Try 1 month for 99¢
David Hemenway mug

David Hemenway | Harvard School of Public Health

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, reporters often called me to ask for information about firearms. They wanted to know whether strong gun laws reduced homicide rates (I said they did); and, conversely, whether permissive gun laws lowered crime rates overall (I said they did not).

I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said she said” reporting annoyed me, because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

One of the reporters I complained to said that he had covered climate change for many years. He explained that journalists were able to stop their “balanced” reporting of that issue only when objective findings indicated that the overwhelming majority of scientists thought climate change was indeed happening and that it was caused by humans.

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won’t please the National Rifle Association.

My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the past four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or nonfirearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health. Because there are typically many more authors on public health articles than on criminology articles, to have a balanced list I decided to include only first authors. Graduate students working for me identified more than 300 distinct first authors and found more than 280 email addresses.

Last May we began sending out short, monthly surveys. The first question on each survey asks how much the respondent agrees with a particular claim related to firearms, and the second and third questions ask the respondent to rate the quality of the scientific literature, as well as their own level of familiarity with the scientific literature on that particular topic.

So, for example, one survey asked whether having a gun in the home increased the risk of suicide. An overwhelming share of the 150 people who responded, 84 percent, said yes.

This result was not at all surprising because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. It includes a dozen individual-level studies that investigate why some people commit suicide and others do not, and an almost equal number of area-wide studies that try to explain differences in suicide rates across cities, states and regions. These area-wide studies find that differences in rates of suicide across the country are less explained by differences in mental health, suicide ideation or even suicide attempts than they are by differences in levels of household gun ownership.

A 2014 meta-analysis, conducted by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, of the scientific studies on guns and suicide concluded that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide. Similarly, the 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention from the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the U.S. Surgeon General concluded that “firearm access is a risk factor for suicide in the United States.”

As I said, I wasn’t surprised by the results of that questionnaire. Still, it was nice to be able to document that the large majority of gun researchers have arrived at the same conclusion about firearms and suicide from their reading of the scientific literature.

I also found widespread confidence that a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72 percent agree, 11 percent disagree) and that a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64 percent) rather than a safer place (5 percent). There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73 percent vs. 8 percent) and that the change to more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62 percent vs. 9 percent). Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71 percent vs. 12 percent).

Of course it’s possible to find researchers who side with the NRA in believing that guns make our society safer, rather than more dangerous. As I’ve shown, however, they’re in the minority.

Scientific consensus isn’t always right, but it’s our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We’re not.

Sign up to get each day's obituaries sent to your email inbox

David Hemenway is a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

0
0
0
0
0

Digital news editor

Digital news editor

(73) comments

Buggs Raplin

After the false flag 9/11 attack, Bush got the Patriot Act passed, a massive document that was obviously prepared prior to 9/11. He then authorized illegal wiretaps, and built FEMA camps. His turn over. The baton was passed to Obama, who developed protocols for the FEMA camps and got NDAA passed, allowing for the indefinite detention of Americans in those FEMA camps without due process. No judge, no jury; no lawyers for those the government wants detained-namely dissidents, not terrorists, as 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush neo-cons to fool the people into supporting the resource wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In recent years the government has been buying up ammunition and assault vehicles, and our police have been increasingly militarized, and the NSA has been invading our privacy to track down all Americans aware of what's really happening to our country. Gun control is a prime goal of these fascists who control power. They want us defenseless and at their mercy-Chip DeNure

oldhomey

Gosh Buggs, I guess they really ARE after you! Your paranoia is not in vain! I think it was the parents of young children who did you in. Would it be possible for you to seek safe haven on the planet beyond Neptune? At least fall back into your persona of little Annie Knockknees and dress like a girl.

Buggs Raplin

Well, if you lay out the facts, which are not in dispute, and connect the dots, then you reach an understanding on the push for gun control by the establishment. And it has nothing to do with any regard for human life. That's just a ruse for the gullible.

