Via Tango I came across this wonderful study done by Harvard in 2007. Lately I have reiterated more and more that our opponents are living in a serious state of denial and this is yet another nail in their coffin.
The money shot from the 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. 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.
(Emphasis mine.) Even more entertaining though was this comment after that shot.
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[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐guns, 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.
Are you grinning yet? If not you should be because remember this is coming out the liberal bastion of Harvard. Not to mention the comment made about a study done by the University of Washington, another liberal bastion out of the Peoples’ Republic of Puget Sound. Back to Harvard though, this is the same Harvard who said the following about the 4th of July in 2011.
“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.
Even 5 years ago Harvard saw the writing on the wall and indicated the burden of proof is on the anti-rights cultists. Further often as of late we see the following across twitter from our opponents how gun ownership is at its lowest rate ever. That guns are not being bought in record numbers, yet the facts clearly state otherwise. Again, some of it comes right out of their own back yard such as this piece out of a New York CBS affiliate:
Yet remember, gun ownership is at an all time low.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is on pace to beat its own record of 1,114,700 firearms produced in one year, set in 2011. On August 15, 2012 Ruger produced its one millionth firearm of the year, a Ruger® SR1911™ pistol which will be hand-engraved by Baron Technology, Inc. and auctioned off to support the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
Yet remember, gun ownership is at an all time low. Not to mention “fewer and fewer people are interested in owning firearms”.
So I have a question. If ownership and interest is at an all time low, who pray-tell is buying all these firearms? Where are all these firearms going. I know the ATF bought bunches of them and were sending them over the border to Mexico, but that little hole has been plugged up for a while now.
Our opponents do not understand their logical fallacies. They cannot grasp that just because there are fewer gun deaths they’re not actually safer. They cannot comprehend that violence is violence no matter the tool. The honestly believe that you’re safer with more crime as long as guns are used less often.
Denial is a stage of grief and honestly this abundance of Peterson Syndrome is a symptom of their grief. They have lost and not just by a bit either. We dropped a 105mm Howitzer in the middle of their happy parade and have exposed them for the evil bigots that they are. The worst part about those evil bigots though is they prey upon the fact that many people honestly want to do good and help people. They then spread their lies, misinformation, and logical fallacies corrupting good people.
Honestly though, I wouldn’t mind if a majority of our opponents forever remained in the first stage. If they do progress I want them to rapidly progress to bargaining and skipping over anger. Given their propensity towards violence, especially when on the losing side, it would be a very bad and dangerous thing. Doubly so if they started trying to engineer failure in an attempt to “aid” their cause.
Denial, it’s not just a river in Egypt. It is the current home of our opponents and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I can live with that.