Yeah, government oppression NEVER happens [rolls eyes].
Tell you what. Go to ANY local store and buy a Blu-Ray player. Pop in a BBC disc (say, a recent Doctor Who), and try to skip the previews. Just try it. Guess what? The government FORCES companies to make DVD players to not allow certain bits to be skipped. Yeah, that is for the good of you and I, sure. [rolls eyes].
Now, have you EVER heard of this group called the "NSA?" They actually got the metadata from most (if not all) cell phone calls for a while (and maybe they still are). Yup, no warrant, like the 4th Amendment says they have to get. Get this... the government went after an honest person who told the American citizens how their own government was breaking the law. They are trying to accuse Snowden of treason. Treason is helping the enemy. I guess the government considers the common people to be the enemy. [rolls eyes]
Oh, our government has actually targeted journalists with surveillance, and even sent the IRS after people and groups based on their political stance. Yeah, that is OK, right? [rolls eyes]
If you trust the government, then you have not been paying attention. Stop being ignorant -- you have only yourself to blame.
You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.
âoeBasically, by registering to be a student, by being an employee, or by using a ticket to an event, the person had to agree not to bring a weapon â" even if they had a concealed weapons permit,â
So, yeah, that was how the policy was SUPPOSED to work.
Now, let's see ANOTHER quote from the SAME article:
Redell, Oct. 19: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit.
So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.
But, what about the students and faculty actually there at the time? Just reading the handbook, the intent is clear that the intent is to be a gun-free zone. A lawyer who is an expert in the field might be able to know better, but the average law person would think that guns are now allowed.
So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there. Apparently it was so confusing even the president of the college was confused. Simply stated, the matter is FAR from clear, and a student there could hardly be blamed for THINKING that it was a gun free zone, which was the INTENT of the policy. So, yeah, the school was dishonest in this regard.
Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.
The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking, so that was also winds up in the "fuzzy" category.
Yes, history... and YOU.. have shown that guns rarely hit their mark.
Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that? All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target, but you assume that a person fighting for their life will miss? That is called "wishful thinking."
so I assume you'll believe the morons you listen to on the radio.
Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.
You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel
You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel." Sorry, but I answered the question that you asked, not the one that you MEANT to ask.
How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.
Nope. They tried it and were sued in 2013... and they lost. They cannot supercede Oregon law, all they can do is politely ask that nobody bring their guns.
Funny, that is not what it says in the student handbook -- and, yes, I read it after the shooting. Once again, I can believe you (without references), or the word of the college president and the college handbook. Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?
Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.
Let me list the ones, just off of the top of my head, that were in gun free zones:
Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.
According to you: Guns are safe because they don't actually hurt anybody.
Huh? Seriously, dude, what are you smoking? I never said or implied that. According to me, guns in the hands of an honest, responsible person are no danger to YOU unless you are a criminal. According to YOU, apparently, evil guns go out and find victims on their own.
Anyway, I'd rather wait for police to arrive than have a numbnut who think he's John McClane adding more bullets to the mix. Your fantasies about how heroism works are based on what Hollywood has shown you, not reality.
So, you would rather be locked in a room with a murderer unarmed with help 10 minutes away rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy? Like I said, history has shown what that looks like, and it isn't pretty.
So, yeah, a lady with a concealed carry permit stopped a bad guy. Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?
Here is another incident where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. Only one innocent killed, but without the good guy, who knows how many?
Like I said. Make this interesting. Please deal in the truth. If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.
Tell you what. Before you post again, Google for evidence to the contrary to save me time.
Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.
So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head. Well, you choice, but not the one that I would make. However, how dare you force your stupid decisions on me? And as to police, they warn you before they shoot. If you put your gun down, you will be OK. Let the police arrest EVERYBODY carrying a gun and sort it out later. Better to be arrested than dead.
Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van
You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.
Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there.
And here is MORE reality. The victims were DISARMED, so nobody could stop the bad guy until good guys showed up -- with guns.
Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones. And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies. It is just too easy and not much fun. Please at least make it challenging for me to prove you to be a liar. Be more clever! It is more fun that way.
Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted, but I answered it honestly.
I'll show you a link to an armed student that was there.
Yeah. He broke the rules. So did that shooter. That did not mean that there was not a "gun free zone" policy there.
Or, will you present evidence of a guy going 100 MPH down the highway as proof that there is no speed limit?
Do you understand how gun-free zones came into being?
Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.
Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.
How would people with widely varying skills with firearms somehow end in less bloodshed? We already have statistics that show that, at best, the "Good guy with a gun" only works about 15% of the time. Meanwhile you're opening the door to problems like people rage shooting, accidental discharge, innocent victims, etc.
When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.
Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones. I would rather be protected by a gun than a plastic sign.
We've already learned that surrounding our kids with more guns doesn't make them safer.
Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality. Hmmm, which to choose...
He dodges! So why don't you want to answer my question?
I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.
Heh. Yeah this country is just chock-full of hunters protecting their farms.
Around where I live, a lot of hunters. Fresh elk and antelope are yummy.
More recently there was the community college in Oregon.
It was a gun-free zone, at according to the president of the college. Carrying a gun there is not illegal, but you can get fired or expelled, so yeah, gun-free zone, at least if you want to keep your job and/or diploma. Please know your FACTS. If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.
So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?
Nah, but you should be pulled over if you're driving drunk. Fiery crashes aren't 100% preventable, but drunk driving is.
And YOU dodge.
You want to have a gun so you can kill anybody the law will allow? Why are you so eager to shoot a living being?
No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.
Except mass shootings, which are going up rather dramatically. Which is why we're even having this conversation.
More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.
He almost certainly knew when he obtained a gun to use against human beings it was illegal to shoot them, and that's why he brought several of them along with him.
But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.
We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.
And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?
I would not let my kids play at your house.
But but but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether they lock up their guns?
Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility. With young kids in the house, locks are necessary. How old still qualifies as "young" is another discussion.
So what are they being used for then, changing the channels on the TV?
Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.
Where are the guns in those areas coming from?
Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.
Violence in general.
You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.
I still cannot believe the wide-spread brain-damage people must have to believe this.
OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...
How are you part of that group? By owning a gun. You're part of the reason other people want to own guns. Your ownership of that gun creates the potential to have it taken from you and misused, either by a criminal or possibly even someone in your own family. You could one day fire on an unarmed intruder. Or maybe you could be shot by a police officer coming to your rescue, not realizing you're not a bad guy because you're holding your gun in defense.
Really? That is what you are going with? 1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.
2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire. Yeah, it is like that. What you say MIGHT happen, but those are the long odds. I bet you base your financial future on winning the lottery.
3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?
It's not wrong. What is wrong is too many people are dying. You're offering obstruction without a solution.
And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year. Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective. Which of those traits appeals to you more? The fact that you would be going against the Constitution, or the fact that more laws just inconvenience the people who follow the laws?
The "Let everybody have guns!" approach is simple, clear, and also wrong. But, hey, at least we'll get to repeat this again in a month or so when the next mass-shooting happens. Within a year or two it could even reach once-a-week! Aren't you looking forward to this endless debate?
Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.
And, yes, there will be another shooting eventually in another gun-free zone where all of the victims are unarmed. Didn't the person committed to mass murder realize that he will be breaking the law by bringing a gun in where it is not allowed? Maybe we need to make gun in a "gun free zone" MORE illegal, maybe then the criminal will obey that law.
I asked about how you felt about giving chainsaws to toddlers.
Well, obviously, dangerous items need to be kept out of the hands of children. I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns. Safety is common sense. YOU were the one that brought toddlers into this.
Actually your pool is a lot less dangerous right now than it would have been if not for regulations about how it's constructed and maintained.
Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough. But I don't want to ban guns or pools.
it's singular purpose is to kill
Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody. Show me a single other tool that fails so spectacularly. I bet that more than 90% of steak knives actually cut steak each year, and at least 80% of table saws cut wood each year. To have only one out of over 30,000 tools used for its intended purpose shows that maybe that is NOT its intended purpose.
It is a crime enforced specifically to prevent harm from occurring.
I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. But you can't just say that OWNING a gun is irresponsible.
But it doesn't matter since it's roughly uniform across the globe.
What is uniform across the globe? The murder rate? Hardly. In fact, try this. Take the US homicide rate. Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.
In fact, if you want to be safe from guns, here is what you need to do: 1) Don't own a gun. If you want to commit suicide, you will need to use a rope or pills, like they do in "more civilized" countries. 2) Avoid poverty-stricken areas. 3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings. 4) Don't hang out with people of questionable character (ex-convicts, people with violent tendencies, etc). If you do these things, the odds of you dying from a gun are almost completely zero.
Because you're part of a group of people who have ruined it for everybody.
How, exactly? I am honest. I have killed nobody. I obey the law. I pay my taxes. I respect the Constitution. What have I ruined, except the plans of those who want to tell me how to live.
I have five kids. I want them to grow up to be as free as I am. I want my kids to have the ability to live their lives the way that they want, and the ability to stop those who would want to deprive them of life or liberty. In what way is that wrong?
Hey, once you are done here, let's go into vi vs. emacs. I am an emacs guy myself. If you could pretend to like vi for a while, we could have some more fun!
That's a weird response that doesn't answer my question in any meaningful way. "Look! There's a distraction!"
I would not feel comfortable letting a toddler own a gun, a razor blade, or a power drill. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? You mentioned giving guns to toddlers, not me.
Are you training right now? Is the hope that you'll win a Gold Medal and that it's worth the increased risk to your loved ones?
Is that any of your business. You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right? Are you campaigning against owning pools? Since it is MY family, it is MY decision to make. You don't get to make decisions for others. It is called "Freedom." Look it up in a dictionary.
Actually drunk drivers are often arrested before they've caused any damage. By your logic their freedoms have been taken away. You're against that, right? They shouldn't be put in handcuffs until there's a collision, right?
No, my logic is to arrest a person once they have committed a crime. Driving drunk is a crime. Using a gun in a crime is also a crime. I don't want to ban guns or beer. I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.
