Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Releases Its Report


Screen Shot 2013-02-08 at 2.32.15 PM

Click here to The Gun Violence Task Force’s Comprehensive Plan. “There is no law or set of laws that will completely end gun violence,” the report begins, “but that cannot be an excuse to do nothing.” If only! The first two recommendations pay lip service to the Second Amendment—via the Heller decision. With breathtaking irony, the third calls for an “assault weapons ban.” For those who find that term both frightening and offensive, the Task Force also recommends a federal ban on “assault magazines.” Universal background checks, strengthening NICS checks, new penalties for straw purchasing, tax money for social programs and “safety” campaigns, yada, yada, yada. Nothing new here. And it’s clear that the civilian disarmament movement is finding purchase on the state level, rather then the federal. At the moment.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

56 Responses to Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Releases Its Report

  1. avatarWill says:

    Wow I can’t believe this! I was so sure they would read the data we all do and support the 2nd amendment! I am just shocked SHOCKED I tell you. /sarc

  2. avatarHal says:

    Hey, Gun Violence Task Force?

    Fvck off and die.

  3. avatarDamon says:

    I am SO SICK of hearing abotu the “gunshow loophole” crap!it says people can bypass background checks by going to a gunshow, through private sellers, over the internet, or out of a car trunk(wtf?)

    because no gunshow sales/purchases go through a check? uh, yeah right. private sellers? yeah THEY made it so we couldn’t do checks ourselves. over the internet? WHAT? yeah if you meet someone you connected with on the internet to do a PRIVATE SALE. otherwise it has to be sent through an FFL. and WhoTF buys guns from the trunk of a random guys’ car? more likely to be shot then than any other time if you ask me….

    That’s only part of the problem with everything written in there but man i’m tired of hearing it. Jeez.

    /end rant

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      No problem at all Damon;

      You’re just venting some of the steam we all feel when pandering gun grabbing lefty politicians and the gun control fanatics put out their rhetoric of misinformation, half truths and outright lies – all for their liberal lap dog mainstream media allies to present for consumption almost verbatim to an often uninformed public that knows no better because they know little or nothing at all about guns or the exercise of 2A rights.

      How’s that for a follow up rant!

      The next step is for all of us to redirect some of our time commenting on sites like TTAG toward contacting any and all of our representatives to let them know, politely yet unambiguously, how displeased we feel about the ongoing efforts by gun grabbers to demonize us and limit the exercise of our 2A Rights.

      These politicians future time in office depends on our support. Now, with the over reaching restriction frenzy, the sleeping giant of gun owners has been awakened. 2A is a huge issue for many and an important issue for many more. If these representatives want our support, they need to faithfully support the exercise of our most basic freedoms including that of effective self protection through our exercise of the Right to Bear Arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

      Whether by e-mail, phone, or snail mail, we must all be purposely delivering this message to our representatives. Now!

      Continuously!

  4. avatarDAS says:

    *than, Mr. President.

  5. avatarOldLawman says:

    Morons.

    Just morons.

  6. avatarJMS says:

    I don’t understand how they can cite the Heller decision statement that some controls and restrictions are valid, and completely ignore its statement that firearms “in common use” are what is SPECIFICALLY protected by the 2nd Amendment. The AR-15 and its standard-capacity 30-round magazines define the term “in common use” in this country. Nearly every single police department issues them, they are the most common rifle purchased by civilians and have been for years (~3.5 million+ in private hands), and are exactly what is considered a gun “suitable for personal defense,” so says DHS.

    You CANNOT claim that patrol officers have a reason to carry weapons that civilians do not. Officers do not operate in a war zone. Not withstanding what the [crazy] El Cerrito police chief said, officers carry weapons for defensive purposes only; to protect themselves from the exact same criminal elements that the citizens need to protect themselves from. Nothing a patrol officer encounters on the street is different in any way from what we may encounter on the street or breaking into our homes. If an AR-15 is suitable for an officer to use in their defense and in the defense of innocents, it is suitable for a civilian to own and use. In fact, the weapons, magazines, and ammunition carried by police should serve as a PRIME example of exactly what weapons should be owned by civilians and protected under 2A for civilians. Much thought and testing has gone into the choice of sidearms, long guns, and ancillary parts (mags, ammunition, etc) for police use to maximize both efficacy and safety (for example, hollow point bullets that do not over-penetrate).

    Bottom line: if it is deemed necessary for a police officer to have a pistol with a 17-round capacity to defend him/herself, then me, a citizen without the benefit of backup or body armor, most definitely should enjoy that same option to protect my home and family from the exact same criminals the police face.

    • avatarLiberty2Alpha says:

      +1

    • avatarPascal says:

      I believe in Heller they also said that you cannot ban something just because criminals use it too

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Forget about the Heller decision. These guys need to read the Miller decision. Specifically, “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

      By implication, the 2nd Amendment then guarantees a right to keep and bear arms of contemporary military utility, so that We The People will never be at a disadvantage to the standing forces of the government.

