Today is Wednesday, September 17, 2014rss RSS feed
Obama Mums

Not a Peep from Obama: Violent Crime Reaches 42-Year Low

NRA-ILA

NRA – ILA

Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Last week, the FBI released its national crime report for 2012.

By a slight margin, the nation’s violent crime rate decreased in 2012–relative to 2011–making it the lowest it has been since 1970.

Compared to 1991, when it hit an all-time high, violent crime is down by 49 percent.  The nation’s murder rate was unchanged in 2012; still lower than any time since 1963 and at nearly an all-time low.

Between 2011 and 2012, 24 states and the District of Columbia experienced decreases in their murder rates.  There was no correlation of these trends with the severity of the states’ or the District’s gun control laws.  Troubled Detroit, under Michigan’s law requiring a permit to purchase a handgun, had the highest murder rate among large cities, followed by Baltimore, under Maryland’s law imposing a seven-day waiting period on handgun purchases.  But there was no relationship between other large cities’ murder rates and their gun control laws.

President Obama had nothing to do with the decrease in crime, of course.  But you would think he’d be happy to take credit for it.  It’s not like he has much else to show for himself lately.  However, as the Washington Times’ Emily Miller pointed out on Wednesday, Obama hasn’t said a word about it.

“Not once has the president remarked on these numbers.  Neither has [anti-gun] New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg,” Miller wrote.  “The liberal media pretend the statistics are written in invisible ink.  Why the blackout?   Because all violent crime–including gun homicide–has gone down over the last 20 years.  The gun murder rate has gone from 6.62 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1993 to 3.27 in 2012, a decline of more than 50 percent.”

Instead, on Sunday, during what for everyone else present was a memorial service for the Americans who were murdered by a lunatic in the Washington Navy Yard on September 16th, Obama took to the podium to speak less about the victims of the crime, and more about his two favorite subjects–himself and what he and his adoring followers believe is the comparative inferiority of the United States to just about every other country on Earth.

“What’s different in America is it’s easy to get your hands on gun . . . . Well, I cannot accept that,” he said.  Ignoring the FBI’s report, showing gun crimes at a fraction of the level they were 20 years ago, he railed against a fictional “epidemic of gun violence [that] tears apart communities across America.”

Obama, who shortly before his first election thrilled his adoring followers by saying “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” spoke hopefully of a “transformation” in terms of gun control, to achieve “the country that we know is possible.”  He added, “We’re going to have to change.”

To which we say, we’re going to change, January 20, 2017.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 16 User comments to “Not a Peep from Obama: Violent Crime Reaches 42-Year Low”

    1. As a retired military man and American Patriot it truly pains me to state this, but, BARRY, GFYS.

    2. Hopalong40 on October 2, 2013 at 7:06 AM said:

      AFRICA, IS CALLING YOUUUUU.

    3. Obama isn’t interested in gun crime unless it helps him advance his anti gun agenda. He needs us disarmed if he is to declare himself King Barry the first.

    4. DevilsAdvocate on October 2, 2013 at 12:59 PM said:

      I am truly a firearms ‘agnonstic’ and would like to ask .. why are pro guns people so keen to keep guns? ‘Because it is our right’ is an inane answer.. That’s just saying ‘because!!’ and I am sure gun owners are older than 5..

      Someone give me a mature, considered answer to the question ‘Why it it so important to you to be allowed to stockpile lethal weapons that can accidentally (or intentionally) fall in to the hands of children and unbalanced adults. Don’t you feel the safety of your children is more important than fighting for your rights’.

      Remember; I am not trolling, trying to be inflammatory, or a plain ‘ol Dick.. so, no angry retorts please.

    5. ‘Because it is our right’ is *not* an inane answer. It is an answer that most anti-gun people just don’t like to hear. What about your freedom of speech? What of the freedom of the press, or assembly? Would not the answer to a government’s attempts to infringe upon those rights simply be ‘Because it is our right’?

      If you have found this website, I’m fairly certain that you can easily find many of the answers that you seek here without having to bait someone into an online pissing contest.

      Read what the authors here write, read what the posters here write. After you’ve read everything, then read again, and this time, give yourself time time to ponder and digest what it is that you’ve read, and try to put everything you learn into context of rights, freedoms and liberties. Enjoy.

    6. Devil, I am an older woman, I have training and I carry. It is Vitally important to me to protect myself – living alone, traveling alone, even biking alone. I feel the playing field is more than leveled. Of course, I know you know that tyrannical governments first disarm their population. This protects our freedom and liberties from a government that seeks to control and subjugate people. That should be quite obvious to anyone who has studied history – even recent history. Best regards.

    7. To “Devil’s Advocate”:

      Perhaps the lack of response to your post will give you a clue. For starters, try researching the purpose for the Second Amendment.