They went down everywhere else at that rate as well, we're still way higher in the rankings.
And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.
But, OK. Japan has no guns and a lot more suicides. We need to give Japan guns in order to save all those people who kill themselves. We can safely ignore the COMPLETELY different culture and different language. There, see how easy that is to compare things that aren't alike?
Heh. Yeah, Australia is great until it's used against you, then it's too different to use as a point of reference.
Australia STARTED a lot less violent, even before their gun grab. But since you want to play this game, Russia has no private guns, but a higher murder rate than the US. Clearly, you can see that more guns = less murder. See, I can play this "let's blindly and stupidly compare" game too. At least I am honest enough to admit that I am making a false comparison.
Pretending you live in Robocop's "Old Detroit" doesn't put you or your family in a better position, either. Extremes suck. Sorry.
No, I actually live in a pretty safe area. I am happy, my wife is happy, and my kids are happy. I don't pretend anything. However, I don't like it when people start sticking their nose all up in my business and telling me how I should live and what I should be allowed to own. I have hurt nobody. I raise my kids. I do my job, and help improve the economy. I pay my taxes. Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit? Why do you insist on trying to control what I do? What have I ever done to hurt you?
Nope. Shall I assume you'd be okay with toddlers playing with chainsaws?
What an IDIOT. Where were you when they were passing out common sense? You DO know that you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun, right?
Heh. So if they were less common, there'd be less accidents, right?
Same argument for chain saws, cars, wood lathes, and propane heaters. DUH!
Nah, you've just armed yourself because you live in fear of others. In doing so you've increased the risk of you or a family member being seriously harmed.
I don't fear anything. I am not afraid of fire and I don't want to ban lighters and matches, but I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I am not afraid of car accidents, but I wear a seat belt and have air bags in my car. Sensible precautions. Plus, guns are great for hunting, or target shooting for recreation. Did you know that some Olympic sports even use guns?
This does make me curious about your views on the 'freedom of being allowed to drive drunk'.
Simple. Driving drunk is a crime. Convict the criminal. Making cars illegal isn't the solution. Making alcohol isn't the solution either. Ban the BEHAVIOR.
If I took YOUR approach, to stop drunk driving, we have to ban alcohol, since you are willing to ban guns to stop gun crime.
What I do know is that the answer isn't:
I know what the problems isn't too -- more gun laws. Yeah, with 10,000 gun laws on the book, law #10,001 will be the magic one that makes everything all better. The solution is to go after WHY people want to commit murder. Change the person. Change the economy. Change the culture. Why is it that guns are glorified in movies? Why is it that some music encourages illegal violent behavior? This is not a GUN problem, but a HEART problem.
You can bitch about what should or shouldn't happen until you're blue in the face, until the numbers go down you're going to perpetually have this problem.
Pay attention. The numbers HAVE been going down -- 50% since 1993. Once again, DUH!
So our rate is now as low as Austalia's, right?
Once again, different countries, different economy, different poverty levels, different social services, different cultural values, different mental health care system. But, yeah, you can ignore all those differences and instead focus on the ONE difference that you care about.
My approach was to see what effect the new Australian law had, since they drastically changed their law a few decades ago (change a variable, see the difference). According to that metric, it did not help so much.
You're afraid of the same thing they are.
Yeah, criminals. Pretending that they don't exist won't make them go away.
Oh I love this debate style. Here, I'll mimic it: "So you want to kill people who don't want to die by giving them too much easy access to dangerous equipment? Go back to your gun safe and clutch your penis extension until your aggressions die down. You will feel better after a while."
So, I assume that you also want background checks for chainsaws too. Sorry, but gun accidents are remarkably low given how common they are. Stupid people are often killed by dangerous equipment. That is not a reason to ban competent people from owning gun, chainsaws, or drill presses.
My "penis extension?" I feel flattered that you think about my penis so much, but I am married. I don't actually have ANY aggression. My kids think that I am pretty even-tempered. I also do not have an irrational fear about what my neighbor might own or what he might be doing right now. What my neighbor does is his business. I don't go around looking for a reason to interfere in the lives of others. You could take a lesson from that.
Common sense is knowing that opportunity is an element of crime. Actually, you said it yourself: " Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides." Your own common sense seems to be at odds with your agenda.
Yes, I have an agenda. It is called "The US Constitution," and I happen to think that it is a great idea. You must have MISSED the part where I also said that homicides might then INCREASE as a result of disarming victims. I guess you ignore sentences that contradict your flawed opinion of reality. Pick and choose your facts -- that is the anti-gun way.
Did you know that most of those incidents involve the criminal having a gun in the first place? In fact, that's the reason you would prefer to have a gun over a knife or a baseball bat in your house.
Proof of that? And even if it WERE true, explain to me how disarming a victim makes them safer. As I said, criminals BREAK THE LAW. Duh! If guns are outlawed, criminals will not be turning theirs in.
The BEST situation is to have an armed victim and an unarmed criminal. The WORST situation is to have an unarmed victim and an armed criminal.
Explain to me how a law could disarm criminals and not honest people.
