Harvard, CDC Gun Control Studies Show NO Correlation Between Gun Control and Reduced Crime

Harvard, CDC Gun Control Studies Show NO Correlation Between Gun Control and Reduced Crime
  • 1033
  • 13
  • 10

My Recent Posts

In fact, studies recently published by both Harvard and the CDC, commissioned by Obama to "research the causes and prevention of gun violence," have found the exact opposite.

Over the last year, we had the shootout in Aurora, followed by the Sandy Hook Massacre, followed by 
Obama unlawfully issuing 23 executive orders designed to bypass Congress and the Constitution and mandate gun control.

One of those executive orders states: "14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

They did so.  Their results: More gun control does not make the streets safer. In fact, more restrictions on the lawful ownership and carry (that's the "keep and bear" part) of firearms emboldens criminals, putting law-abiding citizens at risk.

Obama ignores the report. The mass media refuses to publish it.

Harvard, Obama's Alma Mater, does it's own report. Their results: 
 - "Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings."
 - "The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world."
 - "The determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism."

In summary, it’s not guns that kill people. People kill people, and where the lawful ownership of firearms is restricted or absent, two things happen:
 - Criminals use other means, just as deadly.
 - They do so at an increased rate of incidence i.e. "more murder per capita than in countries where the private ownership of firearms is high."

Obama ignores the report. The mass media refuses to publish it. Obama then offers new executive actions on gun control.

Do you see the pattern? He's not interested in the truth i.e. facts and statistics compiled by the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control, or even Harvard University, even when those reports are the direct result of one of his executive orders which commissioned the report.  All he's interested in is shoving his gun-control agenda down our throats, whether we like it or not.  

Obama is like a pilot or ship's captain who has lost all sense of touch with reality, refusing to believe what the instruments are telling him.  "Screw the rocks!  Full speed ahead!"  His most recent comments on Syria promise proof of evidence that Assad was the perpetrator of the use of chemical munitions, despite the fact that there's a mounting pile of evidence it was the work of the rebels.  Congress has already said "NO!" and the United Kingdom backed away on these grounds, citing the fact that the initial U.N. report also raises questions and that their final report is nowhere close to being finished.

This is the way Obama flies the U.S., if not the world, straight  into the ground:  "Screw the rocks!  Full speed ahead!"


Babu Added Aug 29, 2013 - 11:04pm
"Guns do not kill people. It is people ". Why do people resort to killing should be the part of the study and what actions are required . Hatred , Intolerance to each others view and more important Inequality , Economic pressures of living are the triggers that explode in the minds . A lot of clean up is required in American Society and it has to start from childhood. A new education and building values for future is important . Jealousy for any reason , be it for economic disparity, love, anger , argument etc are part of our journey in life. How do we handle them as we grow up should be taught in evolving stages .

When the leaders at the top are hungry for blood and do not mind waging wars to kill innocents , common people does not think twice about taking few lives here and there .

There is no point in blaming Governments for everything. There are certain things that our elected leaders can do , there is much more we all need to do everyday in our day to day living and spread the warmth of love and affection and concern for others. 
Babu Rao
Nathan Kelley Added Aug 30, 2013 - 12:46pm
Actually, Babu, in the US, the primary people kill each other is over gang / turf wars connected to the drug trade.  The United States has, through its War on Drugs, made the drug trade extraordinarily profitable and, therefore, worth killing over.
John Simpson Added Aug 30, 2013 - 1:20pm
Democrats always miss the point when it comes to any type of poor behavior; they always think the way to stop it is to pass a law! They never stop to consider what the actual root cause was for the poor behavior; they just pass a law to stop it!
I have never had the desire to kill anyone and after returning home from Vietnam I lost the desire I once had to go hunting; I have killed nothing since I left Vietnam. I had a strict father and he had a tight set of rules that he lived by; his rules about how to treat life and people basically came from the Ten Commandments and the hard self-determination for family survival of my West Virginia and Kentucky ancestors. I came from a family that absolutely would not accept help from anyone outside the family.
So, what I’m saying is “the root problem is a lack of exposure to self-respect, respect for others, and topped off with a big dose of self-determination."
Patrick Writes Added Aug 30, 2013 - 5:31pm
The U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have restricted access to guns (hunting rifles not included) and their murder rate is 3-4 times lower than the U.S.A.
But, yes, their instance of violent crime / rape is higher than the U.S. So if you put your thinking caps on, the same bad guys in the U.S. that are shooting and killing people, without guns, would likely only be able to mug and/or beat people badly. I'll let you be the judge on which is the better outcome.
John Simpson Added Aug 30, 2013 - 5:48pm
Patrick, I lived in New Zealand for two years. They have an entirely different (laid back) society than we do in the USA.
New Zealand is a low-stress country; they close down businesses before Christmas and do not open again until after the New Year.  I can see why their crime rate is lower than ours.
Steve Janss Added Aug 31, 2013 - 2:48am
@Patrick:  Have you explored NationMaster?  It's a fantastic way to compare crime statistics between countries:  http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
You have to be careful when quoting stats given by reporters, particularly with respect to the terms they use.  Piers Morgan, for example, is infamous for repeatedly claiming "the U.S. murder rate is hundreds of times greater than that in the U.K."  That's absolutely false.  What's true is that the murder rate BY FIREARM is greater.
In fact, the U.S. averaged 5.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004, whereas New Zealand and Australia were tied at 1.5.  No figures were given for the U.K., but for Ireland was 1.1.  Another source says that for the U.K. overall, it's 1.2.
Interestingly, in gunless Mexico it's 23.7.  Panama, around 21.6.  Heck, even in Greenland it's a whopping 19.2!
Steve Janss Added Aug 31, 2013 - 7:04pm
Meanwhile, the overall crime rate in the UK remains higher than in the US:
 - more than double the number of assaults than in the US
 - more than double the number of rapes than in the US
 - total crimes are 25% more per capita than in the US

When we go back to the murder rate, we find the vast majority of them here in the US are committed by youths:  Some 8,226, vs the UK's 139.  As Nathan Kelly astutely observed, it's primarily "over gang / turf wars connected to the drug trade."  As the recent Harvard study concluded, "The determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism."

