Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

The study lays out facts, something the antis have no interest in. Remember Larry Pratt trying to tell Piers that the murder rates were higher in disarmed European nations, and being called "stupid".
 
Things are not what they seem. Remember Harvard (and MOST of higher education) is primarialy moonbat-infested. This narrative which appears to favor the pro 2A cause might be laying the groundwork for this:

Gun control does not work ∴ ban guns outright
 
Last edited:
The study lays out facts, something the antis have no interest in. Remember Larry Pratt trying to tell Piers that the murder rates were higher in disarmed European nations, and being called "stupid".

Just further proof that gun control isn't about reducing violence. It's always been about making sure the innocent can't fight back against the evil.
 
Things are not what they seem. Remember Harvard (and MOST of higher education) is primarialy moonbat-infested. This narrative which appears to favor the pro 2A cause might be lay the groundwork for this:

Gun control does not work ∴ ban guns outright

Anything is possible but I work with engineers every day from Harvard and many other schools that are on the same playing field. As much as they annoy the **** out of me, I can say that they are always after the truth, no matter what. They have more pride in proving the truth than they do in being "right". Maybe they just did an honest piece of research and reported on the findings.
 
Anything is possible but I work with engineers every day from Harvard and many other schools that are on the same playing field. As much as they annoy the **** out of me, I can say that they are always after the truth, no matter what. They have more pride in proving the truth than they do in being "right". Maybe they just did an honest piece of research and reported on the findings.

I know a number of gun enthusiast engineers as well, but remember, many Harvard studies are government funded (as always - follw the money).
 
IT'S NOT A HARVARD STUDY! Don't be slandering their bad name! lol

It was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy but Harvard didn't fund the research and Journals don't typically endorse the results.
 
Things are not what they seem. Remember Harvard (and MOST of higher education) is primarialy moonbat-infested. This narrative which appears to favor the pro 2A cause might be lay the groundwork for this:

Gun control does not work ∴ ban guns outright


Good luck with that. I think you're reading a little too far beyond what it actually says. [thinking]

-Mike
 
Just further proof that gun control isn't about reducing violence. It's always been about making sure the innocent can't fight back against the evil.

Many antis are "emotional". They don't use logic and reason, just emotion. E.g. "Let's ban guns because it's doing something and plus, it makes me feel better. I have a right to feel safe!"
 
I know people say no one will listen and yes, anti-gun people won't, but we're not trying to change their minds. It's the people in the middle that we need to change and then allow the pro 2A movement to move up the ladder.

We're only going to do that by showing unbiased, fact driven, reports like this one.
 
Why are studies like this not plastered all over the place by GOAL, Comm2A, NRA, etc.? I understand that mainstream media (major TV networks, CNN, etc.) will never run a story on this study, but why are the major gun/2A advocacy groups not coming out in full force with this study and others like it? They should be harping on it 24/7. The fact that it was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is helpful from a credibility perspective.

Things are not what they seem. Remember Harvard (and MOST of higher education) is primarialy moonbat-infested. This narrative which appears to favor the pro 2A cause might be laying the groundwork for this:

Gun control does not work ∴ ban guns outright

No, the study does not suggest this. It states, quite clearly, that there is no correlation between gun control (including outright banning) and violence and crime rates, and that violence and crime rates are determined by "basic socio-cultural and economic factors." There is even a discussion in the back regarding the greater presence of guns owned by African-Americans in rural areas and decreased crime and violence as compared to urban areas where the opposite is true.
 
Things are not what they seem. Remember Harvard (and MOST of higher education) is primarialy moonbat-infested. This narrative which appears to favor the pro 2A cause might be laying the groundwork for this:

Gun control does not work ∴ ban guns outright

Negative.

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is the flagship journal of the Federalist Society and is edited by conservative and libertarian Harvard Law School students. As a proud member of Fed Soc, I get the journal sent to my house.

The Federalist Society is most assuredly NOT a liberal organization.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
 
Last edited:
Don Kates is a criminologist who has been writing articles debunking gun control for many years. If you had any familiarity with his writings (and you should), you would not question his motives.
 
So I need to ammunition for arguing what my friend replied with when I showed him OP's link and the above link. Here is what he had to say:

Your article named one source, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Although it claims that "they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates.

One of the authors is the same guy in your video, Don Kates. Kates is member of the Pacific Research Institute, a conservative, free-market think tank. Your video was presented by the Independent Institute, another right wing free-market think thank. It smells like an academic conflict of interest, bought to you by one (in this case, two) of many big $$$ right wing think tanks. If you want a better idea of how professors are bought & paid for, watch the doc "Inside Job" for more details. Selling guns = big $$$, much more $$$ than regulating them.

So, your sources are hardly fair & balanced. I can post something from the Brady Campaign, if you want. I doubt they have the kind of $$$ the NRA, gun manufacturers, & right wing think tanks do. So it's harder for them to buy off prof's like Kates & Supreme Court judges like Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas. I know it's hip & trendy to be a libertarian these days, but it's a pretty far right ideology, with lots of big $$$ behind it. Free market research brought to you buy the same thinking that tried to tell us tobacco wasn't a health risk, & is currently trying to ignore the dangers of psychiatric meds. No thanks.

I'm sorry you didn't like the format, but my link lists 4 sources, 4 different journals, one for each paragraph. One name is consistent with each journal: David Hemenway. Look him up, look at his credentials. From what I can see, he's not a member of any think tanks. If he is, I'm sure you'll let me know.
 
I am sure Mr. Hemenway is fair and balanced.

Hemenway, David
BROOKLINE, MA
02446
Harvard University/Professor$20010/06/2008GOBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat
Hemenway, David
BROOKLINE, MA
02446
Harvard University/Professor$20008/25/2008POBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat
Hemenway, David Mr.
BROOKLINE, MA 02446
Harvard University/Professor$200DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE - DEMOCRATP10/25/2006
Hemenway, David Mr.
BROOKLINE, MA 02446
Harvard School Healt/Professor$200DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE - DEMOCRATP10/26/2004
Hemenway, David Mr.
BROOKLINE, MA 02446
Harvard School Healt/Professor$200DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE - DEMOCRAT
 
Last edited:
Forget about who authored the study (Kates/Mauser here) -- ask your friend whether he can refute the hard data in the study.
 
Back
Top Bottom