Gun violence in the world

[2aguy]

Why hemenway is a hack......he lies...and he uses research to push an agenda, not to find the truth.....

Everyone Is Entitled To His Own Opinion But Not His Own Facts - The Truth About Guns


Hemenway’s team at Harvard went through about 1,200 articles on firearms published since 2011 in peer-reviewed journals focused on public health, public policy, sociology, and criminology. In May 2014, Hemenway began sending monthly surveys to the authors of these articles—upwards of 300 people—with questions concerning firearm use, background checks, and other gun policies.

First and foremost we need to remember that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

Second of all, this “study” doesn’t provide any real facts, just a statistical breakdown of opinions, answers to the questionnaires the Prof.’s crack research team had sent out. So I guess it is up to me to provide some facts.

The Prof.’s first question and Alexandrea’s pontification:

1. Do Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings?

Conservative Media: Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings. In January, right-wing media figures rushed to blame France’s strict gun policies after three gunmen killed 12 people at the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo during a terrorist attack. …

Experts: Strong Gun Laws Help Reduce Homicide. The Harvard survey found that 71 percent of experts agreed that strong gun laws help reduce homicide rates:

Okay, first of all, nice bait-and-switch; you start out talking about mass shootings then switch to all homicides.

Second, having listened to the statements of those media figures I can tell you that no one said that strict gun laws encourage mass shootings, they were saying that France’s firearm prohibitions enabledthe mass shooting. This is the fact that the antis try to dance around and ignore, or failing that to ridicule; the vast majority of mass shootings take place in putatively gun-free zones. And if you want to take someone’s opinion for it, how about this one:

The new PoliceOne.com survey of police and their views on gun control is available here (article is here). PoliceOne has about 450,000 members when the survey was done. …

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 6.2 percent). . . .[Edited to correct typo]

Next up on the chopping block:

1. Do Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime Rates?

Conservative Media: Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime. Conservative media and the NRA have repeatedly pushed the myth that concealed carry laws help reduce crime rates by allowing people to defend themselves. …

Experts: Concealed Carry Laws Don’t Reduce Crime Rates. Sixty-two percent of experts disagreed with claims that concealed carry laws reduce crime rates:

Well, those are their opinions, here is a hard fact from Dr. Lott:

Overwhelmingly, academic research supports the benefits from these laws. Among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly (an older date list of research is available here).

So it would seem that 18 out of 29 (or 62%) of criminologists and economists present evidence that concealed carry laws do reduce crime rates. Facts vs. Opinions . . . I’m going with facts.

Next is opinion number 3:

1. Does Access To A Firearm Affect Suicide Rates?

Conservative Media: Link Between Firearm Access And Suicide Is Bogus. Conservative media figures have consistently downplayed the role of guns in suicide deaths, despite extensive evidence linking firearm availability to suicide in the United States. …

Experts: Having Guns In The Home Increases Risk Of Suicide. According to the survey, 84 percent of experts agreed that “having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide”:

Well if that were the case, how can you explain this table (sources available here)?



But if you want to argue that cultural and economic factors play a role (which, oddly enough, the antis rarely want to do when arguing crime rates across different countries) and that we should just be looking at the US of A, I can certainly oblige you. From Gun Facts ver. 6.2 we get the following table (which I mainly picked for the handgun supply part):

Hmm, “right-wing media” is it? I guess the good professor is throwing Drs. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (who both have long records as strong proponents of very strict gun control) under the bus. They, after all, are the authors of a study published in May 1997, under the auspices of the Clinton DoJ, which claimed that there were in excess of 1.4 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) annually. As I point out in an earlier TTAG piece, using extremely conservative numbers, 1.4 million DGUs a year probably equate to a minimum of 25,000 lives saved annually, vs. an annual average (from 2004 – 2013) of 11,805 firearm related homicides.

So he gives 2 peers. That hardly matters given hemenway polled many more than that. Also he says 1.4 million for DOJ...

Yes....he gave 2 researchers who did only one of the 19 studies that support the numbers....I also posted Lott's piece on Mauser who did the same thing as hemenway....and came out with the exact opposite result using people who actually do gun research....

Hemenway asks people who do not do gun research....that is how he gets his numbers....he quotes a study that doesn't study guns and he cites researchers who don't study guns........and then says "Viola" see...gun use is low......

He is a hack and a liar....

 

[2aguy]

Again...


Correcting the record on David Hemenway s claim that academics support gun control - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org


Hemenway fails to note that the people he surveyed only had to mention “firearms” in their research. They didn’t have to actually conduct empirical work on guns. There were also problems in the recording of his responses. For instance, I was supposedly one of the researchers surveyed. Yet, my responses weren’t recorded. When I emailed Hemenway about this technical problem, my emails were ignored.

-- John R. Lott, Jr., president, Crime Prevention Research Center, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania



Read more: Survey in gun column was incomplete -- John R. Lott Jr. Wsj

 

[Brain357]

1.5 is less than your 2mil claim....

What are you hiding?

1.5 million DGUs falls within a 95% confidence limit for the 2 million DGU estimate made by the K&G survey.

The vast majority of gun studies say it is lower. And millions isn't even mathematically possible.

The vast majority of DGU studies agree with K&G. Fact. Get over it, Cupcake.

