A harvard study

[Vultite 57]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/j...auseronline.pdf

 

I'm doing research for a gun control paper(myths of gun control), and I came across this. pretty good stuff for some old Harvard fogies

Edited April 23, 2009 by Vultite

[DOXtheOX 1]

That's a great study.

 

This might be an interesting opposing point of view, don't know if it really fits in the scope of myths of gun control, but I wanted to post about it cause it got my gun debate fire burning.

 

http://www.praxisinternational.org/files/p...ty%20Assess.pdf

 

Last night my wife brought home a key point highlight printout of the study. Here's a few for ya...

 

*A man who owns a gun is significantly more likely to be a batterer and a batterer who owns a gun is significantly more likely to try to kill or actually kill his partner. In fact, the man having access to a gun is the strongest risk factor for intimate partner homicide, increasing a battered woman's risk of being killed by more than five times.

 

*Declining availability of guns. It has been shown that a gun in the home increases the risk of intimate partner homicide three times more than the next most powerful risk factor. With the decline in gun availability in the last twenty years, the number of intimate partner homicides has also decreased.

 

They talked about it in class and during the discussion my wife was told that because we are newly married and I have easy access to guns that she has an 80% chance of me using a gun to kill her if we get in a domestic dispute. I understand being sensitive to battered women, but you've got to leave the gun out of it and look at the real factors. And my wife was polite and didn't tell them that they should probably recalculate that percentage because she carries a gun, and it would be a equal fight if anyone ever pulled one on her.

[Vultite 57]

studies like that are irrelevant to themselves because even though they are showing pattern of violence, take the gun out of the situation then stabbings, death by (X) would increase to replace the death by gun. ex. in cultures where guns aren't even present (tribal life) death by stones, spears, ect. are present, with most deadly weapon of course on top. So, if you had no gun around, and got into it with your wife and you were SO MAD you just had to kill the woman (lol) you'd use whatever was handy, knife, hammer, or even pick up a chair and go WWF style.

 

EDIT: So I guess what SHOULD be said in that study is men with violent tendencies generally like to surround themselves with the proper tools of violence and of course are more likely to use them. They also start mixing "intimate partners" with married couples and that shouldn't be so. A prostitute gets murdered by a john, could that be considered a female murdered by a intimate partner?

Edited April 24, 2009 by Vultite

[kresk 10,063]

Look at 'Gun Facts Version 5.0', downloadable free at www.GunFacts.info. Hopefully a lot of useful information for your project.

[Vultite 57]

Look at 'Gun Facts Version 5.0', downloadable free at www.GunFacts.info. Hopefully a lot of useful information for your project.

well my sources have to be 100% unbiased. So i'll check it out, but if it won't pass with my prof I can't use it. thanks for the heads up tho.

[kresk 10,063]

Look at 'Gun Facts Version 5.0', downloadable free at www.GunFacts.info. Hopefully a lot of useful information for your project.

well my sources have to be 100% unbiased. So i'll check it out, but if it won't pass with my prof I can't use it. thanks for the heads up tho.

It uses a lot of gov't stats and reliable sources, with copious footnotes of the sources. Good luck.

[loki0629 55]

Don't forget to look at Japan's suicide rate. They have almost zero private firearms ownership and their suicide rate ranks up there with the rest of the industrial world (maybe higher).

 

Best of luck on your paper.

 

BTW any idea when that Harvard paper came out? I tried looking for a date and as best as I could figure out it may be '04 or early '05.

 

And thanks for the post.

[cellsworth 21]

studies like that are irrelevant to themselves because even though they are showing pattern of violence, take the gun out of the situation then stabbings, death by (X) would increase to replace the death by gun. ex. in cultures where guns aren't even present (tribal life) death by stones, spears, ect. are present, with most deadly weapon of course on top. So, if you had no gun around, and got into it with your wife and you were SO MAD you just had to kill the woman (lol) you'd use whatever was handy, knife, hammer, or even pick up a chair and go WWF style.

 

EDIT: So I guess what SHOULD be said in that study is men with violent tendencies generally like to surround themselves with the proper tools of violence and of course are more likely to use them. They also start mixing "intimate partners" with married couples and that shouldn't be so. A prostitute gets murdered by a john, could that be considered a female murdered by a intimate partner?