Astrid

“First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

I'm eager to get to the phase when you old communist useful idiots actually try to fight patriots like Buggs. That'll be a hoot! But the mocking isn't working.

deezus

Polls of peoples opinions can turn out to be very wrong, even when the people being polled are scientists. That's why I believe scientific consensus to be a joke. Scientific consensus is essentially a popularity contest of ideas. Take for example before the wide acceptance of the Earth not being flat, the scientific consensus would have been that the Earth was flat, which was obviously wrong.

Monteee

A scientific consensus is not a popularity contest of ideas. The concensus is built on the factual knowledge that scientists have at the time, and on their logical reasoning. Scientists form a concensus because they all see the logic and objective truth in what they're investigating.

The nature of science is to constantly challenge the concensus. Any newly found evidence must be critiqued to a high degree in order to change the consensus. When that happens, when it is proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is a sphere, then that is a victory for science.

deezus

Scientific consensus is built on what they believe to be true at the time, not on "factual knowledge". If there was factual knowledge about "guns", then the author of this editorial wouldn't have polled anyone about it, he would have real world statistics backing his position instead of his poll.

Monteee

deezus, did you even read the article? Hemenway states quite clearly that his goal was to discover if there was a scientific concensus regarding guns and gun violence. That is the entire point of the article.

A scientific concensus IS built on factual knowledge. It is the foundation. People err when they apply their biased and irrational beliefs to that factual knowledge, like attributing an erupting volcano to some angry deity. That is how the concensus becomes corrupted.

The dwarf-planet Pluto was deemed a planet for decades, mostly because astronomers had not yet discovered other dwarf-planets, and because popular culture supported the idea. Today, the concensus is that Pluto does not qualify as a planet, as it doesn't meet the astronomic criteria. In the case of Pluto, the factual evidence was strong enough to override popular sentiment.

geo

These are majority opinions; when only 72%, 64%,73%,62% and 71% agree one does not have a consensus. Pluto did not lose its status as a planet because of new evidence; the definition of a planet was changed and Pluto was defined out of the ranks of planets. The current definition of a planet is a consensus--it is not a fact. It is a fact that Pluto does not meet the criteria of the consensus definition of a planet.

oldhomey

Ahem, deezus, back in the 13th century, I don't think there was a category of people considered to be scientists. Certainly there was a category of people considered to be priests and religious leaders. They thought the Earth was flat. Does that make them ridiculous now?

TenRing

So what would the anti-gunners propose for those that use firearms to hunt, target practice shoot clays, etc., and keep firearms at home for such purposes? Lock them up in a central armory somewhere, to be checked out when permission is asked? Please, by all means, go ahead and contact your legislators to bring such bill to a vote.

oldhomey

TenRing-ading-ding. The law in question here is conceal carry. Nobody is threatening to take away hunting rifles, clay pigeon shotguns or target firearms, all legitimate sport arms. Those weapons, by the way, are not illegal in Europe, which has much stronger gun control laws than we do, with the expected result with very, very few deaths by fire arms.

TenRing

Really, oldhom*, do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just dementia? The writer talked about "access to guns" and "having a gun in the home," not just concealed carry. Stick with yelling at kids in your yard and puttering around the house.

oldhomey

Well, ring-a-ding-ding, I will grant you that the man's column DID talk about what the evidence says about the numbers of suicides and levels of violence in homes where guns are present. Perhaps I can excuse my oversight to the fact that my Depends were leaking as I was typing my earlier reply to you, so I was distracted. It is true that I suffer dementia, but I have suffered that condition since pre-school back in the late 1940s. I don't believe, however, that the columnist was campaigning to take away your .22 Savage squirrel rifle, however, nor am I. If you say otherwise, and if I ever catch you crossing my yard, I will take you out with the Dillon M134D Gatling Gun I keep in my attic, awaiting the day we can legally mount these babies on the back of our pick up trucks so that we can run around like those really cool ISIS fighters, taunting all forma of civilized authority except for Wayne LaPierre. Won't that be fun?

TenRing

oldhomehoe, your "belief" that the writer was not talking about squirrel rifles is really interesting, but it makes zero sense in the context of this opinion piece. The writer was talking about guns at home, and never once mentioned the type of gun.

