FBI Statistics

Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (Link)

 

Year	Population1	Violent crime	Violent crime rate (per 100,000)	Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter	Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate (per 100,000)
1992	255,029,699	1,932,274	757.7	23,760	9.3
1993	257,782,608	1,926,017	747.1	24,526	9.5
1994	260,327,021	1,857,670	713.6	23,326	9.0
1995	262,803,276	1,798,792	684.5	21,606	8.2
1996	265,228,572	1,688,540	636.6	19,645	7.4
1997	267,783,607	1,636,096	611.0	18,208	6.8
1998	270,248,003	1,533,887	567.6	16,974	6.3
1999	272,690,813	1,426,044	523.0	15,522	5.7
2000	281,421,906	1,425,486	506.5	15,586	5.5
20012	285,317,559	1,439,480	504.5	16,037	5.6
2002	287,973,924	1,423,677	494.4	16,229	5.6
2003	290,788,976	1,383,676	475.8	16,528	5.7
2004	293,656,842	1,360,088	463.2	16,148	5.5
2005	296,507,061	1,390,745	469.0	16,740	5.6
2006	299,398,484	1,435,123	479.3	17,309	5.8
2007	301,621,157	1,422,970	471.8	17,128	5.7
2008	304,059,724	1,394,461	458.6	16,465	5.4
2009	307,006,550	1,325,896	431.9	15,399	5.0
20103	309,330,219	1,251,248	404.5	14,722	4.8
2011	311,591,917	1,203,564	386.3	14,612	4.7

Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2011

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (Link)

 

State	Total murders1	Total firearms	Handguns	Rifles	Shotguns	Firearms (unknown)	Knives	Other weapons	Hands, fists, feet, etc.2
AK	29	16	5	0	3	8	6	5	2
AZ	339	222	165	14	9	34	49	59	9
AK	153	110	52	4	6	48	22	17	4
CA	1,790	1,220	866	45	50	259	261	208	101
CO	147	73	39	3	5	26	22	31	21
CT	128	94	54	1	1	38	18	10	6
DE	41	28	18	0	3	7	8	2	3
DC	108	77	37	0	1	39	21	9	1
GA	522	370	326	16	16	12	61	83	8
HI	7	1	0	1	0	0	2	1	3
ID	32	17	15	1	0	1	4	8	3
IL3	452	377	364	1	5	7	29	29	17
IN	284	183	115	9	12	47	36	43	22
IA	44	19	7	0	2	10	10	10	5
KS	110	73	31	3	5	34	11	16	10
KT	150	100	77	6	5	12	13	24	13
LA	485	402	372	10	8	12	28	29	26
ME	25	12	3	1	1	7	4	7	2
MD	398	272	262	2	5	3	75	34	17
MA	183	122	52	0	1	69	30	22	9
MI	613	450	267	29	15	139	43	89	31
MN	70	43	36	3	3	1	12	12	3
MS	187	138	121	6	4	7	26	14	9
MO	364	276	158	13	9	96	28	42	18
MT	18	7	2	3	1	1	4	5	2
NE	65	42	35	2	1	4	7	9	7
NV	129	75	46	2	1	26	20	25	9
NH	16	6	1	2	1	2	4	6	0
NJ	379	269	238	1	5	25	51	41	18
NM	121	60	45	2	2	11	21	32	8
NY	774	445	394	5	16	30	160	143	26
NC	489	335	235	26	19	55	60	57	37
ND	12	6	3	0	0	3	4	0	2
OH	488	344	187	8	13	136	44	80	20
OK	204	131	99	8	9	15	26	21	26
OR	77	40	13	1	2	24	22	10	5
PA	636	470	379	8	19	64	73	66	27
RI	14	5	1	0	0	4	5	4	0
SC	319	223	126	10	12	75	38	40	18
SD	15	5	3	1	0	1	4	3	3
TN	373	244	172	7	13	52	51	62	16
TX	1,089	699	497	37	48	117	175	134	81
UT	51	26	15	4	1	6	5	9	11
VT	8	4	2	0	0	2	2	2	0
VA	303	208	110	10	15	73	33	41	21
WA	161	79	58	1	3	17	29	36	17
WV	74	43	23	10	3	7	11	13	7
WI	135	80	60	7	3	10	21	13	21
WY	15	11	7	0	0	4	0	1	3
VI	38	31	27	0	0	4	5	2	0
Total	12,664	8,583	6,220	323	356	1,684	1,694	1,659	728
	100.0%	67.8%	49.1%	2.6%	2.8%	13.3%	13.4%	13.1%	5.7%
	Total murders1	Total firearms	Handguns	Rifles	Shotguns	Firearms unknown	Knives	Other weapons	Hands, fists, feet, etc.2
1 Total number of murders for which supplemental homicide data were received. 2 Pushed is included in hands, fists, feet, etc. 3 Limited supplemental homicide data were received.

Demand Serfdom- Right Now!!!

After viewing the video, I want to make sure we understand a few basic elements of logic concerning the matter of gun violence and the power of media.