    8. it is so that the power hungry dictators and tyrants have the people to fear not the people the government to fear ! as was the way in Russia, china ,Cuba, Nazi Germany .iraq under Saddam hussan or the way the liberial democratic party wants all americans to just be cattle.

    9. davpetr on October 2, 2013 at 7:00 PM said:

      DevilsAdvocate,

      The reason I and we want to keep our guns is because it is our constitutional right and for our own protection. There are multiple liberties given to us by the Bill of Rights and the right to bear arms is just one of them. I wholeheartedly want to keep the right to bear arms as well as all of the other rights. Like the right to free speech or freedom of religion. Once any of our rights is stripped it sets a precedence for the future.

      If you think guns are dangerous in the hands of children, then of course you are right. But there are many things that could endanger a child in everyday life. It is the responsibility of parents to inform, protect and monitor those children, not the federal or state or local government. If your religious rights were stripped would you idly sit by? Or your right to protest? The right of the media to inform the populace? No, you wouldn’t. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one. If you enjoy liberty and freedom, support your rights.

    10. RayNOkla on October 2, 2013 at 7:16 PM said:

      We want to keep our guns because they save lives. If you read the above story than you must realize that while gun ownership by law abiding citizens has been going UP, violent crime has been going DOWN. Most violent crimes that do occur are in a “gun free zone”. Hey, it ain’t rocket science.

    11. Brian Watts on October 2, 2013 at 8:57 PM said:

      DevilsAdvocate I will quote a fellow named:
      Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders’ definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of ‘civil rulers’ when he wrote:
      “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
      That is the best description of the 2nd that I have seen. Armed Citizens “militia” provide a powerful check to a tyrant or foreign invader. Hypothetically Regulated “trained” militia “armed citizens” vastly outnumber regular military 150 to 1. It would be no contest. The government exist because We The People allow it. Anymore gun laws may trigger my theory because we are fed up.

    12. Frank A Jeneral on October 2, 2013 at 9:56 PM said:

      Dear Devils,
      The second amendment is about the balance of power between our government and the people. The balance has to be equal or the smucks would be even more arrogant than they are now. That is the real reason for the second amendment. And please don’t tell me you trust our government. You would have to be smoking some kind of funny grass to say that.

    13. I am a firm believer in our 2nd ammendment to the constitution. The present Nut in the White House is simplu that. A Nut, and we have had too many of those commiting great crimes lately. If we would eleminate the Nut, many problems would be solved! Obama must go before he wrecks our great way of life we have taken so passively for too long.

    14. In New York City, in March of 1789, Congress added a set of amendments – the “Bill of Rights” – to the Constitution that were designed to a) prevent abuse of its powers, and b) provide a legitimate basis for the public to have confidence in their government.

      The Second Amendment, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” … was written in order to protect the others.

      Historically, every man had weapons, for multiple reasons, including hunting and the fact that Colonial America needed reserves to fight the British (a common threat to the states), which could not be called up unless the individual’s right to keep and bear arms was protected.

      The second amendment (which, however, is not restricted only to hunting or militias!) guarantees that, in America, the pre-existing God-given right to self-defense – against every peril, from common criminal to foreign invader to tyrannical government – will absolutely be respected. This natural right is not actually granted – and therefore cannot conversely be denied – by any government. The second amendment guarantees that the specific “right to self-defense” applies to every law-abiding, responsible citizen in a free society.

      My family (spouse, children, grandchildren) is WORTH defending, and I take my personal responsibility to do so very seriously.

    15. Devil Advocate,
      Why are your so childish to be on this site to begin with, if you are the pussy coward that you claim to be. I think we need to worry about millions of murdered babies, each year, in the name of birth control before we worry about gun control and the very few killed by guns. This shows that you have no concern for your or anyone else’s kids but only your hatred of guns. It is too bad that criminals would only killed people like you. We would have no problems then, would we?

    16. Bill Butler on October 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM said:

      @Becker… The person only asked a question. Please try to remain civil and provide an adult answer. Part of “freedom” is hearing people that have a different opinion engaging them in intelligent discourse and offering them information that might help change their mind. I understand your passion, however it is not constructive to portray yourself as anything but a positive example of second amendment supporter. Try to treat those with other opinions as if they were children and teach, explain and educate them. “Carry On”

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Geoff: Wouldn’t that also mean that the wildlife population goes through the roof with less hunting? More...
      • James Donnell: will their be a siminar in wichitafalls tx
      • jim: Seriously hoping the Scots will not do this. When the Brits granted “independence” options to the...
      • cathi schlosser: I would love to win a Ruger
      • Teresa Reeves: I would love to own a Ruger gun from our local Ruger Plant in Madison NC!
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

    • AmmoLand Poll

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ
    14158360
    14756288