Google gives $2M for gun violence prevention

Google is entering the gun violence prevention domain with the Internet search giant’s offering of $2 million to thwart the American epidemic.

The grant will go to already-established programs in 10 cities with communities of color most impacted by gun violence, the Community Justice Reform Coalition announced last month in a press release.

“Too often gun violence prevention efforts are bogged down by what happens in the halls of Congress rather than focusing on what’s happening on community streets,” said Pastor Michael McBride, director of the partner campaign LIVE FREE. “Congressional action is important, but there are proven, evidence-based strategies to dramatically reduce gun violence without waiting for Congress to act.”

The grant will support local efforts to reduce the firearm homicides rate, while decreasing mass incarceration and positioning communities of color to take the problem head on, the coalition said.

The Trace reported the programs will use a Ceasefire model, bringing together law enforcement, community leaders and social services in a cooperative effort to reduce shootings in Chicago; Milwaukee; Miami Gardens; Orlando; Indianapolis; Gary, Indiana; Oakland; New York City; Cincinnati and Dallas.

“ is proud to support the PICO Network — LIVE FREE Campaign as part of our ongoing commitment to organizations and innovators working on racial justice.” said Justin Steele, principal at “Their unique, evidence-based approach brings together important allies – clergy, organizers, law enforcement, and organizational leaders – who are able to interrupt cycles of violence by reaching individuals and groups at a local and personal level. We look forward to seeing their work bring about positive change in urban communities.”

The Peacekeeper Partnership is made up of several anti-racism groups and national gun violence prevention organizations, including The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety and The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Read More



  • HapKlien

    The firearms (death) epidemic is #3 and yes it needs to be addressed. But don’t forget about #1 automobile accidents and #2 drug overdoses. #2 has is a root of the #3 problem. Suicide is 2/3 of the death number of #3.

    • No. There is no epidemic of firearms violence. In fact, in the last 17 years violent crime with firearms has gone down.

  • HDMania

    The last paragraph sounds like Google pandering to the liberal demorats wants..any smart person knows their policys dont goes deeper than that..their plan is to try and take law abiding citizens guns while leaving criminals alone..why ?..because they might get their arses shot off or handed to them..FBI reports that blacks commit more crime in proportion to their race than any other..Why ?..blacks have been on the govt teat so long that it makes them lazy..they want the easy money selling drugs rather than getting a job and making something of themself..very few blacks have made it in america the legal moral way..those that have I say to them congrats..they are their own worse enemy.

    • Scott

      Well written. Look at the inner cities, outside of barbershops and nail salons, you do not see many “Black-owned business'”. Convenience stores are generally run by “Middle-Eastern’s” ; local corner stores are generally run by “Asians” ; and “Hispanics” have replaced the “Italians” in operating Pizza shops and other food business’. The “Blacks” can not control their own financial destiny until their own money stays within their own community. To do that, they must be willing to work the 70-80 hour work weeks that is required of any business owner.

  • abobinmn

    Google giving money for this type of thing surely carries a hidden agenda. Google is probably the most communist and globalist business organization in the world today. Google hates conservatives and any conservative ideas or plans. Google’s donation is more about further dividing blacks and whites than it it about preventing gun violence. Members of the Peacekeeping Partnership want to disarm law abiding Americans. It’s that simple.

    • 2broke

      they cant hate Conservatives too much.. Google employs 4 of my relatives and at around $250,000 a year each, they dont have any complaints.. Google doesnt force its Lieberal ideology on its employees but Employees like sheep will follow their master in fear of repercussions.. and back it.. my relatives dont vote via Googles political point of view.. but i agree when any corporation gives millions to a cause, there is something behind their agenda..

      • abobinmn

        You have a point. I have a brother-in-law who works for Google and he says at his work location in Dallas, TX, conservatives keep their mouth shut and liberals not so much.

        • 2broke

          my relatives say the same thing, some years back during lunch they talked about going target practice and camping, some heard it and the lieberals laid into them about anti 2nd Amendment and the evils of it.. nothing was mention in the anti rant about where they plan on going camping and when, just the gun issue..
          since then they keep their mouth shut, unless its away from everyone else or they are with.. as I hate to say it, THERE OWN KIND!..

