Harvard: Gun control doesn’t work

[Bluto]

Because if there's one thing the federal goverment is great at, it's changing peoples' psyches.

No, things like access to decent housing, food, education, vocational training and metal health services tend to have a positive impact on people's psyches. At this point in time we could choose to emulate those models that seem to be successful in building a cohesive society (again various European countries and Canada) or models like Mexico, which do not. Personally I would rather live in say Vancouver rather than Juarez but hey, that's just me. To me it's not about guns, it is about the national psyche (paranoia, greed and fear seem to be right up there leading the charge) and how various policy debates and policies reinforce and encourage that type of thinking and behavior.

 

[BGIF]

Keep guns legal, but require that they all must be colored hot pink from now on. Boom, gun violence drops, because no one will want to be seen with a hot pink gun. Well, except my wife, I'm sure she'd love it.

Stealing a page from Joe Arpaio.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

No, things like access to decent housing, food, education, vocational training and metal health services tend to have a positive impact on people's psyches....

You specifically mentioned sociopaths, and modern psychology doesn't really agree with you here.

Sure, giving a starving sociopath food will surely improve his or her mood or outlook, but a general welfare state wouldn't nearly be the silver bullet against the extremely violent that you seem to imply. The causes most clinically linked to anti-social behavior are things like genetics, parental activity, brain chemistry and even brain injury. If that's the purpose of a welfare state then we'd be wasting our money.

 

[50milesSE ND]

The thing with analyzing, statistics, or even science is that if someone really wants to prove there opinion/theory then they will do it. Facts are only as good as those who do the fact finding. I believe in the right of owning guns period. If others don't that's their right. I'm a very strong person strength wise, but my wife isn't. Guns can be an equalizer for the weak. I live in the country so I worry sometimes if I'm not home about my family because of crazy stuff in the world. Knowing my wife can defend herself when I'm not there is reassuring. Some of you can feel indifferent to my belief that people should own guns that's ok really. We all have our reasons one way or another. My father was a Vietnam Veteran that use to hunt, and shoot guns before he went to the war. Growing up I only shot a gun one time since my dad didn't care too due to being in Vietnam. He did however keep guns regardless. My dad took his own life with a gun. This wasn't because he was crazy, but because he was in failing health after a torn achilles surgery. I don't hate guns because of this. I actually a few years later got into owning guns. they are a tool for saving life, and getting food, and protection in the right hands. Any object can be used to kill. Guns are easy targets because to some there is an agenda to make the people less capable. Just remember whether you support owning guns, or not it is a right that we as Americans have. When one right gets taken what is going to go next? It may be something you care about more than I do. This is a very slippery slope.

 

[RyCo1983]

No, things like access to decent housing, food, education, vocational training and metal health services tend to have a positive impact on people's psyches. At this point in time we could choose to emulate those models that seem to be successful in building a cohesive society (again various European countries and Canada) or models like Mexico, which do not. Personally I would rather live in say Vancouver rather than Juarez but hey, that's just me. To me it's not about guns, it is about the national psyche (paranoia, greed and fear seem to be right up there leading the charge) and how various policy debates and policies reinforce and encourage that type of thinking and behavior.

You speak my mind my friend.

 

[irishpat183]

No, things like access to decent housing, food, education, vocational training and metal health services tend to have a positive impact on people's psyches. At this point in time we could choose to emulate those models that seem to be successful in building a cohesive society (again various European countries and Canada) or models like Mexico, which do not. Personally I would rather live in say Vancouver rather than Juarez but hey, that's just me. To me it's not about guns, it is about the national psyche (paranoia, greed and fear seem to be right up there leading the charge) and how various policy debates and policies reinforce and encourage that type of thinking and behavior.

What do you mean "access"? There are ways of "accessing" that now. How much more "access" does one need?


Just say "I want you to pay for it". Because that's what you mean.


And we won't fix national psyche if we keep shitting on morals by promoting things like single parent homes and teen mom. It's no coincidence that the further and further away we get from God (and i'm not a religious person)...the worse off we've become as a society. Wanna have sex? Sure!! Go ahead! We'll pay for the abortion and even encourage that behaivor!

 

[NDohio]

No, things like access to decent housing, food, education, vocational training and metal health services tend to have a positive impact on people's psyches. At this point in time we could choose to emulate those models that seem to be successful in building a cohesive society (again various European countries and Canada) or models like Mexico, which do not. Personally I would rather live in say Vancouver rather than Juarez but hey, that's just me. To me it's not about guns, it is about the national psyche (paranoia, greed and fear seem to be right up there leading the charge) and how various policy debates and policies reinforce and encourage that type of thinking and behavior.

Metal Health'll cure your crazy
Metal Health'll cure your mad
Metal Health is what we all need
It's what you have to have

 

[Bluto]

Metal Health'll cure your crazy
Metal Health'll cure your mad
Metal Health is what we all need
It's what you have to have

Bang your head! Dude!

