Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Crime

Justice Dept. Internal Memo Admits Gun Buybacks, ‘Assault Weapons’ Bans, and Large Capacity Magazine Restrictions Don’t Work

Feb. 19, 2013 9:42am Mytheos Holt

Justice Department Internal Memo Shoots Down Buybacks, Universal Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban And Other Obama Gun Control Policies

New Jersey Attorney General Jeffrey S. Chiesa, center at podium, stands with other officials, Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2013, in Trenton, N.J., as he announces that the gun buyback program last Friday and Saturday in the state’s capital brought in over 2,600 guns, including 700 that were illegal. Credit: AP

Gun control may still be very much a topic for national conversation, and the prospects of some variety of gun control legislation may look better for anti-gun forces than they have in nearly 20 years, but a Justice Department internal memo from early in the year that just got leaked to the public may scuttle all of that. The memo comes from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a subgroup within the Justice Department, which defines itself this way:

The National Institute of Justice — 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.

In other words, when a policy is proposed that the department has to enforce, they go to this group with questions. No partisan agenda can be reasonably inferred, and if there were one, it would likely incline toward the administration’s preferred policy.

Not that you’d know it from reading the memo itself, which takes aim at nearly every form of gun control proposed by the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, and systematically shoots it all down (no pun intended), or argues for proposals that are completely politically untenable. Making matters worse for the administration, the memo wasn’t drafted by some low level flunky in the NIJ, but rather from Greg Ridgeway, its Deputy Director. Moreover, Ridgeway is not a Bush administration holdover, but was, in fact, hired last year right in the thick of President Obama’s reelection campaign.

A few key excerpts from Ridgeway’s damning report follow.

On the prevalence of mass shootings (a key statistic used by gun control advocates such as Piers Morgan):

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 the idea of the government buying back guns:

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.

On large capacity magazine restrictions:

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.

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.

And, finally, on the idea of “banning” so-called assault weapons:

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.

The NRA has breathlessly released an ad citing the memo as evidence against the Obama administration’s preferred gun policy. It can be viewed below:

Read the memo here.

(H/T: Gateway Pundit)

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (83)

klopnuts
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 12:58pm
the sad truth is if they offered market value, and in cash, their buy backs would do much better. thats one of the things i dont understand. obama doenst seem to have any problem with spending OUR money, but when it comes to buy backs they want to low ball and pay with a gift certificate.
also i would like every weapon confiscated to be cross checked and if stolen, returned tothe rightfull owner. hand delivered by the sheriff (or deputy) and have a talk with the owner about how/why the weapon was stolen and steps they should take to attempt to make it harder for the thieves. but thats an idea that would work better in my mayberry world i want to live in….

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
annelouisegelinas
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 9:49am
Add your comments

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- annelouisegelinas
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 9:55am
  When your rights to be armed are taken away and you are therefore shot , maimed, and or killed then whomever took your rights away from you becomes the alternate killer or maimer of the one who did the deed. That is the law. You have to be held accountable by law. So why bother with all these court cases? Everyone who can legally own arms and legally shoot bullets, must be protected by our Constitution. There you have it. Even our government knows it is a known fact that the government cannot and should not ever stand in the way of American citizens defending themselves. Everyone who can own a gun should own a gun. Everyone who has a gun must defend themselves against
  others and or a government who would leave them helpless and without any means of defense. That is wrong and our government knows it. Otherwise why does anyone in high positions need bodyguards? Killers are killers. They show no respect for any law or authority. If our president can have guns surrounding him day and night, all citizens have the same right to have guns surrounding them day and night. Intruders at the white house could be shot dead on sight, and therefore, intruders in your home can also be shot dead on sight. So none is going to rob any citizens of their rights to arm if the highest positions in America do not disarm themselves.
  
