The paper disingenuously misrepresented extant research to draw its conclusions, and researchers at Harvard (among which Kates and Mauser were not included) later objected to the paper’s being framed as a “study” from Harvard (rather than a law review paper).
Full Answer
Kates and Mauser said in their study, “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”. The UN’s Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Crime-Prevention and Criminal Justice did a study on firearms regulation and found some astonishing discoveries.
“What we are seeing is ideology in collision with reality.” This is an epic quote that embodies what is taking place in America right now. The facts are there, anti-gun politicians are probably aware of them, but that doesn’t stop the constant push for gun control and the indoctrination that guns cause violence.
No3 is due to the fact that most gun owners in the UK live in the countryside, which are nowhere near as populated as the cities, so of course there is not as much violent crime in high gun ownership areas. No5 and no10 are not correct either.
The reason the UK appears to have a higher violent crime rate is due to the English law on what constitutes a violent crime, if you only include the same types of crime that the US classes as violent then the UK is nowhere near as far up the list.
When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates ...
A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.”. “And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual ...