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 FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.