          • abobinmn

            Thanks for your comment. Darn shame it has to be that way. Lot’s of brainwashed younger people out there who just don’t get it. The don’t understand that gun ownership via the 2nd Amendment empowers the people and disempowers the State. If you can own a gun, you are a free citizen (relatively). If you cannot, you are merely a subject of the State.

    • Red Steiner

      Google isn’t Communist, they’re Muslim and there is a vast difference. This sounds good but I suspect it’s an effort to further firearm confiscation in those cities with their hopeful result spreading all over America. Stay in Iran Google, only the Dims and the Muslims want you in America.

      • abobinmn

        I think you’re on to something there. I never thought about Google being Muslim but the more I thin bout it, the more it makes sense. What else do you know about Google and ties to Islam. I’d sure like to know more about that.

        • Red Steiner

          They’re an Iranian Co and if you try and look up the address for their headquarters on line it won’t let you. Hell man, they ARE Islamic.

        • Jeanrballard

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pa308d:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash308MediaCorpGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pa308l..,..

    • coolman11

      Usually when they talk about ending gun violence it’s about ending (legal) gun ownership and not so much the violence

  • Bernie

    Why don’t they give 2 million dollars to help put fathers back on the home?
    Dumb schmucks…..!

  • Terry Butts

    ““Too often gun violence prevention efforts are bogged down by what happens in the halls of Congress rather than focusing on what’s happening on community streets,” said Pastor Michael McBride”

    False it is bogged down in courts that PLEA-BARGAIN away punishments already required by existing laws allowing criminals to get off with lighter or no punishment for their crimes. Many times the EXACT SAME criminal is before the judge for THE EXACT SAME CRIME repeatedly because of this especially if the criminal is underage.

    When the existing GUN LAWS are ignored by prosecutors, judges, and police (such as only investigating/prosecuting a fraction of actual gun law violations connected to crimes) crime will continue as if nothing is being done as CRIMINALS do not legally acquire the weapons they use for their crimes some even MAKE THEM THEMSELVES as shown by arrest that receive little if any media attention.

    When a judge declares that a criminal can not be PROSECUTED for lying on the form about being a felon that is not eligible to legally purchase a gun because they feel it was the same as him TESTIFYING in COURT against himself it is clear these laws are not about stopping criminals or preventing crime they are about making as many helpless victims available to criminals as possible while pointing the criminals to demand even more restrictions than the ones they ALREADY VIOLATED.

    What is bogged down in congress are attempts to abolish the rights of the people that have no connection whatsoever to any crime on the false promise that if we could just copy places like UK, France, Germany, Canada etc. in their DISARMING of law abiding citizens that somehow UNLIKE them our crime rate would suddenly drop this is the FANTASY the anti gun groups push as if it was a reality.

    In reality every nation that has followed this flawed “belief” that people must depend on the government for all protection have moved on to become more tyrannical in nature abolishing or restricting what few rights they had in the first place with an ever increasing crime rate in some nations the government actually MASS MURDERED large numbers over race, religion, or politics once they were unable to defend themselves.

    Remember many of these ANTI GUN NUT-CASES have openly stated they want to EXECUTE WITHOUT TRIAL every gun owner in this nation (250 million+ people) for nothing more than being able to protect themselves, their families, and if need be their state if/when they are attacked.

    Blaming all gun owners for the actions of CRIMINALS is no different than blaming all knife, bat, car, truck, airplane, hammer, screwdriver, etc. (the list could go on for pages if I named everything ever used to kill) for the actions of those who chose to use the other “weapons” to harm/kill their victims.

    Remember their argument that there is no valid use for a gun fails just as a person who never drives sees no valid use for a car or truck those not willing to protect themselves see no reason for anyone else to do so. Unlike a car or truck the legal valid uses for guns are enumerated in the US Constitution and most all of the state constitutions as a RIGHT of the people.

  • If you want to stop gun violence in the Inner City, train and arm every head of household who is sane and has a clear criminal record. If you want to stop gun violence in the Inner City, put every felon caught with a gun in prison with mandatory minimums of a decade or more. This is not rocket science.

