Research says - no correlation between private Guns and Crime

First the authors do not imply a correlation (negative or positive) they establish from the review of research that a correlation (negative) does exist. The fact that a negative correlation exists, even if it is small actually does inform debate & is significant because:

Gun Grabbers/Gun Ban Types are constantly claiming that Less Privately Owned Guns = Less Crime.

This study, which is a review of the research done on the topic says yet again that the studies conducted show time and time again that no such correlation exists. This is very significant. Why? because the foundational argument they put forward which seems "reasonable" is in fact totally unsupported by evidence. The evidence in fact ranges from No Correlation between increased Gun Ownership & Rates of Crime to a Negative Correlation. Ie More Guns either make no difference or the cause a reduction in crime. This is the result of the research time and time again. This particular study looks at studies as far back as 1991.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
2007 Paper.
"The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data
from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.” 11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text: [T]here is no consistent significant positive association between
gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S.
states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12"

As the Harvard review concludes:
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.

This study came to basically the same conclusion as a similar study from 10yrs earlier referenced in the paper. In that paper the author noted:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], 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.15



Some other views from more recent data:
MURDER: positive correlation only if USA is included.
http://www.psmag.com/culture/the-correlation-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-rate-55467/
(NB that this includes some commentary on the fact that in the analysis USA is infact an outlier and so might reasonably be excluded from the analysis, which would significantly change the correlation co-efficient result)

CRIME:
http://www.psmag.com/culture/gun-ownership-neither-increases-nor-decreases-crime-rate-55473/

2004 Study  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=2
" For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/archive/#302