Astrid

I understand you are a target shooter but the issue here is the 2nd amendment which has nothing to do with sport shooting. The 2nd amendment protects our right to bear arms for use against our government.

TenRing

Astrid, I totally get that. But the author of this article did not differentiate between firearms used for sport shooting and/or hunting and those used to protect our right to defend ourselves. In fact, you can't make a distinction between them. He basically said all guns are bad.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast


Progressives are gun-control freaks. The progressives wants to grab all of our guns, because they want to CONTROL us without fear of reprisal.

For you leftists, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always “The Revolution”.

You trib-libs really don't care about any mass shootings. You really don't care about any individual shootings. You really don't care about any "high-cap magazines", or "assault weapons" or "Saturday night specials" or "cop-killer bullets" or any other one of your fabricated bogeymen.

What these progressives want is to disarm YOU. Yes, YOU personally. They want to disarm you completely. "Common sense gun control" will leave you without even a sharp knife to defend yourself with.

Progressives want complete control over EVERY aspect of your life. These leftists want you groveling before them, with their boot planted firmly in your face. It is rather hard for them to do that if you can shoot them.

So they're going to go all in on gun control. It helps “The Revolution”.

LesTrafik

“Progressives are gun-control freaks.”
NRA continues to be defiant against it’s own members who clearly support stricter gun laws. So who is the ‘control freak’?

“You trib-libs really don't care about any mass shootings. “
The article clearly states the consensus that guns are not likely to be used self-defense even if defenders had them, and that permissive carrying laws does not reduce crime.

“What these progressives want is to disarm YOU”
What causes mass shootings are provoking statements like this intended to reach an unconscious & uninformed gun-owning audience. Numbers clearly do not support a ban on arms. It would take nothing short of an apocalypse in Congress & an overwhelming support of citizens to rid of gun ownership. Not gonna happen.

LesTrafik

...and by the way, Harvard leans towards the conservative right.

lookout

No one has ever talked about taking everyone's guns away except there NRA and those that support them.

CJ

Lookout I guess you have never seen any footage of the gun confiscations that took place in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina then. I'm sure that was all a Hollywood production. I have to imagine many here as a kid shot 22s with no problems, went small game & deer hunting wirh folks having guns in the home and possibly passed those activities onto their own kids with no problems. I have cold beer in the fridge and a fast car in the garage so I imagine I am setting myself up for a DUI by the theory of this article. Life is all about choices.....

Astrid

And Barbara Boxer.

ThomasPaineJefferson

Lay off the drugs 668.......your work of fiction posted above is a lunatic scree....go change your depends.

Buggs Raplin

And you should change your name. Jefferson and Paine would disown you completely. You're just an Obama clone, with a bad temper and derision for those who disagree with your "wisdom."

oldhomey

Well, Buggs, when you wear the clown suits you wear all the time, and when you toss out the pies into the faces of people that you do, you're going to get a lot of pies thrown back in your direction, aren't you?

668 The Neighbor of the Beast


Fiction? Obama's mentor, Bill Ayers from the Weather Underground terrorist organization estimated he would need a minimum of 25 million American rounded up and exterminated in order to complete “The Revolution”. ThomasPaineJefferson fancies himself as an intellectual, but refuses to learn from history. Stupid is as stupid does – Forrest Gump

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
"educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

oldhomey

Your reading of history is extraordinary, Beast. Stupendous. Unbelievable. Fantastical. The History Channel should hire you for your unique insights. I wonder why they don't?

Cassandra

668--AKA Snow Cougar Mary Burke.
Spreading more nonsense without any factual basis. How many people have been disarmed? ZERO.
He/she claims leftists want to control peoples' lives, yet it is the republicans who want to stick their noses in everyones' bedrooms.
Facts simply don't matter to these ideologues.

668 The Neighbor of the Beast


Casssssandruh,

You leftist literally force our “noses into bedrooms” by trying to make us accept that which goes against our moral beliefs. If your statement were true we would have heterosexual pride parades and would litigate homosexual business into bankruptcy. Facts simply don't matter to you useful idiots.