  Report this comment
dogwater
Posted on February 20, 2013 at 12:42am
This article is so lame.
It actually shows why there SHOULD be a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
DIJ’s Greg Ridgeway says: “In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availabilty to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale and possession”. Duh!…. You mean when you outlaw something you have enforce the law ?. Who would of thought?.
“An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact”.-WRONG.
A 3 year grace period for existing mags. would work. People can then use them up or trade them in.

Heroin and cocaine laws require the same restrictions as the above, yet there are no problems enforcing those laws.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on February 20, 2013 at 1:40am
  something you have not thought about.
  
  A very good article on the Tactical/Strategic reality of what might happen.
  
  The man who wrote the article is very smart and well trained.
  
  http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/2nd_amen.pdf
  
  Report this comment
JedFelcie
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 5:37pm
The way I see it is any form of gun restrictions(besides not allowing repeat criminals) is unconstitutional, end of story. The anti-gun supporters and government officials can not honestly think that if they TRY to come take the guns out of any United States citizen’s home and not find resistance. I am not saying that I would want to fight the police/army/whoever the government tries to enforce proposed laws with, but if it comes down to it I would do what is needed to protect my rights. Thomas Jefferson once said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” if things go the way Obama seems to want them to the tree of liberty WILL be refreshed and our freedom will remain. Maybe I am just a 16 year old kid who doesn’t know what he is talking about but then again I was raised to have my own opinion and not be one of the sheep.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Larry E
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 4:02pm
All this stupidity assumes that criminals will obey some law that a bunch of morons who wrote it believe they will. Mass murders, except when committed by criminals against other criminals or by governments on their own people are generally the work of the criminally insane. The leftists don’t want to offend the insane so they’re free to commit mass murders any way they want. A gun is not necessary, and in fact probably not as efficient as other means that come readily to mind.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
republic2011
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:58pm
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Texas Lady Juanita
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 3:32pm
I realize that my post a few minutes ago regarding the militarizatio of our police departments, is a good fit here also: Just because I am conservative doesn’t mean I expect the worst outcome. First, with countries like China and Russia doing war games with an American enemy in mind, I believe we need a greater military presence at home. We do not have enough military bases open in the U S to cover being invaded. We need for enemies to think twice before thinking about putting their boots on our soil. Second, I have serious doubts whether our sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers would wage war on their families /communities. I know it is real popular right now to suspect our militarized police departments, but I don’t see that.
ONE MORE IDEA – We could not have armed millions of Americans quicker than we have in the last few years. It is possible all the gun control talk is to militarize the population. Who hasn’t bought a gun in the last 24 months? Just sayin’ . . . the word is that Congress will not pass or enforce meaningful gun laws. Could they be just bluffing to arm the nation. All things are possible folks.
Be prepared for the worst, and pray for the best of outcomes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
hades3
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 2:31pm
The biggest gun dealer in history. City, state and federal governments. I wonder how many of these guns end up in collections of government personnel, just as property does after a drug bust.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sinner-saint
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 1:26pm
The bottom line is this. All those (civilians and politicians alike) who try to alter, negate, change or nullify any law of the U.S. Constitution w/o following the proper procedure to amend the U.S. Constitution should be up on treason charges and face the death penalty. these people are not loyal to the U.S. Constitution and are the enemy within….enemies of the State. They are the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world. They seek to destroy this country and the People of this country.

What do we do with all the people in the country who have made themselves enemies of the State, who have turned their backs on the U.S. Constitution, and who don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution? Any other country would round up and arrest all these people who try to overthrow the country/government and disobey the law of the land (the U.S. Constitution), and execute all of them as the treasonous traitors they truly are. Our laws call for the same thing.

The duty of every citizen, law enfocement officer, government official, politician and military person is to have faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and to protect/defend the U.S. Constitution. But today, we have many many people in this country who refuse to do these two very simple things….almost 1/2 the population in this country. All these people should be rounded up, arrested, tried for treason, and swiftly executed. Then we can get this country back on the right track and rid this country of all the undesirables.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
heidihoneighbor
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:56pm
LLiberals arent looking for the truth. They are looking for ways to hide it and tweak it into the fantasy world they see in their heads.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AnAmerican111
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 12:04pm
Obama pathetic administration is full of criminals that would like nothing better than to disarm America!
Does not matter what they communicate internally or externally!

