Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

Finally we see a study of comparisons of gun ownership vs violent crime.

This Harvard Study cites statistics from other nations as well as the U.S.

Many will come to a logical conclusion that some places simply have a higher rate of 'criminals'.

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.

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

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime


The Harvard Study pdf

The detailed statistics are in the pdf link

Just for fun, check out the statistics on african american and south american populations of those countries and then compare them to ours. Its pretty shocking but don't publish the results, everyone will hate you for it.

Doesn't seem to actually be a "Harvard study". One author is a San Francisco attorney and the other is a professor at a Canadian university. So you might want to adjust your title and the OP.

Sort of silly really. Would banning guns reduce crime and suicide? I don't think that's the right question.
Would it reduce crimes and suicide committed with guns? The study doesn't actually address that. Does it?

Originally posted by Phage


Sort of silly really. Would banning guns reduce crime and suicide? I don't think that's the right question.
Would it reduce crimes and suicide committed with guns? The study doesn't actually address that. Does it?

Countries where guns are banned actually have more crimes committed with guns, not less.

Russia and Jamaica are good examples of this.

Switzerland is a good example of everyone being armed and there being almost no gun crimes.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Perhaps.
But the study in question does not seem to address that.

Originally posted by Superhans
Just for fun, check out the statistics on african american and south american populations of those countries and then compare them to ours. Its pretty shocking but don't publish the results, everyone will hate you for it.

I'm sure you mean black people and not African American. You have to be American to be African American.

Either way I'm not sure why you felt like that chip on your shoulder had to chime its way into this discussion.

On topic:

If the reality of these statisitics is news to someone, you're probably as dumb as Piers Morgan. Pity.

Seeing as the highest crime cities almost ALL have gun bans should be all you need to know. Chicago, NY, LA...you get the point. If guns disappeared off the planet completely, I will admit gun crime will go away. But you liberal types need to get it through your head. Criminals will always get guns illegally, only the law abiding citizens will follow the law and pay the price for doing what they are supposed to.

That is why you do not hear about mass shootings in places where the populace is packing heat legally as much. Criminals like to pick easy targets, that is why old people, ladies, etc are victimized the most. The last thing a criminal wants is a fair fight or in the other guys favor.

Originally posted by Superhans
Just for fun, check out the statistics on african american and south american populations of those countries and then compare them to ours. Its pretty shocking but don't publish the results, everyone will hate you for it.

"African American" and "South American" populations of those countries?

In your attempt to race bait, you made yourself sound even more ignorant. Kudos.

Originally posted by Phage

Would it reduce crimes and suicide committed with guns? The study doesn't actually address that. Does it?

That's sort f a pointless question.

Are we better off if 100 murders by gun are replaced by 100 murders by knife? We still have 100 murders.

Now if one is more concerned with the method than the crime I suppose the question wouldnt be pointless but who would be happy to simply swap method of murder while numbers of murder remained unchanged? A sicko or a zealot.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Poverty rates and overall corruption play a large role in violence... Russia and Belarus both have extreme poverty rates. There is lots of crime and the corruption has not been rooted out after the USSR... Mafia is pretty much dictating these countries. Very much corruption and mafia-related crimes with additional drunken violence.

The luxembourg statistics are a lie... In 2003 there were a total of 6 people killed with firearms in luxembourg, which sets a rate of 0.45 deaths per 100k. In 2002 there were a total of 8 people murdered total which results with a rate of 1.7 deaths per 100k, See - 2 murders results with additional 1.25 deaths per 100k, thats what happens in a country of under 500k people. in 2004 the total homicide rate was 0.7 kills per 100k. I have no clue how they managed to make up a number of 9.1 based on any year of murder rates I found. There might have been some mafia wars or a mass murder, but otherwise the homicide rates were very low during these period Luxembourg is a very small country with less than 500k people.

Poverty has to be taken in, that is why only OECD countries can be compared to each other not some Jamaica... Lots of poverty+lots of guns= high gun violence+ violence rate (unless deeply religious country). Lots of poverty without easy access to guns=just violence rates.

Very biased statistics - cherry picked- without taking into advantage the overall trends and history/culture of countries.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Countries where guns are banned actually have more crimes committed with guns, not less.

Russia and Jamaica are good examples of this.

Switzerland is a good example of everyone being armed and there being almost no gun crimes.

Russia and Jamaica have very high poverty rates, with Russia having also high corruption rates and strong organised crime + people drink a lot (lots of drunk people violence).

Switzerland has so high rates only because every male between 21-31 has to do military service and have a military gun at home, although with sealed ammo without any permission to open it. After that they need licence with strong background checks/mental health checks with a requirement of gun locker, licence needs to be renewed every cuple of years. You lose licence if you do not keep your gun at the locker. Overally Switzerland has gun laws very regulated compared to US.

To be honest, having a gun would not help you much for self-defense as in most countries shooting and murdering somebody for self-defense is still considered a criminal offense and can result with serious jail time. You can not shoot somebody simply because they are doing something at your property or attack you.

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by Superhans
Just for fun, check out the statistics on african american and south american populations of those countries and then compare them to ours. Its pretty shocking but don't publish the results, everyone will hate you for it.

I'm sure you mean black people and not African American. You have to be American to be African American.

Either way I'm not sure why you felt like that chip on your shoulder had to chime its way into this discussion.

Not supposed to say that, its not PC

Originally posted by SuperhansNot supposed to say that, its not PC

Good that you are honest. I think the problem is though the culture and environment behind it not ethnics.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I think this is a poo(r) study because it doesn't take into consideration other factors.

Aren't all correlations flawed?

Originally posted by supremecommander

Originally posted by Superhans
Just for fun, check out the statistics on african american and south american populations of those countries and then compare them to ours. Its pretty shocking but don't publish the results, everyone will hate you for it.

"African American" and "South American" populations of those countries?

In your attempt to race bait, you made yourself sound even more ignorant. Kudos.

Note really, african american is a PC term which is why it does not make sense. Not sure what your issue with south american is as it is just someone from south america.