More guns = More Murders

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Jan 12, 2007.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    So says a Harvard School of Public Health study.

    Wonder if they controlled for race or any factors other than guns?
     
  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Harvard School of Public Health Received a $700,000 grant for 2 years from the Joyce Foundation.

    I wonder if that had any influence on this "study"?
     

  3. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,420
    2
    38
    First off, lets be careful about blaming the researcher, or

    "Wow, did the liberal media come across something they could pervert into being anti-gun? Again."


    Harvard Gazette:
    http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002 ... enway.html

    Sounds to me like the guy might be pretty neutral and that the media took his story & ran. All it seems to be saying (I didn't dig enough to actual find the study & read it) is that US women are likely to be killed/injured from guns. Not from whose guns. I'd say it could just as easily be another point to be argued by either side:
    Anti-gunners - "There are too many guns in the nation - make em all illegal & we will have less crime/injuries/death".

    Pro-gunners - "If more women carried then they could better defend themselves & crime/injuries/death would go down."

    SSDD.
    :roll:
     
  4. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Most of these studies are in journals that are subscription based, thus making them not very accessible, unless you are going to subscribe to every journal in which an article appears in which you are interested.

    And I did not "run with it." I asked if he controlled for for race.
     
  5. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Nomally I would agree with you. However I have done a lot of research into these "studies" and who the funding grants come from. This is not the first anti-gun study done by him in the slightest.
    http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/ex ... .asp?id=28

    If you have not seen much about the latest tactic by the anti-gunners, here is what happens. In the beginning Joyce funded the VPC to produce this garbage. When gun-rights people complained that an anti-gun group would/could only produce anti-gun studies, the Joyce foundation started funding schools that were so liberal and in need of grant money they would produce any anti-gun study you wanted and not under an anti-gun groups name but under a University. And in press releases they ALWAYS say that they are not bias one way or another... they are just surprised by the results. Those results were paid for by an anti-gun group that only funds people who somehow only find negative things about guns.

    If you look up 90% of research into gun violence you will come up with only a few schools.
    The links for those are at the bottom left group on my anti-gun links page. http://www.georgiapacking.org/links_antigun.php
     
  6. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Once again proving the old FBI adage, "follow the money"...
     
  7. Tinkerhell

    Tinkerhell Active Member

    2,420
    2
    38
    Good info GS!!

    A question though. Were does NRA grant money go to? I'm new to the gun/anit-gun scene so I certainly don't know the players but I would have to think that both sides would use similar tactics.
     
  8. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    There is a very small amount of grant money from the NRA out there, but typically go to NRA affiliated gun rights groups and not individuals or schools. The amount of funding is nothing close to Joyce.

    As far as I am aware, most studies created that are pro-gun are either created by an independent (primary field is not gun related) author to refute an anti-gun study they see as incorrect or are people like John Lott and Gary Kleck who are pro-gun and their studies are about that.

    Most pro-gun studies are funded by the researcher themselves, just like most pro-gun groups are funded by their own members (themselves). If you join the NRA, GOA, or SAF you are a member of the organization and protected by them.

    Most anti-gun studies are funded by large grants by anti-gun organizations, just like most anti-gun groups are funded by the same anti-gun organizations and do not have actual members at all. Check out Brady, VPC, or AGS, you cannot become a member of any of them. The only anti-gun organization you can actually join is the AHSA and they are trying their best to look like a pro-gun organization.
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
  10. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    And more forks result in a fatter Rosie Odonnell.
     
  11. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    What this guy had to say was very informative.
     
  12. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    What this guy (Kermit the Frog) has to say about it is even more informative:

    :D

    Well worth the time to click on the link and read it. :wink: Unfortunately, his tables are all jumbled up. Hopefully that will be corrected.
     
  13. viper32cm

    viper32cm New Member

    760
    0
    0
    Lies, damned lies, and statistics

    Funny how people just flock to anything like numbers. It's almost like a religion really, "it its got numbers then then its objective therefore it must be true" is basically the same as "you cited the bible, god is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore it must be true"

    Or more to the point it's a lot like I said at the presentation Wednesday. Its simply ridiculous in a nation with 300 million people and two wide open borders and a bevy of other social issues to control for everything else and reduce it down to guns X, crime Y.

