Do you have something on your mind and want to write your own online editorial?
Click here to get started!

Gun Crimes Down Imagine That!

Date posted - May 8, 2013

The Los Angeles Times reported  the results of a Pew Research survey of government date that said gun crime has decline in the U.S.  but that Americans actually believe gun crime has increased.  The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren’t fatal fell by 69%.

Thank you L.A. Times for finally giving us the FACTS and not what you want us to believe.

Now Obama quit buying up all the ammo.

Print Friendly

30 Responses to “Gun Crimes Down Imagine That!”

  1. Proud Gun Owner says:

    It is amazing how much people can learn if they actually do their research. I have nothing against people who don’t want guns in their homes, we all have the right to choose, but if you are going to make arguments about how bad guns are do your research first. You can’t fight against something you know nothing about.

  2. Gary says:

    Here is a great article by an editor at Iowa State University regarding the discussion around the misleadings on the gun control debate.

    Worth reading.

  3. Drake says:

    But research (not noted in the LA Times article) shows gun ownership has also decreased steadily in the last four decades, from 49% in the early 70’s to 34% in 2012. So perhaps fewer guns does mean fewer deaths.

    • 30-30 says:

      I’d like to read more about the decline in gun ownership you mentioned.
      Could you please reveal your source?

    • Tim says:

      Drake, yes..there are “facts” to back up your claim..(
      However…consider this; have you or anyone you know ever been involved in such a survey? Also, if you were involved in such a survey, and I called you up and asked: ‘do you have any guns in your household? or do you intend to buy any in the near future?’ would you answer “sure I have several, infact I am going out to buy one in a week” or would you say, “no I have none, and do not intend to buy any” Think about that. Why would you tell someone you know nothing about, you have guns in your home, or you intend to buy one. I for one would not!! What a crazy survey. Is it scewed?? Is it geared for a purpose?
      FYI: NBC/WSJ on the same web site reported that gun ownership is at 42% up 3 full points since 2011. This is a reversal of the GSS survey. (

    • peter lemonjello says:

      so why have iowa’s concealed carry permits gone from 3000 to over 12,000 the last two years alone. try purchasing a handgun without a 2 year wait from the manufacturer or purchase ammunition before homeland security has a chance to buy it all up. responsible gun ownership is up and will continue as long as the anti 2nds are out there.

    • Lee Ann says:

      Fewer people are owning guns. However, the fewer people that own guns tend to own a lot more guns per person. The gun manufacturers are making a lot of money selling guns. Instead of 49% owning one or two guns, you have 34% owning an arsenal. I know several people that own 5 or more rifles. 5 or more shotguns. Because when one goes target shooting with friends, everybody gets a rifle to shoot at targets. So some people have a whole lotta guns.

  4. WhyFussSoMuch says:

    There are illegal guns being owned so the findings are wrong. Plus it is not weapons that kill, it is people that kill.

    • WhyFussSoMuch says:

      I don’t own a gun for the fact that I should not have one, but I am glad that my neighbors have a gun. I do know how to operate a gun if I needed to use one, but I am one of those that does not need it in my home.

  5. Timmy says:

    Since the Sandy Hook school shooting there have been over 3,300 deaths involving guns. THATS OVER 3300 deaths involving shooting SINCE Sandy Hook. Now since you love facts (most of you are using Fox News talking points) lets see what history can teach us about gun control.

    Ronald Regan (You all seem to love him) BANNED California citizens from carrying guns in public. (This guy is a conservative hero, yet he banned guns, did the right say anything? Nope)

    Sarah Palin (another loved and embraced by the tea party) Disarmed the Alaska members of the State Brigade (did the right say anything? Nope)

    Mitt Romney (come on admit it some of you voted for him) SIGNED THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN (did the right say anything? NOPE)

    Obama SUGGESTED people would be ok using something less than a 30 round clip, the right loses their mind and declares he is coming to take all your guns.

    Come on people, if your going to be fair, lets be fair about facts. Obama has done nothing to take your guns while your leaders of the right have done more than him to take your guns away.

