Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- A leaked internal memo from the National Institute of Justice --the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice– shows that none of Obama’s gun proposals will work without registration and forced buybacks amounting to confiscation of Americans’ guns.

The memo illustrates this by showing why high capacity magazine bans, gun buybacks, and “assault weapons” bans have failed to work in the past.

For example, according to the memo, the high capacity magazine bans that were in place from 1994-2004 had little impact because the bans contained too many exemptions. The memo says one of the key errors was that “the 1994 ban exempted magazines made before 1994 so that the importation of large capacity magazines manufactured before 1994 continued [throughout] the ban.”

Moreover, the memo points out that while the price of the magazines rose sharply, it was not driven up far enough to make them “unaffordable.”

Notes from the memo (full memo attached in PDF)
Gun buybacks
Twitter summary: Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban

Large capacity magazines restrictions
Twitter summary: Great potential to reduce lethality; requires a massive reduction in supply

Ammunition logs
Twitter summary: Increases opportunities to detect illegal firearm possessors

Universal background checks
Twitter summary: Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process

Assault weapon ban
Twitter summary: Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions


Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/obamas- ... z2M3L0wuuA

Something else I would like to point out:

"Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year."

If we were to ban anything and everything that was capable of killing 35 people per year, then we wouldn't have much of anything, would we?

allingeneral wrote:Something else I would like to point out:

"Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year."

If we were to ban anything and everything that was capable of killing 35 people per year, then we wouldn't have much of anything, would we?

No alcohol, no cars, and deffinatly no popeyes!

That document is a waste. All the stats I checked on are false, especially the stuff about Australia. The report said no mass killings since the semi-auto ban was put in place, but the australian federal police report there have been 3 mass shootings in that time frame with 52 deaths and 26 injured.

MarcSpaz wrote:That document is a waste. All the stats I checked on are false, especially the stuff about Australia. The report said no mass killings since the semi-auto ban was put in place, but the australian federal police report there have been 3 mass shootings in that time frame with 52 deaths and 26 injured.

Different organizations define mass shootings differently. Is it the number of people killed and how many? Is it the number of people injured and how many? Is it perceived intent of the shooter? Etc.

How did each report define what is and isn't a mass shooting?

Based on the reports I found (love Google BTW) The Australian Federal Police define a mass shooting of 4 or more people injured or killed in a single mass casualty event. The Justice Department only has a requirement of 3 or more people injured or killed in a single mass casualty event to be classed as a mass shooting.

And that is just one example... another is this "The data indicate that the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010."

That last sentence is flat out used to scare the people. If you research the DOJ and CDC records, you will find that, most shootings either in an self defense situation or as a criminal in an offense situation, on average only 3 shots are fired.

Well, who cares about what the mag could hold? The only reason the percentage increased is because the product became available and common again. It doesn't mean some is firing more rounds.

in my understanding, when you put false data in a report, it is called lying.
Can they be dragged in court for this, and to be forced to put ads in all mas media "We lied in our reports"?
I'd love to see a whole page in WashPost with 2 words: "WE LIE!"

allingeneral wrote:Something else I would like to point out:

"Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year."

If we were to ban anything and everything that was capable of killing 35 people per year, then we wouldn't have much of anything, would we?

Certainly wouldn't have aspirin.