Thread: Diane Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution

Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution

Brandon Smith
alt-market.com
December 28, 2012

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party – Mao Tse Tung

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military – William Burroughs

Revolution? Yes, it all sounds rather “extreme”, but the cold hard reality of our era is not going to comfort us with diplomacies and niceties, so honestly, why should I have to sugar coat anything? We live in extreme times and there is no longer room for prancing around the ultimate consequences of that which is taking place in America today. This country is increasingly sliding towards the edge of internal conflict. The Liberty Movement and true Constitutionalists see it, subsections of Republicans and Democrats see it, and most of all, the federal government sees it. In fact, they may even be counting on it.

Over the past two years alone, multiple draconian policies have been enacted through executive order by the Obama Administration which build upon the civil liberty crushing actions of George W. Bush and press far beyond. The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it. You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state. Our rights have been made forfeit.

There is no ambiguous or muddled separation between the citizenry and the government anymore. The separation is absolute. It is undeniable. It is vast. It is only a matter of time and momentum, and eventually there will be unbridled oppression, dissent, and conflict. All that is required is a trigger, and I believe that trigger has arrived…

Though made to appear “complex”, the gun control debate is actually an incredibly simple issue. It all boils down to a couple of questions which gun grabbers rarely ask: How does the 2nd Amendment affect the future? That is to say, what was the original intent, and should we still value that intent as it applies to tomorrow? And, what will really happen if it is forcibly removed? Gun opponents act as though they are unaware of these questions, or maybe they don’t care. However, it is vital to their safety and the safety of our culture in general that they do finally consider the bigger picture.

We’ve all heard the prefabricated gun control talking points before. Some of them so old they predate us. They are numerous and most of them incredibly thin. The gist of the anti-gun position, though, could be boiled down to these three points…

Common Anti-Gun Arguments

1) The 2nd Amendment is “outdated” and no longer relevant in today’s modern society.

2) We do not want to stop you from “defending yourself”, or interfere with the American tradition of hunting, but people do not need “military assault weapons” for either.

3) Your claimed freedom to own guns should not supersede my freedom to live without fear of guns. We exist in a society, and our society requires us to give up certain freedoms so that it can function.

Again, in response to these arguments, I have to ask, what does the 2nd Amendment mean for the future? What was its original intent? Gun control advocates would like to ignore the fact that the Constitution specifically protects a broad application of gun ownership, but when they cannot deny the legality of it, they instead turn to more abstract and existential methods of attack. They try to twist the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to further their goals.

To respond briefly to each of the above fallacies:

1) The right to self defense from ANY threat, whether it be an individual, or a criminal government, does not “outdate”. It is a universal and eternal freedom. It is a foundational pillar of natural law. Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, I would still have the inborn right to arm and protect myself and those I love, and the best way to do that is to own firearms. The men who drafted the Constitution were far more intelligent than any pithy gun grabber today, yet, these socialist errand boys seem to believe that they have “surpassed” the wisdom of the Founders. The amount of ego required to fuel such an attitude boggles the mind…

Gun violence and violence in general will not end simply by banning firearms. The very idea that any society can remove all weapons from their sight is naïve to begin with. Criminals always find a way.

Murder, rape, and mayhem will continue until you confront the root problem, which is the human mind, and the human heart. Only when these two things are balanced in all people will violence end.

Disarming good men and women has never made a society “safer”. When the power of defense is removed from the people, someone, somewhere, will seek to abuse their weakness. The most armed entity of the time invariably becomes the subjugator, and usually this is the government. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations. The guns were gone, and still millions upon millions died. Modern day Mexico is a perfect example of a disarmed population that is now living in terror because of criminal organizations (which, of course, still have guns). Disarmament does NOT end gun violence, it only changes the dynamic of who uses that violence, and it makes innocent victims easier to attack.

2) Because the legal argument over the “interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment is essentially over, and the Supreme Court has ruled that gun rights do indeed apply to individuals, and not just collective bodies like the National Guard, gun grabbers are now reverting to the argument that we ARE allowed to defend ourselves with firearms, but the kinds of firearms we are able to use can still be limited. The goal of this argument is to fool gun owners who only possess conventional firearms (hunting rifles) into believing that they will not be personally affected if they support a ban on military style weapons. These wishy-washy hunting enthusiasts are often referred to as “Elmer Fudds” because of their gullibility.

