Harvard Study Says More Guns Doesn’t Mean More Deaths

As soon as Obama and his administration began pumping up the anti-gun rhetoric, Americans began purchasing firearms in record numbers. For those who believe that more guns lead to more crime, you will be surprised to find out that crime rates were simultaneously actually in decline, despite the alarming growth of gun ownership.

In 2011, gun dealers in California sold over half-a-million guns, almost double the number sold only a few years earlier in 2002. Over the same time period, hospitalizations due to gun injuries have declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, which is roughly a 25 percent drop. There was also an 11 percent drop in firearm-related fatalities. It seems that the widespread proliferation of guns among law-abiding citizens may lead to a drop in crime, decreasing the continued presence of areas available to criminals where victims are not adequately protected.

The police response time varies from department to department, but on average the police can take over 10 minutes between receiving the call and arriving at the scene. Many criminals can be in and out of a home within minutes, having vacated long before the police arrive. Although you are more likely to be injured or lose your life in a car accident on your way to work, than you are to be confronted by dangerous criminals in your home, the chance is always there that someone could pose a danger to you and your loved ones. And when the police are minutes away, it is up to us to ensure our safety. And for this reason many individuals firmly and passionately believe that the right to bear arms is a natural right, because they have the natural right to protect and sustain their life.

Despite the increase in gun ownership, preliminary crime statistics for 2011 released by the FBI show a 4 percent decrease in violent crime, which includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. A recent Harvard study looked at figures for intentional deaths throughout continental Europe and compared them with the U.S. The study states that the common mantra of more guns meaning more deaths is wrong. In Russia the rate of ownership was found to be 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants. The murder rate in Russia was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002 (although accurate reporting about murders in such a huge nation is unreliable, and the numbers may be higher) , in the same year Finland only saw a murder rate of 1.98 per 100,000, and their gun ownership is dramatically higher than Russia at 39,000 per 100,000. The study also showed that Norway has by far the most household gun ownership (at 32 percent), but also the lowest murder rate. If anything, the findings indicate that perhaps more draconian gun restrictions may even increase death rates. As the authors of the study conclude: the burden of proof rests on those who claim that more guns equal more death and violent crime.

The recent Navy Yard shooting (or any sensationalized shooting from the media) has again fueled the gun control debate. The last time that the debate got heated, after the Sandy Hook and other shootings, political commentator Ben Shapiro accused Piers Morgan and other gun-control supporters of frequently “standing on the graves” of gun victims, and claiming that those who support their own right to gun ownership ‘don’t care’ about the lives lost. The vast majority of murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns, yet officials continue to seek further control over “assault weapons,” and not handguns. And the majority of the individuals who go on shooting rampages are also taking prescription medications. Maybe we should address the underlying cause instead of dealing with symptoms and “cracking down” on legally abiding gun owners?

A person can be harmed or assaulted with a myriad of weapons. So it is perceived that the “gun-grabbers” are not being philosophically consistent if they claim they are going after assault weapons in order to save lives. The term “assault weapons” is tossed around liberally by the media, and most people have no idea as to what even constitutes an ‘assault weapon’. In the Federal Assault Weapons Ban they are defined as “a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, grenade launcher.” But the features that define these guns to be ‘assault weapons’ are arguably strictly for cosmetic purposes, and without these features the guns would function no differently than rifles or shotguns which have been used for decades. And there are already background checks in place for most gun purchases, which most people do not realize as they continue to call for more. And most perpetrators of mass shootings obtain their weapons legally, and they most often occur in ‘gun-free zones‘. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country, twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012. Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally.

The fact that no individual willingly broadcasts the absence of guns in their home somewhat lends credence to the notion that criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. You know that if you advertise that your home is unarmed, you are basically advertising that your household is one full of unarmed victims. Criminologist and gun expert John Lott, discovered that more guns don’t equal more crime, and that offenders will even commit their crimes in neighboring states if those states are stricter on gun control.

There are good reasons not to allow those with a history of mental illness to obtain firearms, especially if they are incapable of critically assessing the consequences of their actions. But these days, thanks to the slippery slope of psychological evaluations, and the conditions of what constitutes ‘mental illness’, give pause. Sometimes when individuals are frequently experiencing stress in life and suffering from bad moods, they can be labelled as ‘depressed’, and then infringement on their natural right to bear arms forever justified. And what if your previous criminality includes non-violent crimes, why should your right be infringed? The topic of gun control is a heated one, and it doesn’t show signs of being extinguished anytime soon.