Fact Check: No, Gun Laws Don’t Reduce the Murder Rate

Liberals like to point to countries like Australia to “prove” that sweeping gun reform will prevent future mass shootings.

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu talked about why Australia didn’t affect its homicide rate with a mandatory buyback program. (You can learn more about Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program and why it won’t work in the U.S. with Stu’s analysis here.)

Glenn and Stu also took a look at a now-expired federal ban in the U.S. that also didn’t help prevent crime.

In 1994, the U.S. implemented a ban on “assault weapons,” which were defined as certain semi-automatic firearms. The ban, which expired in 2004, had no discernible effect on the homicide rate.

“The Department of Justice found that there was no change in murder rates; it didn’t affect it at all,” Stu pointed out on today’s show.

Listen to the podcast above to hear more.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Boy, the book that we wrote, what, three years ago and put out, control, exposing the truth about guns. Has never been needed more than it is right now. I urge you to pick this book up. Grab it on Amazon. It's a small paperback. We've made it so you could keep it, you know, in your back pocket. It has -- man. Holy cow. Twenty-five pages of footnotes in the back. So -- because I never want you to quote me. I want you to quote the original source.

And it has all of the stats and all of the arguments one by one laid out, so you can have an intelligent argument. Because that's -- that's what we -- the only thing that is going to get us through this, is trying to have an intelligent argument. Screaming at each other or coming, you know, unarmed in an intellectual gunfight, that person is going to lose.

They're unarmed. They are unarmed. Come to the table with the facts. The topics are, we should start drafting a bill to ensure Newton or a shooting like this never happens again. Guns are lethal. No one wants to take your guns away. Boy, did you hear the father last night?

So the father last night -- and I think we have it. The Rubio --

STU: I think it's victim's father, Senator Rubio, and heated change?

GLENN: Yes. That's it. Listen to this.

He first accuses Rubio of being pathetically weak. Go ahead. Play this.

MARCO: I do believe what you're saying is true. I believe that someone like this individual and anyone like him shouldn't have any gun. Not this gun, any gun.

But I want to explain to you for a moment the problem with the law that they call the assault weapons ban. And if you'll indulge me for a minute to explain to you the problem.

First, you have to define what it is. If you look at the law and its definition, it basically bans 200 models of gun. About 220 specific models of gun.

VOICE: Good. Good.

MARCO: Okay? But it allows legal 2,000 other types of gun that are identical. Identical. And the way that they function and how fast they fire and the type of caliber that they fire and the way they perform, they're indistinguishable from the ones that become illegal. And the only ones that separate the two types -- the only thing that separates the two types, is if you put a plastic handle grip on one, it becomes banned. If it doesn't have a plastic handle grip, it does not become banned. So let me explain if I may just for a moment more.

VOICE: Are you saying you will start with the 200 and work your way up?

GLENN: Notice that?

MARCO: I would say -- I would explain to you what has happened.

VOICE: It's a good place to start. We can do that.

(applauding)

GLENN: And notice the cheers. It's a good place to start.

So this is what the left has to understand. Anybody who is intellectually honest on the left and says, why can't we just do common sense?

Well, because this kind of language scares everybody who says, wait, you guys want to take away guns. Well, good. It's a good start.

Then are you going to go after -- let's get this done, then we'll go after the other 2,000 guns. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What are we trying to do?

The people that I heard speak last night, were emotional. And I understand that.

If I just lost my daughter a week ago and I'm talking to somebody and I don't believe in guns, I just think that they're whatever, I am really angry. And I am going after -- and I shouldn't be listened to. I should be heard. But I shouldn't necessarily -- you shouldn't design policy around an angry grieving father, mother, friend.

Grief brings in really bad decisions. So I understand the feeling. But if you -- if you listened last night, what did we get out of this? You scared the people on the right because of statements like that and the cheers behind.

Good. Good. Then we'll start there.

No, wait a minute. That's the problem. That's why there is no middle ground. That's why we can't have a common sense conversation. Because no one trusts the other. Now, I could flip this around and say, I'm sure that there are people on the left that heard Marco Rubio say he's not going to take -- or, he will take money from the NRA. And they believe that it's money that is influencing Congress. It's not.