All gun confiscation programs start by chipping away at the outer barriers of gun ownership. Like termites slowly chewing away at the wooden skeleton of a home, anti-gun proponents start small and end by destroying the entire edifice. Anyone who believes Feinstein’s legislation will begin and end with AR-15’s and AK-47’s is living in fantasy land. That said, the 2nd Amendment was not established for hunting purposes. Nowhere in the writings of the Founding Fathers do they mention “hunting” as their primary concern. Instead, gun rights are protected in order to ensure that the citizenry remains dominant over any centralized government that turns to corruption. We are supposed to police our own political leaders, and without military style arms, this becomes increasingly difficult.

Gun grabbers will argue that our government is not the enemy because it is derived through democratic elections. They will say that we can change it anytime we like in the voting box. I would point out that regardless of which party is placed in power through elections, nothing in terms of our direction as a country has been changed, and, that both parties support almost identical policies. For instance, Obama has come out in favor of nearly identical policy initiatives to Bush, and I can almost guarantee that many Republicans will sign onto the gun control efforts of Democrats despite their supposed pro-gun rhetoric. When the two party system becomes a one party system, voting becomes irrelevant.

Finally, they will admonish the idea of an armed citizenry keeping the government in check as a “fairy tale”. They will claim that in the face of modern military might, constitutionalists would be crushed. For what can an AK-47 do to an F-15? Apparently, they have never heard of Afghanistan, which has used AK-47’s and 30 year old armaments to repel two technologically advanced armies; the Soviet Union and the U.S. Of course, the Afghanis did not allow themselves to be disarmed…

3) Here is where we get into the nonsense of intellectual idiocy. The only real skill which academics seem to have is jumbling piles of logical fallacies together to make a single argument that sounds “rational”, but, in fact, isn’t. The third debate point is an extremely collectivist one, and collectivist arguments generally exploit the idea that individuals must sacrifice their personal freedoms in order for the group to function.

The truth is, the group does not matter. The perceived collective concerns and fears of a mass of people are not relevant. All that matters are the concerns of the singular man or woman, and whether or not those concerns are legitimate. If a person “fears” guns and gun violence, then that is their private problem, not the problem of our entire society. We as gun owners should not have to relinquish our rights because others are afraid of what MIGHT happen to them. We should demand that they control THEIR fear, instead of being allowed to control OUR guns. Just because a portion of our country shares this individual fear does not make that fear any more credible, or any more our problem.

Do They Know What They Are In For…?

Feinstein’s campaign for gun control is not hers alone; it has been the overall establishment’s work in progress for decades. I covered the broad based arguments of gun control advocates above because I wanted to illustrate the tangibility of gun ownership. I want to show you where we stand as constitutionalists, and I can say confidently that our moral and intellectual footing is strong. To be clear, when defenders of a particular idea are right in their position, they are much more likely to fight and die for that position, and they are much more likely to win.

In the beginning I asked what the 2nd Amendment means for the future of this country. Not only if it continues, but if it disappears. If I was a gun control proponent, I would weigh the aftereffects of my actions carefully, because the penalties will likely be dire…

I have heard it argued that Americans are passive. We didn’t rise up against the last Assault Weapons Ban. We didn’t rise up against the Patriot Act. We didn’t rise up against TSA molestation. We didn’t rise up against warrantless wiretapping, the assassination of U.S. citizens, or even the NDAA. The people who make this point, though, are not looking at the larger issue. It is one thing for our government to pass legislation; the wider application of that legislation on our streets and at our doorsteps is another matter.

Feinstein’s bill is unprecedented in the history of this country, and requires widespread enforcement in every town and hamlet in order to be effective. The way in which it is designed makes a violent response from the public inevitable. It reaches far beyond the Assault Weapons Ban of the 1990’s, calling for the creation of a massive database of almost all gun owners in the United States. This database will require citizens to submit their EXISTING firearms to cataloging, and the owners to be filed and fingerprinted like criminals.

The bill will ban the outright the sale, manufacture, and transfer of at least 120 models of firearms (which have not yet been named). It will ban the manufacture and sale of most if not all semi-automatic rifles and the bill specifically targets handguns as well. Large capacity mags and mag fed weapons will essentially disappear from gun stores. Though, those guns designated as “hunting rifles” will be exempt (for now).

