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 number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.