Here are some gun polls.
Field, California, 1976, just handguns, 3.1M
Bordua, Illinois, 1977, all guns, 1.4M
DMIa, U.S., 1978, all guns, 2.1M
DMIb, U.S., 1978, all guns, 1.1M
Hart, U.S., 1981, just handguns, 1.8M
Ohio, Ohio, 1982, just handguns, 0.8M
Mauser, U.S., 1990, all guns, 1.5M
Gallup, U.S., 1991, all guns, 0.8M
Gallup, U.S., 1993, all guns, 1.6M
L.A.Times, U.S., 1994, all guns, 3.6M
Tarrance, U.S., 1994, all guns, 0.8M

With a total of 11, 8 say it is less than 2 million. So 72% say it is less. The vast majority say it is less than 2million. And there are more surveys that all say it is less so really it's more than 72%.

And all 16 studies...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And of course the fact that not one study is lower than 764,000 makes no difference to brain, nor does the fact that 10 studies put the number at over a million.......so averaging the studies gives us about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.....that is just civilian use.....

I count 15, the CDC did not do a DGU study.

Of those 15, 11 say it is less than 2 million. 73%

And you conveniently leave out the realistic studies like the NCVS.

The 2 highest studies should obviously be thrown out. The LA Times study doesn’t even seem to exist and the Field study wasn’t even a national study.

Most of your studies are ancient and crime has come down dramatically since they were done. Claiming 2 million is silly and mathematically impossible based on crime rates and gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

Why hemenway is a hack......he lies...and he uses research to push an agenda, not to find the truth.....

Everyone Is Entitled To His Own Opinion But Not His Own Facts - The Truth About Guns


Hemenway’s team at Harvard went through about 1,200 articles on firearms published since 2011 in peer-reviewed journals focused on public health, public policy, sociology, and criminology. In May 2014, Hemenway began sending monthly surveys to the authors of these articles—upwards of 300 people—with questions concerning firearm use, background checks, and other gun policies.

First and foremost we need to remember that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

Second of all, this “study” doesn’t provide any real facts, just a statistical breakdown of opinions, answers to the questionnaires the Prof.’s crack research team had sent out. So I guess it is up to me to provide some facts.

The Prof.’s first question and Alexandrea’s pontification:

1. Do Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings?

Conservative Media: Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings. In January, right-wing media figures rushed to blame France’s strict gun policies after three gunmen killed 12 people at the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo during a terrorist attack. …

Experts: Strong Gun Laws Help Reduce Homicide. The Harvard survey found that 71 percent of experts agreed that strong gun laws help reduce homicide rates:

Okay, first of all, nice bait-and-switch; you start out talking about mass shootings then switch to all homicides.

Second, having listened to the statements of those media figures I can tell you that no one said that strict gun laws encourage mass shootings, they were saying that France’s firearm prohibitions enabledthe mass shooting. This is the fact that the antis try to dance around and ignore, or failing that to ridicule; the vast majority of mass shootings take place in putatively gun-free zones. And if you want to take someone’s opinion for it, how about this one:

The new PoliceOne.com survey of police and their views on gun control is available here (article is here). PoliceOne has about 450,000 members when the survey was done. …

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 6.2 percent). . . .[Edited to correct typo]

Next up on the chopping block:

1. Do Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime Rates?

Conservative Media: Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime. Conservative media and the NRA have repeatedly pushed the myth that concealed carry laws help reduce crime rates by allowing people to defend themselves. …

Experts: Concealed Carry Laws Don’t Reduce Crime Rates. Sixty-two percent of experts disagreed with claims that concealed carry laws reduce crime rates:

Well, those are their opinions, here is a hard fact from Dr. Lott:

Overwhelmingly, academic research supports the benefits from these laws. Among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly (an older date list of research is available here).

So it would seem that 18 out of 29 (or 62%) of criminologists and economists present evidence that concealed carry laws do reduce crime rates. Facts vs. Opinions . . . I’m going with facts.

Next is opinion number 3:

1. Does Access To A Firearm Affect Suicide Rates?

Conservative Media: Link Between Firearm Access And Suicide Is Bogus. Conservative media figures have consistently downplayed the role of guns in suicide deaths, despite extensive evidence linking firearm availability to suicide in the United States. …

Experts: Having Guns In The Home Increases Risk Of Suicide. According to the survey, 84 percent of experts agreed that “having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide”:

Well if that were the case, how can you explain this table (sources available here)?



But if you want to argue that cultural and economic factors play a role (which, oddly enough, the antis rarely want to do when arguing crime rates across different countries) and that we should just be looking at the US of A, I can certainly oblige you. From Gun Facts ver. 6.2 we get the following table (which I mainly picked for the handgun supply part):

Hmm, “right-wing media” is it? I guess the good professor is throwing Drs. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (who both have long records as strong proponents of very strict gun control) under the bus. They, after all, are the authors of a study published in May 1997, under the auspices of the Clinton DoJ, which claimed that there were in excess of 1.4 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) annually. As I point out in an earlier TTAG piece, using extremely conservative numbers, 1.4 million DGUs a year probably equate to a minimum of 25,000 lives saved annually, vs. an annual average (from 2004 – 2013) of 11,805 firearm related homicides.

So he gives 2 peers. That hardly matters given hemenway polled many more than that. Also he says 1.4 million for DOJ...

Dipshit...you are quoting the magazine article.....you failed to address Lott's piece on the Mauser research as well.......you really need help.....

 

[Brain357]

Why hemenway is a hack......he lies...and he uses research to push an agenda, not to find the truth.....

Everyone Is Entitled To His Own Opinion But Not His Own Facts - The Truth About Guns


Hemenway’s team at Harvard went through about 1,200 articles on firearms published since 2011 in peer-reviewed journals focused on public health, public policy, sociology, and criminology. In May 2014, Hemenway began sending monthly surveys to the authors of these articles—upwards of 300 people—with questions concerning firearm use, background checks, and other gun policies.

First and foremost we need to remember that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

Second of all, this “study” doesn’t provide any real facts, just a statistical breakdown of opinions, answers to the questionnaires the Prof.’s crack research team had sent out. So I guess it is up to me to provide some facts.

The Prof.’s first question and Alexandrea’s pontification:

1. Do Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings?

Conservative Media: Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings. In January, right-wing media figures rushed to blame France’s strict gun policies after three gunmen killed 12 people at the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo during a terrorist attack. …

Experts: Strong Gun Laws Help Reduce Homicide. The Harvard survey found that 71 percent of experts agreed that strong gun laws help reduce homicide rates:

Okay, first of all, nice bait-and-switch; you start out talking about mass shootings then switch to all homicides.

Second, having listened to the statements of those media figures I can tell you that no one said that strict gun laws encourage mass shootings, they were saying that France’s firearm prohibitions enabledthe mass shooting. This is the fact that the antis try to dance around and ignore, or failing that to ridicule; the vast majority of mass shootings take place in putatively gun-free zones. And if you want to take someone’s opinion for it, how about this one:

The new PoliceOne.com survey of police and their views on gun control is available here (article is here). PoliceOne has about 450,000 members when the survey was done. …

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 6.2 percent). . . .[Edited to correct typo]

Next up on the chopping block:

1. Do Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime Rates?

Conservative Media: Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime. Conservative media and the NRA have repeatedly pushed the myth that concealed carry laws help reduce crime rates by allowing people to defend themselves. …

Experts: Concealed Carry Laws Don’t Reduce Crime Rates. Sixty-two percent of experts disagreed with claims that concealed carry laws reduce crime rates:

Well, those are their opinions, here is a hard fact from Dr. Lott:

Overwhelmingly, academic research supports the benefits from these laws. Among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly (an older date list of research is available here).

So it would seem that 18 out of 29 (or 62%) of criminologists and economists present evidence that concealed carry laws do reduce crime rates. Facts vs. Opinions . . . I’m going with facts.

Next is opinion number 3:

1. Does Access To A Firearm Affect Suicide Rates?

Conservative Media: Link Between Firearm Access And Suicide Is Bogus. Conservative media figures have consistently downplayed the role of guns in suicide deaths, despite extensive evidence linking firearm availability to suicide in the United States. …

Experts: Having Guns In The Home Increases Risk Of Suicide. According to the survey, 84 percent of experts agreed that “having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide”:

Well if that were the case, how can you explain this table (sources available here)?



But if you want to argue that cultural and economic factors play a role (which, oddly enough, the antis rarely want to do when arguing crime rates across different countries) and that we should just be looking at the US of A, I can certainly oblige you. From Gun Facts ver. 6.2 we get the following table (which I mainly picked for the handgun supply part):

Hmm, “right-wing media” is it? I guess the good professor is throwing Drs. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (who both have long records as strong proponents of very strict gun control) under the bus. They, after all, are the authors of a study published in May 1997, under the auspices of the Clinton DoJ, which claimed that there were in excess of 1.4 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) annually. As I point out in an earlier TTAG piece, using extremely conservative numbers, 1.4 million DGUs a year probably equate to a minimum of 25,000 lives saved annually, vs. an annual average (from 2004 – 2013) of 11,805 firearm related homicides.

So he gives 2 peers. That hardly matters given hemenway polled many more than that. Also he says 1.4 million for DOJ...

Yes....he gave 2 researchers who did only one of the 19 studies that support the numbers....I also posted Lott's piece on Mauser who did the same thing as hemenway....and came out with the exact opposite result using people who actually do gun research....

Hemenway asks people who do not do gun research....that is how he gets his numbers....he quotes a study that doesn't study guns and he cites researchers who don't study guns........and then says "Viola" see...gun use is low......

He is a hack and a liar....

No Hemenway used only people who had written on the subject.

 

[2aguy]

1.5 million DGUs falls within a 95% confidence limit for the 2 million DGU estimate made by the K&G survey.

The vast majority of gun studies say it is lower. And millions isn't even mathematically possible.

The vast majority of DGU studies agree with K&G. Fact. Get over it, Cupcake.

Here are some gun polls.
Field, California, 1976, just handguns, 3.1M
Bordua, Illinois, 1977, all guns, 1.4M
DMIa, U.S., 1978, all guns, 2.1M
DMIb, U.S., 1978, all guns, 1.1M
Hart, U.S., 1981, just handguns, 1.8M
Ohio, Ohio, 1982, just handguns, 0.8M
Mauser, U.S., 1990, all guns, 1.5M
Gallup, U.S., 1991, all guns, 0.8M
Gallup, U.S., 1993, all guns, 1.6M
L.A.Times, U.S., 1994, all guns, 3.6M
Tarrance, U.S., 1994, all guns, 0.8M

With a total of 11, 8 say it is less than 2 million. So 72% say it is less. The vast majority say it is less than 2million. And there are more surveys that all say it is less so really it's more than 72%.