Feinstein has also openly agreed with NY Governor Andrew Cuomo that government buy back programs (forced selling of firearms at a reduced price) and even physical confiscations are on the table:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Says Gun "Confiscation Could be an Option"

Sen. Feinstein suggests national buyback of guns | WashingtonExaminer.com

To put this bluntly, there are approximately 50 million gun owners (according to official estimates) in the United States. If only 2% of those gun owners refuse to submit to the Feinstein Database, and the feds attempt confiscation, they will have a massive revolution on their hands.

Many Americans, including myself, will not be strolling into the local Fusion Center to register our weapons. Why? Because gun registration reeks of fascism!

Some might call this “cliche”, but let’s just examine the guidelines of the Nazi Gun Registration Program of 1938:

- Classified guns for “sporting purposes”
- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law (meaning officials could have guns, citizens could not).
- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

You see, we’ve witnessed the Feinstein gun bill before, many times through history. We know how it ends, so, there is very little incentive for us to go along quietly.

The database itself is truly the crux of it all. It basically begs to be defied. When a government has become openly hostile to common people, destructive of their economy, and oppressive of their individual rights, it only follows that gun registration will lead to outright confiscation later down the road or imprisonment for the owner. Many Americans are simply not going to fall into the same trap that past societies have fallen into. The eventual refusal of millions of citizens to voluntarily register will lead to a definite federal response.

The Department Of Homeland Security has obviously taken this into account, at least partly, by stockpiling over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the span of a year, most of which are used in weapons distributed by the government for domestic enforcement. Their projected scenario, I believe, involves limited resistance from people like myself; “gun nuts” and “liberty freaks” who are on the “fringe” of the populous. At least, that’s what the headlines will say. In the end, who will care if a few “conspiracy theorists” take a bullet in the quest to end gun violence, right? But then again…

What I see in America is a much harder stance against gun confiscation than at any time in recent memory, and far less compromising than in the 1990’s. Gun grabbers are, in my view, walking into a hornets nest. Most average firearms enthusiast may be less aware of the deeper problems at hand, but they know when they are about to be raped, and will react in kind. We in the Liberty Movement are often accused of “radicalizing” people against government authority, but I have to say, if that is the case, then the Feds are doing a much better job than we ever could.

Simultaneously, the UN (which most gun owners despise) is helping matters along by using the recent Sandy Hook shooting as a springboard for a reintroduction of their failed international Small Arms Treaty:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/un-arms-treaty-nra_n_2373417.html

“European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue.”

“Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past,” Abramson said, adding that “the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway.”

The UN has always claimed that their small arms treaty would NOT restrict private gun ownership in the U.S., and that it only deals with the international trade of illicit arms. Yet, they try to use gun control actions in the face of Sandy Hook as a rationale for reopening negotiations? They can’t have it both ways. Either they are trying to tie the treaty to domestic gun ownership in the U.S, or they aren’t. Will our government sign on to an international agreement to restrict private gun ownership on top of Feinstein’s gun grab bill?

To put this in the most basic terms: registration and restriction equals revolution. Count on it. It is not a matter of what we “want”, it is a matter of what is necessary. Without a citizenry armed with weapons of military application, we lose our last deterrent to tyranny, and thus, we lose everything. When backed into a corner, a victim has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds. Sadly, this is where we are in America; fear, servitude, subservience, or civil war.

Let us hope our weapons are never needed –but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government — and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws – Edward Abbey

» Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Will Trigger The Next American Revolution Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

1. American Gun Owners to be Fingerprinted and Registered: Feinstein Announces Nightmare Plan
2. Feinstein and Fellow Gun-Grabbers Are Going For Broke
3. Bill Would Prevent Federal Government from Regulating Firearms in TN
4. Feinstein Favors Firearms Registration
5. Proof: UN Plans To Ban American Guns
6. Bill Exempts Guns From Federal Law
7. Obama’s New Bill of Rights
8. Illinois Democrat Introduces Gun Tracking Bill
9. ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Passes Senate 93-7
10. New York Gov: Gun Confiscation and Forced Buy-back an Option
11. Critics Deride Bill Designed to Keep Weapons Out of Terrorists’ Hands
12. Dems Sneak Gun Control Amendment Into Cybersecurity Bill

ok... this is starting to get scary

Petition: Try Dianne Feinstein For Treason ~ Senator’s gun grabbing causes outrage

all the crazys on the left and right... Just LEAVE ME Alone

Just let me sit in my cheap lawn chair made in China and worry about my kids

Hard core liberals are a strange group they pretend it's for the good of the whole,my question is would they be happy with a socialist utopia or at that point would they step up the ladder to communism,(?) just seems like an unhappy group of people who wish to impose their beliefs on everyone.