…The War is beginning!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sinner-saint
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:54am
This whole gun ban/control situation is complete stupidity. All these people and the politicians calling for gun bans/controls are certifiably completely insane. They keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results and none of it works. They think/believe that by making a law, they can control people’s behavior/actions. How very wrong they are. and if these idiots think/believe for one second that I am going to listen to them, follow/support them, surrender a gun to them, let them take my freedoms/liberties away, or let them control me with their stupid idiotic insane gun ban/control laws that don’t work, they must be be on some dam good mind/mood altering drugs that has totally screwed up their thinking. I don’t follow/obey crazy insane people. I don’t let crazy insane people tell me what to do. I and I sure don’t let crazy insane people tell me what to do with guns/weapons. That’s the whole problem right there…….you have a bunch of crazy insane people shooting everyone and trying to control guns/gun laws. Doesn’t matter if that person is the wacked out crazy shooter or the wacked out crazy insane gun ban/control freak – they are both the same thing! They are crazy, insane, mentally unstable nut cases wanting guns! Hell no I’m not giving any of them a gun or letting them take a gun from me. You don’t put guns/weapons in the hands/control of crazy insane nut jobs! Just ask Chris Kyle…oh he’s dead now…gave a crazy a gun…oh well, li

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bartjoebob
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:53am
My fear is that this memo is not intended to tell the Obama admin that none of the existing proposals or laws will work or are impractical. Rather it seems to be a wholesale message to replicate what Australia did only at a larger scale. Its all about 2014 and 2 SCOTUS nominations folks, put NOTHING past this admin!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:49am
almost 1 in 4 of the recovered weapons were illegal?
and those turning in illegal firearms did so without a penalty… with a reward, even.

another example of letting some people (criminals) get away with ignoring the laws you and I obey, while trying to curtail or eliminate the rights of the law abiding citizens.

of course, just because they claim 700 ‘illegal’ weapons does not mean it is fact… just learned that similar to the ’1 in 3 women are raped’ claims that included being whistled at as ‘rape’ in the 70′s, present anti-gun statisticians ask after a gun death if there was a gun in the home and whether or not that gun was used in the crime count it as such, in order to make households with a firearm statistically more dangerous… to support their belief.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lincolnhenry1860
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:20am
FREEDOM IS DANGEROUS!!!!!! That’s why I love it so much!! We as a nation have become so concerned about safety and security, it makes me want to puke!! Safety is the killer of freedom. Don’t buy in to the safety ideology. Reject it as we should reject PC. People know that the government’s anti 2nd Amendment agenda has NOTHING to do with keeping people safe, but everything about control. Screw those bastards!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 11:03am
they KNOW none of these work, but after doing them and still having no reduction, they will then push for more. The NRA warnings about giving in at all are being proven correct, and the sheeple acting like it’s ok ‘just where guns are concerned’ are such dim bulbs they can’t understand it will spread to free speech, and other ‘rights’ they only thought they had…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
r3dbull4dd1kt
Posted on February 19, 2013 at 10:39am
I am writing off this memo as complete BS propaganda/rhetoric being intentionally ‘leaked’…why?>
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/15/The-Aussie-Lesson-Less-Guns-More-Crime
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia#Crime_statistics

according to these three sites Australian assaults involving guns rose more than a 25% and murders with a gun rose nearly 20%–hmmm this seems to contradict the ‘no effect on gun homicides’ lines doesn’t it?

Also, the Australian definition for “Mass Shooting” aren’t the same as our own Libt@rds’, so comparing them accurately is impossible…

The plain simple truth is, it has never been about the GUNS it is always about the CONTROL…

I WILL NO COMPLY with ANY regulations-period…unconstitutional laws are not laws…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.