Harvard Gun Study

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I offer Australia as a case study.
Few things to be aware of;

1) Our water borders do allow us a little more control over what comes in to the country from outside sources.
2) It's not a scientific study, just our recent history, so not exactly going to have control groups, etc.
3) We got all our states to agree on legislative changes, since this is a state issue. This is important not just for understanding, but also because state border security is non-existent, so obviously some states implementing changes and other states not would be problematic, and would seem particularly pertinent to the USA.

Also worth looking at New Zealand in relation to this topic, although I have no particular knowledge of what you would find. But the reasons they seem a worthwhile check are as follows;
1) High gang membership
2) Permissive gun laws (compared to Australia...maybe a little more restrictive than the US)
3) High rates of private gun ownership (compared to Australia...from memory, approx 1 gun for every 4 people)
4) Police don't carry guns

Like I said, no idea what that would show, and perhaps it would support a pro-gun position. but I think it's a different model and position in terms of private and police gun use that is worth considering for anyone really interested in researching.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Michael Monuteaux, is an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

Can someone tell me how effectively the fields of
epidemiology and pediatrics via a medical institution, plays into a study involving guns as it applies to society?

It seems upon first impression, one would regard Harvard law school as being more appros with the topic. Not Harvard Medical School.

Clearly again, more bias b.s. gun control bull**** plain as day presented in the wrapper of academia.

Next time for a study like this, be smarter and choose a law school.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Michael Monuteaux, is an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

Can someone tell me how effectively the fields of
epidemiology and pediatrics via a medical institution, plays into a study involving guns as it applies to society?

It seems upon first impression, one would regard Harvard law school as being more appros with the topic. Not Harvard Medical School.

Clearly again, more bias b.s. gun control bull**** plain as day presented in the wrapper of academia.

Next time for a study like this, be smarter and choose a law school.

I would imagine it depends on the angle of study and argument.
An examination of the Second Amendment, or of the pitfalls and implications of legislation appears legal.
But lawyers aren't scientists, so a scientific study conducted by lawyers seems to have it's own set of issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

And from this you deduce that all studies are of the same quality...all without familiarity with the study?
This seems like confirmation bias induced faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

"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.

Let's not apply cogent reasoning when we can rely upon inferences from a journalist's conclusions about a study we cannot see conducted by a partisan organization.

Forgive me....I felt the need to say something sarcastic.
The official RF history says I do that.

Hey, this is meta-sarcasm....pretty sophisticated stuff, eh!

 

[Underhill]

The problem with the gun debate is that both sides are right. More guns in general means more people who shouldn't have guns will have easier access. But they can be useful in deterring criminals (under the right circumstances).

Talking about banning guns in this country is pointless. It will never happen in any meaningful way. Even if, by some strange course of events, they managed a ban, it would never get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Talking about banning guns in this country is pointless. It will never happen in any meaningful way. Even if, by some strange course of events, they managed a ban, it would never get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation.

I don't see this as guaranteed.
It takes constant vigilance to preserve our rights.

 

[Underhill]

I don't see this as guaranteed.
It takes constant vigilance to preserve our rights.

I get that. My point is for those liberals who have it in mind that banning guns is the answer. Even if they were to get their wish, it won't accomplish much as the number of guns already out there isn't likely to change much for the next 50 years.

 

[Wirey]

I get that. My point is for those liberals who have it in mind that banning guns is the answer. Even if they were to get their wish, it won't accomplish much as the number of guns already out there isn't likely to change much for the next 50 years.

Banning guns isn't the answer. Controlling them is. Name every American who actually requires a 30 round clip. It's crazy! How large are the burglar packs down there?

 

[Underhill]

Banning guns isn't the answer. Controlling them is. Name every American who actually requires a 30 round clip. It's crazy! How large are the burglar packs down there?

I used to think the same until I looked into the statistics. Very few, almost no, crimes are committed with assault rifles. I know they are scary but I have a 22 with a 10 round mag and I can swap them out in 2 or 3 seconds. The size of the magazine is almost completely irrelevant.

More important is keeping guns out of criminals hands. If I were to write the rules I would mandate that all guns are to be kept locked up at all times when not in use. Also, make it mandatory that you report a stolen gun. If an unlocked gun or gun from an unreported theft is used in the commission of a crime then go after the owner.

But limiting magazine size isn't going to change much except in the rarest of extreme cases. And even then, negligibly.

 

[Wirey]

I used to think the same until I looked into the statistics. Very few, almost no, crimes are committed with assault rifles. I know they are scary but I have a 22 with a 10 round mag and I can swap them out in 2 or 3 seconds. The size of the magazine is almost completely irrelevant.

More important is keeping guns out of criminals hands. If I were to write the rules I would mandate that all guns are to be kept locked up at all times when not in use. Also, make it mandatory that you report a stolen gun. If an unlocked gun or gun from an unreported theft is used in the commission of a crime then go after the owner.

