Harvard Study Concludes That Banning Firearms Increases Crime and Not Just in the U.S.

Harvard Journal of Law concludes that more firearms means less crime

gun control in SC

If you’re looking for an article that will shock you with a huge number of facts proving that guns actually reduce crime, you’ve come to the right place. The highly acclaimed Harvard Journal of Law released a study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?”

What attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser found was a surprising correlation on how the ownership of more guns in a country or area reduces crime. Usually you would expect the opposite from Harvard, but it seems that truth prevailed in the end of this study.

These facts are all legit and found in studies from experts in criminology across the world. It is incredible but not surprising that our media has never covered this, but it’s extremely important to know these facts in the ongoing war against our Second Amendment.

One of the best quotes from this article, after many fatal blows have been made against gun control, is from Terry Roberts of California’s North Coast Journal newspaper. “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.

Warning: reading this may lead to a radical lifestyle of arguments and may eventually lead to an impulse to run on the streets and shout your revelations to the public.

I’ve picked the top ten points of this article for you, but it would be best to take the time to read this extremely valuable piece yourself.

  1. Factual error and misconceptions have led to the lie that the U.S. has the world’s highest murder rate, actually this lie originated from the Cold War when Russia murder rates were about four times higher than American rates. A strategic disinformation campaign started and was successful in duping a lot of people into believing that the U.S. is a gunslinging nightmare of street violence. Even in the many years after Russia went through with banning firearms, their crime rates remain significantly higher than America. Kates and Mauser said in their study, “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”
  2. 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. “Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, which have high rates of gun ownership, have low murder rates. On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany.”
  3. “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 are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”
  4. “In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.”
  5. “Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.” However despite these glaring facts, a law was recently passed in California that used $24 million to expedite the process of taking 40,000 firearms purchased legally. ““We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).” Does that not send chills down your spine…
  6. The worst top three school shootings occurred in Western Europe; in Erfurt (Germany), Dunblane (Scotland) and Winnenden (Germany). Columbine was number four.
  7. ““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.””
  8. “Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws. With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. The United States is Number 1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.”
  9. “Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted. 13 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city,” 14 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89 percent decline in burglaries.”
  10. “Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. 7 In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. 8In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU. The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.”

guide to concealed carry guide to open carry

  • Trent Ramseyer

    #6…. I know math probably isn’t your strong point… but Sandy Hook killed 27 people. That is more than all of the ones you listed there. Please don’t discredit America’s ability to kill others. We do it best! Or do I need to remind you of the Atomic Bomb?

    • Del Bancroft

      I believe the Nazi and Russians killed many more innocent Jews than American killed innocent Japanese

      • dieks62

        Lets not forget the heavy carpet-bombings of your past in Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and finally Korea.

        • plusaf

          And don’t forget the carpet-bombings of Germany in WWII, either, in which LOTS of “innocent civilians” were killed…

          Comparing wartime events with civilian ‘mass killings’ during what we can loosely call ‘peacetime’ within a country BY ‘fellow countrymen’ is a really lousy comparison altogether.

          • Shadeburst

            Regrettably in 1945 when the USAAF had run out of military targets it turned to carpet-bombing of cities. Up to then it had maintained a squeaky-clean record of hitting military targets with precision and the absolute minimum of collateral damage.

      • Daniel E. Warfield

        The Japanese people were not innocent, they supported an imperialist government that was bent of overthrowing the world. If they were truly good people, they would have revolted against their own government to stop the mass killings of truly innocent civilians in China and the Pacific.

      • James Hoffman

        Don’t forget the rape of Nanking! That, in and of itself would justify nukes imo.

    • Stephen Williams

      This report was published in 2007, before Sandy Hook.

    • Daniel E. Warfield

      Don’t get started on the atomic bomb. All the most reputable historians of WW2 all agree that the atomic bomb was the most peaceful way to force Japan into a checkmate and surrender. Invading the Japanese homeland would have resulted in many thousands of more civilian casualties. During the Japanese Imperialist era, it was extremely uncommon for Japanese soldiers to surrender; a Japanese soldier would sooner commit suicide than surrender. Further, the Japanese populous would have defended the homeland to the death in the event of an invasion. The atomic bomb was absolutely necessary.

      • charles freeman

        Ok, how about the fire-bombing of Dresden? Where does that rate on your scale of “peaceful” resolution to Germany’s surrender?

    • Michael Shamel Sr.

      You`re an IDIOT.

    • James Hoffman

      Oh, I got Japan getting nuked beat. How about the rape of Nanking?

  • Del Bancroft

    In a side note; the US Government cut funds to Harvard and the Media now ranks them a second rate school.

  • Pingback: School Bans 21 Gun Salute on Veteran's Day, Says It "Promotes Gun Violence,"()

  • Pingback: Way To Go Maine! Concealed Carrying And Gun Sales Spike After New Bill()

  • Pingback: Harvard Study Shocks: Banning Firearms Increases Crime, Not Just in U.S | LOSD Blog()

  • Draz J Ekiel

    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. For example, if someone pushes another person, and that person presses charges, that’s considered and act of violence in mainland UK. Even shouting at someone in an intimidating manner is classed as an act of violence. The way sex crimes are classified in the UK is also totally different to how it’s classified in the US.