It's down a lot further in many other places. Also the rate of decline is constant in those places too, meaning we have a lot of fully-preventable deaths happening in this country. Yes, we do need to do something about it. You've already demonstrated you feel this way, not sure why you're suddenly in denial about it.
Proof of this? Any? I did the numbers myself -- Australia confiscated hundreds of thousands of guns back in 1986, and put severe restrictions on who can own them. Result? The homicide rate over there has dropped JUST AS MUCH as it has over here in the US. In terms of overall violent crime reduction, the USA has beat the pants off of Australia during the same period. So, what overall effect did Australia's gun grab have compared to the US? The USA still showed better improvement WITHOUT taking away freedoms.
So, you really think that murders are "fully preventable?" Perhaps, but NOT with gun law. How about looking at WHY people murder? Like I said, Chicago -- some zip codes have NO shootings, while others have around a HUNDRED (google "Chicago Crime Gap" if you don't believe me). The difference between the zip codes is ECONOMIC, not gun laws. But, yeah, passing "feel good" gun laws that do nothing to stop crime is much easier than trying to fix poverty.
If it is your assertion that NOT having a gun makes you safer, then convince the FBI and police first. Once they give up all of their guns, I will do the same.
Now, as to things that are likely to happen, the average penis (your favorite subject) is about 30 times more likely to commit a rape than the average gun is to commit a murder. I have four daughters
No. The bullet will be stopped by his head. No problem.
but also by the fact that I am friends with my neighbor and it would hurt to find that he had used his gun in a weak moment.
So, you want to control the behaviors of OTHERS based on the fact that they MIGHT hurt your feelings? Go back to your safe space to keep away from micro-agressions. You will feel better after a while.
Oh and thank you for pointing out how much more effecitve guns are to knives, it spared me from having to explain to you why they are not even close to being equal in effectiveness. Now you're a big step closer to spotting the fallacy in your argument that violence is a fixed number and not connected with the capabilities of the weapon.
Once again, COMPLETELY wrong. The number of people WILLING to COMMIT violence is actually a pretty fixed number. For violence to happen, there also has to be a CRIMINAL! I would think that this would be common sense, but I guess not.
Give an honest man a gun, and he will STILL not hurt anybody. Take a gun away from a criminal, and the criminal will just use another tools. Would taking guns away from criminals reduce the deaths caused by a criminal? Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides. Now, conversely, take a gun away from an HONEST man, and will the murder rate fall? No, it will, in fact, go UP because the honest man is far less capable of defending himself.
So, if you did actually manage to remove EVERY gun from America, you have the criminals being capable of causing less damage, but you also have unarmed victims too. Those will tend to balance each other out.
So, the ideal solution would be to allow honest people to arm themselves, but keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Will a law do this? No, because criminals DO NOT OBEY THE LAW (look up "criminal" in a dictionary). So laws disproportionately affect honest people. I don't imagine that a guy selling a gun out of the back of a trunk would be conducting background checks.
Did you know that guns are used to prevent or deter crime in close to a million incidents per year? Compare that to the fewer than 8,500 firearm homicides.
By the way, did you know that homicide is down by 50% since 1993? You are safer now that you have ever been in your entire life. Quick! We need to do something to reverse this horrible trend.
Actually many suicides are rather spur-of-the-moment. There have been countless tales of aborting a suicide through intervention, that's why suicide hotlines exist. Guns make an attempt far more opportunistic, that's one of the reasons they're linked with gun ownership.
Perhaps. But are YOU at danger of being a suicide victim from your neighbor having a gun? If you worry about that sort of thing, don't own a gun. It is that simple. But a person committing suicide does not put YOU in any danger.
Would you feel just as comfortable protecting your home with a knife instead of a gun?
No thanks. You can protect your home with a "no guns allowed" sign, or a knife. Your choice. I will protect my family with a firearm.
The president and celebrities are protected with guns. Once the Secret Service just protects the President with "gun free zone" signs, then I will do the same. The way that I figure, the Secret Service knows how to protect people. I will learn from them and try to do what they do. If they carry guns, it must be because they are effective.
What YOU say sounds great, until you realize that you use several logical fallacies.
Let's take a mythical land, Kevinville. It has guns, and every year there are 100 murders, all with guns. Guns are banned, so suddenly there are NO gun murders, but instead 100 murderers with knives. According to people like you, success since there are no more gun deaths. However, the same number of people die in either case,so how is that an improvement?
By focusing on a bogus number like "gun deaths" you are somehow implying that a person stabbed to death is somehow less dead.
The phrase "gun deaths" also include mostly SUICIDES. Where is the victim there, since the victim and the perpetrator are the same person? Do you think that a suicidal person, lacking a gun, will be too dumb to find other methods? The phrase "gun deaths" also include LEGITIMATE shootings (self-defense, police shootings, etc.). By throwing this figure out there, you are implying that legitimate shootings should not happen, and that criminals should not be stopped, and should be allowed to run rampant.