    • L Cavendish

      yes…put teeth in the gun laws already on the books…
      prosecute straw purchasers and sellers…prosecute those using guns in criminal acts…absolutely

      • I just want the armed honest citizens to outnumber the armed gangsters, regardless of whether they are from the government gangsters or the private sector gangsters.

    • Terry Butts

      As well as do away with plea-bargaining away the charges many times when they catch actual criminals violating one of the gun laws the first thing a DA will do is plea-bargain it down to a lesser charge without a mandatory sentence.

      Yet when they catch a law abiding citizen who simply ACCIDENTALLY crossed one of their unmarked invisible “no guns x distance from x” laws they feel they need to punish them to the full extent of that law without any chance at a lesser charge in most cases making them into felons for nothing more than possessing a gun legally without knowing that some unmarked school, day care center, etc. was within a certain distance of the road they were driving down.

      • A DA’s bargain basement justice is as much a criminal mindset as that of the felon. They overcharge and plea down to make the felon think they are getting a deal. Plea bargaining just feeds into the criminal thinking. They think they will not get caught. If they get caught, they think they will not be charged. If they get charged, they think they can plea down. If they plea down, they think they will then get parole.

        What we know is if criminals think they know the consequences for certain, they will minimize them until they self justify taking the gamble. Prison time does not change anyone for the better. Find out if they are guilty, not with an offer of a plea, but by trial. If they are guilty, then throw a 39 sided dice. If they get a one, they get one stroke of a whip. If they get 39, then they get thirty-nine lashes. Which is more cruel? 39 Lashes or 39 months in prison?

        • Terry Butts

          I recall a case several decades ago that pretty much proves your point it was a kidnapping where the criminal later murdered the victim.

          They asked him why he killed the victim and he replied “the sentence for murder is the same as the one for kidnapping”

          That pretty much sums up the criminal mindset the criminal gambled they would have a harder time catching and convicting him with no witness because his punishment would be no different for the murder of the victim than it was for kidnapping them in the first place.

          • The US Supreme Court outlawed making rape a capital crime as being cruel and unusual. In the 18th Century they hung pickpockets publicly and pickpockets were working the crowd. If you made death the sentence for rape, rapists would murder their victims far more often.

            I do not believe threatening anyone with a specific punishment. Let it be a surprise. However, some people should never walk the street again and most of them are sex offenders.

          • Terry Butts

            In the case I mentioned above we can take from what the criminal said that the victim would still be alive if he knew the punishment for murder was more severe than the one for kidnapping.

            Thing is the people want a punishment they feel fits the crime what we have now no longer does it has been so warped by the DA, courts, and even certain law officers that care more about the FEELINGS, and non existent but court created rights of the ones who are actually guilty even after being convicted of their crimes that it has become unrecognizable as a system of justice.

            If we had a system that actually punished the criminals for their crimes in a way that discouraged them from ever committing it again like we are supposed to have instead of the mess we have today crime rates would be far lower.

            In many of todays prisons criminals are given a far better life than many of them had outside of prison at taxpayer expense this does not encourage them to stop committing crimes and in fact encourages many of them to become repeat offenders.

            But we must protect the law abiding citizens against abuse of the law by politicians etc. pushing their own personal political agendas for example after they pushed that no gun possession allowed within x distance of a pre-school etc. some cities actually SPACED the locations of pre-schools out so that they effectively made the entire city a gun free zone many of them only marked by a sign that can only be read if one was to go up to the door of the NORMAL LOOKING HOUSE they designated a pre-school by which time one is long past the border of the “no gun zone” without even knowing it was one.

            The one flaw I see with your dice system is that activist judges could “rig the dice” so those supporting their personal political agenda get off with minimal punishment while those not supporting it would get the most severe one for the same crime pretty much what we already seem to have today.

            For example I recall that one judge who blatantly stated she would find some way to punish ANY CHRISTIAN that comes before her in court no matter what side they were on regardless of the case or what the evidence in the case showed she was going to make sure the CHRISTIAN was the one that lost the case and was punished for no other reason than HER PERSONAL OPINION of CHRISTIAN religious beliefs.

          • I am not making my comments based on anecdotal information. If you think eye-for-an-eye is right, then you rape the next rapist. You murder the next murderer.

