A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."

And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."

In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Most of those idiot teabaggers couldn't even find Harvard on a map, let alone get accepted there.

biblebanging retards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of those idiot teabaggers couldn't even find
> Harvard on a map, let alone get accepted there.


Sucks when that's the best that you can come up with huh?

xW4P4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> biblebanging retards Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most of those idiot teabaggers couldn't even
> find
> > Harvard on a map, let alone get accepted there.
>
>
> Sucks when that's the best that you can come up
> with huh?

Youll have to forgive him, the talking points havent been released for this yet and we all know what happens when a progressive tries to think

biblebanging retards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most of those idiot teabaggers couldn't even find
> Harvard on a map, let alone get accepted there.


Let's see, Ted Cruz and EW Jackson come to mind right off the bat.

ahem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> biblebanging retards Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Most of those idiot teabaggers couldn't even
> find
> > Harvard on a map, let alone get accepted there.
>
>
> Let's see, Ted Cruz and EW Jackson come to mind
> right off the bat.


They still haven't got their talking points and have no idea how to respond. It is fun to read their silly replies while they wait.

The study is oviously biased if for no othe reason their constant use of the word "mantra" to describe anti-gun points of view. As if there isnt a pro-gun "mantra".

Fail98 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The study is oviously biased if for no othe reason
> their constant use of the word "mantra" to
> describe anti-gun points of view. As if there
> isnt a pro-gun "mantra".


That's as far as you got huh? First sentence.

If you'd continued you'd find that they address the inverse case as well.

No study worth the paper it's written on would use such inflammatory descriptions. The term is used more then once and exposes them as frauds.

Fail98 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No study worth the paper it's written on would use
> such inflammatory descriptions. The term is used
> more then once and exposes them as frauds.


Lol you showed them. Great analysis of the methodology.

Liberal Logic 27 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fail98 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No study worth the paper it's written on would
> use
> > such inflammatory descriptions. The term is
> used
> > more then once and exposes them as frauds.
>
>
> Lol you showed them. Great analysis of the
> methodology.


Their logic...more guns do not increase deaths. Well the typical gun "mantra" is guns actually reduce violence...Ive read on here people claiming VA is a safer state because we have more guns then MD....so, more guns should reduce death and they dont.

Fail98 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 27 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fail98 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No study worth the paper it's written on
> would
> > use
> > > such inflammatory descriptions. The term is
> > used
> > > more then once and exposes them as frauds.
> >
> >
> > Lol you showed them. Great analysis of the
> > methodology.
>
>
> Their logic...more guns do not increase deaths.
> Well the typical gun "mantra" is guns actually
> reduce violence...Ive read on here people claiming
> VA is a safer state because we have more guns then
> MD....so, more guns should reduce death and they
> dont.


Wrong again Spudley. See page 670.

And in fact VA is lower than MD in most categories of crime. Both by number and rate. Baltimore hurts MD a lot relative to the size of the population of the state.