It's the membership of the NRA. That's what scares Congress. The membership. Not the money.

So you hear, well, he won't stop taking money. So they're -- and so now you don't trust. If we're going to do anything, we have to base everything on reason. You're not going to get that in an emotional debate. You're going to get my side is better than your side.

Honestly, we were playing a clip earlier today. I've got four monitors sitting in front of me. And we were playing a clip, and it was just an audio clip. So I was looking for the video that went with it. And I looked down at the bottom video, and I thought that was the video for about five seconds.

It wasn't the video. It was the crowd at the Olympics last night. Because I heard -- I heard the audio of people shouting and cheering, and I just -- I went down and I thought, okay. Well, that's -- man, look at that. No, oh, my gosh, that's the crowd at a sporting event. That's not the way to make national policy.

STU: No. There's something very peculiar about the way we're doing this. You know, you have -- you're going to emotional, grieving 18-year-olds to try to find out what we should do with national policy. And their recommendation is that non-grieving, nonemotional 18-year-olds don't have the capacity to own a firearm. So we're saying that the people who are making policy are not capable of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

That's a very strange thing to do. And honestly --

GLENN: When did we get to the point to where we didn't say as a culture, leave the families alone?

STU: Well, I mean, obviously they want to be involved in this, right? They are willing participants, because they think they're doing something important. And as you said, Glenn, you go through something like this, I will give -- personally, I'll give you a complete pass on anything you say. Everything you say could be wrong. You could start speaking in languages I don't understand. You could do anything you want at this point. Because I know if something like this happened to me, I would be blurting out all sorts of stuff that's a lot dumber than arguments that aren't buttoned up.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: But it's the media that I have a problem with here. The media knows. And they've been clear about this. They say it after every shooting, we don't understand. We thought that after Sandy Hook, they would finally do the thing that we wanted them to do. And they didn't do it. And then we thought after the Pulse shooting, they would finally do the thing we wanted them to do, and they didn't do it.

Because what they're -- their whole plan is, wait for something to make people so emotional, that they abandon the rights that they've been given, by God. They will abandon those rights because the emotion will overcome them, and they never let a crisis go to waste. This is exactly what you're seeing playing out right now. This does not make the people who are at -- you know, who are making emotional arguments -- this doesn't make them bad. There's no criticism of them.

I can't even comprehend what they're going through. But the idea that the media takes them out and says -- buts that show on last night, where you have thousands of people who all agree are going to shout down anyone trying to make a point that is rational on the other side, serves nobody, unless you are an activist group. If you're an external advocacy group, which is not what CNN is supposed to be, then I understand that.

But --

GLENN: The -- several times, some of the speakers or the people who are asking questions said, look, I want to like you. That was the father who was speaking to Rubio. Somebody else said, I want to believe that you are going to be part of the solution. And, you know, anybody here who agrees that we have to take these guns off the streets, I -- I will support.

Wait a minute. Wait.

No. That -- that's --

STU: Right.

GLENN: What's the big deal on that? Hey, as long as you agree with me 100 percent, I won't kill you.

STU: Well, it's the old compromise of the Obama administration. Look, I'm willing to talk to anybody, who will do the thing that I want them to do.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Well, that's great. Thank you for that. That's not compromise.

GLENN: That's not having dialogue. That's not trying to work through the issues.

STU: No.

GLENN: I have to hear you. And I do hear you. I hear you. But have you taken the time to hear us? Have you taken the time to hear, wait a minute, what that dad just said makes half the country lose their mind. Makes half the country go, see, they are coming for all of them.

And that wasn't misspoken. They knew what he said. He knew what he said.

Let's get rid of all of these. Whenever you hear somebody in the media go, you know, Australia did it. Australia took all of the guns.

STU: Yeah. Well, 30-some-odd percent of them, which -- which in the United States would be between 60 and 100 million guns.

GLENN: Correct.

Let's look at Great Britain. The police don't even have guns. The police don't have guns.

And how -- how is it working in Australia?

STU: Well, I mean, it didn't do much of anything, to be honest with you. It showed -- multiple studies showed -- and I post this had yesterday on my Facebook page. Go to Facebook Stu Burguiere. I think you shared it as well, the Glenn Beck page. It goes through everything that happened there. But it was -- they showed that there was no discernible change in murder rates.

