Gabby Giffords Offers False Choice to Anti-Violence Activists

Pelosi Goes To prison <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:01:03 +0100
Newsgroups alt.dumb.as-a-box.of-rocks,alt.crime,alt.fraud,sac.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Homicides in the United States are the lowest they've been since at
least 1960, and according to some researchers the murder rate may
actually be the lowest in 150 years. 

That should be cause for celebration, yet when former congresswoman
Gabby Giffords addressed anti-violence activists at the
Giffords-sponsored Community Violence Intervention Conference in Los
Angeles, CA this week, the gun control activist made it sound like the
United States was in the grips of a crime wave. 

“We are at a crossroads. We can let the shooting continue, or we can
act,” said Giffords, who survived traumatic head injury from a gunshot
wound. 

This is a false choice. First, is Giffords really suggesting that "we"
haven't been acting before now? And what actions does she believe could
end all shootings? 

As it is, we're seeing fewer shootings than we have in decades. The
Crime Index shows violent crime is down 5.6 percent this year, which
follows a 9.3 percent drop in 2025 based on preliminary statistics by
the FBI. Based on the FBI's statistics, that puts the violent crime rate
in 2025 at 326 per 100,000 people. Not all of those crimes involve
firearms, of course, so the rate for gun-involved violent crimes is even
lower. Still, the 326 crimes per 100,000 people is the lowest recorded
in the United States since 1969, and back then violent crime was rapidly
rising, not falling. 

The FBI also reports that homicides fell 18.1 percent last year, with a
murder rate of 4.1 per 100,000 people. That represents the largest
one-year decline in homicides since the FBI started keeping track in
1960, and it's also the lowest murder rate the agency has ever recorded.

The Crime Index reports that, through May of this year, homicides have
dropped by another 18.1 percent. If that trend holds, the U.S. homicide
rate in 2026 will be 3.6 per 100,000, down about 63 percent from its
peak in the early 1990s. 

This decline is taking place while a majority of states have repealed
laws requiring a permit or license to carry a firearm. It's happening
just a few years after the biggest spike in gun sales in modern history.
It's estimated that about 40 million firearms were purchased in 2020 and
2021, and though sales have declined since then, we're probably looking
at around 90 million firearm transfers since 2020. Not all of those are
new gun purchases, but it's still fair to say that after an
unprecedented influx of privately owned guns, the nation's violent crime
and homicide rates have fallen to levels not seen in decades. 

Many violence prevention advocates give major credit to the influx of
cash sent to states and local communities for "gun violence prevention"
efforts. In some cases, they may be right. I've long said that I don't
have an issue with community violence prevention efforts, so long as
they're transparently operated and accountable to officials. In fact, if
Giffords was solely focused on what it calls "non-punitive,
community-led strategies that are designed to interrupt the transmission
of violence by engaging those at highest risk through the provision of
individually tailored support services," I might even kick in a couple
of bucks to the group. 

Sadly, Giffords Center for Violence Intervention is just one small part
of the Giffords empire, which also includes efforts to put punitive laws
on the books and defend them in court. 

I don't think that "we" are at a crossroads, but maybe Giffords is. The
organization can continue spending millions of dollars each year trying
to criminalize the exercise of a fundamental civil right, or it can
choose to dedicate itself solely to promoting those non-punitive
practices like violence interruption that don't involve putting people
in prison for possessing a firearm without a license or owning a "large
capacity" magazine or so-called assault weapon. It can fully engage
those at highest risk of committing violent crimes, or it can continue
targeting lawful gun owners at the same time. 

This is probably not a difficult choice for Gabby Giffords, who told
Time magazine a few years ago that her goal is "no more guns." I can't
imagine the organization she founded pivoting to solely focus on
community-led violence intervention programs, though I'd love to see it.
The animosity towards lawful gun ownership is too important to Giffords'
mission to give it up, even as violent crime and murders are plunging
while a million guns or more are sold each month.  

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/07/23/gabby-giffords-offers-false
-choice-to-anti-violence-activists-n1233272