Indians For Guns

An excellent independent research conducted at Harvard says - NO!! See the following document for more.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

The researchers end with this conclusion -

CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil - at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.(149) To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was
with the admonition:

If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is - a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.

(149) (1) Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving that change is a good idea; (2) those who propose a new policy bear the burden of proving that the policy is a good idea; and (3) in a free society those who propose to abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving that abolishment is a good idea.

Abhijeet,

Thanks for this piece. I was able to use it in a debunking of some anti gun trash that Vinay Lal, a Professor of History at UCLA wrote in the Economic and POlitical Weekly on this forum.

I sent my response to Lal himself as well as to the EPW and to the gentleman who forwarded this piece. I would be happiest, though, if Lal's students got to see what a whack job he is. That said, UCLA is a refuge for kooks - I'm hardly surprised that someone like Lal gets away with his nonsense over there.

Cheers!

Mehul,

Saw your rebuttal - good stuff there, made enjoyable reading


Cheers!
Abhijeet

Abhijeet,

What I don't understand is why a scholarly journal like EPW does not submit an article like this one for a peer review. Somehow, just because some Indian becomes a professor at a foreign university does not mean that he is all-knowing. Somehow, the editorial policies of Indian publishers seem designed to give NRIs swollen heads.

This may be OT, but UCLA used to offer courses in basket weaving and surfboarding and probably still do. No wonder they have professors who come up with this kind of nonsense.

i agree.
i have been working in emergency psychiatry for the last 6 months. my job involves assessing people who are feeling suicidal/attempted suicide.
i have never ever seen a man wanting to kill self with firearms.
shotgun certificate grants are at an all time high in uk. and the suicide rates are at an all time low.
even amongsts the methods used, the instance of using 'violent methods' is dropping.
even amongst 'violent methods, firearms is the least favoured method.
if it is argued that people with a mental illness are not granted a license, i would also like to point that
not all pts who commit suicide havent been diagnosed with mental health problems.
the treatment for an actively suicidal patient is monitoring/ admission+ medications, not justkeeping away from firearms but also keeping away from ALL sharps like kitchen knives, razor blades, razors, needles, forks, knives glass ropes, cords, hanging beams, open windows. etc.
in fact all the above mentioned items(including firearms.) are contraband on a psychiatry ward.
if a patient is suicidal, there is high risk of killing self and the Pt. might use ANY method.
I wish to state for the record that i am not in the favour of patients with mental illness carrying firearms but also knives. this also holds true for people with drug and alcohol addiction.
i will be happy to provide references for what i have stated above.