GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - How Guns Are Being Used By Citizens in America Each Year

aka123 · 08-28-2014, 11:43 AM

Yeah, that "info blast" is quite bullshit all in all. This study's most applicable conclusion is that more guns doesn't automatically equal more violence, other way around not so much or at all, when examining many countries.

"Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for
low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the
United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be
amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates
that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun
carry licensing, 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 gun‐
ownership nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for
personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with com‐
paratively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may
well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homi‐
cide. 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.

In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership
have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict
gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times
and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by
deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is
evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun
ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the
more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread
gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had
high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact
severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have ex‐
perienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reac‐
tion has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.
This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citi‐
zenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce vio‐
lence 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 signifi‐
cantly 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."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

08-28-2014, 11:43 AM
aka123 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: 64 00 N, 26 00 E Posts: 4,450	Yeah, that "info blast" is quite bullshit all in all. This study's most applicable conclusion is that more guns doesn't automatically equal more violence, other way around not so much or at all, when examining many countries. "Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun carry licensing, 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 gun‐ ownership nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with com‐ paratively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homi‐ cide. 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. In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have ex‐ perienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reac‐ tion has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws. This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citi‐ zenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce vio‐ lence 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 signifi‐ cantly 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." http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf Last edited by aka123; 08-28-2014 at 11:54 AM..