And all 16 studies...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And of course the fact that not one study is lower than 764,000 makes no difference to brain, nor does the fact that 10 studies put the number at over a million.......so averaging the studies gives us about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.....that is just civilian use.....

I count 15, the CDC did not do a DGU study.

Of those 15, 11 say it is less than 2 million. 73%

And you conveniently leave out the realistic studies like the NCVS.

The 2 highest studies should obviously be thrown out. The LA Times study doesn’t even seem to exist and the Field study wasn’t even a national study.

Most of your studies are ancient and crime has come down dramatically since they were done. Claiming 2 million is silly and mathematically impossible based on crime rates and gun ownership.

Yes...throw out the studies you don't like to get the number you want...nice.....that is why we don't trust your side brain, the anti gun extremists don't care about the truth, reality or actually stopping criminals from getting guns.....they hate guns and know they can stop normal people from owning guns by passing laws...and that is just what they plan on doing.....

 

[2aguy]

This is what hemenway did to get his numbers...he lied....

CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

The full piece.....

The truth about gun free zones Fox News


However, instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature on the subject, Professor David Hemenway at Harvard made a survey of cherry-picked authors. Surprisingly, he found the vast majority agreed that we need more gun control.

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”

It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Centerconducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.

Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and theBoston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”

In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.

Sixty percent of respondents in Hemenway’s survey agreed that "evidence indicates that background checks can help keep guns out of the hands of a significant number of violent people.” But only 31% of all those surveyed thought that the evidence was either strong (24%) or very strong (7%). And even these numbers seem unrealistically high. Study after study by criminologists and economists find that background checks have no effect on crime rates.

Economists have done a lot of work on crime. Unlike the vast majority of work in public health, it is usually much more rigorous with more detailed statistical evidence dealing with issues of causality.

Economists are also much more open to the notion of deterrence than the vast majority of authors surveyed by Hemenway.

I myself was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission.

But Hemenway steers away from economics journals. In addition, looking at publications from only 2011 through 2013 also picks up a recent surge in public health studies and skews the sample towards those types of authors.

**********************

So again....how does hemenway lie and get the numbers he wants.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists.

It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Wow...not a surprise....citing work and researchers who don't actually study gun self defense.....that is how you get low numbers for gun self defense.....

 

[Brain357]

Why hemenway is a hack......he lies...and he uses research to push an agenda, not to find the truth.....

Everyone Is Entitled To His Own Opinion But Not His Own Facts - The Truth About Guns


Hemenway’s team at Harvard went through about 1,200 articles on firearms published since 2011 in peer-reviewed journals focused on public health, public policy, sociology, and criminology. In May 2014, Hemenway began sending monthly surveys to the authors of these articles—upwards of 300 people—with questions concerning firearm use, background checks, and other gun policies.

First and foremost we need to remember that the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.

Second of all, this “study” doesn’t provide any real facts, just a statistical breakdown of opinions, answers to the questionnaires the Prof.’s crack research team had sent out. So I guess it is up to me to provide some facts.

The Prof.’s first question and Alexandrea’s pontification:

1. Do Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings?

Conservative Media: Strict Gun Laws Encourage Mass Shootings. In January, right-wing media figures rushed to blame France’s strict gun policies after three gunmen killed 12 people at the offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo during a terrorist attack. …

Experts: Strong Gun Laws Help Reduce Homicide. The Harvard survey found that 71 percent of experts agreed that strong gun laws help reduce homicide rates:

Okay, first of all, nice bait-and-switch; you start out talking about mass shootings then switch to all homicides.

Second, having listened to the statements of those media figures I can tell you that no one said that strict gun laws encourage mass shootings, they were saying that France’s firearm prohibitions enabledthe mass shooting. This is the fact that the antis try to dance around and ignore, or failing that to ridicule; the vast majority of mass shootings take place in putatively gun-free zones. And if you want to take someone’s opinion for it, how about this one:

The new PoliceOne.com survey of police and their views on gun control is available here (article is here). PoliceOne has about 450,000 members when the survey was done. …

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 6.2 percent). . . .[Edited to correct typo]

Next up on the chopping block:

1. Do Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime Rates?

Conservative Media: Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime. Conservative media and the NRA have repeatedly pushed the myth that concealed carry laws help reduce crime rates by allowing people to defend themselves. …

Experts: Concealed Carry Laws Don’t Reduce Crime Rates. Sixty-two percent of experts disagreed with claims that concealed carry laws reduce crime rates:

Well, those are their opinions, here is a hard fact from Dr. Lott:

Overwhelmingly, academic research supports the benefits from these laws. Among peer-reviewed academic studies by criminologists and economists, 18 find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, 10 claim no effect, and just one claims one type of crime increases slightly (an older date list of research is available here).

So it would seem that 18 out of 29 (or 62%) of criminologists and economists present evidence that concealed carry laws do reduce crime rates. Facts vs. Opinions . . . I’m going with facts.