    But I'm not saying statistics are not powerless:

    For example (and I'm not going to be precise, though I will be accurate as best I can remember, with my facts) but here we go:

    Crime in 1990 was higher than it is today. For a substantial portion of the past 17 years we were under the AWB. Now some people say that the AWB was the reason that crime went down, but pre AWB numbers show that assault weapons were used in at most 2% of all crimes and BJS studies show that a strong majority of criminals perfer guns not covered by the AWB. Crime has fallen by more than 2% in the past 17 years. Further crime hasn't changed that much since the AWB sunsetted 2 years ago.

    At the same time large numbers of states started changing their laws to "shall issue" states. I don't have the Lott studies in front of me but I do know from previous readings that those people given carry licesnes have a crime rate much lower than the average in their state and indeed near 0. Therefore, it seems that at least the issuance of carry permits did not cause crime to increase. Lott and others IIRC would argue that it has caused crime to go down, I personally think they are right but I'm not armed with even ballpark figures right now.

    So what does all this mean. It means that the AWB, most likely, wasn't the cause of the reduction in crime since the reduction in crime was greater than the marginal effect one would have expected due to the limited scope of the AWB in comparison to how criminals usually arm themsleves. Furhter, the fact that older models and compliant models were available suggests that the expected reduction in crime due to the AWB should be much lower than the percentage of guns it banned, in fact since the AWB left room for compliance and did not ban preexisting guns the likely expected impact of the AWB should be roughly 0.

    At the same time we experienced an explosion (marginally speaking) in the number of people liscensed to carry guns, yet crime still went down over the period of time. Further, if you control for the population who holds these permits you find that their crime rates are near 0.

    Now maybe that's proof maybe it's not. I'm certainly no expert, but I do know how to craft logical arguments and a thing or two about guns and statistical analysis. So on the basis of my "study" one could conclude at the VERY LEAST that guns have 0 effect on the crime in the US and without even a substantial degree of reliance on my "study" one could reasonably conclude that guns have at least some reducing effect on the nations crime rate.

    Hrm, I wonder if I can get funding for my study now, I could always use some extra cash :D
     
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83

    From the Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/2shl3r

    Letters To The Editor
    Friday, Jun 01, 2007 - 12:09 AM

    That Gun Group Is a Front

    Editor, Times-Dispatch:

    In the editorial, "The Gun Giveaway," you quote Bob Ricker, executive director of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), as implying that he and AHSA are "legitimate gun owners and shooters" and that somehow members of Virginia Citizens Defense League are not.

    As a legitimate gun owner and shooter, I would like to clarify that neither Ricker nor AHSA speaks for me. Although Ricker formerly worked for the NRA :? , he is now a strong proponent of gun-control legislation.

    Despite its misleading name, AHSA is dedicated to its own particular breed of gun control. Top donors to AHSA include such "legitimate gun owners and shooters" as Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as The Brady Campaign).

    John Rosenthal, AHSA executive vice president and president of the AHSA Foundation, was at one time chairman of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts organization formed to promote gun control.

    Implying that Ricker and the AHSA represent "legitimate" gun owners and shooters is akin to saying that Carrie Nation and the American Temperance Society represented "legitimate" barkeeps.

    Bill Taggart. Richmond.
     
  15. Purge

    Purge New Member

    251
    0
    0
    I was a bit surprised to see that Ted Kennedy is a “legitimate gun owner.†I did some research… low n behold he owns a Chappaquiddick 1911. The most threatening of water pistols.
     
  16. AV8R

    AV8R Banned

    6,624
    0
    0
    June issue of America's 1st freedom has an article about these three assclowns at Harvard.
     
  17. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    My own Anti-gun links page says this:
    Harvard School of Public Health Received a $700,000 grant for 2 years from the Joyce Foundation.

    In other words, the anti-gun research was bought and paid for by an anti-gun group that gives grants to promote gun control.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,393
    395
    83
    Wonder if they included DC as a state?
     
  19. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I wonder if they bothered to figure out if the states "where more people own guns" owned them legally or not?

    I have a feeling an illegally owned gun will be the kind most likely to be used illegally.