Also, should I note that other countries have different economies, different poverty rates, different social programs, different media, different language, different health care system, and different cultural values? Obviously, if you are laser-focused on just one statistic, it is easy to ignore the hundreds of other differences between countries that could account for differences in homicide and violent crime.
I could point out that Japan has NO guns, and a much higher suicide rate. Therefore, according to YOUR logic, if we gave guns to Japan, their suicide rate would drop to our level. However, I am not that dishonest.
Well, the point is that gun ownership and homicide rate are LOOSELY correlated. I made a point in another post, but I will summarize it.
Let's compare gun laws. Chicago. A few zip codes had ZERO shootings last year. Some zip codes approached a hundred shootings last year. The gun laws are the SAME. The difference? Poverty.
Take guns away from areas with high poverty, and you will see an increase in stabbing and beating deaths.
Give plenty of guns away in the areas with money, and they will suddenly not decide to start committing murder.
But, how much easier it is to simply add more ineffective gun laws, rather than focus on the ROOT cause of violence -- poverty?
Ummm. Anybody sane? We already have things to make guns childproof. They are called "locks" and "safes." I keep mu firearms in a safe with a push-button lock. No batteries to wear out, and a simple design with little to go wrong.
I am not against adding smart technology to firearms. But I am against requiring it. Simply stated, the problem is reliability. Sometimes people use a gun to defend themselves, which means that it HAS to work. Do you want to be defenseless because of a dead battery or a firmware issue?
Personally, I will consider it a viable option when it is good enough for the FBI and police. If it is not reliable enough for them, it is not reliable enough for me.
Here is a challenge for you. Go to this page that has a convenient table with gun ownership and homicide rates. Copy and paste this table into your favorite spreadsheet. Make an X-Y scatter graph with "Gun ownership %" as the X axis and "Homicides per 100,000" as the Y axis. Add a linear trend line.
Hey, look at that! The trend is that more gun ownership is correlated with LESS homicide. It is a weak correlation, but it is there. OK, Washington DC has few guns, but by far the most homicides. Delete that row. Hey, look! The trend still holds!
Some people ding Wikipedia, but at least I trust in, in this instance, to be relatively unbiased, and they have links to the source data (FBI and Census Bureau).
Now, the nice this about THIS instead of some random article from some biased journalist is that the source data comes from someplace that you can trust, and you can do the math yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
How about unarmed people being shot by the police. Is that 3rd world enough for you? [rolls eyes]
Yeah, government oppression NEVER happens [rolls eyes].
Tell you what. Go to ANY local store and buy a Blu-Ray player. Pop in a BBC disc (say, a recent Doctor Who), and try to skip the previews. Just try it. Guess what? The government FORCES companies to make DVD players to not allow certain bits to be skipped. Yeah, that is for the good of you and I, sure. [rolls eyes].
Now, have you EVER heard of this group called the "NSA?" They actually got the metadata from most (if not all) cell phone calls for a while (and maybe they still are). Yup, no warrant, like the 4th Amendment says they have to get. Get this... the government went after an honest person who told the American citizens how their own government was breaking the law. They are trying to accuse Snowden of treason. Treason is helping the enemy. I guess the government considers the common people to be the enemy. [rolls eyes]
Oh, our government has actually targeted journalists with surveillance, and even sent the IRS after people and groups based on their political stance. Yeah, that is OK, right? [rolls eyes]
If you trust the government, then you have not been paying attention. Stop being ignorant -- you have only yourself to blame.
I have heard two better hypothesis. Maybe one or the other, or both, are true.
1) Lead in the environment. No more lead in gas and paint. Lead, if I recall correctly, has been shown to increase violent behavior.
2) Abortion becoming legal. With more abortion, you have less criminals.
Note that NEITHER of these are my theories, and I don't have any personal opinions on either one. I am just parroting what I have heard elsewhere.
Iron sights can be hard to see in low-light conditions. Simply stated, iron sights are fine when you have a little extra time and conditions are good.
Having a decent red dot just makes thing quicker under more conditions than iron sights.
You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.
Wow. You are reaching....
From that link that YOU posted:
So, yeah, that was how the policy was SUPPOSED to work.
Now, let's see ANOTHER quote from the SAME article:
So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.
But, what about the students and faculty actually there at the time? Just reading the handbook, the intent is clear that the intent is to be a gun-free zone. A lawyer who is an expert in the field might be able to know better, but the average law person would think that guns are now allowed.
So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there. Apparently it was so confusing even the president of the college was confused. Simply stated, the matter is FAR from clear, and a student there could hardly be blamed for THINKING that it was a gun free zone, which was the INTENT of the policy. So, yeah, the school was dishonest in this regard.
Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.
http://sund.org/gun-free-zone-...
The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking, so that was also winds up in the "fuzzy" category.
Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that? All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target, but you assume that a person fighting for their life will miss? That is called "wishful thinking."
Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.
You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel." Sorry, but I answered the question that you asked, not the one that you MEANT to ask.
How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.
Funny, that is not what it says in the student handbook -- and, yes, I read it after the shooting. Once again, I can believe you (without references), or the word of the college president and the college handbook. Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?
Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.
Let me list the ones, just off of the top of my head, that were in gun free zones:
Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.
