DOJ Sponsored Paper Contradicts Obama?

BarryLee · February 21, 2013, 10:58 AM

The National Institute for Justice, a research agency of the Department of Justice, has released a White paper contradicting many of Mr. Obama’s statements and proposed polices. They point out that most of the current proposals would not really reduce gun violence.

However, one concerning aspect of the report is they mention that most of the current proposals would only work if they are eventually made more restrictive. For instance, "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective."

http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...on-claims.aspx

Grizz12 · February 21, 2013, 11:13 AM

Joe Biden said double barrel shotguns are more deadly than assault rifles - so why aren't they on the ban list??

KBP75 · February 21, 2013, 11:31 AM

None of the proposed gun bans make any sense or will reduce crime. I have to laugh at some of them. Rifles with bayonette lugs are looked at as "assault type rifles" by the anti-gun group. How many murders, robberies or crimes have been committed with a rifle with a fixed bayonette? An antique reproduction muzzleloader with a bayonette lug is an assault weapon. Somehow a .223 rifle is looked at as a high powered deadly weapon, but a .458 winchester magnum is not considered by these people as anything! A magazine of 10 rounds is not a threat, but have one that holds more in NY and you are a criminal! Its OK by Joe Biden to fire off outside into the air a double barrel shotgun if you feel threatened, but not OK to have a pistol that has a magazine that has more than 10 rounds in it! What will the neighbors think when the shotgun pellets rain down on them? What then will you do to defend yourself with an empty double barrel shotgun?

BarryLee · February 21, 2013, 11:41 AM

Quote:

None of the proposed gun bans make any sense or will reduce crime.

True and I suspect Mr. Obama knows very well that they will not. However, I believe this is obviously just the first step in a much more aggressive plan to take away or gun rights including the eventual “buy back” of guns. Many may disagree and call me paranoid, but look at the above referenced report. They clearly make the point that the current proposals will have no impact and would need to be much more aggressive to even have a chance of working.

TailGator · February 21, 2013, 01:00 PM

I have had some modest success opposing gun control in private conversations by pointing out the ineffectiveness of proposed measures.

Banning assault weapons, however they are defined, addresses the use of a weapon that is used less often than bare hands for murder, according to FBI statistics.

Limits on magazine size only create momentary pauses in the rate of fire, which can hardly be expected to be a game changer in an active shooter situation. I have actually heard arguments that the magazine change will allow unarmed bystanders the opportunity to tackle a shooter. It is easy to demonstrate how foolhardy that is.

The effectiveness of our current background checks is compromised by two major factors. First, the database contains very little mental health information because our society currently values patient privacy more highly. Checking for mental illness using a database that does not contain mental health data, often by law, is a little past stupid. Second, officials in our government as high as the vice president have stated publicly that we do not prosecute straw purchases. Without fixing those two problems, increasing the number of background checks is just increasing the amount of paper generated, without any expectation of making us safer.

We are not opposed to making our communities safer - heck, that is why we arm ourselves. We have an opportunity to take the high ground precisely because we have thought about strategies of making our families, our homes, and our communities safer.

DaleA · February 21, 2013, 05:40 PM

I find it hopeful that one branch of the government will stand up against another branch of government when they have some facts that fly in the face of what the 'higher' branch wants to do.

steveno · February 21, 2013, 05:53 PM

the overall author and/or contributors are now finding out about how desolate some places in Texas and Arizona really are.

BarryLee · February 24, 2013, 07:21 PM

I saw this AP story related to the DOJ memo mentioned in the OP. Who knows maybe this thing will get a little more coverage from the media.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

February 21, 2013, 10:58 AM	#1
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	DOJ Sponsored Paper Contradicts Obama? The National Institute for Justice, a research agency of the Department of Justice, has released a White paper contradicting many of Mr. Obama’s statements and proposed polices. They point out that most of the current proposals would not really reduce gun violence. However, one concerning aspect of the report is they mention that most of the current proposals would only work if they are eventually made more restrictive. For instance, "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516...olicy-memo.pdf http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...on-claims.aspx __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

February 21, 2013, 11:31 AM	#3
KBP75 Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Posts: 316	DOJ vs Obama vs common sense! None of the proposed gun bans make any sense or will reduce crime. I have to laugh at some of them. Rifles with bayonette lugs are looked at as "assault type rifles" by the anti-gun group. How many murders, robberies or crimes have been committed with a rifle with a fixed bayonette? An antique reproduction muzzleloader with a bayonette lug is an assault weapon. Somehow a .223 rifle is looked at as a high powered deadly weapon, but a .458 winchester magnum is not considered by these people as anything! A magazine of 10 rounds is not a threat, but have one that holds more in NY and you are a criminal! Its OK by Joe Biden to fire off outside into the air a double barrel shotgun if you feel threatened, but not OK to have a pistol that has a magazine that has more than 10 rounds in it! What will the neighbors think when the shotgun pellets rain down on them? What then will you do to defend yourself with an empty double barrel shotgun?

February 24, 2013, 07:21 PM	#8
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	I saw this AP story related to the DOJ memo mentioned in the OP. Who knows maybe this thing will get a little more coverage from the media. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

February 21, 2013, 11:13 AM	#2
Grizz12 Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2012 Posts: 527	Joe Biden said double barrel shotguns are more deadly than assault rifles - so why aren't they on the ban list??

February 21, 2013, 01:00 PM	#5
TailGator Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,787	I have had some modest success opposing gun control in private conversations by pointing out the ineffectiveness of proposed measures. Banning assault weapons, however they are defined, addresses the use of a weapon that is used less often than bare hands for murder, according to FBI statistics. Limits on magazine size only create momentary pauses in the rate of fire, which can hardly be expected to be a game changer in an active shooter situation. I have actually heard arguments that the magazine change will allow unarmed bystanders the opportunity to tackle a shooter. It is easy to demonstrate how foolhardy that is. The effectiveness of our current background checks is compromised by two major factors. First, the database contains very little mental health information because our society currently values patient privacy more highly. Checking for mental illness using a database that does not contain mental health data, often by law, is a little past stupid. Second, officials in our government as high as the vice president have stated publicly that we do not prosecute straw purchases. Without fixing those two problems, increasing the number of background checks is just increasing the amount of paper generated, without any expectation of making us safer. We are not opposed to making our communities safer - heck, that is why we arm ourselves. We have an opportunity to take the high ground precisely because we have thought about strategies of making our families, our homes, and our communities safer.

February 21, 2013, 05:40 PM	#6
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 5,313	I find it hopeful that one branch of the government will stand up against another branch of government when they have some facts that fly in the face of what the 'higher' branch wants to do.

February 21, 2013, 05:53 PM	#7
steveno Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Minden , Nebraska Posts: 1,407	the overall author and/or contributors are now finding out about how desolate some places in Texas and Arizona really are.