 

 

Good points Vultite. The conclusions in the quotes from the study you were responding to are examples of spurious correlations. Researchers, especially those with an agenda, all too often forget that a correlation does not necessarily imply causation. You did a fine job of pointing out the genuine underlying causal factor: people with poor impulse control and a predisposition to be violent. Often, the perpetrators in intimate partner homicides are criminals who can't even legally own firearms. The idea that purchasing a firearm makes you turn psycho and become a great risk to your family is absurd. Good luck with your paper!

[mstranglr 9]

That's a great study.

 

This might be an interesting opposing point of view, don't know if it really fits in the scope of myths of gun control, but I wanted to post about it cause it got my gun debate fire burning.

 

http://www.praxisinternational.org/files/p...ty%20Assess.pdf

 

Last night my wife brought home a key point highlight printout of the study. Here's a few for ya...

 

*A man who owns a gun is significantly more likely to be a batterer and a batterer who owns a gun is significantly more likely to try to kill or actually kill his partner. In fact, the man having access to a gun is the strongest risk factor for intimate partner homicide, increasing a battered woman's risk of being killed by more than five times.

 

*Declining availability of guns. It has been shown that a gun in the home increases the risk of intimate partner homicide three times more than the next most powerful risk factor. With the decline in gun availability in the last twenty years, the number of intimate partner homicides has also decreased.

 

They talked about it in class and during the discussion my wife was told that because we are newly married and I have easy access to guns that she has an 80% chance of me using a gun to kill her if we get in a domestic dispute. I understand being sensitive to battered women, but you've got to leave the gun out of it and look at the real factors. And my wife was polite and didn't tell them that they should probably recalculate that percentage because she carries a gun, and it would be a equal fight if anyone ever pulled one on her.

 

During the middle ages, violent men killed their wives with daggers. In the bronze age, wifes were killed with sharpened sticks. During the stone age, violent men beat women to death with rocks. Before that, a simple strangle sufficed. What you have here is another liberal argument that guns are somehow living objects that go rouge and kill people.

[superA 289]

To frame a house we will use a nail gun because it's easier. But if we have to we will use a hammer. That study is like saying people that have a car are more likely to use it as a means of transportation.

[vbrtrmn 167]

There are some statistics in this thread, which I opened yesterday, they're from the CDC and NSC.

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showtopic=39058&hl=

[gunfun 3,931]

If your studies have to be unbiased, you are screwed. all of them are done by humans. Humans who care enough about something to study it are biased by definition, and anyone claiming lack of bias is a lair and/or a fool. Double for news anchors.

 

I took several classes on crime statistics and reporting for my bachelors (law & justice/ Prelaw), and the main point that all of the classes made is that crime stats can't really be compared, because the way they are gathered, compared, compiled and defined vary so much that the UCR is pretty much meaningless, as are most of the other major reports.

[Vultite 57]

Don't forget to look at Japan's suicide rate. They have almost zero private firearms ownership and their suicide rate ranks up there with the rest of the industrial world (maybe higher).

 

Best of luck on your paper.

 

BTW any idea when that Harvard paper came out? I tried looking for a date and as best as I could figure out it may be '04 or early '05.

 

And thanks for the post.

This took quite a while to put together in such a nice way, this was published in the archives at Harvard in 2007 (spring or summer) So much info in there is a little dated but still usable.

 

Well GunFun, it at least has to look unbiased, especially since I believe my prof and audience to be anti-gun.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Vultite

[gunfun 3,931]

yeah, from looking at it breifly, it did look good especially as a counterpoint. It was mostly a rant. I think people should reognise their personal biases and declare them rather than pretending they are objective. The points made in their summaries seemed pretty solid and relevant especially as counterpoints to all of the bad and blatantly padded numbers I have heard in the past.

 

Remember that million shoe thing in the 90's? The organizers basically admitted later that they mostly got as many shoes as they could and picked a number near that based on what sounded good. I really wish I could remember the exact quotes. The thing about crime research, is that you can never isolate one single factor as a cause of anything, because the real world has more variables that can't be removed. your study pointed out that England had it's record low murder rates before guns were removed. You never hear that anywhere. I love seeing that kind of data. Florida saw a huge drop in violent crime, especially involving guns when they enacted concealed carry laws, but that never gets mentioned either. The other side would probably attribute that drop to some after school program at the same time, or whatever they can think of. Your class needs to hear about this kind of thing and consider it rather than blindly accepting numbers.

I really do appreciate the study and your post.