And people wonder why the US is so divided

[knapplc]

 

 

 

But seriously - there's no gun problem in America.

 

It's just that we're different than EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD.

 

Aside from that, there's clearly no problem. We have no need for sane gun laws that actually work and aren't bandaids on (pardon the pun) gunshot wounds.

 

Seriously. Let's keep comparing rape to gun violence. It's totally sane and rational to do so.

[knapplc]

The evidence is right there. Go read it for yourself.

 

Or draw completely different conclusions... whatever. Just sit back and rationalize things while more mass shootings take place.

 

I guess you just hope your loved ones aren't among the victims, I guess.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

[Bigred_inSD]

What makes anyone think something will happen? 20 children were killed and it's still the same exact talk on both sides. 20 kids for Christ sake. I still remember holding my infant son and crying thinking about the loss those parents suffered. And 140 some school shootings since then.

 

The NRA is also too deep in too many pockets, nothing will change. With the way education is funded in many states we will probably ban schools before guns. What a country.

[Creighton Duke]

^^^

You are correct that the comparison is not appropriate since rape is a much more heinous and disgusting crime. I make the association because I think that it is rational to assume that rapists would think twice about violently imposing their disgusting desires on women if there was a distinct possibility that the intended victim could be carrying a gun.

[HuskerNation1]

The evidence is right there. Go read it for yourself.

 

Or draw completely different conclusions... whatever. Just sit back and rationalize things while more mass shootings take place.

 

I guess you just hope your loved ones aren't among the victims, I guess.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

 

Again, these data points put forward by Vox and Mother Jones are excluding key points as to whether the guns involved were obtained legally or not, and what percent of this violence was caused by gangs. The US has a major gang problem, and that accounts for many homicides by guns.

 

Moreover, you continue to refuse to point out what you disagree with in the Harvard study I've provided on multiple occasions that examined the US and many other countries that Obama referenced yesterday.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐ national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐ tra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐ ita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or sui‐ cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates

[Creighton Duke]

The evidence is right there. Go read it for yourself.

 

Or draw completely different conclusions... whatever. Just sit back and rationalize things while more mass shootings take place.

 

I guess you just hope your loved ones aren't among the victims, I guess.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

Per the article. Again, I think a focus on mental health is paramount.

 

Most gun deaths are suicides

Although America's political debate about guns tends to focus on grisly mass shootings and murders, a majority of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides. As Vox's Dylan Matthews explained, this is actually one of the most compelling reasons for reducing access to guns — there is a lot of research that shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.

[AR Husker Fan]

Seriously, stop ignoring the facts. Page 661 of this Harvard study states this, which directly refutes your own personal research based upon I'm not sure what.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐ national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐ tra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐ ita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or sui‐ cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.

bnilhome, what you link to is not a study by Harvard. Instead, it's an article that was published in the Harvard Law Journal. Every law school has a Law Journal. The articles are simply submissions by lawyers and law students (and in some instances, non-lawyers, based on subject matter). Law Journal councils, which are comprised of professors and students of the law school, examine the submissions on a number of factors, including the level of citation and the scholarship (where "scholarship" can range from clarity of writing to citations to authority) in determining whether to publish. Law Journals typically publish both "liberal" and "conservative" articles; law journals do not attempt to determine whether the article is "correct". In the article to which you linked, the authors are, to quote from the article itself:

 

Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be contacted at dbkates@earthlink.net; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground, WA 98604.

** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.

The Pacific Research Institute, with which Mr. Kates is associated, is a San Francisco-based right-wing think tank. Gary Mauser is a Canadian university professor whose publications are on political marketing and limiting or eliminating gun control. His interest in firearms and “gun control” grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, ("Political Marketing" and "Manipulating Public Opinion") and more than 20 articles along the same lines - in short, his interest is manipulating media to foster the idea that guns are harmless and there should be no controls.

 

In short, the article is pushing an agenda and in no way meets the definition of a "study". Various right-wing entities have characterized it as a "Harvard study", which it is not. Harvard did not conduct the "study". No Harvard faculty or staff participated in the article. It was simply published by the Harvard Law Journal. It has not been subjected to peer review. It's little more than an opinion piece.