All leftists … like you, want total, ulimited control and to use the power of government to compel/force stuff onto us.

Forced vaccine fanatics.

Food nazis.

Gun grabbers.

Econuts and Agenda 21.

Communist wealth redistributors.

Light rail wackos and high-speed rail bankrupters.

Forcing people to buy products or face fines and jail.

Casssssandruh, denial is not a river in Egypt.

oldhomey

Your idiotic foaming at the mouth diatribe above here, Beast, is a very elegant argument against letting people carry and own concealed weapons, automatic weapons and non-sportsman firearms. I had to duck the screen reading your screed, imagining the spit sputtering out of your mouth as you fulminated. Whew! I hope you under some sort of medical observation and/or medication for your anger. And what is this "Revolution"? You give the impression that you are fantasizing about some day being able to race to the street with your guns to start shooting down people you don't like or agree with. How're you going to tell the progressives from the conservatives? Perhaps for you that wouldn't matter, so long as you can start pumping lead.

Astrid

Still mindlessly trying to mock people that are eventually going to win. Crawl back under your rock loser.

tower

I know all you gun nuts love to point to Chicago as an example of why you need a gun. Buggs, surprise, surprise, is correct that most big city urban shootings are gang related. Now, lets look at NYC which has strict gun laws and enforces them. They have, what, 5-6 times the population of New Orleans and last year they had less gun homicides, in raw numbers, than NO did. NO has very loose gun laws. Lets look at LA, same story as NYC. For those of you who say they will just use whatever to kill someone. I have one question for you, how many drive by knifings have you seen?

CJ

Tower NYC also had stop and frisk in place a while there too......

tower

I think that comes under the enforcement part CJ.

LooneyLeft

Leave it to tower a Leftwing NUT to cherry pick cities. Demographics matter.

tower

Great selfie Looneytunes. Fits you well. Mach is the one who brought up Chicago so why not direct the cherrypicking charge at him. While I am at it. An anti-violence group based in Mexico City listed the top 50 violent cities, per capita, in the world. The US scored 4 in the top 25, they were (in order) St Louis, Detroit, New Orleans and Baltimore. 19 of them were in Brazil.
Why not look into how strong the state and local laws are for each on guns. Bet you won't.

tower

BTW: I forgot. So what you are saying is the Cajun nuts of New Orleans outnumber the Cajuns in NYC? I know what you were trying to say but do you ever have a sane moment? NYC is all white and NO isn't? Sure it is

crank

If I lived in any of those cities, I would likely own and carry a firearm. My very good friend, a former law professor, (also very liberal) lives in LA. He's not a gun nut but he owns several guns and is a strong supporter of the second amendment.

He's seen too much to deny the right of citizens to keep firearms. He experienced a home invasion. He closed and locked his bedroom door. He heard the perps try the door knob. They fled immediately when they heard the unmistakable sound of him racking the slide on his shotgun while his wife kept her pistol pointed at the door.

He is a former law professor. He believes criminals are not inclined to obey the law and thus will simply ignore gun laws. He further believes the vast majority of people impacted by restrictive guns laws are those law-abiding citizens who would possess firearms for their own protection (like him) rather than criminals who would continue to use guns regardless of the law.

teddyj

I never shed a tear when a gun lover shoots themselves. Would they have been shot without a gun in their house? My guess is it would be very unlikely.

LooneyLeft

Hey lookout, I have never needed Home Owner Ins. but I'm glad I have it if I need it. I bet you can not break in my home before I have my gun waiting for you. BTW my wife feels safer knowing we can protect our family. Those of you who do not have guns...hope you never need one,I hope I never need one.

Buggs Raplin

Most guns deaths are inner city gang bangers feuding over drugs. Most of their weaponry is illegal. If we want to cut down on their deaths, we should legalize all drugs. Take the profit out of it, and save billions of tax dollars (the war on drugs) at the same time.

Astrid

None of their weaponry is "illegal".

"... shall not be infringed."

descheneaux

This is one more case where people (first) believe ideologically that guns are good or bad in too many private hands or that gun control is good or bad, and (second) find the evidence that supports their personal views. It is called confirmation bias and it is alive and well in this controversy.

