Harvard Gun Study

[Thanda]

living on the outside of the US, I'm going to chime in with what is happening here.

We've got some of the worlds toughest gun laws, yet despite all the gun laws we've got one of the highest gun related crime stats in the world.

There was a statement last year that stated more people die in south africa per day than in any active war currently. (Can't find the quote currently)

So tightening the law won't lead to less crime/murders

This isn't entirely true. Lots of South Africans have guns (my own uncle for example). Also South Africa is only twenty years into democracy. Before that there was actually a war going on the in the country. That war brought a lot of guns into the country and those guns have not yet been eradicated.

 

[Wirey]

Harvard publishes a study about guns & gun rights.
It's like RJ Reynolds funding a study about the joys & safety of smoking.
I speculate that some bias might creep in.

C'mon, that's the same logic that says scientists are all hippies so climate change doesn't exist. Are their numbers wrong? They say more guns equals more gun crimes. Is that a lie, or is your own bias creeping in?

Dismissing the results of a scientifically run study due to personal bias is something we should be better than. If the study is using incorrect numbers, fine, it's BS. But if those numbers are correct.......

 

[Revoltingest]

C'mon, that's the same logic that says scientists are all hippies so climate change doesn't exist. Are their numbers wrong? They say more guns equals more gun crimes. Is that a lie, or is your own bias creeping in?

You'd have a compelling gotcha were it not for the fact that I don't claim to lack bias....nay, I even claim bias.
I presume the numbers are correct. But numbers themselves say nothing without being incorporated into a cogent argument.
Btw, I also expect bias in Gary Kleck's work, even though it tends to support gun rights.

Every 2.7 days we're bombarded with some group's new study which shows us nothing really new.
So they don't really affect the debate, except to inflame or motivate people to entrench existing beliefs.
The study will be presented in such a way that they suggest whatever agenda is previously held by the principals.
Posters who like the study will proffer it as evidence they're right.
And we descend into the same old regularly held war of numbers in place of reasoning.

Wanna impress me with a study?
Find one which (with good controls) shows differing results for alternative scenarios.
As I recall, the closest thing we have is to look at changes so rapid that social factors remain relatively steady.
An example of this might be what happens when a state becomes a "shall issue" state, ie, one with general legalized concealed carry.
Here in Michiganistan, the sky did not fall when this happened.
(I got my permit some several decades ago when it was difficult. Yeah, they trusted me.)

Dismissing the results of a scientifically run study due to personal bias is something we should be better than. If the study is using incorrect numbers, fine, it's BS. But if those numbers are correct.......

How do we judge how "scientific" it was?
This would require seeing how it was designed, including precautions against bias.
(It would also require more expertise than I have.)

But all that aside, I dismiss the interpretation of results more than anything else.
I know how those snooty Harvard types are.....
A Yale man & a Harvard man are in a public lav at the urinals.
Both finish.
The Yale man goes to wash his hands, but the Harvard man heads for the door.
Yale guy: "You don't wash your hands after ****'n?"
Harvard guy: "Harvard men do not micturate on their hands."

Notice his pretentious language & hubris regarding cleanliness?
Would you trust him to lecture you about gun safety?
I wouldn't.
They've no more credibility than the school janitor who says it was really aliens who killed Kennedy.


Edit:
I realize my response doesn't directly or fully address your post, but me brain is meandering today.
And it does only what it wants. Stupid brain!

 

[Jumi]

So the police are willing to turn in their guns as well?
Ban guns the police will no longer have a need to carry right?

Sounds like Norway they don't carry guns.

How they handle an aggressive customer

 

[Nakosis]

The article did not suggest that the police need to be disarmed, nor do I recommend as such. Nor does the article suggest that all guns for all people need to be removed, nor do I recommend as such. What it does suggest is that a proliferation or arms widely distributed within a community doesn't make it safer but actually more dangerous. What you are doing is to take this to an extreme that is not suggested by either the article nor myself.

You know I'm referring to the second article you linked right.

"The one thing that would have at least ameliorated the horrible situation in Charleston would have been that if somebody in that prayer meeting had a conceal carry or there had been either an off-duty policeman or an on-duty policeman, somebody with the legal authority to carry a firearm and could have stopped the shooter,"

It is trying to argue against this statement. Basically saying an on duty officer at the scene would not have made a difference. That along with the prior quote, what do you think is being suggested?

 

[Nakosis]

Sounds like Norway they don't carry guns.

How they handle an aggressive customer

Which community would you feel safer in?
I've heard a lot of police never have to fire their gun. I see videos with overly aggressive police all the time. I've known really good police, very helpful and respectful. I've also know a few which I don't think should ever have access to a gun.

 

[Nakosis]

Trained, certified, screened, evaluated, and periodically re-evaluated.

 

[Nakosis]

And a sufficient psychological background check, sure.

Ok,

 

[Jumi]

Which community would you feel safer in?

Norway is so peaceful they don't even need guns, so I would pick there. I'd prefer police to have guns though and if I lived in US I would probably have one myself. If a US police department would disarm I would leave the area to be honest.

I've heard a lot of police never have to fire their gun. I see videos with overly aggressive police all the time. I've known really good police, very helpful and respectful. I've also know a few which I don't think should ever have access to a gun.

I have no doubt of that. I think it's easier to escalate situations when weapons are readily available though.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no doubt of that. I think it's easier to escalate situations when weapons are readily available though.

Aye, some people just aren't suited for the responsibility.
And therein lies the difficulty....separate'n the responsible from the irresponsible.
Even police departments have trouble with that.

