Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gu

[actaeon277]

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms Crime and Gun Control by Rob Kerby - Beliefnet
Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control



According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.




Funny how the anti-gunners don't quote this study.
Could be, because it's been largely hidden.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Like the anti-gunners are going to believe those conservative redneck hillbillies at Harvard...

 

[KellyinAvon]

Like the anti-gunners are going to believe the conservative redneck hillbilly at Harvard...

FIFY!! I can't believe they'd allow more than one in at a time.

 

[GIJEW]

Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms Crime and Gun Control by Rob Kerby - Beliefnet
Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control



According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.




Funny how the anti-gunners don't quote this study.
Could be, because it's been largely hidden.

It's interesting how academics make a living proving and quantifying the obvious...that you can read on bumper stickers.

The left is buried in data like this going back about 40 years with studies by Gary Kleck and John Lott being among the most outstanding, it's the reason that the likes of sloan&kellerman or bellisiles invent s**t for the "media" to trumpet

 

[rob63]

It doesn't get a lot of traction because it isn't actually a peer reviewed study, so it is easy to dismiss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that makes it incorrect or that I disagree with the findings, I'm just saying that it isn't persuasive to anyone on the other side if they can easily find a reason to dismiss it as invalid.

Here is a link to the actual paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998893

As a side note: I absolutely love that one of the authors is named Mauser, it's like an inside joke!

 

[Herr Vogel]

It doesn't get a lot of traction because it isn't actually a peer reviewed study, so it is easy to dismiss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that makes it incorrect or that I disagree with the findings, I'm just saying that it isn't persuasive to anyone on the other side if they can easily find a reason to dismiss it as invalid.

It is, however, an excellent source of talking points and citations.
Furthermore, it's my experience that even properly cited, reviewed, and published articles aren't that great at changing people's opinions. Not unless you metaphorically bury them under a pile of undismissable evidence. Why would the average person sit down and take the time and effort to read and comprehend a paper that challenges, rather than reinforces their positions? Maybe just to pick apart the arguments, and thereby bolster their beliefs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm going to have to look deeper into this study, because while I'd like to believe it, I'm thinking that the results of this study are misleading, ignoring the difference between causation and correlation. Kinda along the lines of "the more ice cream sold, the more people will commit crime" idea.

 

[rob63]

It is, however, an excellent source of talking points and citations.
Furthermore, it's my experience that even properly cited, reviewed, and published articles aren't that great at changing people's opinions. Not unless you metaphorically bury them under a pile of undismissable evidence. Why would the average person sit down and take the time and effort to read and comprehend a paper that challenges, rather than reinforces their positions? Maybe just to pick apart the arguments, and thereby bolster their beliefs.

Yeah, that's my experience too. I foolishly inserted myself into an argument about the Kavenaugh nomination on Facebook the other day, and was only reminded once again that I am 0 for lifetime at changing anyone's mind about anything.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Yeah, that's my experience too. I foolishly inserted myself into an argument about the Kavenaugh nomination on Facebook the other day, and was only reminded once again that I am 0 for lifetime at changing anyone's mind about anything.

To borrow a line from a fellow INGOer (it was Bill of Rights or Brother Bill 3, maybe both), we're going after the 87%. There are 10% (like the Tories in the Revolution) who will not be changed ever. We're the 3%, that leaves 87%.

 

[KellyinAvon]

It is, however, an excellent source of talking points and citations.
Furthermore, it's my experience that even properly cited, reviewed, and published articles aren't that great at changing people's opinions. Not unless you metaphorically bury them under a pile of undismissable evidence. Why would the average person sit down and take the time and effort to read and comprehend a paper that challenges, rather than reinforces their positions? Maybe just to pick apart the arguments, and thereby bolster their beliefs.

The academia-anti 2A-types (exhibit A: IU Professor Jody Medeira) have their own version of group-think, it's called peer review. Everybody thinks and acts alike and agrees with each other.

 

[russc2542]

It doesn't get a lot of traction because it isn't actually a peer reviewed study, so it is easy to dismiss. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that makes it incorrect or that I disagree with the findings, I'm just saying that it isn't persuasive to anyone on the other side if they can easily find a reason to dismiss it as invalid.

Here is a link to the actual paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998893

As a side note: I absolutely love that one of the authors is named Mauser, it's like an inside joke!

Perhaps it wasn't submitted for it knowing what the results would be? Flip side, the paper that started the vaccines=autism movement WAS peer reviewed (even if that approval was withdrawn within a year).

Peer review is like unions... sometimes it works for the abused, sometimes it does the abusing.