    (Judging by your comments I assume most of you vote republican, I know I shouldn’t make assumptions and I apologize for that, but I am going off the other comments)

    • Citizen 2A says:

      Our CiC is attacking this “problem” in a very creative way. CiC knows he’ll never make a dent in the 2A. People will always have guns. CiC is going after the ammunition supply. Buying billions of rounds is only one thing. Who out there knows that CiC now has the military dumping all their spent rounds (which normally are recycled into the civilian supply) into the ocean? All that brass is lying on the ocean floor and out of the civilian ammunition supply chain. CiC will let anyone have as many guns as they want, but he reasons the only harm they will cause is when the owner gets close enough to chuck it at the other guy because he doesnt have ammo. How long before that 3D printer is printing ammunition???

    • Tim says:

      First, ‘most of you are using Fox talking points’ you have no proof of that! You assume, b/c as we can see you are strongly not of the Republican party, that if you are not in support of Obama you are either a Republican or a Tea Party activist, or a crazy conservative from the right that just sits and listens to Fox, sorry it ain’t so.
      Second, where are YOUR facts to back up that claim that there are over 3000 gun related deaths since Sandy Hook?
      Third, where are your ‘fac
      ts’ that in the same time frame leading up to the horrible tradgedy at Sandy Hook, there were not as many or more gun related deaths?
      I would agree far to many deaths even if it is only one.
      Have you read the United Nations, Arms Treaty that the Obama administration wants so badly? perhaps you should check out Article 5 and Article 10! WHO WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY?? WHO WANTS TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE A GUN??
      Now, to Reagan: In 1986 Reagan signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) You should read it.
      If I follow it correctly what he ACTUALLY banned was, (automatic assault rifles) Again, if I follow what he ACTUALLY prohibited it was, (gun registry) Check out the law regarding background checks, which I think are still in force today.
      Palin: She cut her budget which included funding for a volunteer malitia. They were dedicated volunteers but did not have the training like the National Gaurd. So yes she took their guns away. She needed to balance Alaska’s budget.
      Romney: Yes in 1984 he did sign into law in Mass an automatic assault rifle weapons ban. Note, what makes an assault weapon? Any weapon can be classified as an assault weapon. The difference as I see it, Automatic weapons (which is what he banned) are those that fired repeatedly with the trigger pulled. Semi-automatic weapons are those that require the operator to pull the trigger each time to fire a round. Automatic ‘Assault’ Weapons in my mind should be reserved for only law enforcement or military.
      Obama has eluded to and defended gun control his whole ‘reign’. It is my belief that part of his agenda IS to have in place some sort of gun control law, gun ban, gun registry, ammunition restriction, whatever it takes to control society. History shows the way to control a society is to take away their ability to defend themselves from those wanting to have ultimate power.
      I reference a bill proposed by a Democrat from NY, Rep Jose Serrano introduced H.J. Res. 5, to repeal the 22nd Amendment allowing Barack Obama in theory to be president for life.
      Now tell me what better way to control your destiny/reign than to take away a societies ability to stop such tyranny/dictatorship. Would it be to take control of their means of self preservation any way you can!?
      BTW….not once did I refer to FOX news!

    • Doug says:

      If in fact the 3,300 number you posted is accurate, it would include suicides which are going to occur regardless of guns. Also included in that number, are fatalities from law enforcement.

      CBS News President David Rhodes’ brother Ben Rhodes, is Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication.

      ABC News President Ben Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.

      CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley’s husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

      White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s wife, Claire Shipman is a senior correspondent for ABC News.

      Can you see, a lot of news that comes from Fox, won’t be heard on the other networks, that have been in-bed with this administration for years?

      If you want to keep believing the crap they all sling against the wall, go for it. I prefer to get my news from sources that aren’t fed the “lie of the day” from the White House.

  6. Lee Ann says:

    I am never happy when people start saying that the people on the left hate guns and want to get rid of guns. I am a liberal, I’ve been shooting rifles and shotguns since I was a kid. I know that guns do not kill people. I enjoy target shooting. I have my hunter safety card, I have gone hunting. Most people on the left that I know feel the same way. The only people that are real gun haters live in huge cities, such as NYC.