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

ok... this is starting to get scary

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes it is, and it STARTED WITH George W. Bush's attack on the U.S. Constitution and the Homeland Defense Act.

Here is how the New Year starts.

The Congress and President trashing constitutional protections as well as the economic brick wall ahead make our future not such a pleasant prospect.

Ignoring these developments won't help.

Note to Republicans: John McCain is not your friend.

================================================


FOCUS: Chris Hedges | The Final Battle

The amendment, although deeply flawed, at least made a symbolic attempt to restore the right to due process and trial by jury. A House-Senate conference committee led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., however, removed the amendment from the bill last week.

Chris Hedges, Truthdig
Hedges writes: "It is about protecting the state from us. That is why no one in the executive or legislative branch is going to restore our rights. The new version of the NDAA, like the old ones, provides our masters with the legal shackles to make our resistance impossible. And that is their intention."


Chris Hedges | The Final Battle

http://www.alipac.us/f9/focus-chris-...9/#post1320101

ALERT: Senator Diane Feinstein will introduce legislation to dismantle the right to bear arms on "Day One" of the 113th Congress!

Act Now and Fax Congress: tell them to Refuse any weapons ban in January!

Conservative American,

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is under attack.

Right now, Washington's anti-gun politicians are using the Sandy Hook tragedy as an impetus to "legally" disarm Americans and remove our God-given rights!

California's Diane Feinstein -- author of the 1994 Assault Weapons -- has long been an enemy of gun-owners and the right to self-defense, an American principle. Senator Feinstein, keeping in line with Rahm Emanuel's rule of thumb to "never waste a crisis," almost immediately began calling for increased gun control after the terrible event in at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut.

Feinstein expressly stated that she will introduce sweeping gun control legislation the first day the 113th Congress is assembled. She said,

"On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons as well as large ammunition magazines, strips and drums that hold more than 10 rounds."

She also added that she has already been "gathering support" for such legislation in both the House and the Senate.

What this means is that a weapons ban could be a cold, hard fact as soon as January -- the new Congress begins in only a matter of days!

Remember, in 1994 it only took one day for Congress and President Clinton to "legally" remove guns from the hands and homes of law-abiding Americans!

Take Action and DEMAND CONGRESS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill! Blast Faxes Now!

Feinstein's resuscitation of her former assault weapons ban has wide support -- from Democrats and even from a Republican! Also, just so you are aware, Feinstein didn't scratch this bill up in response to the Connecticut shooting; no, she has been working on it for over a year waiting for the opportune time to ram it through!

Senator Frank Lautenberg, as we can expect, is "optimistic" about a Feinstein-led Assault Weapons Ban, saying, "I think we can get something done." Schumer, like Feinstein, wants to see weapons banned, clip-sizes limited, and more paperwork required to purchase guns.

"The purpose of this bill is to get the weapons of war off the streets of our cities." - Senator Feinstein

Democrat Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York believes that the nation will support stronger gun-control, especially if Barack Obama "exploits" what happened in Sandy Hook. The New York Rep. said on MSNBC that "These incidents, these horrible, horrible incidents ... are happening more frequently, and they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit -- and that means the president -- takes leadership and pushes Congress."

Taken "leadership," Obama already has.

Obama wasted no time in voicing his strong, "active" support for national legislation curbing gun-ownership. It is likely, now that Obama is approaching his final term that he will more vehemently assert gun-control. White House spokesperson Jay Carney has already suggested that the president will support gun-control efforts -- in addition to Feinstein's -- including laws to eliminate what he referred to as the 'gun show loophole' relating to paperwork and high-capacity magazine sales.

And there has been support even from the GOP! Anti-gun RINO Scott Brown supports federal legislation to ban assault weapons. Though Brown's term as a Senator is ending this Congress, his voice is proof that there are "cracks" in the GOP's defense of private firearms. How many more RINOs will surface to support Feinstein's up-and-coming bill?

We must make our voices heard and tell Congress toreject the coming Feinstein Weapons Ban, and any other piece of legislation that would destroy the Second Amendment!

