Breaking News

Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 3:51pm
Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 3:00pm
Neal Barton's POV

Someone just lost tenure at Harvard

MGN-Online
POV

POSTED: Monday, August 26, 2013 - 4:28pm

UPDATED: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 - 3:40pm

It is amazing sometimes when facts get in the way of a liberal narrative.

Here is the question which was asked.

"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? This was a Harvard study, look it up for yourself.

It states this:

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the "gun-ridden" United States, cites the study.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France - had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, "where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002."

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. "Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this."

Further, the report cited, "the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism." Meaning, it's not guns that kill people.

People kill people. I could have saved them the money.

That's my point of view, what's yours?

You can e-mail me at pov@ketknbc.com or Facebook me at KETK Neal Barton.

Comments News Comments

Does the journalist understand what tenure is? Or does he want to take a cheap shot at Eastern Universities? Not every one can attend Bob Jones U.

Speaking of facts getting in the way... this is not a Harvard Study. It is a "study" (not peer-reviewed) which was submitted to a (conservative and libertarian) student-run journal at Harvard. Also, the Luxembourg data cited above are completely false. Google is your friend people, use it and you might learn something. There are no Harvard professors with egg on their face because no Professors were involved in this "study."

Well if you are a college educated person then you need to ask for a refund because you must not have been tought how to do research. President Obama did expand gun rights of citizens who visit our National Parks and you could find that at the Library of Congress. You Republican / T-idiots are just too stupid to think for yourselves and are nothing more than sheepel that follow anyone who will tell all the lies that you want to hear and FACTS are not important to any of you. MORONS.

Let's stay on topic.The article discussed the Harvard study and made no mention of the POTUS. The only legislation the president has signed since he took office in 2008 has expanded gun laws, allowing loaded guns in national parks (February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of car that enter national parks) and allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage; reversing a law enacted after 9/11.

I learned to shoot in the cub scouts. When I was in high school way back in 1979 most of the kids at my school had a rifle or shot gun in their vehicles at school. During bird, squirrel, and deer season, when school let out we went hunting.
No one got shot, not even accidentally. We all grew up learning gun safety. We had no problems handling firearms. The current generation of students has a problem being responsible. Times change.

The other thing I will to say about the entire gun lobby debate is based on a total lie. First, most of these liberals have never fired a weapon either while hunting or target shooting or as self protection. Second, these liberals who think these 14 - 18 year old young people are sweet little darlings who would not hurt anyone have no idea of reality and have never been confronted by a bunch of thugs.

Any person who has ever hunted or fired a weapon understands the potential danger involved. I was taught by my father that a gun is never considered unloaded. It was also impressed on me at a young age that you never play with firearms. Another thing I was taught early that a gun is a tool, it can no more kill than a shovel can dig a hole. This is just simply facts, not fiction as spouted by the liberal politicans or new media. All of you liberals chew on those facts.

No one is wanting to ban all firearms; just restrict the availability of some that are considered to be police/military issue firearms. The average citizen has no need fo uzzies, AK47s, etc. For anyone who had criticle thinking training in college, it's well known that the way a question is worded can exact certain responses. This study assumes that the proposed law is to ban all firearms, which is erroneous.

And the CDC just came out with a study that finds more guns = less crime! Imagine that!

Funny thing is, the White House commissioned the study to SHOW guns cause crime! Ops...

Yet today, William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill are pushing a bill to tax guns and ammo more to somehow lower 'gun crime' (which is a fake as crime is crime.) It is a shallow way to keep guns from poor people (i.e. blacks) and does nothing to stop crime.

That study won't change the rhetoric from the left.

Post new Comment