Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control And Less Violent Crime

Lest those with bullet proof vests and stock piles of ammo begin to gloat over the findings of the Harvard Report I will have to burst your bubble. The report makes a very good case for thorough, uniform, and universal, background checks before gun ownership.

Consider the following quote from the report:

"only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records, approximately 90 percent of “ adult murderers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.” These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault.”

This suggests to me that thorough and uniform background checks before anyone is permitted to purchase or own a firearm could be highly effective! But this would have to be very tightly regulated and effective enforcement would undoubtedly require a national registry of firearms and a tracking mechanism. And THAT is something those who are waiting for the government to confiscate their weapons in the dark of night would fight to the death.

In the U.S., it is illegal for convicted felons to own firearms as things stand right now. But there is no effective enforcement. You can buy a gun from an individual, or receive one as a gift, without any check to see if you are a lunatic or a felon (Perhaps restrictions should only apply to those convicted of violent crimes or crimes involving weapons.)

But how on earth do you administer such restrictions without a gun registry, and a tracking mechanism? By the way THAT would NOT violate the Second Amendment anymore than making it illegal for felons to own firearms violates it.

 

Only because you are choosing to interpret the data from a biased standpoint, once again, the whole premise of the study is that PEOPLE WILL FIND ALTERNATIVE WEAPONS TO MURDER SOMEONE IN THE ABSENCE OF GUNS.

 

Can you blame them? If you are so inclined to further your research:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

"Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city."

 

We both know, however, that it is commonly believed that reducing the number of guns will reduce the number of gun deaths. The report shows us that this is a myth. Gun deaths will not be significantly altered by such a simple measure. And I never would have guessed that access to abortion would be correlated with a delayed reduction in gun violence, but it makes sense, now that I have learned of this correlation.

There are other ways to kill people, so if there were no guns, violence wouldn't come to an end. And that raises this question: Suppose it were possible to have truly effective background checks and gun tracking. Would criminals still be able to steal enough guns to meet their needs, or would they simply start robbing banks with cars driven at high speed into the tellers counter ?

 

Funny, when conservatives say this sort of thing. They're labeled racists.

 

That's pretty funny! I would counter by stating most entities pushing gun control don't use bank robberies as their reason...they use mass shootings. Glad you have a sense of humor, though. Most libs I know don't. Are you really a lib?

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if foreclosed homeowners drove their cars into the teller counter, though.

 

It is foolish to put restrictions in place that cause the entire populace to lose rights, simply to attempt to prevent those so-called six sigma events (Sandy Hook). We should have learned our lesson after 9-11. If someone plans long enough and hard enough, and doesn't care if they die, your laws mean nothing to them.

 

Which might actually make some difference. IF the criminals misusing guns were subject to a background check to begin with. They're not.
Most guns used in crimes are stolen.

If you're a career criminal with a felony record you're not going to walk into a gun store and fill out papers on a new gun purchase. You're going to steal a gun or buy it from someone else who has already stolen it for you. Rendering such background checks largely null and void. Two of the more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by guys who had passed a background check,
a third stole his weapon from someone else who had passed a background check.


Did you notice my post some months back about my own personal experience in certifying my US citizenship for the BATF? I literally certified myself as a US citizen. No real proof needed. And it's all they require.

You know how you're certified as mentally fit to purchase a firearm?
There's a question on the application reading something to the effect.

Do you now or have you ever suffered from or been diagnosed with a mental illness?

The applicant merely checks the "No" box and voila you're now officially government certified as mentally fit to purchase a firearm.

 

Missouri poised to enact measure nullifying federal gun laws
Published August 29, 2013

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...llify-federal-gun-control-laws/#ixzz2dOY74600


..."The legislation is one of the boldest measures yet in a recent national trend in which states are attempting to nullify federal laws. A recent Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on gun control, marijuana use, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses..."


While the MO law seems clearly unconstitutional, so is much of what the federal government keeps imposing on its citizens. I applaud MO and other states that are starting to push back.

 

"We, as gun owners, are constantly under siege by a plethora of legal attacks. Whether it be self-defense, stand-your-ground, how many bullets can you carry, what guns are good, what guns are bad, or any other gun issue, we must expend our energies on a multitude of fronts. Yes, there will always be laws created and that are cases brought to court where there is a need for individuals to say, “No, Stop!” And, We the People must learn that we can say “No” without question or punishment. The method…JURY NULLIFICATION.
On closing, I’d like to leave you with the words of U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone on the Juror’s Duty:
“If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural God-given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.” (Emphasis add) ~ (U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, 1941-1946)"

from ammoland.com