Take Action and DEMAND CONGRESS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill! Blast Faxes Now!

It is a sad fact that America today is divided over the right to self-defense.

Rather than call into question the environment in which the shooting took place -- a gun-free zone, where self-defense is prohibited -- so many mindlessly flock to liberal slogans like "less guns equals less violence."

A White House petition demanding "immediate" gun control was created and gathered over 80,000 signatures in less than a day, while the petition only needed 25,000 to be seriously considered. The petition now holds over 194,000 names.

More than this, some of the anti-gun rhetoric being asserted by some are violent -- even outright threats. Facebook posts, blogs, and Twitter have been used to carry messages like "murder every NRA member" or "get every member of the NRA to stand in a circle, aim & shoot!" Some people have also called for the murder of the NRA's president, David Keene.

This is all to say the some of our fellow Americans would happily support more gun control -- they already are organizing and, as we have seen, both active and vocal.

Folks like these are calling and writing their Senator asking for their neighbors to be disarmed through increased gun control. These individuals are pushing the Feinsteins, Bloombergs, and RINOs like Scott Brown, to support state and federal bans on assault weapons.

Now is the time for patriotic Americans to fight this liberal, anti-gun rhetoric and speak out! We must make sure that Senate and Representative Offices are getting twice or three times as many calls, letters, and faxes against gun control as they are for it.

Take Action and DEMAND CONGRESS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill! Blast Faxes Now!

The Second Amendment is a right, and "laws" that oppose it are unlawful and dangerous. There is no other way to say it.

Our founders were able to declare independence from the King England only because they were armed with modern weaponry.

Our Constitution -- the Supreme Law of the Land -- included the Second Amendment provision to "keep and bear arms" to ensure that the new American government could not disarm the people.

The right to bear arms is an essential part of liberty and a free society. George Washington said that firearms "are the people's liberty's teeth;" and Jefferson stated, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Our forefathers knew the importance of an armed citizenry as a check against big government and tyranny. Further, they knew that individuals should always be free to protect themselves, their family, and their property. That's why they protected it in law.

Those who were armed were not considered offensive, violent, or malevolent in any way -- in fact, early Americans considered defense to be a God-given right to secure households and keep evil at bay in society. Weapons were not held for aggression, but to resist aggression!

Right now there is a multitude of ideological aggressors wanting to destroy the Second Amendment by banning certain weapons, limiting access to ammunition, and increasing the bureaucratic "paperwork" required to purchase guns.

These aggressors are in the Congress and the Whitehouse, and they must be stopped.

Take Action and DEMAND CONGRESS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill! Blast Faxes Now!

One of the arguments for the reinstatement of an Assault Weapons Ban is that it only restricts "some" weapons, namely those of a military-grade, while leaving other weapons unaffected. Michael Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein claims they only are attack so-called "weapons of war."

Here is the problem... the Second Amendment protects such weapons, while anti-gunners want to see them "off the streets of our cities."

You see, anti-gun politicians don't understand (or care about) the purpose of the Second Amendment. Thomas Mullen of the Washington Times comments:

"Having weapons of war on the streets is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment. The amendment wasn't drafted to ensure that Americans could hunt. It wasn't drafted so that Americans could protect themselves, although the natural right to defend one's life was never as compromised as it is in the modern gun control era.

They weren't out to confiscate hunting rifles, 'fer squirrels and sech,' either. They intended to confiscate a store of arms that would outfit the average colonist with weapons roughly equivalent to the average British infantryman.

That's why the 2nd Amendment was written, to ensure that the government's army would never have superior firepower to the people."

Yes, the Second Amendment protects all weapons, even so-called "weapons of war." Again, this is not controversial -- it is simply what the founders gave us to preserve our free society.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment.

What has happened to America? Political Correctness -- which is quite incorrect -- is costing us our freedoms. Bad utopian ideas that suggest society can abolish violence, aggression, and death by simply removing guns is an argument even child wouldn't believe -- yet so many go along with this liberal nonsense and are willing to toss their and their neighbors' rights away!

It's time to fight the liberal, anti-gun propaganda and demand Congress to defend, not destroy, our right to bear arms!

Take Action and DEMAND CONGRESS to REFUSE any and all attempts to DISARM AMERICANS through Diane Feinstein's coming "Assault Weapons Ban" or any other gun control bill! Blast Faxes Now!

