It appears that members of the Obama Administration and he fellow democrat travelers will do or say anything to push the tenets of international socialism and the disarming of the law-abiding Americans to reduce the threat of blowback to government tyranny and oppression.
Consider this report, “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” by Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D., Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice …
On average there are about 11,000 firearm homicides every year. While there are deaths resulting from accidental discharges and suicides, this document will focus on intentional firearm homicides.
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.
This document provides a cursory summary of select initiatives to reduce firearm violence and an assessment of the evidence for the initiative.
What?, they are suggesting that the government no stress mass shootings because it might be harder to implement draconian public policies which abridge the Second Amendment and disarm law-abiding citizens. Can you imagine how many more people might be killed by crazies and criminals if the broader population were disarmed? It certainly would be higher that 35 per year. And, yet the Obama Administration and its fellow travelers can’t quit talking about Sandy Hook – claiming we must disarm “to protect the children.” The very same children who are thrown under the bus by union domination of education which sees the bulk of our educational dollars spent on facilities and personnel, as reflected in the declining graduation of students from high school. And many of those graduating seeming to be functional illiterates.
Goal: Reduce access to firearms by incentivizing owners to dispose of their unwanted guns rather than transfer them to a more risky possessor
Evidence: 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.
And, yet police departments continue to engage in fruitless behavior, often citing “if only one child is saved.”
Goal: Reduce the lethality of guns by reducing the number of rounds that can be quickly fired.
Program: Restrictions on the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of large capacity magazines (usually defined as holding more than 10 rounds).
Evidence: Mass shootings predominantly involve the use of large capacity magazines. The most lethal ones all involve large capacity magazines. In addition large capacity magazines were used in nearly 25% of all crimes in 1993 just prior to the ban. There is reason to believe that reducing the availability of large capacity magazines could have an effect on the total number of homicides.
Even if true, again, we are talking about disadvantaging a large number of law-abiding citizens by taking away their ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or well-armed assailants. One need only look at the recent Dorner-related shooting where the police opened up on innocent citizens without warning and used over 30 rounds without killing their intended target. There are times when you need a sufficient number of rounds in a short period of time – anything less tips the battle in favor of the crazies and criminals.
Goal: Limit access to assault weapons.
Program: Ban the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of assault weapons.
Evidence: 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.
Bottom line …
When will the honest and courageous members of Congress, if there are any, stand up and explain to the American people that we have a crime control issue, not a gun control issue and that the majority of inner city crime is related to minority gangs preying on other gangs and that much of the perceived outrage is collateral damage from a gang initiations, enforcement of turf and/or retaliations. Obama’s big lie will result in more dead Americans than lost in the Afghanistan war – don’t believe me – it is already true with last year’s Chicago murder rate.
Reference Links …