This Harvard study further corroborates the study made sometime back by John Lott Jr..
Posted on 08/28/2013 12:59:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Maybe now that Harvard has confirmed it people will start believing it but you’re right that John Lott earlier has been making the case with compelling facts for years.
Here’s the original paper for those who want to read it:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Good catch!
Duh!
I’m sure someone is waiting in the wings to toss a “hockey stick” into the equation ala prof. mann.
More likely, the person at Harvard who did the study, will be sent to the reeducation camps for not being “progressive” enough or found to be no longer “useful”.
Can’t you hear all those libtards chanting “get with the program, man!”
Neah. It will disappear down the memory hole with the CDC study that found the same thing.
Doesn’t fit “The Narrative.”
Speed of light:
186,000 mi/sec
How fast this story will be buried by the MSM:
186,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mi/sec
The MSM will bury this study
BTW, I don't believe I have ever heard a politician promise that gun deaths will drop by x percentage if we pass this or that law. And if they do, no one immediately checks the cause and effect relationship and the statistics after the law is in place. And then holds the said politician accountable for their misrepresentation.
Irrelevant. Gun bans make liberals feel better about themselves. That’s all that matters (to the liberals)
Asymmetric gun bans don’t reduce crime. Disarming the law-abiding while leaving the criminals armed is going to increase crime.
A gun ban can reduce crime if it is done according to the “Singapore Solution” where any gun misuse (or sometimes possession) leads to brutal punishment, and crimes of force are treated severely. But if you go that route, you’d better hope that the government stays benevolent, because the populace is completely defenseless.
The 2A balances the two considerations of self-defense against criminals and self-defense against government.
Liberals are stupid on this.
Whenever the conversation turns to "gun violence" I mention "car violence". Some liberal will ask me what I'm talking about, and I tell them, if guns kill people, then so do cars, so it should be called "car violence", not "accidents".
The liberals all blink in their mis-comprehension.
You’re right. Anytime facts stand in the way of their agenda liberals just ignore them.
A well-armed society is a polite society. It’s the CODE OF THE WEST. And we knew that.
Yeah, but gun bans increase the injustice rate. So the left will still be all for them.
I do know that after imposing numerous stupid, ineffective ant-gun laws up there, our neighbor to the north is sometimes referred to as CanaDUH!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.