    In short; If you only count the same few crime types(4 ish if I recall correctly) that the US uses for these statistics, and the UK is suddenly one of the safest instead of the worst. Number 5 and n0 10 are both essentially showing missrepresentation of data, at its finest. I’m pro gun btw, but I’m also pro truth.

    p.s- Gun’s were not banned in the UK. ‘Some’ guns had tighter restrictions’ placed on them. Handguns were not explicitly banned, we can still own some handguns. The only thing was ‘banned’ for the majority of the people was semiautomatic centerfire rifles(Semi automatic rimfire and shotguns were not effected), and within a short while engineers came up with a work around, that to this day(Over 20 years later) still hasn’t been banned – google lever release system and MARS action. Both perfectly legal in the UK.

    The only people who can’t own guns on mainland UK are people who have been to prison for more than 3 years, fairly recently changed from 5+ years, and people with mental health issues, or who have records for being violent.

    • Bill

      Wow, thanks for that. I thought when Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair banned all full bore and rim fire (respectively) firearms that were below 2 feet in length with a barrel of less than one foot in length that was a handgun ban! It seems that I and the 57,000 other sport pistol shooters that had our licensed handguns confiscated under threat of 10 years in jail must have been mistaken if they weren’t banned after all.
      if you are a licensed large game hunter, boar or deer lets say, and you jump through the right hoops, maybe take your police authority to court, you can apply for a cartridge loading dispatch pistol which the police will insist on restricting to 2 shots. If you live near one of only what, 3 elidgeable ranges in the country (?) you may store an historic handgun in the range armoury, have it transported in armoured vehicle to the firing point where you may shoot it, clean it and have it returned to the armoury. You may not transport it or store it. Those are the only 2 ways that I am aware of for the public to shoot a licensed, cartridge loading handgun in England, Scotland and Wales.
      You may own licensed muzzle loading handguns of any size or long barrelled rim fire semi auto pistols or full bore revolvers that are over 2 feet long with a barrel over 12 inches long for sport shooting if your police area agrees to issue permission but nobody in your club, even if they have an identical firearm on their license can shoot yours.
      As far as sport competition shooting goes, that is a ban. 57,000 of us had our property confiscated and our hobby ruined to facilitate a cover up, we did not imagine it.
      Also, the 1987 ban on semi auto rifles did affect semi auto shotguns, having been previously unrestricted they were all to be altered to a maximum 3 shot capacity or held on a different kind of license.
      if we can still own some handguns, how do I go about getting my 1911 back? Or any of my Smith and Wessons? I’d be delighted to know.

      • Draz J Ekiel

        It’s a common misconception, even to the point where even police and most politicians (and ofc the public) think that guns are banned in the UK.

        You are correct that ‘some’ forces want you to use a revolver which is restricted to 2 -3 shots for humane dispatch, but not all forces enforce that. I know someone with a glock semiauto, full mag capacity for humane dispatch held on section 1. I know of others who have .38 revolvers for humane dispatch with a normal capacity.
        I think the above is also part of the reason that the new home office regulations are being put through government at the moment, as it stands they are home office ‘guidlines’, that forces interpret and use as a rough guide. Under the new laws, assuming they get through, they will no longer be open to interpretation and will have to be followed to the letter.

        Regarding Section 7/7.3 FAC, you can either have them at your home and not shoot them, or keep them at a range and shoot them, but the range has to be locked down with only yourself and other section 7/7.3 and section 5 shooters present. Essentially section 7/7.3 need to be transported to and from the range by a person with a section 5. What you can own on those section 7/7.3 also seems to vary a lot, some people have been refused guns that others haven’t. You have to prove ‘why’ the gun is important in terms of firearms history /development etc. So unique operating mechanisms can be owned regardless of age -for example.

        We can still own muzzle loading revolvers on section 1, and long barrel semi auto pistols, and long barrel revolvers such as the taurus 38/44/45 they are no longer made though, so there are limited amounts available and command high prices. I saw a .44 for sale recently for £1500.

        I know it effected shotguns, but it didn’t ban them which is what the article states, they were just moved to section 1 from section 2. There is no mag limit on section 1, for SG or rim fire.

        Your 1911 would can be purchased now legally as a section 7/7.3. It’s a lot of hoops to jump through really, but they are not ‘banned’. Just heavily restricted.

  • SikterEfendi

    As much as I would like to believe it, “the paper in question was not peer-reviewed, it didn’t constitute a
    study, and it misrepresented separate research to draw shaky,
    unsupported conclusions”:


    In other words, this is fake.

  • charles freeman

    Right, this would explain why Great Britain’s rate of violent, gun driven crime is so much higher than America’s. LOL! Nice try, but so weak as to be transparent in the writer’s motives.