Next is opinion number 3:

1. Does Access To A Firearm Affect Suicide Rates?

Conservative Media: Link Between Firearm Access And Suicide Is Bogus. Conservative media figures have consistently downplayed the role of guns in suicide deaths, despite extensive evidence linking firearm availability to suicide in the United States. …

Experts: Having Guns In The Home Increases Risk Of Suicide. According to the survey, 84 percent of experts agreed that “having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide”:

Well if that were the case, how can you explain this table (sources available here)?



But if you want to argue that cultural and economic factors play a role (which, oddly enough, the antis rarely want to do when arguing crime rates across different countries) and that we should just be looking at the US of A, I can certainly oblige you. From Gun Facts ver. 6.2 we get the following table (which I mainly picked for the handgun supply part):

Hmm, “right-wing media” is it? I guess the good professor is throwing Drs. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig (who both have long records as strong proponents of very strict gun control) under the bus. They, after all, are the authors of a study published in May 1997, under the auspices of the Clinton DoJ, which claimed that there were in excess of 1.4 million Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) annually. As I point out in an earlier TTAG piece, using extremely conservative numbers, 1.4 million DGUs a year probably equate to a minimum of 25,000 lives saved annually, vs. an annual average (from 2004 – 2013) of 11,805 firearm related homicides.

So he gives 2 peers. That hardly matters given hemenway polled many more than that. Also he says 1.4 million for DOJ...

Dipshit...you are quoting the magazine article.....you failed to address Lott's piece on the Mauser research as well.......you really need help.....

You DOJ number seem to be wrong.

Mauser hand picked 35 economists. Economists don't study crime...
Guns seen as force for self-defense not a danger poll shows - Washington Times
Of the 35 economics researchers that responded, 29 of them said guns are more likely to be used for self-defense than to commit a crime.

Hemenway polled a whole lot more than that.

 

[Brain357]

The vast majority of gun studies say it is lower. And millions isn't even mathematically possible.

The vast majority of DGU studies agree with K&G. Fact. Get over it, Cupcake.

Here are some gun polls.
Field, California, 1976, just handguns, 3.1M
Bordua, Illinois, 1977, all guns, 1.4M
DMIa, U.S., 1978, all guns, 2.1M
DMIb, U.S., 1978, all guns, 1.1M
Hart, U.S., 1981, just handguns, 1.8M
Ohio, Ohio, 1982, just handguns, 0.8M
Mauser, U.S., 1990, all guns, 1.5M
Gallup, U.S., 1991, all guns, 0.8M
Gallup, U.S., 1993, all guns, 1.6M
L.A.Times, U.S., 1994, all guns, 3.6M
Tarrance, U.S., 1994, all guns, 0.8M

With a total of 11, 8 say it is less than 2 million. So 72% say it is less. The vast majority say it is less than 2million. And there are more surveys that all say it is less so really it's more than 72%.

And all 16 studies...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And of course the fact that not one study is lower than 764,000 makes no difference to brain, nor does the fact that 10 studies put the number at over a million.......so averaging the studies gives us about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.....that is just civilian use.....

I count 15, the CDC did not do a DGU study.

Of those 15, 11 say it is less than 2 million. 73%

And you conveniently leave out the realistic studies like the NCVS.

The 2 highest studies should obviously be thrown out. The LA Times study doesn’t even seem to exist and the Field study wasn’t even a national study.

Most of your studies are ancient and crime has come down dramatically since they were done. Claiming 2 million is silly and mathematically impossible based on crime rates and gun ownership.

Yes...throw out the studies you don't like to get the number you want...nice.....that is why we don't trust your side brain, the anti gun extremists don't care about the truth, reality or actually stopping criminals from getting guns.....they hate guns and know they can stop normal people from owning guns by passing laws...and that is just what they plan on doing.....

You throw out the studies you don't like. And you keep studies that make no sense. One you can't even prove exists and the other wasn't a national study. You need help...

 

[2aguy]

The vast majority of DGU studies agree with K&G. Fact. Get over it, Cupcake.

Here are some gun polls.
Field, California, 1976, just handguns, 3.1M
Bordua, Illinois, 1977, all guns, 1.4M
DMIa, U.S., 1978, all guns, 2.1M
DMIb, U.S., 1978, all guns, 1.1M
Hart, U.S., 1981, just handguns, 1.8M
Ohio, Ohio, 1982, just handguns, 0.8M
Mauser, U.S., 1990, all guns, 1.5M
Gallup, U.S., 1991, all guns, 0.8M
Gallup, U.S., 1993, all guns, 1.6M
L.A.Times, U.S., 1994, all guns, 3.6M
Tarrance, U.S., 1994, all guns, 0.8M

With a total of 11, 8 say it is less than 2 million. So 72% say it is less. The vast majority say it is less than 2million. And there are more surveys that all say it is less so really it's more than 72%.

And all 16 studies...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And of course the fact that not one study is lower than 764,000 makes no difference to brain, nor does the fact that 10 studies put the number at over a million.......so averaging the studies gives us about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.....that is just civilian use.....

I count 15, the CDC did not do a DGU study.

Of those 15, 11 say it is less than 2 million. 73%

And you conveniently leave out the realistic studies like the NCVS.

The 2 highest studies should obviously be thrown out. The LA Times study doesn’t even seem to exist and the Field study wasn’t even a national study.

Most of your studies are ancient and crime has come down dramatically since they were done. Claiming 2 million is silly and mathematically impossible based on crime rates and gun ownership.