This video was made by entertainers who believe that media depicting realistic gun violence does not influence, persuade, or otherwise provide an example for viewers to mimic [ie graphic video imagery and vile rap music lyrics] in the real world. If they are being truthful in their desire for less gun violence, then they must not believe that the media violence in which they participate has any effect on the climate of violence, level of human decency, or morality in the real world. For if they did, they would not produce this sort of violent media for widespread consumption.

Yet they desire for this anti-gun video to influence, persuade, or otherwise provide an example for viewers to follow by mimicking their [emotional] arguments in the everyday world. If we are honest, I think its safe to say that the intent was for common folk to view the video and then regurgitate the ideas presented while standing around the water cooler, sitting across the pub table, and in the family room. If they desire for this video to be consumed on widespread basis and make a difference, then they must think media can make a significant impact on the masses.

This is a rather stunning example of a game I call "one of these things is not like the other." The logic of these elites confuses me: either media influences us, or it does not. If it does, how much? Think about that the next time you stand in line to check out at the grocery store. Do consumers of this type attend annual critical thinking conventions? Non-castrated men didn't start wearing skinny jeans because it looked good.

I believe that media majorly influences people - particularly in the case of people without critical thinking skills. But am I calling for a asterisk next to the First Amendment? Absolutely not. That is a slippery slope, and so I will defend anyone's right to make the media they want and share it. If we are to survive as a free society, moral choices must be made freely. The actions of one should not lead to the rights of others being taken away.

America is in trouble if we, particularly younger generations, look to media elites for guidance. This will only worsen as lines grow increasingly blurry between political operatives and media elites. Just check the guest list to recent white house parties, and consider how similar these events appear to L.A. red carpet events. This is certainly a coalition of the willing (hint: you and I are not members).

The parody video below came out several weeks ago. It captures gun violence media hypocrisy well:

"Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country."

Read on....

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Bar Room Conversation

Citizen Bait: When it was written in 1791, the authors of the Bill of Rights meant only for the Second Amendment to apply to rifled muskets, not the type of assault weapons we have today.

Serfs in your conversation circile will nod or cheer in agreement.

Follow: In 1791 rifled muskets were the assault weapons of the day. The authors of the Second Amendment intended for the citizenry to lawfully possess the exact standard issue assault rifle [musket] of the current day.

Follow-on: The above proves that the second Amendment was authored to give citizens the right of self-defense against threatening opponents, up-to and including against the standing army of a tyrannical national government. In order to ensure this right stood a chance of being effective, citizens were allowed to possess the same standard issue rifle [musket] of the contemporary military.

Today, many totalitarian leftists are calling for all semi-automatic rifles and pistols to be BANNED. The result would mean, temporarily, revolvers and bolt-action rifles would remain legal. But let's focus on the semi-automatics:

• semi-automatic means that with one press of the trigger, one round (bullet) fires. In order to fire another round, the trigger must be depressed and pressed again
• Currently, standard magazines for assault rifles hold 20-30 rounds

In the military, regular infantry carry (per army 9-man squad):

• 6 semi-automatic assault rifles. Range to point target 300-500 meters depending on the shooter. Rifle is capable of fully automatic fire with flip of switch. Each man carries 300 rounds of ammunition at the ready. More is packed away
• 2 light machine guns. Range to area target: 800 meters. 1000 rounds of ammunition at the ready, with more packed away. A spare barrel is carried with each gun to rotate if sustained rapid/cyclic firing occurs (800+ rounds per minute cyclic)
• 2 grenade lauchers. Range 350-400 meters. High-explosive-dual-purpose grenade rounds ensure devastation to personnel as well as vehicles
• 1 medium machine gun. Range 1,800 meters. 1200+ rounds of ammo. Spare barrel.
• All carry fragmentation, smoke, and stun grenades. Probably 4 claymore mines per squad. Body armor for all protects from high-powered rifle hit. They have flares to silouette their targets. Intra-squad radios to communicate amongst themselves. Larger radios to communicate with air assets and their higher headquarters.
• Ability to call for devasting indirect fire and air support.

Ladies and gentleman, the American citizens of 1791 stood a much better chance against a standing army than Americans citizens would in 2012. Semi-automatic assault rifles do not amount to 1/1000th of the firepower a 9-man army squad can bring to bear on an enemy. Those that want to ban semi-automatic weapons (fully-automatic is already illegal) are on a demonic quest for totalitarian control. Pure and simple.

More to follow.

The next four years are not going to be easy. So what. I argue that it's easier to stick to your principles then to not have any and flounder between parties and politicians. So the pressure is on the Republican Party, not on the Democratic Party, to make a decision-- principles or politics? The Constitution or evolution? Limited government or gradual expansion?

Boehner and Co. will have to make their choice (many already have), but so will we. In the coming years people will be faced with a choice: refuse the faux-compassionate hand of government or accept "just a little help." It's going to get ugly folks....for those who want to stand on principle. Not for those who do.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/07/boehner-punishes-the-principle/