So we are always hearing from these radical progressives, that guns are the cause of all evil on the earth. That if we took away the peoples right to own and bear arms, if we gave the government even more control over our lives, the murder and violent crime rates would go down. As is always the case with progressives, they will continue to demand more gun control, demand that we lay down and hand over our rights to the government, no mater the facts of the situation. If you point out how gun laws lead to higher crime rates, they say that you hate kids. If you point out how mass murders, which always seem to spark these gun control debates, are normally the result of failed gun control laws, they say that you want to legalize rape. They don’t listen to facts, they don’t listen to logic, they don’t listen to common sense. All they know is that the hierarchy of their movement has told them that guns are bad, and that you are too stupid have them.
With that in mind I wonder how the radical progressive zealots will react to the recently leaked internal memo from the Justice Department. The memo in question came from the National Institute of Justice. The NIJ is “the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice — is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and tools to reduce crime and promote justice, particularly at the state and local levels”. The memo was written by the Deputy Director of the NIJ Greg Ridgeway, an man who took the position last year during the campaign. Basically this memo burns the progressive anti-gun manifesto to the ground. The following are quotes from the memo.
On Mass Shootings
“Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings.”
On Buy Back Programs
“Twitter summary: Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban[…]
Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.
The 1997 Australia gun buyback and its associated regulations is an exception to this. 1. It was large, buying back 20% of the firearm stock. 2. It targeted semi-automatic weapons. 3. It coupled the buyback with a ban on certain weapons and a nationwide registration and licensing program. There is strong evidence that it reduced mass killings (before the initiative massacres occurred on average once per year and none have occurred in the 15 years since).
The Australia buyback appears to have had no effect on crime otherwise.”
So these buy back programs that we constantly hear about, seem to be nothing more than a dog and pony show, an attempt for politicians to try and look like they are tackling the problem. That is unless, the government takes drastic actions, as was the case in Australia where they saw the number of mass shootings drop after their buy back program. However, we know that Unfortunatly the crime rates have not abated any, in fact they have increased, I doubt as a result of the buy back program itself, but probably due to the government ban on fire arms, and of course how in 2000 the Australian government confiscated over 600,000 guns. From 2000 to 2001, Australia saw its assault rate clime 8.6%, their homicide rate clime 3.2%, and the armed robbery rate climb 44%. Food for thought.
On Restrictions on Large Capacity Magazines
“The 1994 ban on large capacity magazines had limited effectiveness because 1) Large capacity clips are a durable good 2) There were an estimated 25 million guns with large capacity magazines in 1995 3) The 1994 law exempted magazines manufactured before 1994 so that the importation of large capacity magazines manufactured overseas before 1994 continued through the ban 4) while the price of the clips increased dramatically (80% during the ban) they were not unaffordable. A 2004 study of the 1994 law found: “because the ban has not yet reduced the use of [large capacity magazines] in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” The 1994 ban essentially did little to affect the supply of large capacity magazines.
In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.”
So straight from the halls of justice, restricting large capacity magazines, something that progressives cry out to the heavens for, actually has no affect on crime rates. Who would have thought that the government restricting something, would have no affect on its use or on crime rates. Alcohol, drugs, prostitution, speeding come to mind when I think of government restriction. So now it is time for what to a progressive, is the most dreaded of thought processes, the application of common sense. Large magazines don’t go bad, they can sit for years without wearing out, there are a lot of them out there, and there is no way to stop the flow of them from outside of our nation. So just how is the government supposed to eliminate them from the streets. Sure you could do a buy back program, so the law abiding citizens who are hard up for cash will turn in their large capacity magazines. But what about the criminal, the person who doesn’t care about the law, doesn’t care about what some elitist in Washington has commanded him to do. The criminal does not care about the nations laws, so why would they care about the legality of their magazine capacity? But for the sake of argument, lets say that the government was able to some how able to round up all the high capacity magazines that are already in the country, do you really think that even if they band all high capacity magazines, not just those made sense 1994, that high capacity magazines would disappear from out streets? The better question I guess would be does a government ban reduce the demand for a good? By looking to history it is possible to find the answers to this question. Did the government ban on alcohol reduce the demand for it during prohibition? Did the government ban on drugs reduce the demand for them? Did the government ban on prostitution reduce the demand? The answer to all of these questions is no. It just created a market for shady men to make their fortunes. The same will be true for banning large capacity magazines. The demand for these items will still be there. If a criminal wants one of these magazines, they will get one. It would be an easy thing for coyotes to start smuggling these large capacity magazines into the nation, a crossed our open boarder with Mexico. A boarder that President Obama and the rest of the progressives refuse to close. I suppose that makes me a racist, because I think that having an unpatroled boarder is asinine, but if not wanting to endanger the lives of the people in this nation, for the sake of exploiting a group of people due to their racial background, all for the purpose of political gain, makes me a racist, I can live with that. To sum this up, according to the Justice Department’s research branch banning large capacity magazines won’t reduce crime rates.
On Universal Background Checks
“Twitter summary: Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process[…]
A perfect universal background check system can address the gun shows and might deter many unregulated private sellers. However, this does not address the largest sources (straw purchasers and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. The secondary market is the primary source of crime guns. Ludwig and Cook (2000) compared states that introduced Brady checks to those states that already had background checks and found no effect of the new background checks. They hypothesized that the background checks simply shifted to the secondary market those offenders who normally purchased in the primary market.
Supply sources can vary in different parts of the country. An NIJ funded study of the Los Angeles illicit gun market noted: “Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.” Thus, gun markets can be highly local.”
So the Obama Administration hired Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice released a memo that says that universal background checks proposed by President Obama have no effect on gun crime. I really can’t explain this any better than this man has.
On Banning Scary Looking Semi Automatic Rifles
“Twitter summary: Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions[…]
Guns are durable goods. The 1994 law exempted weapons manufactured before 1994. The exemption of pre-1994 models ensures that a large stock, estimated at 1.5 million, of existing weapons would persist. Prior to the 1994 ban, assault weapons were used in 2-8% of crimes. Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.[…]
Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective. The 1997 Australian gun buyback was massive in scale and, while it appears to have had no effect on gun homicide, Australia has had no mass shootings since the ban was put in place.”
There it is, straight from the government. A man who was hired from by the Obama Administration, a man who is a higher up in the research arm of the Justice Department, has flat out said that banning scary looking semi automatic firearms would not reduce gun violence in this country.
So gun control, doesn’t work, at least according to the Department of Justice. Que the irrational progressives.