    • avatarpat says:

      They are after the semiauto/magazine interface. They have effectively tied the automatic machine gun that shoots intermediate powered cartridges called an ‘assault rifle’ to a fictitious ‘assault weapon’ or ‘assault style weapon’ which is merely a semiautomatic rifle that shoots an intermediate powered cartridge.
      This is the libtards clever and evil deception upon the sheeple.

  7. avatarLiberty2Alpha says:

    First thing we should do is ban the word “Assault.”

    It no longer has any meaning, same as Racist.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      You have NOT been paying attention. Let me help you get up to speed, in one sentence:

      People who own ASSAULT and other weapons are RACISTS.

      Now… isn’t that easy?

      • avatarLiberty2Alpha says:

        “Assault Weapons” has worked so well for them we now have “Assault Bullets” and “Assault Magazines.”

        I don’t know about you, but none of my bullets or magazines have pistol grips, flash hiders, or shoulder thingees that go up.

        • avatarRabbi says:

          The act of making up the term “assault weapon” was the most genius marketing coup ever! Brilliant. Even better since it is a complete lie.

          And yes, the ignorant and gullible public ate it up so much that they have no created new “assault” terms.

        • avatarpat says:

          This is the center of their lie. The sheeple have swallowed the ‘assault’ meme which effectively tied semiauto with auto. Evil libtard genius.

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      I agree it is getting out of hand. First we had assault weapons then assault bullets and now assault magazines? WTH!

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      How better to demonize responsible law abiding gun owners than to label them as users and keepers of dangerous, offensive war like firearms.

      Thats only one step away from calling all those who exercise their 2A Rights “criminals”.

      But wait, that’s in the works. Aren’t States and the Feds now trying to legislate us into criminalhood by passing overly burdensome restrictive firearms laws that gun owners will be inclined to ignore?

      Interesting how it is primarily extremist liberals who are the most vociferous proponents of gun restrictions which will impact predominantly conservative and moderate thinking gun owners.

      It’s also interesting to note that the people who know the least about firearms are trying to shove restrictions down the throats of those who are the most knowledgable and experienced with guns.

  8. avatarDrewR55 says:

    “And it’s clear that the civilian disarmament movement is finding purchase on the state level”

    Someone on this site already said it but it was a great idea. All gun owning citizens (50 to 75 million?) should move into a block of connecting states. I vote Oklahoma, Texas.

    • avatarRKBA says:

      Those ‘Blocks’ are being defined as we speak.

      Some states are proposing, creating and instituting massive gun bans, while other states are telling the federal government any further infringements to the 2A will not be tolerated, and any federal officer attempting to enforce will be jailed.

      Oh, and some states have already started pushing through legislation to abandon federal currency and replace it with state currency.

      Another Civil War cannot happen, you say?

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        Maybe my inability to find a decent job after graduating will be a good thing in the near future – it’s much easier to leave a crappy, low-paying job to go fight than it is to leave a cushy, high-paying job.

      • avatarThomasR says:

        CW II; ” the song dosen’t repeat exactly, but the tune remains the same”.

  9. avataranonymous says:

    > “There is no law or set of laws that will completely end gun violence,”

    What will it take to make the general population as safe from homicide as inmates in our prisons and jails?

    homicide_prison_v_population_1758x0902.jpg ( 1,758 x 902 pixels)

    The sources for the data I used to create that graph are:

    Mortality in Local Jails and State Prisons, 2000-2010 – Statistical Tables
    Margaret E. Noonan
    December 13, 2012. NCJ 239911
    see Table 3 on p. 6 and Table 14 on p. 14

    and

    Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails
    Christopher J. Mumola.
    August 21, 2005. NCJ 210036

    see tables on p. 2

    The graph is also available in smaller resolutions —
    homicide_prison_v_population_1000x0513.jpg 1,000 x 513 pixels and
    homicide_prison_v_population_0800x0410.jpg 800 x 410 pixels
    – if you need a smaller-size copy for some reason.

    • avatarRalph says:

      So let the prisoners free and repurpose the prisons as affordable housing for Obama’s beloved middle class.

      Done.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      What they will get from that: America has a lot of RACIST, BAD people who use assault weapons. The answer is MORE PRISONS. The answer is to put EVERYONE WITH GUNS IN PRISON.

      We will then and THEN ONLY be left in honesty and everlasting PEACE. Just a few gunless Americans and a WHOLE LOT of crimin… I mean, VICTIMS OF RACISM AND GUN VIOLENCE.

  10. avatarRalph says:

    I support the First Amendment but language that assaults the Second must be prohibited. For the children. And puppies. Because we have to do something. No matter how stupid. If not now, then when? And why?

  11. avatarMichael B. says:

    “It won’t work but it’s no excuse to do nothing!”

    Oh, **** you. More “good intentions are a substitute for results” nonsense from the anti-gun left.

  12. avatarCliff says:

    And I repeat, How exactly are these rules, regulations, licensing requirements and/or fees any different from a poll tax on voters which has been specifically determined to be a violation of civil rights and therefore unconstitutional? Why are we spinning our wheels and tilting at all these windmills when SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue? No State or other jurisdiction can impose a tax or fee on any person before that person can exercise their rights as outlined in the constitution. It’s that simple.
    If you allow any government agency to set the standards that determine when and if you can exercise a right then it is not your natural, inalienable right, it is a privilege granted by the government according to their whims.

