Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive




I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

It's long, but well worth the read.

He said that not one of the witnesses/survivors in the Colorado movie theater shooting took solace that the perpetrator was the only individual with a gun in the theater.

-- Modified on 2/3/2013 10:39:30 PM

You just read the commentary on the study by NRA vice president I.M. Fulschit that the OP pasted into his post entitled “Gun Control is Counter Productive.”

     This was NOT  the conclusion of the Harvard Study at all. Rather, the study concluded that the statistics just do not prove either that less gun control equals fewer gun murders and suicides, or that more gun control equals fewer gun murders and suicides.

     With respect to the "more guns equal less confrontational crimes" thesis, the Harvard study takes a hard look at prior studies reaching this conclusion:

“Economists John Lott and David Mustard have suggested that [new laws allowing concealed carry] contributed to the drop in homicide and violent crime rates. Based on 25 years of correlated statistics from all of the more than 3,000 American counties, Lott and Mustard conclude that adoption of these statutes has deterred criminals from confrontation crime and caused murder and violent crime to fall faster in states that adopted this policy than in states that did not.”

       But after examining peer reviews of Lott and Mustard’s conclusion, the Harvard authors conclude that we just don’t whether concealed carry really works to reduce violent crime or if increased prison rates and the death sentence are the primary causes:

“Perhaps the United States is doing something right in promoting firearms for law‐abiding responsible adults. Or perhaps the United States’ success in lowering its violent crime rate relates to increasing its prison population or its death sentences. Further research is required to identify more precisely which elements of the United States’ approach are the most important, or whether all three elements acting in concert were necessary to reduce violent crimes.”

      So we are back to the point I made last week on the statistics issue – the statistics just do not support either side of the argument. Strict gun laws do not reduce murder and crime per the statistics but neither do liberal right to carry laws.

      But the Harvard study does not address the one statistic that is undisputed- more guns equals more accidental gun deaths and injuries. Take away guns and the accidental shooting statistics go away. Time for yet another post of my favorite gun video- DEA agent Lee Page shoots himself in the foot while lecturing kids on gun safety.

Is forced birth control fair justice to protect the stupid  ?

Should we outlaw medicine and Clorox because of accidental deaths ?

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/americas-poison-problem

"in 2007 unintentional poisoning was the leading cause of death from all causes for ages 35-44, the number two cause from 25-34 and the third leading cause of death from 45-54. It's taking place most often well beyond the age when we should "know better" and before our judgement begins to decline."


 http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/listening_to_the_latest_media.html

I have read a fairly large portion of it. What I posted was a concensus from the ACRU s web site, and the main reason I posted it is the main arguement for more gun control is a reduction of violent crime will follow.
      The statement using accidental shooting s as an arguement against gun bans is immaterial as many voluntary activities are more dangerous then simple gun ownership. Again I ll reference, atvs and snowmobiles. Boxing, mma and sky diving are inhearently more dangerous then gun ownership.
      I ll take the time to read the whole study. Have you read any of the source documentation for the study? It bears out much of the consensus I posted above, even if the study didnt come flat out and say it.
     

which concludes that international statistics do not show that “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death.”

      But the authors likewise do not conclude that strict gun laws are “counterproductive” (although they quote someone else who arguably reached this conclusion and as well as studies which reach the opposite) which was the title of the opinion piece you pasted. So I faulted your opinion piece for selectively quoting from the article to support a pro guns position and misleading the reader.

     Looking at both sides of the question, the Harvard study concludes “Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil.” In other words, gun law murder statistics do not prove cause and effect here – they are just a piece of evidence. They may play a role but the determinants of murder rates are most likely other factors.

      My comment about accidental gun death statistics was not offered as a pro gun control rationale at all. I offer that simply to show that this is the one gun injury statistic where causation is undisputed. Everywhere else the answer is – we just don’t know.

I didn't mean to miss lead anyone and apologize.
  I posted the ACRU statement to draw some light to the fact that complete gun restriction does not mean a safer society in general. The harvard study is very long and not what I would term an easy or entertaining read but is available if you want to read it.
  Socioeconomic conditions and mental illness have a huge bearing on crime, more so than any other factor and isnt being addressed by any new legislation today. I feel a gun ban/restrictions are the cheapest, easiest and splashiest thing that can be done but isnt even attempting to fix the root problem. I dont blindly agree with the NRA nor do I follow the popular media missconception today that a gun ban and specifically an Assault Weapons ban will prevent these crimes. It might make the killer resort to other options, and prevent some, but it could very easily make the ones that are successful worse.