John Lott testifies before congress on gun violence.....

[2aguy]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

 

[BULLDOG]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Likely.... and then you can all feel better and check the box that says "Look! we did something!"... even though, as studies have shown, it is unlikely to reduce crime.
Reducing crime means you address the the causation of crime... and well..gee that is hard and will absolutely offend some people, so can't do that!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is his testimony given to congress on gun violence.....

Universal background checks
Assault weapon ban
magazine ban....

All the dumb ideas pushed by anti-gunners are addressed.

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Joint-Economic-Committee-Testimony-Lott.pdf

Universal background checks, meaning background checks on the private transfer of guns, have been mentioned for years by gun control advocates. It was by far the most frequently mentioned proposal by former President Obama.1 But there has not been a single mass public shooting this century that such a law would have stopped.2 These laws also have real costs. In Washington, DC, for example, it costs $125 to do a background check on a privately transferred gun. That may stop the people who are most likely to be victims of violent crimes, often poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas, from being able to legally obtain guns for selfdefense.
------

Besides, if we sincerely believe that background checks reduce crime and save lives, we shouldn’t effectively tax Americans for going through the process. If everyone benefits from background checks, then everyone should pay for them. They ought to be funded out of general revenue. Under the Democratic House bill, actions that would be entirely reasonable could become criminal. Imagine a stalker threatens a female friend of yours, and she asks to borrow your gun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you let her protect herself? If Jerry Nadler has his way, you could land in prison for doing so. The only exception is “imminent danger,” i.e., if she asks to borrow your gun while her stalker is charging at her. The Trump administration has floated the idea of an App that could be used to check whether people are eligible to buy guns. People would be required to check the app or else face criminal consequences. That’s one potential solution. Another: simply requiring a reasonable person standard: would a reasonable person believe that the woman being stalked is in danger? An App would cut the costs of background checks and also solve problems for rural Americans. Private transfer background checks would require some Americans to travel for miles to do what could be accomplished instantly with a smart phone.
-----------------


Assault weapon bans have been studied extensively, but even researchers funded by the Clinton administration, which enacted the 1994 federal ban, were unable to find evidence that such a ban reduced any type of violence.3 It doesn’t make any sense to ban so-called “militarystyle” weapons, when there are other functionally identical semi-automatic hunting rifles available.

-----

If a national assault weapons ban had really reduced shootings, then one would expect it to have a bigger impact in states that previously lacked such a ban. States that already had a statelevel ban, on the other hand, should see a smaller effect. Rigorous, peer-reviewed academic studies compare the trends in these two types of states to determine whether the national ban had an effect. That is the way that Koper and Roth did their studies, and as I have done so in my own research. These studies did not find any impact from assault weapon bans. But even Klarevas’ simple methods are dependent on the exact dataset used. The next graph uses the Mother Jones data set on Mass Public Shootings to show the small insignificant changes in shootings using assault weapons. The Crime Prevention Research Center has a count of mass shootings, and that data indicates no reduction at all in mass public shootings. 14
-----------



There’s also no evidence that crime rates were affected by the 1994 federal ban on magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Even the Urban Institute, with funding from the Bill Clinton administration, was unable to find any such evidence.4 In that report, criminologists Chris Koper and Jeff Roth concluded: “The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero).” Koper and Rother found in a 2004 follow-up report: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

A 'must-read.' Should be required in schools.

 

[2aguy]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Yes...the vast majority of Germans wanted the national socialists in power too....how did that work out?

 

[2aguy]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Likely.... and then you can all feel better and check the box that says "Look! we did something!"... even though, as studies have shown, it is unlikely to reduce crime.
Reducing crime means you address the the causation of crime... and well..gee that is hard and will absolutely offend some people, so can't do that!

They know this...in fact, it is part of the plan..... 1)get uninformed Americans to push for Universal Background checks.... 2) Criminals still use straw buyers who can pass any background check or they steal their guns, and mass public shooters pass any background check or get their guns illegally....crime continues to happen, mass shootings still happen.... 3) Gun grabbers then come back and say..." See, the reason we still have gun violence is the Universal Background Checks can't work without universal gun registration...." 4) The anti-gunner start up their machine to stampede uninformed Americans into giving them gun registration.....

All part of the plan...

 

[BULLDOG]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

 

[BULLDOG]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

Who does not? Who is they?