 

[Bluto]

You specifically mentioned sociopaths, and modern psychology doesn't really agree with you here.

Sure, giving a starving sociopath food will surely improve his or her mood or outlook, but a general welfare state wouldn't nearly be the silver bullet against the extremely violent that you seem to imply. The causes most clinically linked to anti-social behavior are things like genetics, parental activity, brain chemistry and even brain injury. If that's the purpose of a welfare state then we'd be wasting our money.

Giving people with mental disorders the necessary medication, support services and or counseling they require is a win-win. I have a couple therapists in the family so I'm more familiar with this stuff then I ever cared to be. Anyhow, if you want to split hairs over metal health language I can put you in touch with my mom. She'd love it. Lol. You didn't really take issue with what my point so I'll just say nice try at a bait and switch.

 

[Bluto]

What do you mean "access"? There are ways of "accessing" that now. How much more "access" does one need?


Just say "I want you to pay for it". Because that's what you mean.


And we won't fix national psyche if we keep shitting on morals by promoting things like single parent homes and teen mom. It's no coincidence that the further and further away we get from God (and i'm not a religious person)...the worse off we've become as a society. Wanna have sex? Sure!! Go ahead! We'll pay for the abortion and even encourage that behaivor!

Again, much of Europe and Canada seem to be doing fine without God. Last I checked Mexico was pretty religious. I'd be more than happy to pay for everyone to have access to metal health care. We'd just need to cut back on a couple weapons systems and viola...health care for all!

 

[T Town Tommy]

Again, much of Europe and Canada seem to be doing fine without God. Last I checked Mexico was pretty religious. I'd be more than happy to pay for everyone to have access to metal health care. We'd just need to cut back on a couple weapons systems and viola...health care for all!

Much of Europe and Canada are doing fine without a lot of their paycheck as well. Just sayin'.

How about this. Let's cut generational welfare and government handouts to those who don't want to work or go to school to get an education to make themselves more employable. Let's cut the Obama phones while we are at it. Let's challenge the people with their hands out to become productive members of our society instead of being leeches.

And I don't really want to hear all the BS about people not having opportunities. PM me if you want to know where I came from and where I am today. I would be glad to tell you about it. As far as guns... if you don't like them then don't own them. But be dam*ed if you tell me I can or can't own them. Just my thoughts...

 

[Bluto]

Much of Europe and Canada are doing fine without a lot of their paycheck as well. Just sayin'.

How about this. Let's cut generational welfare and government handouts to those who don't want to work or go to school to get an education to make themselves more employable. Let's cut the Obama phones while we are at it. Let's challenge the people with their hands out to become productive members of our society instead of being leeches.

And I don't really want to hear all the BS about people not having opportunities. PM me if you want to know where I came from and where I am today. I would be glad to tell you about it. As far as guns... if you don't like them then don't own them. But be dam*ed if you tell me I can or can't own them. Just my thoughts...

See that's the whole things. If you want to do away with "leeches" great. I grew up on foodstamps and would hardly classify myself or any of my siblings (all of whom have college degrees) as leeches. Personally I think we should provide as many opportunities to as many who care to take advantage of them and provide a social safety net for those who are not capable and more importantly their offspring. This country has the resources to do so while allowing many of us to keep the same "paycheck". It comes down to priorities more than anything.

Again, I don't really care if someone owns all kinds of guns. A bunch of my friends do. Anyhow, I'm glad you've taken advantage of whatever our society has provided you. Good for you.

 

[T Town Tommy]

See that's the whole things. If you want to do away with "leeches" great. I grew up on foodstamps and would hardly classify myself or any of my siblings (all of whom have college degrees) as leeches. Personally I think we should provide as many opportunities to as many who care to take advantage of them and provide a social safety net for those who are not capable and more importantly their offspring. This country has the resources to do so while allowing many of us to keep the same "paycheck". It comes down to priorities more than anything.

Again, I don't really care if someone owns all kinds of guns. A bunch of my friends do. Anyhow, I'm glad you've taken advantage of whatever our society has provided you. Good for you.

You miss my point. Nobody gave me a dam* thing. I had to earn everything I have. Generational welfare and people standing with their hands out is a disease in this country. Those are the true leeches... along with the socialist whoremongers that want to take what I worked for and give to them.

I applaud your efforts to better yourself. It should be commended. You appear to have broken the cycle of poverty. That's great. But the people that aren't contributing, don't want to work, standing there wanting you and I to pay for them, need to get busy so they can be educated and start taking care of themselves. It's not my place to raise them. Or pay for them.

 

[Kanye West]

Keep guns legal ,make drugs legal, just eliminate the manslaughter charge and make everything either self-defense innocence or guilty murder. You want to make gun crime punishments harsh and get rid of multiple appeals for murders. Then use a noose because its much cheaper than the crap they do now. I despise guns and will never own one, but this is a better way imho.