          • Terry Butts

            “eye-for-an-eye” is not what I meant.

            There are laws that the violation of only put the violator at risk such as seatbelt laws, etc. I do not see putting those who violate those laws when no one else was at any kind of risk under the same kind of punishment we would put someone who actually harms others by violating the laws actually passed to protect people such as the ones against murder etc.

            The case I mentioned actually happened if I recall correctly it was sometime in the late 70s or early 80s the news program broadcast the details about the incident.

            Now as for the abuse of the “no gun zone” law it happened though it only made the news because of the near identical law concerning the distance sex offenders were allowed to live from the same places.

            The media who ignored the essential disarming of the entire town over the school placements because of near identical distance one was “banned” from possessing a gun as the law about how close a sex offender could live from those same places went on a rant about how unfair it was that some sex offender could not move back to and live anywhere in the town after his jail term because of that law.

            I guess the media did not realize that by airing the story “DEFENDING” a sex offenders “RIGHT” to live where he wants that people who knew about the gun law realized they had done the same thing to gun owners they either had to move or give up their legally owned guns or they would be in violation of the no guns within x distance law.

            As for the “eye-for-an-eye” claim that comes from people who never actually read the section of the bible it was pulled out of context from as it actually says “an eye-for-an-eye would leave the whole world blind” as it preaches against seeking vengeance telling people to leave vengeance up to God not to take it upon themselves.

            Vengeance however is not to be confused with justice which is about protecting the people from the criminals by imposing whatever sentence is justified in the crime they committed.

            For example justice would be executing someone who went on a murder spree thus preventing them from ever doing so again an act that actually protects people.

            While vengeance is where they want to execute everyone they blame for making it possible for the criminal to have done that act even when they had no connection whatsoever with the crime such as the anti gun groups who want to blame the over 250 million lawful gun owners for the crime simply because they refuse to be made into defenseless victims in the name of “protecting the children” etc..

            If gun free zones worked we would not have heard about a single shooting since they were imposed upon the people of this nation instead we are only hearing about ones committed in those zones.

            We can both agree the justice systems needs something done to fix the problem of actually encouraging crime rather than preventing or discouraging crime.

            I just see that essentially “secret laws” like those invisible gun free zones with no marked borders need to be fixed so they are not used to punish law abiding citizens that are obviously the only ones targeted by them as criminals do not obey any law that would have stopped them (proven by numerous crimes carried out in those zones) and when the zones are not even marked it can not be claimed that they are there to protect anyone.

            If not marked clearly enough for a law abiding citizen to be able to obey it how can they claim it is to prevent criminals who would ignore it anyway from being armed inside of the zone.

            The only purpose having an unmarked no gun zone serves is to ambush unsuspecting law abiding citizens during normal daily travel who had no idea some normal looking home had been declared a “school” of some kind with nothing more than a small sign by its entrance door identifying it as such much less they were inside of its “gun free zone”

            So yes they need to do something to make the criminals be punished in a way they will not want to continue to be criminals but this must be reigned in with common sense about who was harmed by the violation of the law and that the law was in fact not one passed to infringe upon someones actual rights or specifically done to target LAWFUL activities simply because some politician does not like those activities.

            While your DICE idea does have its merits on taking away the SECURITY they will get off with little or no punishment it leaves it open to someone possibly getting lashed to death for a simple traffic violation if there is no limits in place to ensure some kind of proportional to the crime element is in place.

            There was a story in the media a few years back stating one judge gave a man a mere five years in jail for murder while on the same day he gave another man twenty years for bouncing a check.

            This is the kind of sentencing I was referring to when I stated that the punishment needs to fit the crime.

          • People do not go to prison or even jail for not wearing a seat belt. It is not a crime. No one goes to prison for that because it is not a crime. However, it does cost society more than many crimes. Drunk driving is the same issue.

          • Terry Butts

            ” People do not go to prison or even jail for not wearing a seat belt. It is not a crime.”

            ” Definition of crime

            1 : an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government”

            The violation of ANY law is considered a crime just because traffic laws are not all considered a FELONY does not mean it is not a crime the punishment of getting a FINE or jail for refusing to pay could not be imposed if it was not a crime.