Remember, this is 20 times as far as any proposal goes in the United States right now. This is way further than an assault weapons ban or anything like it. It goes much further than that. They purchased 30 percent of the weapons in the country. And there was no discernible drop in murder rates. The same thing happened when we did a an assault weapons ban here in the United States.

What you found was that there -- the Department of Justice found there was no change in murder rates. It didn't affect it at all.

GLENN: It's not going to.

This is -- and I don't know where you're going to get this -- I don't know where you're going to have this conversation. And, you know, maybe it's up to -- maybe it's up to us.

The conversation needs to be had, look, let's stay on the actual facts. It's math. It's math. Let's stay on the actual facts. Let's look at history. What works, what doesn't. If you can come up with a proposal that works, let's discuss it. But please understand, that, yes, I love my children. But I also believe the best way to protect my children is through a Constitution. A Constitution that allows me to make the decisions that are best for me and my family. I believe that we have a right to free speech. How does one protect that speech if you don't have a weapon?

Remember, the weapons were taken from the Germans and the Jews, for their own protection. How is anyone able to do anything to stop Hitler?

How is anyone? You weren't. You didn't have a right to self-defense.

Everybody, oh, it's crazy. Oh, that will never happen here.

Listen to what the left is saying about Donald Trump right now. They're already saying that he's akin to Hitler.

Listen to how many of those of us on the left thought that Obama, may not leave office. It can't happen here?

What kind of world are you living in?

The great beyond. What does it hide from us? Do unknown lifeforms linger in the dark? In other words, was David Bowie right? Is there life on Mars? The head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department contends that, yes, there is. Well, not that there's life on Mars. I'll explain in just a minute.

In an academic article for the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Dr. Avi Loeb, the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department, claimed that an alien probe entered our solar system. He claimed that it is masked as the space rock Oumuamua (Ow-moo-ah-moo-ah), "the first interstellar object to enter our solar system." It turns out that "space rock" is way more than a musical genre.

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

In his own words:

Considering an artificial origin, one possibility is that 'Oumuamua is a lightsail, floating in interstellar space as a debris from an advanced technological equipment.

His evidence? pointed to the space rock's abnormal acceleration, activity which he gathered via the Hubble Space Telescope.

He added that "the lightsail technology might be abundantly used for transportation of cargo between planets."

Sounds a bit like Star Wars, no? Or are you more of a Star Trek fan? Either way, it's an odd thing to hear from the head of Harvard University's Astronomy Department. Typically, we hear these sorts of things from the darker corners of the History Channel.

Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

"I don't care what people say," Loeb said. "It doesn't matter to me. I say what I think, and if the broad public takes an interest in what I say, that's a welcome result as far as I'm concerned, but an indirect result. Science isn't like politics: It is not based on popularity polls."

Honestly, I believe the guy. Well, I'll say that, at this point, I'm not really surprised. It's 2019. I'm not surprised by anything anymore. Heck, I welcome alien lifeforms. Maybe they can give us some advice on how to get our world together.

The third annual Women's March is approaching, and the movement has shown signs of strife. It's imploding, really. An article in Tablet Magazine revealed deep-seated antisemitism among the co-chairs of the movement, which is funny for a movement that brands itself as a haven of "intersectionality." The examples pile up, and just yesterday there was another. I'll tell you about it in a minute.

The Women's March has been imploding, and it started at the very top. Four women have come to represent the diverse face of the movement, the co-chairs: Tamika Mallory, Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Bob Bland.

RELATED: LEFTIST INSANITY: Woman attacked at women's rights rally for exercising her rights

Increasingly, we've learned that anti-Semitism is common among these women.

Teresa Shook, who founded the Women's March has repeatedly asked them to step down: The co-chairs "have steered the Movement away from its true course. I have waited, hoping they would right the ship," Shook wrote. "But they have not. In opposition to our Unity Principles, they have allowed anti-Semitism, anti-LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform by their refusal to separate themselves from groups that espouse these racist, hateful beliefs."

