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?

We made it. It's Friday. This has been a tornado of a week. We endured the nonstop commotion of the migrant family separation policy and, best of all, we saw a near-immediate resolution, with President Trump's reversal of the policy. Whatever your stance on the policy, you have to admit, it's a good thing the chaos is over.

RELATED: Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Apparently, not everyone feels the same. Time magazine, for instance, has chosen to focus on the now-resolved matter for their July 2nd issue. They've released the cover. It features a cutout of the sobbing 2-year-old Honduran asylum-seeker — you've likely seen the image — captured by Getty photographer John Moore. Only, instead of featuring the original image, Time has chosen to photoshop an oversized image of President Trump, postured to appear like a bully standing over the crying girl. The background is solid read. The caption reads: "Welcome to America."

It's not enough to blame Trump for the whole debacle. We can't even have that conversation. No, the mainstream media feels the need to literally plaster him on the cover, to photoshop him into an awful situation, to make him look like a villain however they can. What good does that accomplish? And how long is the media going to demonize the President—what does he have to do?

The cover story is titled "A Reckoning After Trump's Border Separation Policy: What Kind of Country Are We?" Excellent question. What sort of country are we? Are we the sort of country that can pull it together and make this thing work despite our differences? Or are we the kind of country full of ungrateful people who throw tantrums even when everything goes their way?

President Trump reversed the policy, shouldn't that get some attention? Shouldn't he get some credit for affecting change in a way that his predecessor — contrary to what you'd surmise from the media — was unable to? No, instead, lately, we're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

We're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

Nietzsche noted that the severest punishment you can inflict on a person isn't to punish them after they've done something wrong or bad. In many ways, that sort of punishment can actually foster relief. The severest punishment is to punish someone when they've done something good, because you lessen the chance that they'll continue to do good.

And we need good.

I know at the heart of things, we're the kind of country that can come together for the good of mankind. We've proven that. But we need everybody.

The Left has been protesting and throwing tantrums since the day Trump was elected. They don't like him, we get it. At some point they need to change from diapers to undies so we can move forward.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.


Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.