            TRAFFIC laws currently have a punishment of paying a fine (confessing to breaking the law) or fighting the ticket in court with the POSSIBILITY OF GOING TO JAIL for refusing or not being able to pay that fine this does not change the fact that it is still defined as a CRIME.

            DRUNK DRIVING puts everyone on the road at risk of injury or death explain how anyone but the one who chose not to wear a seatbelt is at risk of injury or death in a TRAFFIC accident because they chose not to wear the seatbelt.

            The seatbelt law was controversial because statistics at the time showed

            1) many seatbelt designs actually UNBUCKLED during accidents. (one lawyer during a hearing where his client despite bruises clearly showing they had their belt on when the accident happened was thrown from the car and charged for not having it on actually held one such buckle up and tapped it with the back of screwdriver and it opened)

            2) Several people were killed because the seatbelt kept them from being able to DUCK when either something came flying at them from a vehicle in front of them or when they went under the trailer of a large truck.

            3) No proof that anyone other than the one who did not wear the seatbelt was at risk of injury or death over them not wearing one.

            The main supporters of the seatbelt laws were INSURANCE companies who calculated that they would have to pay out LESS MONEY for injuries or deaths if everyone was forced to wear them.

            Most states have AMENDED their seatbelt laws from being a secondary law (meaning they had to stop someone for some other violation before ticketing them for the seatbelt violation) to one where they can now pull people over simply because they THINK they are not wearing a seatbelt because with most vehicles it is impossible to tell unless they actually pull them over and look through the window.

          • A crime is when one of the penalties is going to prison. That is how it is defined in the statute law and common law. Refusing to pay a fine is not a crime. Refusing the court order to pay the fine can be made a crime. There are crimes and violations of the law. A civil fine is not a crime.

            Regarding seat belts, my father died as the result of a concussion. He wore seat belts when he raced midgets, but they did not have them in 1954 in consumer cars. My mother was alone to provide for me.

            A 22-year-old woman from Gresham died in a crash on Interstate 84 Tuesday, 7/11/17, according to Oregon State Police.OSP said Effie P. Burns lost control of her 1996 Honda Civic while driving westbound in the fast lane of the interstate in Gilliam County. She crashed into an embankment and was thrown from her car.Police said there was a baby in the car who was properly secured in a car seat and received minor injuries. The child was taken to Mid-Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles to be check out.The crash happened at about 3:30 p.m.

            Guess what. No one will make that child whole with money and I doubt there will be any significant payout. Seriously? You think insurance companies care? They just up the cost of premiums to handle the risk! TELL ME AGAIN HOW THE DRIVER IS THE ONLY ONE AT RISK!

          • Terry Butts

            “A crime is when one of the penalties is going to prison. That is how it is defined in the statute law and common law. Refusing to pay a fine is not a crime. Refusing the court order to pay the fine can be made a crime. There are crimes and violations of the law. A civil fine is not a crime.”


            “A “crime” is any act or omission in violation of a law prohibiting it, or omitted in violation of a law ordering it. The government cannot prosecute an individual for conduct that was not declared criminal at the time the individual acted. The Constitution explicitly forbids in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 retroactively applicable criminal laws—ex post facto laws.”

            You are confusing CIVIL and CRIMINAL law apparently thinking that violations of CIVIL law somehow are not a crime that is incorrect. The PUNISHMENT is different but that does not mean it was not a violation of a law.

            A TRAFFIC FINE IS A PUNISHMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR VIOLATING A TRAFFIC LAW. They can not fine someone for something that is NOT A CRIME.

            “Regarding seat belts, ”

            You are not discussing INJURIES CAUSED by the accident you are discussing the trauma of having lost a loved one that could still have happened even had those individuals been wearing seat-belts they could still have died in those accidents statistics only show that they INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY of survival not that anyone is guaranteed to survive just because they wore one and as I stated had they went under the trailer of a truck or some large object bounced through the windshield a seatbelt would have guaranteed their death by preventing them from ducking as well as the fact Many people still get concisions in accidents even when wearing seat-belts.

            As I stated MOST SEAT-BELTS will open when any pressure is applied to the back of the buckle and they ALWAYS put them right where a persons hip bone will push on that buckle in a crash did they examine the woman to see if she had bruises indicating she had her seatbelt on and it malfunctioned in such a manner? or did they do the usual she was ejected so she did not have it on BS they normally follow.