Yes...throw out the studies you don't like to get the number you want...nice.....that is why we don't trust your side brain, the anti gun extremists don't care about the truth, reality or actually stopping criminals from getting guns.....they hate guns and know they can stop normal people from owning guns by passing laws...and that is just what they plan on doing.....

You throw out the studies you don't like. And you keep studies that make no sense. One you can't even prove exists and the other wasn't a national study. You need help...

Moron....I list the studies over and over...you keep throwing out all of them in favor of the one study that doesn't study gun self defense.......wow....no wonder your number is so low.....

Never, ever trust anti gun extremists or their fake research....

And the one fact you can't ignore.........hemenway is "debunked" by the fact that More Americans own and carry guns today.....and the gun murder rate is going down, not up........

Truth, reality and facts show hemenway is not only wrong, but that he fakes results to get anti gun numbers.......

 

[2aguy]

So there is no doubt.....Mausers actual study and the methodology is on page 4...

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-of-Economists_Final.pdf

The study material is posting only along one side.....anyone actually interested in research will have to read it themselves...

Since Gary Becker’s seminal contribution on the economics of crime in the the Journal of Political Economy1, economists have been deeply involved in research to determine what
causes crime and what deters crime. Therefore, this study was created as the first of its kind, specifically targeting economists who have published peer-‐reviewed research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The survey showed a great deal of uniformity in researchers’ views on issues such as gun use in crime and self-‐defense, the risk of gun-‐free zones, firearms and suicide, and concealed
handgun laws. Yet, while researchers from both the United States and Canada haveextremely
similar views that private gun ownership makes people safer, the few researchers from Australia and Sweden are much more supportive of gun control.

So hemenway used healthcare professionals who didn't study crime or guns.........

 

[Brain357]

Here are some gun polls.
Field, California, 1976, just handguns, 3.1M
Bordua, Illinois, 1977, all guns, 1.4M
DMIa, U.S., 1978, all guns, 2.1M
DMIb, U.S., 1978, all guns, 1.1M
Hart, U.S., 1981, just handguns, 1.8M
Ohio, Ohio, 1982, just handguns, 0.8M
Mauser, U.S., 1990, all guns, 1.5M
Gallup, U.S., 1991, all guns, 0.8M
Gallup, U.S., 1993, all guns, 1.6M
L.A.Times, U.S., 1994, all guns, 3.6M
Tarrance, U.S., 1994, all guns, 0.8M

With a total of 11, 8 say it is less than 2 million. So 72% say it is less. The vast majority say it is less than 2million. And there are more surveys that all say it is less so really it's more than 72%.

And all 16 studies...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And of course the fact that not one study is lower than 764,000 makes no difference to brain, nor does the fact that 10 studies put the number at over a million.......so averaging the studies gives us about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.....that is just civilian use.....

I count 15, the CDC did not do a DGU study.

Of those 15, 11 say it is less than 2 million. 73%

And you conveniently leave out the realistic studies like the NCVS.

The 2 highest studies should obviously be thrown out. The LA Times study doesn’t even seem to exist and the Field study wasn’t even a national study.

Most of your studies are ancient and crime has come down dramatically since they were done. Claiming 2 million is silly and mathematically impossible based on crime rates and gun ownership.

Yes...throw out the studies you don't like to get the number you want...nice.....that is why we don't trust your side brain, the anti gun extremists don't care about the truth, reality or actually stopping criminals from getting guns.....they hate guns and know they can stop normal people from owning guns by passing laws...and that is just what they plan on doing.....

You throw out the studies you don't like. And you keep studies that make no sense. One you can't even prove exists and the other wasn't a national study. You need help...

Moron....I list the studies over and over...you keep throwing out all of them in favor of the one study that doesn't study gun self defense.......wow....no wonder your number is so low.....

Never, ever trust anti gun extremists or their fake research....

And the one fact you can't ignore.........hemenway is "debunked" by the fact that More Americans own and carry guns today.....and the gun murder rate is going down, not up........

Truth, reality and facts show hemenway is not only wrong, but that he fakes results to get anti gun numbers.......

Prove to me mathematically your 2 million claim is even possible based on actual crime rates. Keep in mind only about 24% of the population owns guns. Less than 4% carry. Only violent crimes are defendable because the victim isn't present for property crimes. Only 1/3 of violent crimes are at home...

 

[Brain357]

This is what hemenway did to get his numbers...he lied....

CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

The full piece.....

The truth about gun free zones Fox News


However, instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature on the subject, Professor David Hemenway at Harvard made a survey of cherry-picked authors. Surprisingly, he found the vast majority agreed that we need more gun control.

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”

It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Centerconducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.

Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and theBoston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”

In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.

Sixty percent of respondents in Hemenway’s survey agreed that "evidence indicates that background checks can help keep guns out of the hands of a significant number of violent people.” But only 31% of all those surveyed thought that the evidence was either strong (24%) or very strong (7%). And even these numbers seem unrealistically high. Study after study by criminologists and economists find that background checks have no effect on crime rates.

Economists have done a lot of work on crime. Unlike the vast majority of work in public health, it is usually much more rigorous with more detailed statistical evidence dealing with issues of causality.

Economists are also much more open to the notion of deterrence than the vast majority of authors surveyed by Hemenway.