For America,
Conservative Action Alerts
www.ConservativeActionAlerts.com

P.S. Please share this effort on social networks, like Facebook and Twitter. Also, don't forget to send your free letters to your lawmakershere and print it to share with others. The White House, pro-gun control received nearly 200,000 signatures - we must counteract those!

Conservative Action Alerts (CAA) is a media outlet protected by the first amendment and that support for our efforts is not tax-deductible. Diener Consultants, Inc., 10940 S Parker Rd Ste# 763, PARKER, CO 80134-7440

U.S. Army prepares to invade U.S. - YouTube

Firearm injuries, deaths fall sharply as gun sales jump -- in California!

America’s violent crime rate keeps falling

Oct. 29, 2012 12:52 p.m.


You'd never know it from watching TV these days but America's violent crime rate is continuing its plunge.

The latest FBI stats, released today, show the number of murders, robberies, rapes and other felony assaults fell 3.8 percent nationwide in 2011, the fifth straight decline in a row. Property crime such as burglaries and theft fell a modest 0.5 percent.

Spokane saw a slight increase in violent crime, though the number of murders again were down.

The violent crime rate hit records levels nationally, as well as in Spokane, during the 1990s but has fallen steadily since. The nation's violent crime rate has fallen 65 percent since 1993, according to the FBI.

You can find The Associated Press article on the national statistics by clicking on the “continue reading” button below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of violent crimes reported to police decreased 3.8 percent last year to 1.2 million, the fifth straight year of declines, the FBI announced Monday.
Meanwhile, the total number of property crimes reported to law enforcement agencies went down by 0.5 percent to 9 million, the ninth consecutive year that figure has fallen. Property crimes resulted in estimated losses of $156.6 billion.
The latest declines mark the continuation of a nearly two-decade drop in crime levels — a trend that almost no one in the field of criminology predicted, said Professor John Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon Heinz College. The trend, said Caulkins, is a reflection of a range of many factors, including policing practices.
A drop in the number of people in the peak crime-age category of teens to 25-year-olds also contributed to the crime reductions, Caulkins said, but added that “if this were only a story of demographics, we would never have had this kind of substantial decline.”
Government figures released two weeks ago said that violent crime has fallen by 65 percent since 1993.
Twenty years ago, “there was a lot of hand-wringing about high crime levels” but “we're way past the possibility that this is a lucky conversion,” Caulkins said.
The FBI's data showed that the South accounted for 41.3 percent of violent crime, while the West accounted for 22.9 percent. The Midwest claimed 19.5 percent of the cases and the Northeast, 16.2 percent.
Murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults reported to authorities all declined last year. According to the FBI's data for last year:

• 14,612 people were murdered, down 14.7 percent from 17,128 in 2007.
• 83,425 people were raped, down 9.4 percent from 92,160 in 2007.
• 354,396 people were robbed, down over 20 percent from 447,324 in 2007.
• 751,131 people were assaulted, down 13.3 percent from 866,358 in 2007.

The FBI said firearms were used in two-thirds of the nation's murders last year, and in two out of every five robberies and in one out of five aggravated assaults.
In 2011, authorities solved nearly 64 percent of murders, over 40 percent of forcible rapes, nearly 29 percent of robberies and nearly 57 percent of aggravated assaults.
The FBI's crime reporting program, which captures crimes that are reported to police, is one of two statistical measures of crime levels issued by the Justice Department. Historically, less than half of all crimes, including violent crimes, are reported to police. The other measure, the national crime victimization survey, is designed to capture crime data whether it is reported to police or not. That survey is based on interviews of crime victims.
Two weeks ago, the victimization survey reported that violent crimes jumped 18 percent last year, the first rise in nearly 20 years, while property crimes rose for the first time in a decade. Academic experts say the survey data fall short of signaling a reversal of the long-term decline in crime.
Caulkins said that the FBI report is probably more reliable as a year-to-year measure, but that the victimization survey also is useful because it includes crimes beyond those that are officially reported.
The victimization survey found that the increase in the number of violent crimes was due largely to an upward swing in simple assaults, which rose 22 percent, from 4 million in 2010 to 5 million last year. The incidence of rape, sexual assault and robbery remained largely unchanged, as did serious violent crime involving weapons or injury.
The experts said the percentage increases in last year's survey were so large primarily because the 2011 crime totals were compared with historically low levels of crime in 2010.