Tamika Mallory gave us the latest example, by continuing to stand by Louis Farrakhan. Check out Tamika's arrogant, nonsensical response. But the real problem came at the end of Mallory's rambling non-answer.



Women's March Leader Tamika Mallory Doubles Down On Love For Louis Farrakhan youtu.be


Later this week I'll go over the entire controversy on Glenn TV. It's harrowing, really. For now, I'll leave you with this. Critics of 4th wave feminism have argued that the radical identity politics of the left will lead to the exact kind of mistreatment that feminists claim to be against. That argument has been written off as using the slippery slope fallacy. But, as we see with the Women's March, it is in fact a brutal reality.

Remember how serious Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi were last week, when they gave their "rebuttal" to President Trump's address? They made it seem like this government shutdown is apocalyptic. A lot of Democrats have done the same. On social media and CNN at least. Thirty Democrats, however, took a different route. Puerto Rico. For cocktails at the beach.

RELATED: The President won the night, but don't count on the media to admit it

A group of 30 Democrats have turned the government shutdown into a live-action interpretation of a Jimmy Buffet song:

Nibblin' on sponge cake, Watchin' the sun bake.

No, seriously. In the words of Press Secretary Sarah Sanders:

Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they're partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border.

A photo of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez at a resort beach has gone viral.

They arrived via chartered jet. They're staying at a seaside resort, and attended the ridiculously-priced and overhyped play "Hamilton," where tickets for opening night "ranged from $10 to $5,000," according to the Associated Press. They even attended several afterparties.

Of course, the official occasion seems legit. They're in San Juan for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC. According to a memo for the gathering:

This year's winter retreat promises to be our most widely attended yet with over 220 guests, including 39 Members of Congress and CHC BOLD PAC supporters expected to attend and participate!

Also in attendance, about 109 lobbyists, from a number of places, including "R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association."

Donald Jr. said it well:

And of course no one says anything. I'm not even in government and I'd get killed in the press if I was on vacation right now. Why won't they cover their democrat buddies lobbyist sponsored vacation in the islands???

Maduro takes office and Venezuelans vote with their feet

CRIS BOURONCLE/AFP/Getty Images

Venezuela continues to collapse. A country that used to have the world's largest oil reserves is now in rags. Its money is worthless, with inflation near one million percent. People must work an average of five days at minimum wage just to afford a dozen eggs. But there is one person still pumped about Venezuela's future – its noble president, Nicolas Maduro! I'll tell you why he's still enthusiastic in just a minute…

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro had a stellar 2018. Here are some highlights:

  • Running water and electricity only work occasionally and prices for basic goods doubled.
  • Doctors, engineers, oil workers, and electricians fled the country en masse. Over 48,000 teachers also left the country.
  • Over half a million Venezuelans fled to Peru alone.

Maduro created a new digital currency called the "petro." One petro is supposed to equal the price of a barrel of oil, about $60. U.S. Treasury Department officials call the petro a scam. Who could've seen that coming?

Maduro also announced a 3,000 percent minimum-wage hike. Even Ocasio-Cortez might roll her eyes at that one. Or find it inspiring.

And just yesterday, a Human Rights Watch report detailed how Venezuelan intelligence and security forces are arresting and torturing military personnel and their family members who are accused of plotting against Maduro. The torture includes: "brutal beatings, asphyxiation, cutting soles of their feet with a razor blade, electric shocks, food deprivation, [and] forbidding them to go to the bathroom."

It's so bad in Venezuela that even The Washington Post admits Venezuela's problems are mostly due to "failed socialist policies." But President Nicolas Maduro gave a televised New Year's address calling 2019, "the year of new beginnings." He's pumped, you see, because today he will be sworn in for his second six-year term as president. He was "re-elected" last May in an election that the international community declared illegitimate.

Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency.

Maduro doesn't have many friends left at home or abroad. Thirteen nations released a statement last week urging Maduro not to take office and saying they would not recognize his presidency. This week, the U.S. added more Venezuelan officials to its sanctions list.

In a press conference yesterday, Maduro said:

There's a coup against me, led by Washington. I tell our civilians and our military to be ready. Our people will respond.

I think the people of Venezuela who have the means are already responding – by leaving.