I myself was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission.

But Hemenway steers away from economics journals. In addition, looking at publications from only 2011 through 2013 also picks up a recent surge in public health studies and skews the sample towards those types of authors.

**********************

So again....how does hemenway lie and get the numbers he wants.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists.

It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Wow...not a surprise....citing work and researchers who don't actually study gun self defense.....that is how you get low numbers for gun self defense.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

So lott is saying it is bad because Hemenway actually used people who study the subject. Economists do not study crime. Trust me, I know.

 

[Brain357]

This is what hemenway did to get his numbers...he lied....

CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

The full piece.....

The truth about gun free zones Fox News


However, instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature on the subject, Professor David Hemenway at Harvard made a survey of cherry-picked authors. Surprisingly, he found the vast majority agreed that we need more gun control.

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”

It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Centerconducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.

Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and theBoston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”

In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.

Sixty percent of respondents in Hemenway’s survey agreed that "evidence indicates that background checks can help keep guns out of the hands of a significant number of violent people.” But only 31% of all those surveyed thought that the evidence was either strong (24%) or very strong (7%). And even these numbers seem unrealistically high. Study after study by criminologists and economists find that background checks have no effect on crime rates.

Economists have done a lot of work on crime. Unlike the vast majority of work in public health, it is usually much more rigorous with more detailed statistical evidence dealing with issues of causality.

Economists are also much more open to the notion of deterrence than the vast majority of authors surveyed by Hemenway.

I myself was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission.

But Hemenway steers away from economics journals. In addition, looking at publications from only 2011 through 2013 also picks up a recent surge in public health studies and skews the sample towards those types of authors.

**********************

So again....how does hemenway lie and get the numbers he wants.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists.

It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Wow...not a surprise....citing work and researchers who don't actually study gun self defense.....that is how you get low numbers for gun self defense.....

Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.

 

[2aguy]

And all 16 studies...

I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)
Kleck...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

And of course the fact that not one study is lower than 764,000 makes no difference to brain, nor does the fact that 10 studies put the number at over a million.......so averaging the studies gives us about 2 million defensive gun uses a year.....that is just civilian use.....

I count 15, the CDC did not do a DGU study.

Of those 15, 11 say it is less than 2 million. 73%

And you conveniently leave out the realistic studies like the NCVS.

The 2 highest studies should obviously be thrown out. The LA Times study doesn’t even seem to exist and the Field study wasn’t even a national study.

Most of your studies are ancient and crime has come down dramatically since they were done. Claiming 2 million is silly and mathematically impossible based on crime rates and gun ownership.

Yes...throw out the studies you don't like to get the number you want...nice.....that is why we don't trust your side brain, the anti gun extremists don't care about the truth, reality or actually stopping criminals from getting guns.....they hate guns and know they can stop normal people from owning guns by passing laws...and that is just what they plan on doing.....

You throw out the studies you don't like. And you keep studies that make no sense. One you can't even prove exists and the other wasn't a national study. You need help...

Moron....I list the studies over and over...you keep throwing out all of them in favor of the one study that doesn't study gun self defense.......wow....no wonder your number is so low.....

Never, ever trust anti gun extremists or their fake research....

And the one fact you can't ignore.........hemenway is "debunked" by the fact that More Americans own and carry guns today.....and the gun murder rate is going down, not up........

Truth, reality and facts show hemenway is not only wrong, but that he fakes results to get anti gun numbers.......

Prove to me mathematically your 2 million claim is even possible based on actual crime rates. Keep in mind only about 24% of the population owns guns. Less than 4% carry. Only violent crimes are defendable because the victim isn't present for property crimes. Only 1/3 of violent crimes are at home...

Brain...I gave you actual research...you don't want to believe it....so you lie....and make up numbers out of your ass....You have the studies...I have also given you the names of the studies on concealed carry...29 of them.....you don't want them to be true so you pretend they lie......you have the problem not me.......

If you average the studies that do not include military and police shootings you get an average of 2 million defensive uses each year, most of which do not involve firing a shot, injuring the criminal or killing them..... showing that Americans are responsible and law abiding even under the stress of violent criminal attack....

 

[2aguy]

This is what hemenway did to get his numbers...he lied....

CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

The full piece.....

The truth about gun free zones Fox News


However, instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature on the subject, Professor David Hemenway at Harvard made a survey of cherry-picked authors. Surprisingly, he found the vast majority agreed that we need more gun control.

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”

It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Centerconducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.

Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and theBoston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”

In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.

Sixty percent of respondents in Hemenway’s survey agreed that "evidence indicates that background checks can help keep guns out of the hands of a significant number of violent people.” But only 31% of all those surveyed thought that the evidence was either strong (24%) or very strong (7%). And even these numbers seem unrealistically high. Study after study by criminologists and economists find that background checks have no effect on crime rates.

Economists have done a lot of work on crime. Unlike the vast majority of work in public health, it is usually much more rigorous with more detailed statistical evidence dealing with issues of causality.

Economists are also much more open to the notion of deterrence than the vast majority of authors surveyed by Hemenway.

I myself was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission.

But Hemenway steers away from economics journals. In addition, looking at publications from only 2011 through 2013 also picks up a recent surge in public health studies and skews the sample towards those types of authors.

**********************

So again....how does hemenway lie and get the numbers he wants.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists.