Deadwood subscriber

Except that this isn't a case of confirmation bias.

descheneaux

You have to be very naïve or an ideological purist to deny the relationship between the number/availability of guns and gun deaths. The more automobiles on the road the more car accident deaths. The more boats the more deaths on the waters. More bars and easier access to alcohol the more people that are alcoholics. Then there is the fact that the Western Democracies that have less guns in the hands of private citizens have a miniscule rate of gun deaths compared to the U.S. One can legitimately argue that guns freely available to the citizens of a nation, the less likely the nation will be taken over by a dictator like Stalin or Hitler. One can, also, argue with legitimacy that our 2nd Amendment supports private gun ownership or that it doe not with equal levels of intelligence. So, there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue. But, to argue that there is not a relationship between the number of guns in private hands and the number of gun deaths is without merit.

oldhomey

Thank you, descheneaux, for the only sane posting in this string.

Buggs Raplin

Considering the source of your compliment, I wouldn't feel all that good about it.

LesTrafik

Except that eventually death rates will reach a tipping point and then nosedive with increased gun/car ownership (inverse-U relationship), at which point not even the average gun/car owner will risk walking/driving down the street out of shear fear etc. It all describes the type of Mad Max society no one wants to live in and devalues the idea having owned a gun/car in the first place.

ThomasPaineJefferson

This article is nothing but common sense.....something lacking from far too many Amerikens.

Of course loose gun laws create conditions for more gun violence.....only a complete mor-on would disagree.

crank

Common sense is nothing more than opinion based on perception, and not always based upon concrete facts. It is also common sense that one could not commit suicide or homicide using a firearm if none were present. This does not mean suicide or homicide rates are necessarily reduced. The simplicity of this solution is a nice wish, however.

The following presentation may be of use in moderating your opinion that YOUR version of common sense is absolutely correct. http://www.cornell.edu/video/duncan-watts-myth-of-common-sense

Your "common sense" view is inherently flawed thus indicating who may really own the title of "complete mor-on". Facts and Data here:

crank

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans

crank

Vermont has loose gun laws and low gun crime. DC has tight gun laws and high gun crime.

Can you think of other factors which may be contributing to the rate of gun violence in DC? None that you'd like to admit, I expect.

Buggs Raplin

Drugs, of course. Drugs are the reason for most gun deaths.

Astrid

Not the drugs themselves, the prohibition on drugs is what you should say.

tower

How about population and the fact that this population in Vermont is basically rural?

crank

Rates for these crime stats are typically expressed per capita. But, the fact you recognize population and density as possible factors demonstrates the gun laws alone do not create conditions for more gun violence.

tower

I, again, agree crank. Just as falling crime rates are due to many factors, not just the arming of everyone. While CJ pointed out that NYC had stop and frisk and that contributed to the low murder rate, it is also true that violent crime rates have been falling for years all over the country. In gun rights state as well as gun control states.

lookout

More people are shot with their own guns than people using them for protection. They also give owners a false sense of security. I own guns so I guess I'm one of them but I have no illusions that they will save my life when needed. No one can be ready to use their gun 24 hours a day. And In my entire life I have never felt the need to have a gun for protection. That's just NRA propaganda. They were like the little chicken running in the barn yard crying the sky is falling all for greed and the mighty dollar.

LooneyLeft

And In my entire life I have never felt the need to have a gun for protection. That's just NRA propaganda.

crank

"In my entire life I have never felt the need to have a gun for protection."

...and because this is true for you, it must be true for everyone. Right?

That's not how the world works. I don't own a gun but I am not so presumptuous to believe that because I have never found the need to own or carry a firearm that this means nobody else needs one.

tower

See cranky, we can agree.

Educated Redneck

My home in La Crosse was broken in to on a Monday night by an African American guy that had a knife. It was a surprise because it was a Monday night, my dogs barked, and I had a light right outside the steel door that he broke in. I did have a gun by my bed and held the idiot at gunpoint until the police arrived. So please don't tell me that you don't need a gun for self-defense and that you can't be ready to use it when necessary. Hopefully you never have to experience this intrusive process that changes your life.

lookout

Your the third person I've heard say that but I have yet to see one of them in the newspaper.