 

[BULLDOG]

Whine all you want, but universal background checks will happen. The vast majority of the country wants them, and we will have them. Get over it.

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

Who does not? Who is they?

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Already have them to the degree possible.

Background checks for personal sales/gifts cannot be uniformly enforced, if at all, since the giver and recipient can simply agree to backdate the transfer date to before the date any such requirement goes into effect.

Eliminate the bad guys. Lock up the crazies. Only then will they have no access to firearms.

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

Who does not? Who is they?

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

 

[BULLDOG]

Like I said, whine all you want. They will happen.

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

Who does not? Who is they?

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As I said, they already have. My BG check takes 10 minutes on a busy day. I grab ammo while waiting.

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

Who does not? Who is they?

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

Please show me where I am whining.
And again, all you want to do is virtue signal and do something that makes you feel good while not really accomplishing anything. I don't have a problem with background checks. But I also know, requiring them will do nothing to lower murder rates.

 

[BULLDOG]

Great. Now they just have to do them for the rest of the people buying guns.

Who does not? Who is they?

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

Please show me where I am whining.
And again, all you want to do is virtue signal and do something that makes you feel good while not really accomplishing anything. I don't have a problem with background checks. But I also know, requiring them will do nothing to lower murder rates.

I know you are saying something, but all I can hear is bla bla bla. Whatever you might be saying doesn't matter anyway. Universal background checks will happen

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Who does not? Who is they?

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

Please show me where I am whining.
And again, all you want to do is virtue signal and do something that makes you feel good while not really accomplishing anything. I don't have a problem with background checks. But I also know, requiring them will do nothing to lower murder rates.

I know you are saying something, but all I can hear is bla bla bla. Whatever you might be saying doesn't matter anyway. Universal background checks will happen

And there you go. Thanks.
In other words, you don't care to hear reason or actually do something to solve the issue. Just win a political point.
I rest my case.

 

[BULLDOG]

I guess I was a little nonspecific. We need to require background checks for all the gun purchases that don't require them now. This is where you frantically declare that we have background checks now, and I point out how childish that remark is.

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

Please show me where I am whining.
And again, all you want to do is virtue signal and do something that makes you feel good while not really accomplishing anything. I don't have a problem with background checks. But I also know, requiring them will do nothing to lower murder rates.

I know you are saying something, but all I can hear is bla bla bla. Whatever you might be saying doesn't matter anyway. Universal background checks will happen

And there you go. Thanks.
In other words, you don't care to hear reason or actually do something to solve the issue. Just win a political point.
I rest my case.

The point has been won for a while. You're just still whining about it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Exactly like I said before... requiring background checks for the purpose of reducing crime is impotent.
Just how many criminals do you think buy guns legally?
Just how many criminals who either plan specifically to use a gun in a crime, or carry it as part of the overall likelihood of committing crimes, do you think buy guns where they will be photographed, and registered?
Easy. Exactly 0.
If one is serious about reducing crime than you have to address the cause of why they are in that business to start with. And that isn't going to happen. Because they could be raaacist.

Like I already said multiple times, you are free to whine about it all you want, but that won't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans are demanding universal background checks, and we will have them. You don't have to be happy about it.

Please show me where I am whining.
And again, all you want to do is virtue signal and do something that makes you feel good while not really accomplishing anything. I don't have a problem with background checks. But I also know, requiring them will do nothing to lower murder rates.

I know you are saying something, but all I can hear is bla bla bla. Whatever you might be saying doesn't matter anyway. Universal background checks will happen

And there you go. Thanks.
In other words, you don't care to hear reason or actually do something to solve the issue. Just win a political point.
I rest my case.

The point has been won for a while. You're just still whining about it.

Your point is not the same as mine.
I am more interested in lowering crime, not just make political wins.
But, you are right, I should have known. That is all that matters now is virtue signaling.

 

[whitehall]

The statute of limitations isn't up so if the left was interested in bringing criminals who violate gun laws to justice they would consider indicting Obama's A.G. as well as ATF officials who engaged in the insane "operation Fast/Furious" that shipped about 3,000 illegal weapons to Mexican drug cartels. At least one American federal law-enforcement officer and an estimated hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens were murdered as a result of the Obama administration's gross criminal incompetence but the left doesn't seem to be concerned.