Harvard Gun Study

[Revoltingest]

Looking thru the article again, I saw a lot of correlation = causation claims......
- Did anyone see a link to the actual study?
- What are the specific conclusions of the study (in their own words)?
- Did anyone see anything indicating that the study supported the primary claim that "Guns Don't Deter Crime"?
I missed those things.
What is the science behind the claims attributed to this "scientific" study?
How do we know the claims aren't just inferences & conclusions of the article's author?

 

[Nakosis]

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!

That's not exactly what is being concluded. It really just says reducing the number of guns in society would be beneficial. Basically there'd be less deaths. Assuming that less deaths are beneficial to society.

Actually it just says it would be beneficial. Doesn't really say how, so maybe I'm assuming that is what they are implying. Do you think they are implying something else by it being "beneficial"?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not exactly what is being concluded. It really just says reducing the number of guns in society would be beneficial. Basically there'd be less deaths. Assuming that less deaths are beneficial to society.
Actually it just says it would be beneficial. Doesn't really say how, so maybe I'm assuming that is what they are implying. Do you think they are implying something else by it being "beneficial"?

What are the exact words from the study?
I'm curious because "reducing the number of guns" can mean multiple things, each of which would have different results.
- Reducing guns in the hands of criminals & irresponsible owners.
- Reducing guns in the hands of legal owners only (if criminals didn't turn theirs in).
- Reducing guns in the hands of all owners by the same amount across the board.
- Reducing what kinds of guns in the above scenarios?

Here's a problem I see.....
The non-2nd Amendment types say things like "science is on our side" & "I'm a scientist".
But this is an empty argument from authority without cogent reasoning behind the quantitative results of the study.
We should not be arguing, "I'm right because science & Harvard studies!".

 

[Nakosis]

Looking thru the article again, I saw a lot of correlation = causation claims......
- Did anyone see a link to the actual study?
- What are the specific conclusions of the study (in their own words)?
- Did anyone see anything indicating that the study supported the primary claim that "Guns Don't Deter Crime"?
I missed those things.
What is the science behind the claims attributed to this "scientific" study?
How do we know the claims aren't just inferences & conclusions of the article's author?

No, but I'm just referring to the last link in the original post. They do seem to say there is not a specific coloration to crime. There's too many unknown factors. I'm paraphrasing, but at one part it implied if there were less guns, there'd be less gun deaths.

So I assume this is what they mean by beneficial.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I'm just referring to the last link in the original post. They do seem to say there is not a specific coloration to crime. There's too many unknown factors. I'm paraphrasing, but at one part it implied if there were less guns, there'd be less gun deaths.

So I assume this is what they mean by beneficial.

What does fewer guns mean in terms of public policy?
Fewer per person?
Which person?
Fewer of what kinds?
Fewer by what method of reduction?

 

[Nakosis]

What does fewer guns mean in terms of public policy?
Fewer per person?
Which person?
Fewer of what kinds?
Fewer by what method of reduction?

Your right IMO. It's all speculation as to what the study implies. Speculative articles referring to other speculative articles is all I've been able to find.

Don't mind me, I'm just adding to the speculation.

 

[Nakosis]

What does fewer guns mean in terms of public policy?
Fewer per person?
Which person?
Fewer of what kinds?
Fewer by what method of reduction?

Here's an abstract from a 2013 study.

"Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Yeah, I don't know why my link says that, but it works....

 

[Revoltingest]

Your right IMO. It's all speculation as to what the study implies. Speculative articles referring to other speculative articles is all I've been able to find.
Don't mind me, I'm just adding to the speculation.

No, no....continue.
Speculation which is proffered as such is great.
I'm bothered only by speculation & inferences which are presented as fact.
This is one thing which is so tedious about discussing gun control & violence.....many of the facts aren't.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's and abstract from a 2013 study.

"Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

So many things can be read into that.
And so many people will be sure that their inferences are singularly correct.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not exactly what is being concluded. It really just says reducing the number of guns in society would be beneficial. Basically there'd be less deaths. Assuming that less deaths are beneficial to society.