            “Guess what. No one will make that child whole with money and I doubt there will be any significant payout. Seriously? You think insurance companies care?”

            How did anything I stated make it sound like I thought insurance companies care? The fact they say she did not have a seat-belt on will be used by the insurance companies to avoid paying anything that is one of the reasons they FOUGHT to get the law passed they can use the PERCEIVED violation of any traffic law to blame the victim and avoid paying. In fact it gets even worse for the victims if both parties have the same insurance company as they will not fight themselves in court.

          • Civil courts assess fines all the time. You cannot demand a jury trial for a traffic fine under the US Constitution because it is not a crime.

          • Terry Butts



            Just because the PENALTIES and PROCESS are different between CIVIL LAW and CRIMINAL LAW does not change the fact that ANY VIOLATION OF ANY LAW CIVIL OR CRIMINAL is as a crime.

            THE PUNISHMENT given in the law does not change the fact that it is a LAW and they can not give ANY PUNISHMENT INCLUDING A FINE unless it was a CRIME either a CIVIL violation or CRIMINAL violation of the law.

          • Read what you quote. It starts out with discriminating between a crime and a civil action:”Criminal Law, as distinguished from civil law,…” Not all violations of the law are criminal.

          • Terry Butts

            “A “crime” is any act or omission in violation of a law prohibiting it, or omitted in violation of a law ordering it. ”

            It says it plain and simple it at no place states that violating a law is not a crime unless it results in jail time. It clearly states the above definition making it clear it is ANY VIOLATION of ANY LAW.

            Just because the PUNISHMENT is a ONLY FINE instead of jail time does not mean it was NOT A VIOLATION of law like crimes such as TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS that do not involve injury or death.

            Indiana clearly states that JAYWALKING is a criminal offense even though it is punished by a fine (TICKET) which by your claim makes it not a crime based on your CLAIM that THE PUNISHMENT they chose to hand out for a crime CHANGES if it is a crime or not.

          • You have made your mind up.Facts are not going to change it.

          • You have made your mind up. I am not going to change it with the facts.

          • Terry Butts

            I am simply going by the legal definition of CRIME which is “any violation of ANY law” the punishment metered out for the violation is not what determines if it is a crime or not.

            I even linked the site that clearly explained this you apparently got confused with its description explaining civil law vs Criminal law continuing to hold that because many violations of LAW do not have jail time as a punishment somehow means it was not a crime to break that law.

            The site clearly states ” Thus, where in a civil case two individuals dispute their rights, a criminal prosecution involves the people as a whole deciding whether to punish an individual for his conduct or lack of conduct (i.e. omission). Just as the people decide what conduct to punish, so the people decide what punishment is appropriate. Accordingly, punishments vary with the severity of the offense—from a simple fine (e.g. for a traffic violation) to loss of freedom (e.g. for murder).”

            I even pointed out the fact that if NO VIOLATION of ANY law occurred the government has no authority to give out any kind of punishment. if no violation occurred there is NOTHING to punish.

            This is not to be confused with LAWSUITS that are simply the government mediating a dispute between people that does not always involve a violation of law.

            You can believe whatever you wish but if you ever wind up in court no judge or lawyer will accept your claim that if the punishment does not include the option of jail that it was not a crime.

          • AGAIN, you are WRONG. The legal definition of a crime is something for which you are punished with TIME.

          • Terry Butts

            It is the DEFINITION provided by those teaching future lawyers and JUDGES so if it is wrong then it is the Cornell LAW EDUCATIONAL material I LINKED that is wrong.

            The PUNISHMENT being given for breaking a LAW does not have to be JAIL time for it to be a crime there are DIFFERENT LEVELS of crime but a CRIME punished by a fine is still a crime or the government would have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to punish anyone for violating that law as their only authority to PUNISH people is for crimes they commit.



            ” Just as the people decide what conduct to punish, so the people decide what punishment is appropriate. Accordingly, punishments vary with the severity of the offense—from a simple fine (e.g. for a traffic violation) to loss of freedom (e.g. for murder).”

