Feds Admit: Gun Laws Won’t Slow Crime

Photo Credit: WNDA study by the Department of Justice’s research wing, the National Institute of Justice, has the feds admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major contributor to gun crime.

The study also concluded those weapons are not a major factor in deaths caused by firearms, nor would an “assault weapons” ban be effective.

“The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions,” it said. “Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

The report finds no significant link between “assault weapons” and murders.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the report said.

The document, titled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” also sees no epidemic of mass shootings.

Read more from this story HERE.

  • Then why are we listenning to this sorry as- dictator with his demands,
    when we should be proceding with an impeachment for obama.

  • Moriarity

    Never let the facts/truth get in your way Democrats! Stay in lockstep with your Party and continue your brainless assault on the law abiding population. It’s the hallmark of your twisted ideology.

    • jason12321

      That’s absolutely correct. But what did Republicans do when Bush took away many of our rights? “It’s to protect us from terrorists!” What about when Bush signed the “No child left behind” act? Most Republicans are no better.

      “Both” sides just take more and more power illegally, then when an election comes along and puts the other side in power, the other side starts complaining about the other side doing the same thing they did. It’s always the “other side” that’s doing wrong, republicans and democrats are the problem. I’d compare them to children quarreling on the playground, but kids don’t do this, they’re too intelligent.

  • jb80538

    Too bad the liberals don’t have a brain that will help them comprehend the facts.

  • Why hasn’t Congress started “IMPEACHMENT” aganist Obama before he totaly destorys America. There many items to Impeach him on, Impeach on everyone of them.
    At the same time find out who he really is know one knows anything about and where came from, look at all of hisschool records, mothers background, fathers, grandparents, freinds, and so on this has never been done.

  • Jeff

    Let the impeachment process begin !

  • pearl87

    I disagree that “an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence”. I would almost certainly increase gun violence against the law-abiding citizen and fill the criminal element with new bravado.

  • Capt.America

    Someone please explain conservatives and liberals I can’t tell the difference.

  • Capt.America

    The purpose for further gun laws is not to reduce crime.


    This gun control admission is from the DOJ, the realm of the infamous Eric the racist Holder, a man known to be able to talk from both his mouth and butt at the same time……Which end do you trust???

  • exile

    only the enforcement of gun laws, will serve to curb “gun violence” the truth is over 97% of gun crimes are credited to illegal guns, these people, are not bound to magazine capacity, let alone registration of weapons. does the mullah-in-chief, expect the american law abiding public to believe this fairy tale of control of “gun” crime? we all know, any gun felon’s charges will be pleaded down, time served, racial aspects will be used, and yet this preoccupation with fire arm prohibition is as transparent as the goals of the
    national-socialist party’s platform, last century. and please tell me what is the purpose of a gun? let’s see, hunting, target shooting, oh! self-defense? now i am slow, but for all practical purposes a weapon is made to
    use for food [survival,harvesting game for the table] and yes, to use deadly force in a self-defense situation. to listen to the case for gun control, it is almost like if they are trying to change the reason for the existence of firearms. these tools exist to kill, and protect, did any one ever think what the reason was that hitler did not invade switzerland? then, as now the swiss are required by law to keep military grade weapons [selective fire]
    automatic and semi-automatic. not “assault-type” weapons, like the civilian
    models that are now in question.a good guy will stop a bad guy, in 1939 an armed country of civilians stopped hitler from invading. the same argument was posed by the imperial japanese gov’t as far as a land incursion into the u.s. the most effective deterrent was the fact that americans [civilians] were gun owners, as opposed to other countries,

    • Nellie CA

      With the lost of the Fast and Furious guns “BY OUR GOVERNMENT” who knows where these guns are now! Are the people in Southern CA subject to terrors that come here illegally every day and our government doesn’t have a clue who is coming across the borders.

      Japan didn’t invade our country because they knew the Citizens had guns. Hitler took the guns and then stripped the country of every thing the Citizens owned, Castro did the same thing. My neighbor was from Cuba and their home, bank accounts were taken by Castro and they were put on a ship to the U.S.A with only the clothes on their back. They worked and learned English and they were not taken care of by the government. They had to be sponsored by a relative to come here.

      We need a birth right law to stop the fraud in women coming here to have a baby, who is then a citizen and came bring the whole family here when they are 21, they can come here when they start school, live in foster homes paid by the government and get a free education while they are on Welfare. This is fraud and our government isn’t doing anything to stop this abuse and all we need is a birthright law.

  • reggiec

    The following is an exchange of Emails I have had with Senator Feinstein. Yes I am unfortunate to have her as one of my Senators. Her response below was in regard to a Email I sent her explaing the reason for the Second Amendment being included in The Bill of Rights and why the Founding Fathers felt it was so important.
    Her response:
    Dear Mr. Cook:

    Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

    Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

    I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.

    Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.
    Sincerely yours,
    Dianne Feinstein
    United States Senator
    My Response:
    Dear Senator Feinstein February 19, 2013
    Your letter in response to my email to you made the following statements.
    “These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.”
    “I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.
    I will take your comments in order.
    “grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.”
    There are currently laws on the books to enhance sentences if a gun is used in a crime. All too often judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys rail against these enhancements because it “limits” their ability to make a deal or limits their “discretion” In some cases they reduce the normal sentence to make up for the mandatory enhancements.. I would suggest the mandatory doubling of any sentence where a gun is used in the commission of a crime.
    If you look at the gun violence in most large cities; gangs are the major component of gun violence. So gangs should be the target of gun enforcement, not law abiding citizens. It is estimated that gangs in Chicago, the murder capital of the United States that coincidentally has some of the most stringent gun laws, have four times as many members as police officers in that city.
    Now let us consider the “deranged”. In almost every recent case I have explored as far as mass shooting s are concerned the shooter was on some kind of behavior modifying drug. How about a comprehensive investigation conducted and then widely published listing each drug the perpetrators were using at the time or shortly before they committed their crime. Warnings for these drugs state they can cause detachment from reality, suicidal thoughts, aggression, fantasies and other behavioral problems. But then big pharm would scream bloody murder and resist any study that might cut into the massive profits they make for distributing these drugs.
    2. Now let us examine whether anti-gun laws have any effect on gun violence. (from an article Published on Sunday, 17 February 2013 14:15 Written by Enza Ferreri)
    President Carter gave a substantial research grant to University of Massachusetts professor of sociology James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly, all highly regarded sociologists. Professor Wright was on record as strongly in favor of much stricter gun controls. This was the most comprehensive study of gun control that had ever been undertaken, which resulted in a massive three-volume work, “Under the Gun”.

    David Kopel, Research Director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment, explains:

    “Wright and his colleagues were asked to survey the state of research regarding the efficacy of gun control, presumably to show that gun control worked and that America needed more of it. But when the researchers produced their report for the National Institute of Justice in 1982, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write. Carefully reviewing all existing research, the three scholars found no persuasive scholarly evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence. For example, the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned most interstate gun sales, had no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states. Washington, D.C.’s ban on the ownership of handguns that had not already been registered in the District was not linked to any reduction in gun crime. Even Detroit’s law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns, in part because judges would often reduce the sentence for the underlying offense in order to balance out the mandatory two-year extra sentence for use of a gun.

    Professor Wright summarized the research’s conclusions thus: “Gun control laws do not reduce crime.” Kopel said: “As the scholars frankly admitted, they had started out their research as gun-control advocates, and had been forced to change their minds by a careful review of the evidence.”
    Senator Feinstein…Have you read this study?

    3. “the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited.”
    Words have meanings! If those meanings are bastardized all becomes chaos.
    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison
    Definition of to KEEP: to hold or retain in one’s possession; hold as one’s own.
    Definition of to BEAR: to carry, transmit, transport, have a characteristic of and exhibit.
    Definition of INFRINGE: to “encroach” upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
    THIS IS THE WORD MOST FORGETEN……INFRINGE!!!!! Read the meaning!!!
    Definition of INFRINGE/ENCROACH…….. 1: to enter by “GRADUAL STEPS OR BY STEALTH” (MY BOLD) into the possessions or rights of another. 2: to advance beyond the usual or proper limits
    Why is this so hard to understand? The meanings of the words in the Second Amendment have not changed since the amendment was ratified.
    I am not aware of the Second Amendment being repealed or amended.
    4. Many in politics, apparently including you, from the legislative, administrative branches and or judges cite “precedent” as a justification for the violations of our rights as guaranteed in The Constitution of These United States of America. Precedent only describes what has been done and GOTTEN AWAY WITH, not if it was done in compliance with the supreme law of the land or in accordance with the oath of office to uphold The Constitution. If you want to “infringe” on the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment you will have to amend it or change the meaning of several words in the English language; otherwise you are in violation of your oath of office. Read the definitions above one more time!
    5. It seems to me that you are in direct violation of the advice given by James Madison quoted above.

    • Nellie CA

      When I wrote to Feinstein, I got the same letter you received from her. She is wrong and this will put CA in more danger than we have been in the last 30 years with very few people with carry permits. The states who allow carry permits have less crime. Cities and Businesses who are gun free have more crime. Chicago is one example! The crooks own the city!

  • Gun legislation is like prohibition. It will only turn good people into outlaws because the natural instinct to protect oneself is stronger than the desire to sacrifice one’s life because we are expected to do so by legislators overtly disobeying their own laws in their own environments. The security officers assigned to every lawmaker are armed; this shows contempt for taxpayers that no law can outweigh. The legislators who passed prohibition did not stop drinking themselves, you see. They did not agree to live under Obamacare, either. The gun laws have nothing to do with goodness or helpfulness: they are purely designed for power to strip people of all rights.

  • Sue

    Duh. All of the rest of us know that crazy, demented, wierdos kill people. Gun control is about CONTROL. It is not about stopping crime. The big government wants to control and that is all this is about.

  • Nellie CA

    This is the truth! Where people own guns their home will not be invaded by the criminals. The Liberals will want protection. I want the same protection and the only way to get that protection is own a gun and be able to protect myself if my home is invaded.
    Police in Washington state who are going house to house looking for guns is invasion of privacy and not constructional. The second amendment is being taken away from the Citizens and only the crooks will have guns.

  • Kent2012

    Rather difficult to expect that the same organization that “armed” the criminals will have any success in “disarming” the same folks. Only the law abiding will be disarmed……