It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Wow...not a surprise....citing work and researchers who don't actually study gun self defense.....that is how you get low numbers for gun self defense.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

So lott is saying it is bad because Hemenway actually used people who study the subject. Economists do not study crime. Trust me, I know.

What part of the fact they didn't study crime or guns do you not comprehend.......just like his other study he surveyed Doctors.....whose only contact with this topic is patients in the E.R........

Mauser used Peer Reviewed economists who specifically study crime and gun issues......

yes...again.....you want to use people who do not actually study guns but are more than willing to answer biased survey questions....and then when you get low defensive use numbers you claim victory...

That is why you and your anti gun extremists friends can't be trusted, ever.....

 

[2aguy]

I'm done with you for today brain...

 

[Brain357]

So there is no doubt.....Mausers actual study and the methodology is on page 4...

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-of-Economists_Final.pdf

The study material is posting only along one side.....anyone actually interested in research will have to read it themselves...

Since Gary Becker’s seminal contribution on the economics of crime in the the Journal of Political Economy1, economists have been deeply involved in research to determine what
causes crime and what deters crime. Therefore, this study was created as the first of its kind, specifically targeting economists who have published peer-‐reviewed research on the relationship between gun ownership and crime.

The survey showed a great deal of uniformity in researchers’ views on issues such as gun use in crime and self-‐defense, the risk of gun-‐free zones, firearms and suicide, and concealed
handgun laws. Yet, while researchers from both the United States and Canada haveextremely
similar views that private gun ownership makes people safer, the few researchers from Australia and Sweden are much more supportive of gun control.

So hemenway used healthcare professionals who didn't study crime or guns.........

It's a small survey of economists...

 

[Brain357]

This is what hemenway did to get his numbers...he lied....

CPRC at Fox News Gun control advocates taking a page out of global warming advocates handbook - Crime Prevention Research Center crimeresearch.org

The full piece.....

The truth about gun free zones Fox News


However, instead of actually reviewing the scientific literature on the subject, Professor David Hemenway at Harvard made a survey of cherry-picked authors. Surprisingly, he found the vast majority agreed that we need more gun control.

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Authors were asked if they agreed with the statement: "In the United States, guns are used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime.” Hemenway reports that 73 percent disagreed. However, many respondents may have believed that there still exists a net benefit from gun ownership — just not enough to say that guns are used defensively “far more often.”

It is abundantly clear that it matters who you ask and how the questions are asked. A survey released in February by the Crime Prevention Research Centerconducted by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University in Canada found that 88 percent of North American economics researchers agreed with the statement that, in the US, guns were more frequently used for self-defense than for crime.

Other questions were posed by Hemenway in ways to hide information. For instance, respondents were asked to evaluate: "The change in state-level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.” 62% of respondents claimed that there wasn’t a benefit from concealed handgun laws and theBoston Globe ran this headline: “Most gun experts believe guns do more harm than good.”

In contrast, Professor Mauser asked researchers whether they thought permitted concealed handgun laws either reduced murders, had no effect, or increased murders. Among North American economists, 81 percent stated the laws reduced murders, 19 percent that they had no effect. Absolutely no one said that the laws increased crime. If economists outside of North America were included, the results changed slightly, with 74 percent stating the laws reduced murders, 20 percent that they had no effect, and 6 percent that they caused an increase.

Sixty percent of respondents in Hemenway’s survey agreed that "evidence indicates that background checks can help keep guns out of the hands of a significant number of violent people.” But only 31% of all those surveyed thought that the evidence was either strong (24%) or very strong (7%). And even these numbers seem unrealistically high. Study after study by criminologists and economists find that background checks have no effect on crime rates.

Economists have done a lot of work on crime. Unlike the vast majority of work in public health, it is usually much more rigorous with more detailed statistical evidence dealing with issues of causality.

Economists are also much more open to the notion of deterrence than the vast majority of authors surveyed by Hemenway.

I myself was chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission.

But Hemenway steers away from economics journals. In addition, looking at publications from only 2011 through 2013 also picks up a recent surge in public health studies and skews the sample towards those types of authors.

**********************

So again....how does hemenway lie and get the numbers he wants.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists.

It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

Wow...not a surprise....citing work and researchers who don't actually study gun self defense.....that is how you get low numbers for gun self defense.....

So let’s look at the details. He polled authors who had published in the fields of “public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology.” Most notably, half of the authors picked were within Hemenway’s own field of public health and another third were sociologists/criminologists, followed by public policy and a few economists. It dramatically over weighted those in public health. It didn’t matter whether the publications even contained any empirical work or were related to the survey questions.

So lott is saying it is bad because Hemenway actually used people who study the subject. Economists do not study crime. Trust me, I know.

What part of the fact they didn't study crime or guns do you not comprehend.......just like his other study he surveyed Doctors.....whose only contact with this topic is patients in the E.R........

Mauser used Peer Reviewed economists who specifically study crime and gun issues......

yes...again.....you want to use people who do not actually study guns but are more than willing to answer biased survey questions....and then when you get low defensive use numbers you claim victory...

That is why you and your anti gun extremists friends can't be trusted, ever.....

Hemenway picked only people who had written on the subject.

 

[Brain357]

I'm done with you for today brain...

Think I'm done too. Have a nice weekend.