove a small number of Texas' DGU's if they were defense of property, but that is not going to affect the number. As for the grave bodily harm issue, any such attack has a good chance of accidentally killing a person, hence the authorization to use lethal force.
In other words you were wrong to say it's ONLY about a life being endangered? Put your fucking lying lawyer bullshit on hold for a minute and admit you were wrong. That way you could argue that it was a mistake and not a lie. This way, refusing to admit you were wrong leaves us with no choice but label you as a pathetic liar - again.
DeleteMike,
DeleteYes, I didn't bring up Texas' lone exception because we were talking in General terms about the term "defensive gun use" being the equivalent of defending life. If you are going to start calling it a lie to not bring up every minor exception to a general characterization--especially minor ones that don't have a material effect on the statistic in question, then first take the log out of your own eye.
You're a proven liar. Every single DGU is not a life saved, like you said. Texas is not the lone exception and you fucking know it. Some people shoot a coyotes and count it a DGU - there was no lethal threat.
DeleteSo mikeb302000 where do you expect to get unbiased information?
ReplyDeleteThe Brady bunch?
Obama?
The DOJ?
Give us some pointers for where you want the next refutation of your ideology to come from. I think we can oblige.
Here come the NEW talking points.
According to this article:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
36% of all persons polled reported ownership of firearms. (Please note that if a person calls ME on the phone I will cheerfully lie to them both as a basic security concern and because the phone call is an unnecessary intrusion into my time)
The current population of the US is 316,585,126 according to this counter:
http://www.census.gov/popclock/
This means that at a bare minimum 105,000,000 people in the US own firearms. One HUNDRED FIVE MILLION people.
ONE HUNDRED FIVE *MILLION* people.
And you point to *one* instance of a purse being dropped causing a negligent discharge as evidence that people should give up their rights to self defense.
Or you point to a vanishingly small number of people killed by nutbags who are attempting suicide by cop but want their name in the news.
Or you point to gangbangers cutting down prison costs and court costs by proving Darwin right.
One hundred five million people owned actual working firearms in 2009. And 2010. And 2011. And 2012.
One hundred five million people lived with firearms safely and enjoyed better personal safety because of the firearms.
One hundred five million people cleaned their firearms and shot their firearms and trusted in their firearms to keep their loved ones safe.
Your odds of being a victim of a negligent discharge are lower than your odds of being struck by lightning twice in a given year.
We've shown a recent survey which put the number at about 65 million.
DeleteMany of them don't even know where the gun is, up in the closet or maybe in the attic. Another large percentage of them agrees with the gun control argument. That leaves as true gun-rights supporters at, what, 10 or 20 million at the most?
You cannot claim kinship with ALL gun owners. You have nothing in common with most of them.
Unless they do something wrong; then you say that we have the closest possible kinship to them.
DeleteOnce again, Mikeb shows that he only believes something if it supports his pet narrative. Data be damned.
DeleteAnd once again these gun loons prove they could care less about one life.
DeleteIt's not "data be damned," it's just using different and more recent data.
DeleteGallup's survey is from 2012. Pew's numbers differ somewhat. But even if your 65 million number is right, that still makes us the largest minority group in the country.
Delete"Minority group?" Take away the apathetic ones and those like Jim who side with the gun-control argument and refer to "us" as the true lunatic fringe and you've got a minority group.
DeleteJim is either an Uncle Tom or a liar. But whatever he is, he needs to decide which side he wants to be on and get consistent.
DeleteJim, social policy cannot be based on "one life." "If it saves even one life" is the cry of the control freak of all stripes, but the problem is that saving that one life will cost so many lives of others and so many rights violated. You care nothing for that.
ReplyDeleteSince it's total BS, no I don't care. Yet, the deaths from gun shot is not BS and you could care less.
ReplyDeleteJim, since you call defense of gun rights BS, you should just admit that you're a gun control freak. And when a right that you do care about is threatened, don't come whining to me.
DeleteJim is a reasonable gun owner, like most. You are the fanatic .
DeleteJim is an obnoxious troll trying to stir up contention. He may well be a gun owner on top of that, but he is not representative of the group.
DeleteBack when he was offering arguments rather than stirring the pot, the "reasonable" opinions he proffered matched with ones I've heard other gun owners express. However, these have been a stark minority of gun-owners I have encountered.
"Stirring the pot" is YOUR mo, and matches the mo of the NRA. You still don't get my change of attitude towards you. Figures, you cannot read either.
DeleteOh, that's pitiful. In tight with Kleck and Lott, both of which are disgraced in their field (particularly Lott).
ReplyDeleteBaldr,
DeleteI doubt his credibility is any worse than the obviously biased "studies" by those with a vested interest such as the NRA and the VPC.
What a shock. You don't like what they concluded. Do you care to give us an analysis of the work itself?
DeleteIn the name of public safety we'll ban smoking indoors and race cars on our streets, but not guns. Why is that? Wouldn't guns belong at--and ONLY at--the shooting range?
ReplyDeleteThen we have the Zimmermans and Dunns, "law-abiding" gun owners, pretending they've assimilated into a dense, urban society, completely overreacting when they "feel threatened". Think those are isolated events? Tsk tsk.
If you don't understand the phenomenon of road rage and why humans are fundamentally unpredictable under stress, then you have no place arguing for a country awash in tools for killing.
Oh, it's "mostly" suicides, you argue? So the 11,000+ annual gun deaths are an acceptable figure so you can play cowboys on the weekend? Better to sacrifice the lives of innocents than my gun collection. It's the law!
Oh you want to "defend your family"? (Why do you live in such fear?) Is your only way to engage with the world through intimidation? Buy a taser, buy mace, buy a dog. Jesus, engage with your world and _make it better_ instead of loading up your Alamos.
Oh but people can kill with knives and cars etc, you say? See many mass killings by knife, car or baseball bat? Again, it goes back to road rage mentality: guns allow the individual to do more harm to more people in less time. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
And if, as your ultimate defense, you say it's a matter of "constitutional law":
- Women without the right to vote was law. It was changed.
- The right to "bear arms" would include ANY arm--tanks, choppers, poison gas, nukes--so why do we not hear complaining about the prohibition on owning these? What's good for the goose...
The "law" you assert to sustain your cultural hangover is unfortunately resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocents.
But maybe you don't care. "United", my foot.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
ReplyDeleteDont you love it when Harvard rebuts and refutes their own findings !!