 

[rikkitikki08]

These threads are actually really interesting to read, simply for the fact that we have a wide range of opinions. Just shows you how incredibly divided this country really is

 

[magogian]

Peeps, I wouldn't make too much of this study. It is not peer-reviewed but rather was published in a student-edited legal journal.

 

[IrishLax]

Peeps, I wouldn't make too much of this study. It is not peer-reviewed but rather was published in a student-edited legal journal.

I've heard a lot of this or similar, but I'm curious if someone can actually point me to specific significant flaws in their methodology/findings that would cause you disregard the study. I haven't read the study because I don't have the time but would love for someone to go through the "peer review" process on it and tell me what they think.

 

[magogian]

I've heard a lot of this or similar, but I'm curious if someone can actually point me to specific significant flaws in their methodology/findings that would cause you disregard the study. I haven't read the study because I don't have the time but would love for someone to go through the "peer review" process on it and tell me what they think.

Neither you, I, nor the student editors have the sufficient knowledge and expertise to properly subject it to "peer review."

Thus, it is difficult to establish the reliability of this study because it wasn't reviewed by those who could determine if there were flaws in the methodology.

 

[autry_denson]

I've heard a lot of this or similar, but I'm curious if someone can actually point me to specific significant flaws in their methodology/findings that would cause you disregard the study. I haven't read the study because I don't have the time but would love for someone to go through the "peer review" process on it and tell me what they think.

Thanks to Magogian for pointing out that it is student edited - I assumed so but wasn't sure. So this is a very low status journal. It is still peer-reviewed, but it wouldn't be held to a high standard in the review process. And I still find it funny that it's referred to as a "Harvard" study given that it's written by researchers at other schools and is published in a student law review.

The article is a review piece, meaning there's no original research on the topic but it just covers other published work and examines some basic data on crime rates and gun ownership along the way. I didn't read all of it closely, b/c the parts that I read indicated very clearly that it was an extremely selective review. They are trying to build a case about the weak evidence on gun control and crime. That would be fine, b/c there actually is not great evidence that gun control reduces crime - but the way they did it was to highlight arbitrary comparisons and weak studies in order to build their case. It's just not a honest review of the literature, in my mind. And there's no original analysis.

Still, I don't think their overarching conclusion is wrong - we don't have good evidence that gun control policies reduce crime or violence, mainly b/c it's really hard to generate evidence that would allow for strong conclusions on this question.

 

[autry_denson]

ok, I just took a look at the website for this journal and now this makes more sense. The journal describes itself in this way: "The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship."

haha, makes a lot more sense how this got published.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

FYI, just about all law reviews are student-edited. I used to be a law review editor, and I can assure you that the fact-checking, sourcing and everything else involved is just as good, if not better, than whatever other process you're thinking of for whatever law reviews you've been involved in.

 

[autry_denson]

FYI, just about all law reviews are student-edited. I used to be a law review editor, and I can assure you that the fact-checking, sourcing and everything else involved is just as good, if not better, than whatever other process you're thinking of for whatever law reviews you've been involved in.

Agreed, the fact that its' student-edited does not alone say all that much about quality. I've always found it odd that law journals are commonly edited by students, but maybe it works well in some cases. It's a totally different system than any other discipline.

I guess the bigger point is that this is not the Harvard Law Review, it's a lower-tier journal designed specifically to publish conservative/libertarian research. Again, that doesn't automatically mean it's low quality but it just makes more sense that something like this, which seemed strangely slanted from even an initial glance, would get published in this kind of journal.

 

[irishpat183]

Agreed, the fact that its' student-edited does not alone say all that much about quality. I've always found it odd that law journals are commonly edited by students, but maybe it works well in some cases. It's a totally different system than any other discipline.

I guess the bigger point is that this is not the Harvard Law Review, it's a lower-tier journal designed specifically to publish conservative/libertarian research. Again, that doesn't automatically mean it's low quality but it just makes more sense that something like this, which seemed strangely slanted from even an initial glance, would get published in this kind of journal.

Says the guy who's posted things from "thinkprogress".....

 

[magogian]

FYI, just about all law reviews are student-edited. I used to be a law review editor, and I can assure you that the fact-checking, sourcing and everything else involved is just as good, if not better, than whatever other process you're thinking of for whatever law reviews you've been involved in.

You are missing the point. This isn't about comparing different types of law reviews (which, except for a few specialty journals are almost always student edited). This is about the HUGE difference between student-edited and peer reviewed.

In other words, if this had been published in say the American Political Science Review then it would be much more credible. The problem is most lawyers are primarily familiar with student-edited journals (e.g. law review), and do not understand how little weight they carry in the social science fields.

FWIW, I too was a law review editor.