The main source of murder in the US is urban youth gang culture, and mostly, they're doing it to themselves.  The reason you hear about people like me carrying firearms and mothers protecting their children, is because it occasionally spills over into our lives, and we will not idly stand by as someone enters our homes or restaurants and shoots us.
Steve Janss Added Sep 2, 2013 - 5:06am
Hi, Robin.  This is my second attempt at a reply, as the first one posted in the wee hours, but is now missing.
As for being better neighbors, I agree completely!  However, it's not my neighbors which pose the threat of robbery, assault, and breaking nd entering.  It's the criminals who come from other parts of town and prey on those of us who live in nicer areas.
As for organizing watch groups, you are absolutely correct.  I was a member of a Neighborhood Watch group in the mid-90s for about three years, and I'm the block captain here.
It would be nice if society could afford to have a cop on every street corner, but as you pointed out, "overarming the police" and building a police state are pretty much the same thing.  I have no problem supporting a capable police force.  I have grave problems when that police force grows powerful enough to start dictating policy instead of merely following it.
As for police brutality, rest assured for every such video you see, there are hundreds, if not thousands of events which transpired normally.  Some locals may have abnormally high rates of such brutality, but other locals have abnormally low rates.  Most locals fall closer to the middle.  Many of the brutality videos you see and stories you read come from areas with abnormally high rates, but statistical variation being what it is, you will find find some stories from locales.  
If you do find yourself a victim of brutality, cooperation to the maximum extent possible, but know your rights -- demand to see and attorney, and refuse to communicate with them further until you've seen an attorney, preferably one whom you trust.  Don't let their talk of "well, if you have nothing to hide..." fool you, for at that moment they're realizing their butt's in a sling, and are fishing for anything you might say or do so they have gain leverage against you, often to get you to drop any future charges of brutality.
As for "enough guns," I'm not sure what you mean.  I know dozens of people who have firearms.  All of them have a favorite carry peace, sometimes more than one, and often for different purposes.  At one point I owned three firearms, a .44 magnum which I carried in bear country, a .380 ACP I used for concealed carry, and a late 1800's black powder replica I mounted for show and fired for fun.  One good friend has a shotgun he uses for quail/dove hunting and home defense, a rifle he uses to hunt antelope and deer, a larger rifle he uses for elk and moose, a .45 1911 he uses for carry and home defense, and a 9mm he uses as a backup gun (carry).
Is that "too many?"  I don't think so.  I have another friend who owns more than two dozen firearms, about half of which are collectors items and replicas.  Is that "too much?"  What if someone wants to amass their own private arsenal, including AR-15s, AK-47s, sniper rifles, and the like.  Is that "too much?"  With an ATF license, they can even own fully-automatic machine guns.  Too much?
The only thing in my mind that's "too much" is when people use any tool, regardless of firearm, bat, rock, or stick to harm other people without justification.  As the Harvard study concluded, correctly in my opinion, "The determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism."
Put simply, it's not a matter of "too many guns," but the prevalence of unhealthy "social, economic, and cultural factors."
Steve Janss Added Sep 4, 2013 - 4:32am
I think a lot of comments above might best be viewed in the light of basic crime statistics, namely, that for every criminal in modern society, there exists approximately 19 honest, law-abiding citizen.  It's 20 to 1, folks.  How far do you think the criminals would get if every honest, law-abiding citizen were armed?
That's the ideal behind the Second Amendment, and it worked exceptionally well up through the 1950s, back when "gun control" was a hands-on firearms training class taught in the local high schools.  Shortly thereafter, "gun control" ideology became rampant, the general populace was gradually disarmed, and crime shot up commensurately.
The U.S. may be the only country in existence today which demonstrates the reverse is true, primarily because the 2A took away the governments' ability to "complete the experiment."  Beginning in the late 1980s and continuing throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, most states have relaxed their gun control laws, for one simple reason:  They recognized it doesn't work.
As a result, crime has steadily dropped, as criminals have recognized one simple consequence:  "Crap!  I might get shot!"
Today in the U.S., both gun control and crime are at lower levels than they have been since the 1960s.
Nathan Kelley Added Sep 4, 2013 - 5:28am
Actually, Steve, I have to disagree with you here.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with prevention of crime.  That's just a nice side effect.
Steve Janss Added Sep 7, 2013 - 12:08pm
Actually, the purpose is stated in the amendment itself:  "...being necessary to the security of a free State..."
That encompasses personal security i.e. prevention of crime, as well as resisting tyranny.
Masha K. Added Sep 19, 2013 - 9:14pm
Steve- Have you seen a copy of a High School textbook page making rounds on FB and elsewhere that re-writes the Second Amendment to say "people have a right to keep and bear arms in a militia"? I HOPE it's one of those Internet hoaxes, but unfortunately it sounds like something that would happen.
It also re-writes the First Amendment, inserting "separation of church and state" into it, and I'm not sure what it does to the rest.
Dan G Added Sep 24, 2013 - 9:26pm
If you're going to quote a Harvard study, please link to the study itself and not a news article about the study.  Here it is:
It tells a different story than what this article claims :)