            “A “crime” is any act or omission in violation of a law prohibiting it, or omitted in violation of a law ordering it. The government cannot prosecute an individual for conduct that was not declared criminal at the time the individual acted. The Constitution explicitly forbids in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 retroactively applicable criminal laws—ex post facto laws.”

            For further clarification what a LAW is and therefore ANY VIOLATION of one being a crime by the linked sites above sentence.


            “In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in the United States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies.”

            “Types of Crimes

            Crimes can be generally separated into four categories: felonies, misdemeanors, inchoate offenses, and strict liability offenses. ”


            Once again the DEFINED SENTENCE for violating a law is not what determines if it was a CRIME to violate that law.

          • The facts have nothing to do with your opinion.

          • Terry Butts

            I simply COPY AND PASTED FROM the site how they DEFINED crime it is not my PERSONAL OPINION when they CLEARLY STATED what is in quotes.

            “”A “crime” is any act or omission in violation of a law prohibiting it, or omitted in violation of a law ordering it.”


            It is your personal opinion that one has to be SENT TO JAIL for it to be classified as a crime.

            TRAFFIC LAWS are still laws it is still a CRIME to violate one even though the punishment is only a fine for the majority of violations.

          • You have made your mind up. I am not going to change it with the facts.

  • don76550

    We don’t have a gun problem. We have a black criminal problem.

    • Most of those in prison are not “black.” Most crimes are not committed by anyone who is “black.”

      • don76550

        Worked in a prison system. Over 50% black. Blacks are about 13% of the population yet are responsible for over 49% of all murders, over 54% of all robberies

        • Full on crap. Not in Oregon where I worked, and not in the US. I was in the business as a career for 25 years and have a degree.

        • It is not that way in Oregon. Perhaps it has to do with who gets arrested and convicted. Most who are arrested and convicted of murder are working class. There are more “Whites” in the Oregon as a percentage who are working class. I worked in the corrections system for 25 years and have a degree.

          • don76550

            Those are FBI statistics. I worked in the prison system for 20 years. I also have a degree.

          • I know exactly where your statistic came from. They are from national statistics, not Oregon statistics. Being “black” is not a crime in Oregon and being “White” does not make you bullet proof. Wearing a suit and having an education does. I never was pulled over walking drunk in a suit, but I was with my son, January of 2002 wearing Levis and a t-shirt. Murder and robbery are far from being 100% conviction. Those without resources are more likely to be arrested than those who can afford counsel. So, they are easier to catch.

          • frankspeak

            we talking race or class here?????

          • Socioeconomic status. You could say “class” if you mean the “working class” to mean how you are dressed and where you are likely to be living.

          • frankspeak

            sounds a bit convoluted…

          • You mean too complex for you to understand? Frankly, reductionist thinking is typical when it comes to crime and punishment.

      • frankspeak


        • How about not African in descent, you ignorant bigot?

          • frankspeak

            tsk..tsk….a bit touchy are we?

          • Your bias is obvious. Did the truth hurt?

  • Pam Ross

    It isn’t the gun doing damage-it’s the human behind the gun!!!!!!!!!!!! When will you EVER get this???!

    • Those who wear suits are near bullet proof. Neither the cops nor the criminals shoot at them. They don’t live in a neighborhood where they are caught in the crossfire. Police don’t pull their guns in the high rent areas, much less the $500000 homeowners’ neighborhoods. IF you want to live safer, buy a $1,000,000 home patrolled by private security.

      • frankspeak

        not exactly a viable option for most of us…

        • Pam Ross cannot understand why the “UPPER ECHELON” are so ignorant. They live in a different world. That was my point. If you want to be bullet proof, stay out of the low rent areas and never go out without a suit and tie on. I have suits and ties, but I’d rather be a target than others who are not prepared.

  • C.Henry

    If GOOGLE really wants to help , take the $2 Million and supply the Men & Women in Blue that deal with
    crime every day . We have bad people on the streets and only incarceration will stop it, as of today commit
    a crime , your slapped on the wrist , put them away for 10 – 20 for gun crimes watch it go away !!

    It will work , I looked it up on GOOGLE !!

  • Dick N Sharon Epperly

    Glad I don`t use google,and have never seen a violent gun in my 74 years.