So, you would rather be locked in a room with a murderer unarmed with help 10 minutes away rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy? Like I said, history has shown what that looks like, and it isn't pretty.
Now, this incident happened about TWO MILES from my house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, yeah, a lady with a concealed carry permit stopped a bad guy. Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?
Here is another incident where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. Only one innocent killed, but without the good guy, who knows how many?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Like I said. Make this interesting. Please deal in the truth. If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.
Tell you what. Before you post again, Google for evidence to the contrary to save me time.
Wow. Is lying the only way that you can make your point? Here is your question:
And here is my answer:
So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!
Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.
Here is the PRESIDENT OF THAT COLLEGE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A NO GUNS ON CAMPUS POLICY. If you can't believe the person who RUNS the college, then who will you believe?
Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...
So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head. Well, you choice, but not the one that I would make. However, how dare you force your stupid decisions on me?
And as to police, they warn you before they shoot. If you put your gun down, you will be OK. Let the police arrest EVERYBODY carrying a gun and sort it out later. Better to be arrested than dead.
You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.
And here is MORE reality. The victims were DISARMED, so nobody could stop the bad guy until good guys showed up -- with guns.
Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones. And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies. It is just too easy and not much fun. Please at least make it challenging for me to prove you to be a liar. Be more clever! It is more fun that way.
Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted, but I answered it honestly.
Yeah. He broke the rules. So did that shooter. That did not mean that there was not a "gun free zone" policy there.
Or, will you present evidence of a guy going 100 MPH down the highway as proof that there is no speed limit?
Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.
Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.
When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.
Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones. I would rather be protected by a gun than a plastic sign.
Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality. Hmmm, which to choose...
I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.
Around where I live, a lot of hunters. Fresh elk and antelope are yummy.
It was a gun-free zone, at according to the president of the college. Carrying a gun there is not illegal, but you can get fired or expelled, so yeah, gun-free zone, at least if you want to keep your job and/or diploma.
Please know your FACTS. If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.
So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?
And YOU dodge.
No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.
More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.
But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.
We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.
I would not let my kids play at your house.
Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility. With young kids in the house, locks are necessary. How old still qualifies as "young" is another discussion.
Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.
Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.
You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.
OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...
Really? That is what you are going with?
1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.
2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire. Yeah, it is like that. What you say MIGHT happen, but those are the long odds. I bet you base your financial future on winning the lottery.
3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?
And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year. Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective. Which of those traits appeals to you more? The fact that you would be going against the Constitution, or the fact that more laws just inconvenience the people who follow the laws?
Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.
And, yes, there will be another shooting eventually in another gun-free zone where all of the victims are unarmed. Didn't the person committed to mass murder realize that he will be breaking the law by bringing a gun in where it is not allowed? Maybe we need to make gun in a "gun free zone" MORE illegal, maybe then the criminal will obey that law.
I am reminded of this famous quote:
More gun laws is clear, simple, and wrong.
Well, obviously, dangerous items need to be kept out of the hands of children. I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns. Safety is common sense. YOU were the one that brought toddlers into this.
Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough. But I don't want to ban guns or pools.
Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody. Show me a single other tool that fails so spectacularly. I bet that more than 90% of steak knives actually cut steak each year, and at least 80% of table saws cut wood each year. To have only one out of over 30,000 tools used for its intended purpose shows that maybe that is NOT its intended purpose.
I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. But you can't just say that OWNING a gun is irresponsible.
What is uniform across the globe? The murder rate? Hardly. In fact, try this. Take the US homicide rate. Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.
In fact, if you want to be safe from guns, here is what you need to do:
1) Don't own a gun. If you want to commit suicide, you will need to use a rope or pills, like they do in "more civilized" countries.
2) Avoid poverty-stricken areas.
3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings.
4) Don't hang out with people of questionable character (ex-convicts, people with violent tendencies, etc).
If you do these things, the odds of you dying from a gun are almost completely zero.
How, exactly? I am honest. I have killed nobody. I obey the law. I pay my taxes. I respect the Constitution. What have I ruined, except the plans of those who want to tell me how to live.
I have five kids. I want them to grow up to be as free as I am. I want my kids to have the ability to live their lives the way that they want, and the ability to stop those who would want to deprive them of life or liberty. In what way is that wrong?
Anyways, this has been fun.
Hey, once you are done here, let's go into vi vs. emacs. I am an emacs guy myself. If you could pretend to like vi for a while, we could have some more fun!
I would not feel comfortable letting a toddler own a gun, a razor blade, or a power drill. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? You mentioned giving guns to toddlers, not me.
Is that any of your business. You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right? Are you campaigning against owning pools? Since it is MY family, it is MY decision to make. You don't get to make decisions for others. It is called "Freedom." Look it up in a dictionary.
No, my logic is to arrest a person once they have committed a crime. Driving drunk is a crime. Using a gun in a crime is also a crime. I don't want to ban guns or beer. I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.
And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.
But, OK. Japan has no guns and a lot more suicides. We need to give Japan guns in order to save all those people who kill themselves. We can safely ignore the COMPLETELY different culture and different language. There, see how easy that is to compare things that aren't alike?