    I have no objection to you have a bleeping arsenal in your closet. However, I do agree with 93% of the NRA members that we should have a good solid universal background check, so that we can ensure that the people that shouldn’t have guns, won’t have guns. And before you say that criminals will still get guns, I agree. But if we can cut it by a third, that’s a thousand people alive since Sandy Hook. If we can save some of them, its as good as putting seat belts in cars. There will always be ways for people to die. But if we can prevent half or a third, that’s a good start. I think more money should be put into mental health clinics. Finding these people and treating them before they do their damage because of illness.

    Very few people are anti guns. I am pro safety with guns.

    • Jay says:

      I appreciate this post because it shows that liberals aren’t that terrible. I am also a liberal who doesn’t “hate” guns, I just hate the system and the general attitude about it. I absolutely think we should have the right to defend ourselves, but I can see why people may be against that considering accidents like five year olds finding the gun and shooting themselves on accident. This is where common sense comes into play. Regardless, I do think universal background checks are a necessity and personally I don’t see why this would hurt anything.

      However, I must admit, I think the attitude about this is terrible. Most of you sound like big babies on the yard who need their big giant pacifier and carry a “let me show you my guns so you don’t mess with me” attitude. That’s just my personal opinion. It’s out of control. Stop blaming our President and stop getting so defensive when gun control is brought up. The world is so much bigger outside of NWIA and things like background checks or assault weapon bans are needed. Yes, if a criminal wants one, they could get it… But just like Lee Ann said, if you can save even a third of those lives that were lost, why not do it? I think it’s a poor, selfish excuse to use the “criminals will get them” card. If you’ll take anything from my post, please… PLEASE stop being so close minded about this issue. Stop believing every chain email or Facebook post you see. You’ll keep your guns and the police aren’t going to come knocking on your door asking you to hand over your weapon.

      Also, stop obsessing over your weapons. The strange obsession with these killing machines bothers me on a personal level.

      Peace and love

      • Ducky says:

        (Entering this posting kind of late, so let me catch up here)
        I am liberal and support gun control in the sense of background checks and ban assault weapons. Infact, I also agree that some of these OVERLY active GC protesters have a creepy vibe to them. Seriously, .50 sniper rifle with so much power it can shoot through 3inches of steel? Unless you’re serious about protecting yourself from the government (they have even bigger toys). I think guns should be viewed as today’s American trucks. If you’re a stay at home parent that lives in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, you don’t need a 2013 F-350 for grocery runs and soccer practice. I believe the whole “the bigger the gun, the smaller the… pistol” saying applies here.

        With the 3D printed guns thing- I am a student in design technology. 3D printers print PLASTIC parts. Yes, it is possible to make a gun. It’s very easy, infact. But high pressure, high heat, and immense recoil, the gun would be deformed after the first shot. It might get two or three shots off before it snaps in half. I’d rather have criminals out there with low powered and fragile plastic guns (these are made with over lapping strings of plastic) full auto than a pistol. These things are PLASTIC! You’d be lucky to hit a target from ten feet away. Not to mention there are so many tiny holes between the .3mm wide plastic that pressure would escape.
        Realistically, a 3D printed slingshot would be more dangerous.

      • Sam says:

        If anyone ever breaks into your home and threatens your family, I hope your peace and love is sufficient. Maybe a slingshot will help.

        • Ducky says:

          I’d rather have the slingshot instead of a 50 cal sniper rifle to attack a burgler anyways. Or, you know, a small handgun.

        • Lee Ann says:

          We live in Sheldon Iowa. What are the odds that someone is going to do a home invasion here in Sheldon? Unless its a drug deal gone wrong, its highly unlikely that one would need self protection here.

          The odds of that gun you have for self protection being used to protect your home and family is miniscule, compared to the odds of that gun being used against you or by you. They say that you are 42 times more likely to be hurt or killed by your own gun than using it for home protection. It makes more sense to have a loud barking dog, and a cell phone to call 911.

          • AR-15 says:

            I will take my chances and have my guns, I’d rather be safe then sorry. I am a responsible gun owner, if you know your not then that is probably good you stick to your cell phone, your barking chiwawa, and a dinner fork. Meanwhile I’ll stick with my Rottweiler and my loaded .45. Don’t tell people what they can and can’t have, that is not your place.

          • Tim says:

            Lee Ann:
            FYI. You are no safer here than anywhere else. I was talking to a gentlmen the other day and he told me of an instance when his wife came out of the shower and met a man in her front room. He claimed he was ini the wrong house. In Sheldon Iowa!!! Beleive what you want, I am with AR-15….I will keep my 9 MM straped to my side and my 45 ready if the 9 fails! My wife keeps her 380 very close!