Buggs Raplin

I don't believe a word this writer is saying. And, if you understand the reality of those in power in this country, you know they are an immoral, criminal bunch who desire their subjects defenseless against their authority. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Protection from them. That they try and mask their gun control attempts in a benign manner is contemptible. There's nothing benign about them. Nothing.

Cassandra

Take your meds. Your paranoia is getting the better of you.

Zrae

Machiavelli. Have you ever heard of statistics?

Machiavelli

I've got a background in advanced mathematics, including statistics, yes. The application of any mathematical construct requires extreme care: to paraphrase physicist Richard Feynman, you have to be very careful with your figures...it's easy to make a mistake and fool yourself. The stuff in this letter is junk science, not the real McCoy...Hemenway misuses statistics here.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli

"If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment." -- Ernest Rutherford

"An unsophisticated forecaster uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than for illumination." -- Andrew Lang

"You cannot feed the hungry on statistics." -- Heinrich Heine

"Statistics: the mathematical theory of ignorance." -- Morris Kline, author of "Calculus, An Intuitive and Physical Approach"

Cargo Cult Science - Richard Feynman

http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

Machiavelli

Time to bust up some cherished gun-control myths:

Mythbusters 101:

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.2/gun-facts-6-2-print.pdf

V.I. LENIN: "One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and
hold executions for found arms."

JOSEPH STALIN: "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."

"Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership"

http://jpfo.org/

"No Guns for Negroes"

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm

'"No Guns for Negroes " exposes the racist history of American gun control laws. Every person who supports gun control laws must be shown this film or gun ownership will cease to exist in America. NEW - Read a very relevant article - "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton E. Cramer. '

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler

Machiavelli

Vermont has extremely weak gun laws yet the murder rate recently was only 1.2 per 100,000 people (Vermont is a Constitutional Carry state: no permit required for concealed carry). That's less than Canada, about a fourth that of Wisconsin. Chicago, with strict gun laws before Illinois legalized concealed carry, was hit with 500 murders in a single year. Japan, no guns allowed: suicides way worse than the U.S. Great Britain, no guns allowed, violent crime rates double that of the USA (surprise!) and that's after correcting for statistical sampling differences...the corrections favor the UK.

Criminals invade your home during the next sixty seconds. What would you rather have by your nightstand, a Remington 870 pump-action 20-gauge shotgun or Mr. Hemenway's bogus statistic sheets to fling across the room at the criminal?

A COP ESPOUSES CONCEALED CARRY,VIDEO

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1IKeyTvakA

"What you are about to hear is a woman being murdered in her own home."

Machiavelli

DH: "Most of the scientists who were publishing relevant articles were from the fields of criminology, economics, public policy, political science and public health. Because there are typically many more authors on public health articles than on criminology articles, to have a balanced list I decided to include only first authors. Graduate students working for me identified more than 300 distinct first authors and found more than 280 email addresses."

Problems: small sample size and, worse, these are not 'real' scientists. I know that'll offend many of you, but I've worked with physicists, chemists, molecular biologists...real scientists with real hardcore skills. Most glaring is the inclusion of 'political scientists' and public policy people: these are the math-challenged types we all saw in college who tended to flunk college algebra. I'll bet there's not ten 'scientists' in this sample who'd know how to integrate x2 dx!

I call fake!

tower

And I call narrow minded in your definition of what a scientist is. So he didn't say "social" scientist. One who acts like a "real" scientist by proposing something and than goes about testing it. Which is what he did.

Machiavelli

Your unwitting response is part of my secret sociological comment-board experiment: as such, I am now a full-fledged comment scientist! Took out the garbage today too: that makes me a sanitation engineer! Tossed a bible in with the trash: now I'm a Christian scientist! Always make sure to put some antibiotic ointment and a bandaid on any cuts: gee, now I'm a physician too!

Physicist >> Political Scientist just as Electrical Engineer >> Sanitation Engineer (garbageman)

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.