EU anti-shooting study concedes what we already knew

8th June 2016 – The EU spent 600,000 euros paying anti-shooting academics at Coventry University to compile a report on firearm misuse and forensics – which then conceded gun ownership doesn’t correlate with increased crime.

UK Shooting News’ author does not have time to go through the study’s 130-odd pages today (PDF) but quotes Firearms United, which said about the study:

Our speaker Katja Triebel had been interviewed by EU EFFECT Project on gun crime last year. Erica Bowen, the head of the study is anti-gun, as you can see on her Twitter profile. But even in this biased study (no mentioning of Kleck/Lott/Kates, but lots of anti-gunners like Squire/Kersten/Duquet) we found these MOST IMPORTANT phrases:
In a combined country and individual-level analyses […] it was observed that the high availability of firearms was associated with lower levels of victimization by contact crime in general, suggesting a potential deterrent‬ effect of availability‬.

Participants acknowledged that firearms legislation typically focuses on the control of legally held firearms, and that this is most often amended in response‬ to gun enabled crime. It was identified that firearms used in crime are most often illegal‬ rather than legally owned firearms. There were divergent views regarding whether existing national firearms legislation was adequate, and whether additional national and/or EU wide legislation is needed.

The study’s authors can be found on Twitter, where they enthusiastically share messages from Britain’s National Ballistics Intelligence Centre, the most prominent publicly-funded anti-shooting organisation in Britain today, as well as Arquebus Solutions Ltd.

Arquebus is a company formed by former NABIS employees. Its name has cropped up a few times in missives sent to UKSN by concerned members of the shooting public, and Firearms United keeps a close eye on it.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “EU anti-shooting study concedes what we already knew

  1. Paul

    After a bit more than a quick scan of the whole document a lot can be gleaned. One thing is for certain given the expenditure of £ 600,000 of taxpayers money, or £ 4,878.05 per page – I think we should be asking for our money back.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s