But limiting magazine size isn't going to change much except in the rarest of extreme cases. And even then, negligibly.

I used to make a living by putting bullets in living things, and I can assure you magazine size matters. And the best way to limit illegal guns is to control access on a constant basis. Not just locking them up and reporting them stolen, but making the actual purchase of a firearm resemble work. Been in jail in the last 10 years? Been in a nut house? No gun for you! Someone in your house meet those qualifications? No gun for you! Instead, when my son get sold enough I can get him to legally obtain everything I need.

 

[Underhill]

I'm all for most of that. But I stand by what I said on magazine size.

Short of war, the only time it makes a difference is in mass shootings. But these are fortunately very rare. A 10 shot magazine is more than enough to kill several people. NYS passed their lovely 7 round rule recently which is even more absurd. I can have up to a 10 shot magazine, but I can only load it with 7 rounds. Pure idiocy.

 

[Wirey]

I'm all for most of that. But I stand by what I said on magazine size.

Short of war, the only time it makes a difference is in mass shootings. But these are fortunately very rare. A 10 shot magazine is more than enough to kill several people. NYS passed their lovely 7 round rule recently which is even more absurd. I can have up to a 10 shot magazine, but I can only load it with 7 rounds. Pure idiocy.

Canada has similar laws (has for a long time). Magazine size immediately increases portability. And in an assault type weapon, it improves balance, leading to easier, more accurate firing. Trust me, I know.

 

[Underhill]

Canada has similar laws (has for a long time). Magazine size immediately increases portability. And in an assault type weapon, it improves balance, leading to easier, more accurate firing. Trust me, I know.

I believe you. But a heavier (well balanced) stock accomplishes the same thing. I can reliably hit a rabbit at 150-200 yards with my Rem 700 .308.

I'm not saying a larger magazine is of no benefit to a shooter, only that statistically they are very rarely used.

I currently own 4 guns. The 700 is the newest. I also have an old 870, a marlin 22 semi-auto for target shooting and an old russian M38 bolt action rifle from the 40's (doing well to hit a 3 foot target at 100 yards, but it makes an impressive noise).

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe you. But a heavier (well balanced) stock accomplishes the same thing. I can reliably hit a rabbit at 150-200 yards with my Rem 700 .308.

I'm not saying a larger magazine is of no benefit to a shooter, only that statistically they are very rarely used.

I currently own 4 guns. The 700 is the newest. I also have an old 870, a marlin 22 semi-auto for target shooting and an old russian M38 bolt action rifle from the 40's (doing well to hit a 3 foot target at 100 yards, but it makes an impressive noise).

So.....you like the civilian version (700) of the M24 sniper rifle, eh?

 

[Wirey]

I believe you. But a heavier (well balanced) stock accomplishes the same thing. I can reliably hit a rabbit at 150-200 yards with my Rem 700 .308.

I'm not saying a larger magazine is of no benefit to a shooter, only that statistically they are very rarely used.

I currently own 4 guns. The 700 is the newest. I also have an old 870, a marlin 22 semi-auto for target shooting and an old russian M38 bolt action rifle from the 40's (doing well to hit a 3 foot target at 100 yards, but it makes an impressive noise).

I still have a Remington 7600 (look it up) chambered for .270, and it has more deer on it than some national parks. I've also got a .22 Mohawk that went through many seasons of hunting and trapping. That thing has done more killing than Rambo! I also have an old 870. I love that thing.

A long time ago when I was a teenager I bought a kit and built my own .45 Colt Walker. We tested it by tying it to a tree and firing it with lengths of twine. Worked great until the barrel flew off.

 

[Underhill]

So.....you like the civilian version (700) of the M24 sniper rifle, eh?

Definitely one of those guns that you have to respect as a incredible tool. It's capabilities are far beyond mine. I find it interesting comparing it to the old WW 1/2 Russian gun. Similar designs but a in a whole different league.

 

[Underhill]

I still have a Remington 7600 (look it up) chambered for .270, and it has more deer on it than some national parks. I've also got a .22 Mohawk that went through many seasons of hunting and trapping. That thing has done more killing than Rambo! I also have an old 870. I love that thing.

A long time ago when I was a teenager I bought a kit and built my own .45 Colt Walker. We tested it by tying it to a tree and firing it with lengths of twine. Worked great until the barrel flew off.

The 870 was my first gun and is still one of my favorites. I've used it for everything from trap to deer hunting (used to have to use a shotgun in NYS).

I think I may have shot a 7600 at the range a few years ago. A friend of mine was sighting it in for deer season.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's another gun study in the news.
I bet people in opposing camps will read different implications.
Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report - Washington Times

 

[Underhill]

Here's another gun study in the news.
I bet people in opposing camps will read different implications.
Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report - Washington Times

I see reports like that of limited value. The economy is also improving.

The whole "correlation doesn't equate to causation" thing.