Numerous studies have found...
Our scientists say...
Harvard researchers now know...
Blah....Blah....Blah.....
"We found no support for the hypothesis that owning more guns leads to a drop or a reduction in violent crime," said study researcher Michael Monuteaux, an epidemiologist and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "Instead, we found the opposite."
Yes, well you and your fellow Marxists live in an Opposite World rather than in reality.
Whole thing is a bunch of lib buzz words and phrases strung together. This so reeks of desperate BS.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the study. It’s the conclusions they draw from the results that are wrong. And that of course is because they have a political agenda.
Tell that to Lynne Russell (formerly CNN). She says she’s alive today because she was armed. Her husband killed their attacker.
That’s the real problem.
They see armed citizens as an occupational hazard for the criminals.
I don’t know who said it first but the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
All the liberal b.s. studies in the world cannot refute that simple truth.
I call bs on this study, and the article that promotes it. It has been proven time and time again that gun ownership, concealed and open carry deter crime. An armed society is a more polite society.
Sure worked for that former CNN anchor.
Yes, and the police are going to be there whenever I need them.
Oh well, anybody want to buy my worthless guns?
Do you actually understand how these studies are made? Almost always one sided to get the result that the PhD is looking for - I know, my son is a PhD and does these studies.
Really, do not take these studies as anything except politically correct for their time...
If guns don’t deter crime, then why do the police carry them?
Neither does resistance. I say lets all just give in and let things happen as they may. The good thing is then the Crime statistics will show NO CRIME, only submission.
I just love these liberal academic and their studies. Guns deterred crime for my family in St. Louis some years ago before carry permits were common. So, we carried an 870 in the trunk. We brought it into the Motel 6 hotel room and put it next to the nightstand. I pressed the slide release on the side bottom. The chamber was empty but could be loaded with with a quick slide motion.
3AM and the door gets unlocked and the ball and loop on the side of the door stops it. I rack the action as the door gets kicked open. I caj see them. They cant see me.
The woman in the lead hears the shotgun loading sound and yells, “Don’t shoot We be leavin. We be leavin. I approached the door and looked out, loaded with 00 as the woman and two male accomplices scurried like rats down the stairs.
Just the sound of that 870 loading diffused the situation.
Guess the Secret Service will soon be disarming.
We could always tell the Harvard grads from all the others because they could talk,non-stop,for six hours about the uvula but were clueless about how you work a pop-up umbrella.
As my father (who *managed* many Harvard grads) used to say..."You can always tell a Harvard man,but you can't tell him much."
Maine has a high rate of firearm ownership and the rate of robberies, firearm assaults and homicides are very low here.
Of course, the population is 96% white.....
These anti-gun studies are always corrupt.
I remember one guy from Georgia (Emory) who got all kinds of awards for an anti gun study. It was eventually discovered that he had simply lied and made things up.
They had to (I am sure reluctantly) rescind the awards. I think he even lost his job as a professor.
Must be the global warming science group.
Charleston church shooting: One bad guy with a gun in a “GUN FREE” zone equals nine innocent people murdered.
Colorado Springs church shooting: One bad guy with a gun in a church with at least one good person who also had a gun equals only two dead innocents before the gunman’s death. [Three cheers for Jeanne Assam!]
I doubt that anyone who attended a real school is confused by this completely logical outcome. As for Harvard, perhaps they should admit based on qualifications (for students and faculty!) instead of family connections.