  7. AR-15 says:

    In regards to everyone using the term “Assult Rifle” and Assult weapon” in reference to the AR-15:

    Probably one thing has caused most of the problems with the misconception of the AR-15 — the actual name of the design. The name “AR-15″ does not stand for “assault rifle.”

    The inventor of the system was a brilliant firearms engineer named Eugene Stoner, and his system — which bled off gases from the exploding gun powder and forced the bolt backwards to eject the fired round and chamber a new one — was known as the “Stoner System.”

    In a nutshell, the ArmaLite Corporation produced the Stoner-designed rifle as a prototype that would later be accepted by the U.S. military and be designated as the M-16 rifle. The term “AR” refers to the original manufacturer of the rifle, or “ArmaLite Rifle.”

    Later, Colt Manufacturing bought out the patent, and registered the name for the civilian versions of the rifle. Unfortunately, the initials helped propagate the misconception of “assault rifle,” and the battle for the hearts and minds of the American citizenry was on.

    But the AR-15-style rifles have become so popular —and have been utilized in so many ways as semi-automatic hunting rifles, superbly accurate varmint rifles and long-range competitive rifles — that the bad connotations have simply, well, gone away.

    In an attempt to overcome the negative press, and to emphasize the popularity and sporting uses of these rifles, the industry came up with a new standardized name for them, one that more accurately defines their use and popularity: “modern sporting rifles.”

    I like the term; I think it denotes what the rifles have become in the American shooting fraternity, and I think it has removed the aura of resentment brought about by the term “assault rifle” — again, a peculiarly American term not utilized anywhere else to describe the style of rifle.

    But if you know the difference — and now you do — I still really prefer, and think the description is more apt, to simply call them “AR-15-style rifles.”

    • Lee Ann says:

      Good info, AR-15. I grew up shooting revolvers and bolt action rifles. So an automatic pistol or rifle is scarey to me. I have a friend, an SP in the Air force that was showing off his new automatic pistol, and said, “and now its empty.” forgot there was one in the chamber and blew a hole in the middle of his hand. I understand revolvers and bolt action rifles. I did have a 22 and we filled it up until we could put no more ammo in it, and plinked at cans forever. But a 22 and one of these big semi automatic rifles are two different things. I have a healthy respect for the weapons I know, and a mild fear of the automatics that I don’t know. If I were going to buy a rifle for home protection, I’d want a 22, because while a 22 can still kill someone, its far safer in my hands than something bigger. I have shot a ball and powder musket and recognize that the Founding Fathers didn’t have a clue what was coming in the future.

      • San says:

        No! When the constitution was written they already had better weapons than the ball and musket.

      • Sam says:

        No! There were better guns than a ball and musket with the constitution was written.

      • Proud Gun Owner says:

        Lee Ann, I see you say that automatic weapons scare you……Your friend may have owned one because of his military status, but a standard civilian cannot legaly own an automatic weapon……..and “AR-15″ the supposed assalt weapons are not fully automatic…….if they are they are military or being ilegally owned.

      • Doug says:

        Just because your SP friend in the Air Force didn’t know what he was doing, doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. Just because you think an AR15 or a Ruger LC9 are scarey or automatic weapons, doesn’t mean either of those beliefs is true either.

        Lots of people are scared of bugs, snakes or dogs. Doesn’t make them dangerous.

        • Lee Ann says:

          Wait a minute. I was confessing a fear of mine. I was in no way saying “don’t own any guns, or don’t own any guns that I am fearful of” I just made the comment that I am more comfortable with a revolver and a bolt action, instead of a semi automatic weapon. I was in no way telling you all that you should do things my way. So don’t assume so. I was admitting a weakness, not telling you all how to live. So don’t get defensive. I was not commenting on your choices in weapons, I was commenting on my own education of weapons.

Leave a Reply

Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language.
2. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem (personal) attacks.
3. Threats are treated seriously and will be reported to law enforcement.
4. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Sheldon Broadcasting Company, Inc. or its advertisers agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the selected staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email

Back to:Gun Crimes Down Imagine That!