Australia STARTED a lot less violent, even before their gun grab. But since you want to play this game, Russia has no private guns, but a higher murder rate than the US. Clearly, you can see that more guns = less murder. See, I can play this "let's blindly and stupidly compare" game too. At least I am honest enough to admit that I am making a false comparison.
No, I actually live in a pretty safe area. I am happy, my wife is happy, and my kids are happy. I don't pretend anything. However, I don't like it when people start sticking their nose all up in my business and telling me how I should live and what I should be allowed to own. I have hurt nobody. I raise my kids. I do my job, and help improve the economy. I pay my taxes. Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit? Why do you insist on trying to control what I do? What have I ever done to hurt you?
Wow. The fail is strong in this one...
What an IDIOT. Where were you when they were passing out common sense? You DO know that you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun, right?
Same argument for chain saws, cars, wood lathes, and propane heaters. DUH!
I don't fear anything. I am not afraid of fire and I don't want to ban lighters and matches, but I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I am not afraid of car accidents, but I wear a seat belt and have air bags in my car. Sensible precautions. Plus, guns are great for hunting, or target shooting for recreation. Did you know that some Olympic sports even use guns?
Simple. Driving drunk is a crime. Convict the criminal. Making cars illegal isn't the solution. Making alcohol isn't the solution either. Ban the BEHAVIOR.
If I took YOUR approach, to stop drunk driving, we have to ban alcohol, since you are willing to ban guns to stop gun crime.
I know what the problems isn't too -- more gun laws. Yeah, with 10,000 gun laws on the book, law #10,001 will be the magic one that makes everything all better. The solution is to go after WHY people want to commit murder. Change the person. Change the economy. Change the culture. Why is it that guns are glorified in movies? Why is it that some music encourages illegal violent behavior? This is not a GUN problem, but a HEART problem.
Pay attention. The numbers HAVE been going down -- 50% since 1993. Once again, DUH!
Once again, different countries, different economy, different poverty levels, different social services, different cultural values, different mental health care system. But, yeah, you can ignore all those differences and instead focus on the ONE difference that you care about.
My approach was to see what effect the new Australian law had, since they drastically changed their law a few decades ago (change a variable, see the difference). According to that metric, it did not help so much.
Yeah, criminals. Pretending that they don't exist won't make them go away.
So, I assume that you also want background checks for chainsaws too. Sorry, but gun accidents are remarkably low given how common they are. Stupid people are often killed by dangerous equipment. That is not a reason to ban competent people from owning gun, chainsaws, or drill presses.
My "penis extension?" I feel flattered that you think about my penis so much, but I am married. I don't actually have ANY aggression. My kids think that I am pretty even-tempered. I also do not have an irrational fear about what my neighbor might own or what he might be doing right now. What my neighbor does is his business. I don't go around looking for a reason to interfere in the lives of others. You could take a lesson from that.
Yes, I have an agenda. It is called "The US Constitution," and I happen to think that it is a great idea. You must have MISSED the part where I also said that homicides might then INCREASE as a result of disarming victims. I guess you ignore sentences that contradict your flawed opinion of reality. Pick and choose your facts -- that is the anti-gun way.
Proof of that? And even if it WERE true, explain to me how disarming a victim makes them safer. As I said, criminals BREAK THE LAW. Duh! If guns are outlawed, criminals will not be turning theirs in.
The BEST situation is to have an armed victim and an unarmed criminal.
The WORST situation is to have an unarmed victim and an armed criminal.
Explain to me how a law could disarm criminals and not honest people.
Proof of this? Any? I did the numbers myself -- Australia confiscated hundreds of thousands of guns back in 1986, and put severe restrictions on who can own them. Result? The homicide rate over there has dropped JUST AS MUCH as it has over here in the US. In terms of overall violent crime reduction, the USA has beat the pants off of Australia during the same period. So, what overall effect did Australia's gun grab have compared to the US? The USA still showed better improvement WITHOUT taking away freedoms.
So, you really think that murders are "fully preventable?" Perhaps, but NOT with gun law. How about looking at WHY people murder? Like I said, Chicago -- some zip codes have NO shootings, while others have around a HUNDRED (google "Chicago Crime Gap" if you don't believe me). The difference between the zip codes is ECONOMIC, not gun laws. But, yeah, passing "feel good" gun laws that do nothing to stop crime is much easier than trying to fix poverty.
If it is your assertion that NOT having a gun makes you safer, then convince the FBI and police first. Once they give up all of their guns, I will do the same.
Now, as to things that are likely to happen, the average penis (your favorite subject) is about 30 times more likely to commit a rape than the average gun is to commit a murder. I have four daughters
No. The bullet will be stopped by his head. No problem.
So, you want to control the behaviors of OTHERS based on the fact that they MIGHT hurt your feelings? Go back to your safe space to keep away from micro-agressions. You will feel better after a while.
Once again, COMPLETELY wrong. The number of people WILLING to COMMIT violence is actually a pretty fixed number. For violence to happen, there also has to be a CRIMINAL! I would think that this would be common sense, but I guess not.
