Gun Control Folks Claim Intellectual Superiority Right? Explain this.

Well then, you are doing a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor job if you can't find an unbiased source to do so with.

 

my notifications column says otherwise

 

Yes, the sheep will always clap for the shepherd.

 

baaaaaaaaaaa

 

No need to try again, read the article. Murder rates are generally higher in nations with strict gun control laws.

Read it and weep.

- - - Updated - - -

Which they have FAILED to do in every instance. I'll take the word of two renowned Harvard professors who have researched the issue over your feeble nonsense.

 

Norway and Switzerland both have strict gun control laws. the survey was based on ownership , not control.

 

What do you think gun control is if not restrictions on ownership?

"Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world."

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

 

very suspect studies that likely don't tell the entire story...Norway has tightly controlled gun access laws so they work well keeping the guns out of the wrong hands...Russia also has it's laws but the black market being what it is there the controls/laws are bypassed...and crime being mostly poverty/educated driven Norway a wealthy country very well educated country will of course have less crime than russia...

 

the restriction in norway isn't on who can own weapons but who can not...legitimate owners aren't restricted...what you're promoting is criminals and mentally disturbed be allowed unrestricted access because you're too lazy to prevent it...

 

wrong again. Norway and Switzerland have high rates of ownership combined with strict controls. once again, the survey deals with ownership numbers, not controls.

 

Once again, controls come in the form of restrictions on ownership, and once again isolated cases do not make the case better than a broad study of many nations.

At the very best for you the study shows that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, at the very worst it shows that strict gun control laws lead to higher rates of these crimes. Ether way gun control laws don't work.

 

Very suspect studies?
completed by TWO Harvard Professors?

Suspect only because you don't want to beleive the truth.


Well you seem to be bolstering my case with this post. The controls didn't work because criminals will get guns anyway if they want them? Isn't that an argument against these symbolic laws that will make no difference?

Norway is actually addresssed in the study and they still reached a different conclusion that you present here.

 

feel free to pick any of the western nations with ownership rates close to Norway and low murder rates that don't have strict controls!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

One isolated subject does not overcome the entire body of work involved in the study. I posted their conclusion above.

 

yes you did. their conclusion was based on ownership while ignoring controls. meaningless

 

So explain to me how this shows a positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rates:

Table 1: European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates
(rates given are per 100,000 people and in descending order)
Notes: This table covers all the Continental European nations for which
the two data sets given are both available. In every case, we have given
the homicide data for 2003 or the closest year thereto because that is the
year of the publication from which the gun ownership data are taken. Gun
ownership data comes from GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES, SMALL ARMS SURVEY 64 tbl.2.2, 65 tbl.2.3 (2003).
The homicide rate data comes from an annually published report,
CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA,
JURISTAT, for the years 2001–2004. Each year’s report gives homicide statistics
for a dozen or so foreign nations in a section labeled “Homicide
Rates for Selected Countries.” This section of the reports gives no explana‐
8. GARY KLECK, TARGETING GUNS: FIREARMS AND THEIR CONTROL 20 (1997) (discussing
patterns revealed by studies in the United States).
9. Our assertions as to the legality of handguns are based on COMM’N ON CRIME
PREVENTION & CRIM. JUSTICE, U.N. ECON. & SOC. COUNCIL, UNITED NATIONS
INTERNATIONAL STUDY ON FIREARMS REGULATION 26, tbl. 2‐1 (1997 draft).
Nation Murder Rate Rate of Gun Ownership
Russia 20.54 [2002] 4,000
Luxembourg 9.01 [2002] c. 0
Hungary 2.22 [2003] 2,000
Finland 1.98 [2004] 39,000
Sweden 1.87 [2001] 24,000
Poland 1.79 [2003] 1,500
France 1.65 [2003] 30,000
Denmark 1.21 [2003] 19,000
Greece 1.12 [2003] 11,000
Switzerland 0.99 [2003] 16,000
Germany 0.93 [2003] 30,000
Norway 0.81 [2001] 36,000
Austria 0.80 [2002] 17,000

 

You apparently did not read the study. They absolutely DID address controls as well as ownership!

Perhaps this excerpt will help you understand that the correlation you and yours profess is mythical:

"the United States murder rate is still eight times
higher than Norway’s—even though the U.S. has an almost 300%
higher rate of gun ownership. That is consistent with the points
made above. Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and
cultural factors. In the United States, those factors include that the
number of civilian‐owned guns nearly equals the population—
triple the ownership rate in even the highest European gunownership
nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for
personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with comparatively
high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may
well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homicide.
But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic
and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable
rate of homicide in most European nations"

 

gun ownership with proper controls doesn't correlate with high murder rates. that was my point. gun ownership with lax controls does correlate.

 

The study addresses this myth and debunks it. It simply is not the case. You are attributing cause and effect where there is no true correlation. This study covering a variety of nations proves this.

 

Another excerpt you apparently missed:

"On the other hand, in nations that have experienced
high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction
has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.
This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry—
the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce violence
or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns
to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun
laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly
restrict guns continue to have low violence rates."

"Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society. Though
many people may still cling to that belief, the historical, geographic,
and demographic evidence explored in this Article
provides a clear admonishment."

 

exactly! so high ownership rates don't=low murder rates. the murder rates in Europe are due to proper controls and cultural factors(whatever those may be). thanks for proving my point

 

"The evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia's and New Jersey's semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance--not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression--is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted."

"If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they adv ocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are "working." Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, "What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing... [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun."






http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Data backed conclusions:

"Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).


The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment."

That last line is where leftists fail repeatedly.

 

youre barking up the wrong tree . I wasn't arguing for banning guns. obviously Norway et al show its not necessary. but at the same time the stats do not show that high ownership rates REDUCE violent crime. controls and cultural factors do that.

 

This is not about banning guns, as most gun control laws are aimed at restricting ownership, these points are all valid.

- - - Updated - - -

They do show a deterrent value in the United States, but OBVIOUSLY all nations are not culturally identical and all will not respond identically to gun ownership or(most likely) any other single factor in isolation.

This is where your Norway example runs off the rails. Norway is not similar to the U.S. at all culturally!

 

never claimed it was. I was using them to show that its not hi ownership that keeps their rates low. and you have no data to suggest it does in America either. in fact your study claims otherwise