[84HuskerLaw]

I'm sorry but it is getting to the point where it is nigh impossible to talk about gun control without being within a 48 hour window of a highly publicized gun crime. What happened is a tragedy. Let us prevent future tragedies by invoking some actual gun control in this country.

Exactly what kind of 'actual gun control' are your proposing. Spell it out. The who, what, how and where and when of it all? We who believe in the Constitutional rights that are under constant attack in this once free nation what to know!

[knapplc]

Thank you for responding to that, AR Husker Fan. I didn't want to soil myself with an explanation of the multitude of wrongs in that... thing.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Seriously, stop ignoring the facts. Page 661 of this Harvard study states this, which directly refutes your own personal research based upon I'm not sure what.

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐ national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐ tra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐ ita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or sui‐ cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.

bnilhome, what you link to is not a study by Harvard. Instead, it's an article that was published in the Harvard Law Journal. Every law school has a Law Journal. The articles are simply submissions by lawyers and law students (and in some instances, non-lawyers, based on subject matter). Law Journal councils, which are comprised of professors and students of the law school, examine the submissions on a number of factors, including the level of citation and the scholarship (where "scholarship" can range from clarity of writing to citations to authority) in determining whether to publish. Law Journals typically publish both "liberal" and "conservative" articles; law journals do not attempt to determine whether the article is "correct". In the article to which you linked, the authors are, to quote from the article itself:

 

Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) is an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer associated with the Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. He may be contacted at dbkates@earthlink.net; 360‐666‐2688; 22608 N.E. 269th Ave., Battle Ground, WA 98604.

** Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) is a Canadian criminologist and university professor at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada.

The Pacific Research Institute, with which Mr. Kates is associated, is a San Francisco-based right-wing think tank. Gary Mauser is a Canadian university professor whose publications are on political marketing and limiting or eliminating gun control. His interest in firearms and “gun control” grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, ("Political Marketing" and "Manipulating Public Opinion") and more than 20 articles along the same lines - in short, his interest is manipulating media to foster the idea that guns are harmless and there should be no controls.

 

In short, the article is pushing an agenda and in no way meets the definition of a "study". Various right-wing entities have characterized it as a "Harvard study", which it is not. Harvard did not conduct the "study". No Harvard faculty or staff participated in the article. It was simply published by the Harvard Law Journal. It has not been subjected to peer review. It's little more than an opinion piece.

 

 

So you are telling me that Harvard Law publishes articles under its names from authors that are using faulty data sources or empirical analysis? Please point out what part of the study and data you disagree with.

 

I pointed out what was missing with Knapplc's graphs which, by the way, came from leftist VOX and includes citations from Mother Jones, another leftist outfit.

[Creighton Duke]

Thanks for posting 84HuskerLaw and bnilhome. It is nice to see people who don't give in to the establishment or narrative and respect the Bill of Rights.

[zoogs]

bnilhome, what you link to is not a study by Harvard (...)

To add to this, Harvard does have a School of Public Health with an entire section on their website devoted to firearms research and all of it is quite the opposite of supporting the NRA position.

 

Kates & Mauser 2006 does make an appearance (and I emphasize again that this is the Harvard School of Public Health Injury Control Research Center website), along with Kleck 2004 and others ... on the "Bad Science" page.

 

Here's a link to the review of Kates & Mauser that is published on the HICRC website, and written by its director: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/06/Kates-Mauser.pdf (edit: not a bad "gut feel", AR!)

[Hedley Lamarr]

There are plenty of ways to commit mass murder....many of which don't involve a gun

[Creighton Duke]

There are plenty of ways to commit mass murder....many of which don't involve a gun

Very true. The troubled young man (I won't say his name) in Santa Barbara last year used a knife and his vehicle to kill his victims.

 

But, going off of the linked Vox article, we need to be more concerned with suicides i.e. mental illness than mass murders.

[Hedley Lamarr]

In reality the issue is the people not the guns. The way the media and many the music/film industry portray things as hip and cool combined with a lack of respect and responsibility towards guns is a major issue. Mix that with mental health issues and you have a major issue. Its our people not our guns that I blame.