    • avatarRalph says:

      SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue

      No, it didn’t. And by the time it does, it will be populated with Obama lackeys.

      • avatarGreg in Allston says:

        Ralph, in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, SCOTUS did determine that it was unconstitutional for the government to impose a fee and require a permit/license to solicit door to door as being in violation of the plaintiffs First Amendment protections to free speech and the exercise of religion.

  13. avatarDaveL says:

    A Comprehensive Plan That Reduces Gun Violence

    A bold claim. Not a plan to reduce gun violence, a plant that reduces gun violence. Apparently it’s the plan itself that does this. A bold claim, indeed.

  14. avatarMatt in SD says:

    Not a single peep about firearms training or education in proper firearm handling for youth or adults. These guys sure have their priorities straight….

  15. avatarKY1911 says:

    Even Kentucky – which has been a bastion of pro-gun activities over the years – has now seen a bill written (don’t think its been dropped yet) that would implement not only an “assault weapon” ban, but limit mag capacity to 7 rounds and require that ALL handguns be registered – past, present and future – and that ALL handgun owners be licensed. It provides the now commonly used language of grandfathering existing “assault weapons” and magazines, but requires a special license to do so. It also contains the background check requirement for all firearms sales and labels the failure to license a handgun as a class A misdemeanor and the failure to license an “assault weapon” as a class D felony. This may play well in Louisville where the sponsors are from – and perhaps parts of Lexington – but otherwise its tone deaf to the rest of the state and will die a quick death.

  16. avatarLance says:

    Time ban ban Assault politicians like Slow Joe Biden!

  17. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    F the task force, what a crock!

  18. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Not a surprise, the citizen disarmament groups will continue full steam ahead.

  19. avatarAlan says:

    So a coven of 13 democrats from the Minority in the congress, produced this to address one of Obeyme’s E.O. Well I guess they can cross one off the list.

  20. avatarNicholas says:

    I have no words to express my anger at this entire ordeal. THIS specifically has pushed be a bit too far. Makes me want to yell, but I mustn’t, or else I’ll be labeled as a psychopath gun nut and used to further the anti-gun agenda. Then again, my sense of logic seems to not click with many of the men and women I’ve debated with – despite my reliable sources of information…

    What to do…? I’m running out of ideas…

  21. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    “also known as high-capacity assault magazines”

    LOL! really? that’s the first time I have ever heard that term in my life!

    EDIT: I have now read the entire thing, and its all horsesh!t – Not one single sentence in this thing is acceptable.

    • avatarDon says:

      They were right about one thing, they don’t prosecute illegal attempts to buy guns by prohibited persons…

      If they want to do something maybe instead of more they should use what they have. It’s like buying more golf clubs to make you a better golfer when you don’t use the ones you have.

  22. avatarJeh says:

    “Assault bullets” and “Assault magazines” are you serious? I cant wait until brass knuckles become the new “assault weapon”, then well have “assault fingers” and “assault brass polish”. The stupidity and possibilities are endless.

  23. avatarJim L says:

    PLEASE!! For the love of all that is holy.. STOP CALLING IT GUN VIOLENCE!! it’s not a sentient entity. It is neither violent or non-violent. It is inert.. and inanimate. Please refer to it is HUMAN AGGRESSION or some other term.

  24. avatarDavid says:

    Joe Biden: “Nothing we are going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring uh uh gun deaths down to a thousand a year from, from what it is now.”

    From the horse’s ass.

  25. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Yeah, The plan that takes away your gun but respects your right to have one. They will laugh their way into a civil war I believe they will strongly regret, Randy

  26. avatarGS650G says:

    If this movement stays at the state level there will be free states and unfree states that disrespect the constitution. People in the unfree states can look forward to even more helpful living advice from their masters.

    • avatarboardsnbikes says:

      Just let the “Free vs. Unfree State Experiment” continue. Most of unfree states have following qualities:

      - decreasing liberties
      - high state and local taxes
      - high budget imbalances
      - large pension responsibilies
      - increasing emmigration of its’ populace to other states
      - increasing burdens and laws on its’ businesses

      These are very bad signs for their futures because eventually people and businesses vote with their feet.

  27. avatarJoe says:

    Page 16-17 gun registration and seizure… The government will “help” those who suddenly cannot own guns legally, not necessarily by any action or inaction on their part, remove the guns from their possession… Man I wish I hadn’t lost all my guns in that tragic quick-sand boating accident…

  28. avatarDon says:

    The report claims that Lanza was wearing a bullet proof vest. Isn’t this known to be untrue?

    I think they are “putting” each of these shooters in bullet proof vests after the fact intentionally to foil the argument that civilians with guns would be able to stop them.

    Besides, soft armor or not, you can still stop the threat with body shots. I don’t see anyone taking a couple body shots in soft armor and not going down, regardless of if the bullets penetrate.

    -D

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.