Give an honest man a gun, and he will STILL not hurt anybody. Take a gun away from a criminal, and the criminal will just use another tools. Would taking guns away from criminals reduce the deaths caused by a criminal? Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides. Now, conversely, take a gun away from an HONEST man, and will the murder rate fall? No, it will, in fact, go UP because the honest man is far less capable of defending himself.
So, if you did actually manage to remove EVERY gun from America, you have the criminals being capable of causing less damage, but you also have unarmed victims too. Those will tend to balance each other out.
So, the ideal solution would be to allow honest people to arm themselves, but keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Will a law do this? No, because criminals DO NOT OBEY THE LAW (look up "criminal" in a dictionary). So laws disproportionately affect honest people. I don't imagine that a guy selling a gun out of the back of a trunk would be conducting background checks.
Did you know that guns are used to prevent or deter crime in close to a million incidents per year? Compare that to the fewer than 8,500 firearm homicides.
By the way, did you know that homicide is down by 50% since 1993? You are safer now that you have ever been in your entire life. Quick! We need to do something to reverse this horrible trend.
Perhaps. But are YOU at danger of being a suicide victim from your neighbor having a gun? If you worry about that sort of thing, don't own a gun. It is that simple. But a person committing suicide does not put YOU in any danger.
No thanks. You can protect your home with a "no guns allowed" sign, or a knife. Your choice. I will protect my family with a firearm.
The president and celebrities are protected with guns. Once the Secret Service just protects the President with "gun free zone" signs, then I will do the same. The way that I figure, the Secret Service knows how to protect people. I will learn from them and try to do what they do. If they carry guns, it must be because they are effective.
What YOU say sounds great, until you realize that you use several logical fallacies.
Let's take a mythical land, Kevinville. It has guns, and every year there are 100 murders, all with guns. Guns are banned, so suddenly there are NO gun murders, but instead 100 murderers with knives. According to people like you, success since there are no more gun deaths. However, the same number of people die in either case,so how is that an improvement?
By focusing on a bogus number like "gun deaths" you are somehow implying that a person stabbed to death is somehow less dead.
The phrase "gun deaths" also include mostly SUICIDES. Where is the victim there, since the victim and the perpetrator are the same person? Do you think that a suicidal person, lacking a gun, will be too dumb to find other methods? The phrase "gun deaths" also include LEGITIMATE shootings (self-defense, police shootings, etc.). By throwing this figure out there, you are implying that legitimate shootings should not happen, and that criminals should not be stopped, and should be allowed to run rampant.
Also, should I note that other countries have different economies, different poverty rates, different social programs, different media, different language, different health care system, and different cultural values? Obviously, if you are laser-focused on just one statistic, it is easy to ignore the hundreds of other differences between countries that could account for differences in homicide and violent crime.
I could point out that Japan has NO guns, and a much higher suicide rate. Therefore, according to YOUR logic, if we gave guns to Japan, their suicide rate would drop to our level. However, I am not that dishonest.
Well, the point is that gun ownership and homicide rate are LOOSELY correlated. I made a point in another post, but I will summarize it.
Let's compare gun laws. Chicago. A few zip codes had ZERO shootings last year. Some zip codes approached a hundred shootings last year. The gun laws are the SAME. The difference? Poverty.
Take guns away from areas with high poverty, and you will see an increase in stabbing and beating deaths.
Give plenty of guns away in the areas with money, and they will suddenly not decide to start committing murder.
But, how much easier it is to simply add more ineffective gun laws, rather than focus on the ROOT cause of violence -- poverty?
Try? It has already happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wow. You must have a LOT of fingers...
http://thewellarmedwoman.com/w...
Ummm. Anybody sane? We already have things to make guns childproof. They are called "locks" and "safes." I keep mu firearms in a safe with a push-button lock. No batteries to wear out, and a simple design with little to go wrong.
I am not against adding smart technology to firearms. But I am against requiring it. Simply stated, the problem is reliability. Sometimes people use a gun to defend themselves, which means that it HAS to work. Do you want to be defenseless because of a dead battery or a firmware issue?
Personally, I will consider it a viable option when it is good enough for the FBI and police. If it is not reliable enough for them, it is not reliable enough for me.
Here is a challenge for you. Go to this page that has a convenient table with gun ownership and homicide rates. Copy and paste this table into your favorite spreadsheet. Make an X-Y scatter graph with "Gun ownership %" as the X axis and "Homicides per 100,000" as the Y axis. Add a linear trend line.
Hey, look at that! The trend is that more gun ownership is correlated with LESS homicide. It is a weak correlation, but it is there. OK, Washington DC has few guns, but by far the most homicides. Delete that row. Hey, look! The trend still holds!
Some people ding Wikipedia, but at least I trust in, in this instance, to be relatively unbiased, and they have links to the source data (FBI and Census Bureau).
Now, the nice this about THIS instead of some random article from some biased journalist is that the source data comes from someplace that you can trust, and you can do the math yourself, and draw your own conclusions.