 

[Nakosis]

Aye, some people just aren't suited for the responsibility.
And therein lies the difficulty....separate'n the responsible from the irresponsible.
Even police departments have trouble with that.

Yes, same as with civilians...

If we could identify the responsible people, gun ownership should be a problem. Same with cops, maybe all cops shouldn't have automatic access to weapons. Maybe they all don't but then maybe that's a good direction to go in.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution, specifically the first 10 amendments.

Sure. They're the amendments to the Constitution, called The Bill of Rights. So it's part of the Constitution, and yet, they're amendments. I was just making a distinction between the Constitution that was signed 1787 and the Bill of Rights that was amended in 1791.

That is incorrect. The Founders put the second in there so citizens could form "well regulated militias." And it wasn't so they could fight against the government, but so they could defend themselves from various threats, especially back in a day when it would take days for Washington to get word before they could organize a response. It wasn't about balancing power, it was about ensuring regular citizens could band together and defend themselves at a moments notice.

Perhaps I'm just mixing up the intention of the founders based on following quote: ""The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

And the Founders were not, by any means, stupid. They would have known that no matter what, government militaries are far more capable at fighting than citizens banding together. They witnessed their own troops, who were largely farmers, struggle to even hold a line during the Revolution, and they were very aware they would not have won without the aid of the French. There is a huge difference between the militias of the various towns, and their training and access to materials, when compared to the training and materials of the federal government's military. It's really no different than today, where we have some people thinking they need their guns to fight against the government, even though they will be overpowered, out trained, and out gunned by the military.
However, the Founders didn't want towns to be defensless, so they granted the right for people to possess firearms for the intention of forming a well regulated militia. Many people today conveniently ignore that "militia" part.

Didn't they have military back then as well? The US Army was form 1775. I suspect the idea of militia and military wasn't supposed to be the same. Military is the government trained soldiers, profession soldiers in a sense. While militia was created by farmers and workers that had a day job.

Also, District of Columbia v Heller, 2008, says the 2nd amendment means the right own a personal gun for defending your home. Granted, it was only 5-4 decision, but it's the current Supreme Court's stance (if I understand the case right).

Personally, I believe the gun laws should change. There should be more like taking a driving license. A bit more tests, and perhaps even mandatory training. But to outlaw them all-out, is not a good idea.

 

[metis]

You know I'm referring to the second article you linked right.

"The one thing that would have at least ameliorated the horrible situation in Charleston would have been that if somebody in that prayer meeting had a conceal carry or there had been either an off-duty policeman or an on-duty policeman, somebody with the legal authority to carry a firearm and could have stopped the shooter,"

It is trying to argue against this statement. Basically saying an on duty officer at the scene would not have made a difference. That along with the prior quote, what do you think is being suggested?

That's not what it says, so I suggest you reread it.

 

[Nakosis]

That's not what it says, so I suggest you reread it.

It is what it says, I've provided the quotes. I don't know what else to tell you. However we have a difference of opinion as to what is being implied. Would you like to answer the question as to what you think is being implied?

You must have thought something is being implied by the article to post it. Or really I suppose what do you think the author of the article is trying to imply.

 

[metis]

It is what it says, I've provided the quotes. I don't know what else to tell you. However we have a difference of opinion as to what is being implied. Would you like to answer the question as to what you think is being implied?

You must have thought something is being implied by the article to post it. Or really I suppose what do you think the author of the article is trying to imply.

He's saying that if an officer was present, then the situation would likely have been ameliorated. I cannot figure out why you are misinterpreting what it actually says. Again, here's the quote: "The one thing that would have at least ameliorated the horrible situation in Charleston would have been that if somebody in that prayer meeting had a conceal carry or there had been either an off-duty policeman or an on-duty policeman, somebody with the legal authority to carry a firearm and could have stopped the shooter."

 

[Nakosis]

He's saying that if an officer was present, then the situation would likely have been ameliorated. I cannot figure out why you are misinterpreting what it actually says. Again, here's the quote: "The one thing that would have at least ameliorated the horrible situation in Charleston would have been that if somebody in that prayer meeting had a conceal carry or there had been either an off-duty policeman or an on-duty policeman, somebody with the legal authority to carry a firearm and could have stopped the shooter."

Ok, I get that you think I'm misinterpreting the quote. But this does not answer the question of what you think is being implied by the article.

 

[metis]

Ok, I get that you think I'm misinterpreting the quote. But this does not answer the question of what you think is being implied by the article.

I've actually explained it many times on this thread. Essentially, the OP deals with the Harvard study that states that having a proliferation of guns within society does not make it any safer but actually does the opposite. It does not state nor imply that police and/or all citizens should be disarmed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Essentially, the OP deals with the Harvard study that states that having a proliferation of guns within society does not make it any safer but actually does the opposite.

I didn't see that conclusion stated in the linked article.
Could you cite the text from the study which actually makes this claim?

 

[Nakosis]

I've actually explained it many times on this thread. Essentially, the OP deals with the Harvard study that states that having a proliferation of guns within society does not make it any safer but actually does the opposite. It does not state nor imply that police and/or all citizens should be disarmed.

Right, it does the "opposite". So if we limit access to guns, it should be safer right?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So the police are willing to turn in their guns as well?
Ban guns the police will no longer have a need to carry right?

Right. Because if the police don't have guns, the crime rate will drop. As per the expert study by people who are clearly smarter than the average human. It's Harvard!