Department of Justice Researchers: Assault Weapons Ban Won’t Have Effect on Gun Violence

Liberals insist that policy should be guided by science, not emotion, and yet they are once again choosing to ignore the science in favor of emotion. Biden knows this information quite well, which is why he has said the same thing several times while championing a law that will do nothing except restrict the civil rights of the political opponents of his political party.

Justice Department researchers have concluded that an assault weapons ban is “unlikely to have an effect on gun violence,” but Obama has not accepted their report as his administration’s official position.

“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,” the DOJ’s National Institute for Justice explains in a January 4 report obtained by the National Rifle Association. “If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” That idea is also undermined by the acknowledgement that “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

“The Administration has never supported a gun registry or gun confiscation,” a DOJ official told Talking Points Memo, adding that the January 4 report does “not represent the position of the Department of Justice or the administration.”

So Item 1. Either Obama is pushing a law that will accomplish nothing in order to Salami Slice the Second Amendment.  Or he’s just pushing a law that will accomplish nothing.

Liberals like to think of themselves as reality-based, the only problem is that they’re always playing a game of Choose Your Own Reality. And Choose Your Own Facts.

  • Gee

    Not liberals – leftists. There is a huge difference between the two

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Not that much these days.

      • Gee

        I am a liberal. I believe in individual rights, that means that I do not believe that the government should have any say over what I person does for and to themselves. Nor do I believe that I have the right to tell others what to do.

        Am against abortion – so I won't get one. I do not have the right to tell anybody one way or the other.

        Am against tatoos – with the both reasons.

        Am against drugs – with those same reasons.

        Am pro-guns because they are specifically in the Constitution and I served 9 years of my life to protect. Am against telling anybody that they have to own such for the same reasons.

        So yes I do believe that there is a huge difference.

    • Viet Vet

      The difference today is merely one of semantics.

      Unless one specifies they are Classical Liberals (basically F.A. Hayek said Classical Liberalism in the contemporanious setting resides in conservatism) they are liberal-leftists.

      Fear a politician, political party, or government, that fears an armed citizenry.

  • Mary Sue

    Liberals have always been about the emotion while pretending to be about the science.

    • Viet Vet

      Exactly, liberals-leftists are anti-science. Their understanding of things is predicated on emotion, hysteria, junk science and predisposition. This topic is a good example: scientific criminology studies for decades have come to this conclusion (that banning guns, and so-called gun control will curb violence and crime). Their studies have found just the opposite. But they have all been ignored by the left, just as this one will be. There are very close to 100,000 words in the Federal Gun Code. Then the individual states have their gun-control laws, which average in the thousands of words. Leftist states like NY, NJ, CA, etc. have more words in their gun laws than the Federal Code. Guns are the most regulated object in the land. You either have to conclude that the left is plain stupid, or they have an aulterior motive for persistently trying to disarm the American citizenry.

      • Viet Vet

        ….will NOT curb violence and crime.

        • Gee

          As a liberal I agree – an armed citizen is a lawful citizen. Where I live the police response time is in hours, not minutes. That is not a slam on the law enforcement people, it is a big county.

          I would be stupid and selfish not to arm myself to protect myself and family

      • Ashland

        I believe those that are for bigger government realize that eventually enough americans on the right will become so fed up with the pressure of government on their backs and see their earnings being encreasling be extorted that they will rebel . And when they do there may well be a blood bath. What remains to be seen is which way will the military will fall. If they take their pledge to defend the constituation against all enemys both foreign and domestic. They did not swear to defend the government. When the government is abusing its power and violates the constitution we are required to put a stop to it with arms if it comes to that. I hope it never gets to that.

  • dolly lama

    If a ban means one less assault weapon that could be used to murder someone, it's worth it to me to save a life. Yes, one life is worth it. Maybe the reseachers would have a change of heart if someone in their family was killed by an assault weapon. No one needs an assault weapon to protect themselves. Potato guns work really well.

    • Gee

      What about the people whose lives are saved because of having them? Do not their lives count too? How many of their lives does it take to be worth it?

      Do you know that about 3 times as many people are killed every day than die from "assault weapons" per year? What about their lives – what are they worth to you? Going to ban automobiles to protect them?

      • Viet Vet

        Exactly, Gee. Criminology research has found that law-abiding gunowners use their legal firearms over 2 million times each year to kill or drive off a criminal attack. If just 10% of these attempts were successful, over 200,000 innocent people would be added each year to the crime rate death toll. We know from this research that many more people's lives are saved by having a gun available than are murdered by criminal misuse of guns, as awful as that is.

    • Viet Vet

      Sorry, but assault weapons, for all practical purposes, were banned in 1934. The left has manufactured the phrase “assault weapon” as an euphemism designed to propagandize the ignorant. Ever wonder why the AK-47 and the M-16 (what could be called true assault weapons) were not among the rifles banned by the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban? It was because they were already for the most part, illegal to possess.

      This type of obfuscation is the modus operandi of the left. They used it back in the 80’s with the SDI program (Star Wars). They used it with the KTW Teflon Bullet (Cop-Killer Bullet). They used it with Supply-Side Economics (Reaganomics). And on and on. They use these euphemisms as a means to defame and discredit. They throw them out there and their media runs with it.

    • Viet Vet

      "Maybe the reseachers would have a change of heart if someone in their family was killed by an assault weapon."

      They wouldn't be researchers if this influenced them.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      What about freedom of speech?

      If one person's life was saved by outlawing newspapers would that be worth it?

      • Gee

        How about freedom of religion. How many children have been molested by Catholic priest. To "protect the children" shouldn't they be banned?

        Or how about Islam that calls for and commits murders of anybody different? So they too be banned? If they can ban the 2nd Amendment what is stopping them from banning the 1st?

  • Dip Sheet

    Maybe we can use HARSH LANGUAGE instead to defend our selves. Swear at a rapist just before he violates you, what do you think Dolly?

    • Never Again

      Then you'd be called a "bully." No, I think we need to use the advise from this administration for every other policy they foist upon us — "just lay back and take it."