Actually it just says it would be beneficial. Doesn't really say how, so maybe I'm assuming that is what they are implying. Do you think they are implying something else by it being "beneficial"?

It's pretty much political pandering through these types of "studies".

It's essentially putting forth that if there were comparatively say fewer cars on the road, we would have a safer and more secure society in the same regard.

Since however this deals with guns, and not cars, using the word gun just sounds so much more nefarious and dangerous for which death and injury lurks menacingly around every nook and cranny just by the mere presence of them alone.

The study is too vauge and reeks of having an agenda to push by some people.

That's what comes across to me anyway.

 

[Nakosis]

The study is too vauge and reeks of having an agenda to push by some people.

You caught me red handed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You caught me red handed.

Everybody gets caught red handed. I happen to have a particular agenda for agendas. ;0}

 

[metis]

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

That is dualistic thinking. Aren't you aware that one doesn't have to take an extreme position? The article doesn't. I don't. How many times do I have to post this before you understand?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Can we stop assuming that people have the time to read every single comment in a thread, please?! It is utterly unreasonable.

 

[metis]

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!

Just another fabrication by someone who simply doesn't seem to begin to understand what goes into a study.

In 1967, I was involved with a team putting forth a scientific study, and the amount of work involved is unbelievably complex and time consuming. In order to actually run such a study, the team has to do immense amounts of research because, if we don't, it's garbage in/garbage out.

Therefore, to imply that those involved with this study at Harvard really don't know more than "the average human" is about a dumb as statement as one could ever expect here. Your post is based on nothing more than sheer ignorance on how studies are done and what's all involved.

 

[metis]

Can we stop assuming that people have the time to read every single comment in a thread, please?! It is utterly unreasonable.

It's been repeated over and over again in the course of this thread, so no I'm not going to cut the person I was responding to any slack as this as it was explained to him more than once.

 

[metis]

What I find both bizarre and intellectually dishonest with a couple of people here is the fact that the Harvard study fits in well with previous studies on the subject, like the two I posted previously that were conducted in 2013 and were peer-reviewed. Instead of acknowledging the fact that these are rather serious studies, we see a couple of people here just post complaints without one single attempt to try and counter these studies by posting other scientific studies.

It just fits into what we've seen all too many times before, namely that the minute one gets between boys and their toys, the whining begins.

I'm done.

 

[Nakosis]

That is dualistic thinking. Aren't you aware that one doesn't have to take an extreme position? The article doesn't. I don't. How many times do I have to post this before you understand?

So saying that if there were less guns available, there'd be less deaths caused by guns is an extreme position? I kind of thought that'd be obvious, but I'm glad I guess someone did a study to back it up.

Yes, I am extrapolating from that, no guns, no one gets killed by them. I think this is kind of obvious too, but maybe someone will figure out how to do a study on that so we can all have certainty.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just another fabrication by someone who simply doesn't seem to begin to understand what goes into a study.

In 1967, I was involved with a team putting forth a scientific study, and the amount of work involved is unbelievably complex and time consuming. In order to actually run such a study, the team has to do immense amounts of research because, if we don't, it's garbage in/garbage out.

Therefore, to imply that those involved with this study at Harvard really don't know more than "the average human" is about a dumb as statement as one could ever expect here. Your post is based on nothing more than sheer ignorance on how studies are done and what's all involved.

That's fine.

I'll just leave the sheer complexity of it all in the capable hands of our fine well educated experts who obviously are doing very well in their work indeed, and all the tedious work really shows as a result and readily noticed. Well done. Well done. Fine study then.

A horribly egregious error has been made.

Hence, pay no attention to my outrageously dumb and ignorant ramblings against the fine upstanding institution for which this study came about.

 

[Poisonshady313]

"They found no evidence that states with more households with guns led to timid criminals. "

Some of the most notorious mass shootings in the last twenty years have been happening in places where guns are not permitted. Schools, movie theater, church, etc... Seems pretty straight forward.

If nobody is going to shoot back, there's no incentive for a criminal to stop trying to kill people. That's why they commonly kill themselves when the cops (gun carrying individuals) show up.