Do these murder by weapon type statistics support a case for banning assault rifles?

PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:19:13 -0500

EDIT OK BEAR IN MIND PLEASE I BROUGHT THIS UP TO BE THOUGHT PROVOKING SOME ITEMS SHOULD REALLY BE GROUPED TOGETHER BUT IT IS NOT CURRENTLY WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE GUN GRABBERS ARE AFTER THEIR PRIMARILY AFTER ASSAULT WEAPONS AS THEY LIKE TO LOOK AT THEM AS. AND ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT PART OF THE DISCUSSION THE NUMBERS FOR DRUNK DRIVING AND DRUGS ARE WAY HIGHER AND TOPPING THE LIST IS THE MEDICAL FIELD. SO DON'T SHOT THE MESSENGER FOR IT.

Liberals Won’t Like Seeing What’s Killed More People Than Rifles Between 2009 and 2013
There’s this interesting thing that happens when politicians and anti-gunners get on stage and starting talking about the dangers of all of these “scary looking assault” rifles.

Somehow, very conveniently for them, all of the facts regarding the true danger of these weapons fly right out the window.

It actually turns out there are much cheaper, more affordable, means of killing people.

So, care to guess what’s more dangerous than rifles?

Blunt objects. Between 09 and 13 2,624 people were killed by blunt objects; 1,633 by rifles.

Look at the FBI report below.

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 8.41.08 PM

Wow, who would haver known you could kill people without a gun? Or a knife for that matter.

Turns out hammers, fists, rocks car doors, stones, etc. are just as effective at killing people.

And while we would never argue that you could mow down 13 people in a few seconds with a 2×4 it doesn’t change the fact one of the only things that will ever help even the playing field when a person suffers a violent attack is a gun.

That’s indisputable.

Do you think liberals should be called out when they misrepresent the facts?

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Jan 8 at 2016 12:24 AM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:24:15 -0500

Which facts do you see being misrepresented? Sure, people die from all sorts of things. Some are impractical to do anything about, like all of the blunt objects in the world, but some you can do something about. Also, isn't it a little misrepresentative to compare rifles (one subset of firearms) to ALL blunt objects? I understand both sides of the argument, but I just hate to see one side blast the other for "misrepresentation" while being blatantly misrepresentative of their own facts at the same time.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 8 at 2016 12:24 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:24:50 -0500

Politics is more about fear than facts.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 8 at 2016 12:55 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:55:52 -0500

Yes, but it will do no good against emotional thinkers with an agenda.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 8 at 2016 12:58 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:58:23 -0500

Little confused, looking at your chart it shows 2009 blunt objects 623, hand guns 6,501.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 1:05 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:05:41 -0500

What are you even trying to prove here? You jump all over the place. Are you trying to say that liberals suggest only assault rifles kill people? Because I'm not sure I've ever heard that case made myself.

Anyone can use anything for a one off murder sure, no ones ever disputed that, in fact a poignant video was made showing how absurdly easy it would be to escape a gunman trying to go on a rampage with a musket instead of an AR.

This is just a lot of noise making with no real point.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 8 at 2016 1:10 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 01:10:12 -0500

This is for 2013 alone, it shows firearms were responsible for like 69% of deaths.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution_by_region_2013.xls

Expanded Homicide Data Table 7

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 2:14 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:14:46 -0500

I'm afraid I still don't see what the alleged misreprentation is supposed to be. I've never heard any liberal group say that assault rifles killed more people than handguns. It's a well known fact that's not the case. The issue that is brought up about semiautomatic weapons is that when someone decides to go kill as many people as they can, they tend to bring semiautomatic weapons. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those that seek to ban them. I'm just saying that no one ever misrepresents the facts about handgun v rifle deaths.

As to the blunt object comparison, I would just say this. If you were a parent of one of the kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or one of the college kids in San Bernadino, would you have preferred that the killers entered the room with a semiautomatic weapon or a big rock?

There is plenty of room for differences of opinion on this topic to have a debate on the facts. But making false accusations of misrepresentation like this one doesn't help you make the case IMO.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jan 8 at 2016 2:26 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 02:26:14 -0500

The problem isn't with the guns, it is with the culture.

"The Mayor of Baltimore is Stephanie-Rawlings Blake (D), Mayor of Chicago is Rahm Emanuel (D), Mayor of Milwaukee is Tom Barrett (D), Mayor of New Orleans is Mitch Landrieu (D), and Mayor of St. Louis is Francis G. Slay (D). And these mayors are not simply Democrats, but Democrats who succeeded Democrats before them, which in every case succeeded Democrats as well.

And what is happening in these cities now? Gun crime is soaring. And not in the suburbs where one is less apt to find Democrat voters, but in the ‘poor and predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods’—the very neighborhoods to whom Democrats appeal each election cycle with talk of change, promises of more benefits, and plans to crackdown on crime via gun control."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/09/gun-crime-soaring-in-these-democrat-run-cities/

Gun Crime Soaring in These Democrat-Run Cities - Breitbart

On July 9, USA Today ran a column focused on soaring gun crime in Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, New Orleans, and St. Louis.

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Jan 8 at 2016 3:53 AM

SCPO Joshua I — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:53:30 -0500

http://sultanknish.blogspot.jp/2016/01/america-doesnt-have-gun-problem-it-has_4.html?m=1

Sultan Knish: America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

We can never solve this problem so long as the Democrats and media, with Republican connivance, refuse to recognize and name the problem.Cliche? Sure.But still true.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 4:30 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 04:30:34 -0500

I don't think any mind that is set on the issue of guns and gun rights will ever change. Both sides manipulate the numbers, create false statements or half truths to fit the agenda. What makes folks on the right nervous is when the President looks to England and Australia as role models of gun control. And that is confiscation of all firearms. Liberals always say conservatives panic and that no one wants to take away their guns. But there are those who are far left that want them gone. Just like there are those on the far right who don't want reasonable background checks. There is nothing wrong with reasonable background checks even at gun shows. If it can keep those who are illegal to possess firearms from obtaining them. The big problem is all the background checks will never stop criminals. There is a reason they are called criminals, they are out to cause destruction and mayhem regardless of laws. But we do need more funds for mental health and more solutions on how to deal with the issue of mental health. Especially for those who have tendencies to show aggression toward other people or make threats. But infringing on the right of individuals just because they live with someone who suffers from mental health issues, by taking away their means to defend themselves, probably isn't one of the answers. Restricting legal owners with more regulations is also not a sound solution unless the ultimate goal is removal of all firearms of any kind in the hands of anyone. As Capt Richard I P. stated "Politics is more about fear than facts."

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 7:44 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 07:44:21 -0500

They are the NWO!!!!!!!! they are trying to disarm us and enslave us!!!!! lol

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jan 8 at 2016 9:23 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:23:16 -0500

I would argue that most of the leadership of the 'gun control' movement are really about gun confiscation. As such, the reason that they go after 'assault rifles' the most is that these are the most powerful class of weapon the average American is likely to possess.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Jan 8 at 2016 11:16 AM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 11:16:15 -0500

This discussion can go even further. Gun violence in the U.S. has dropped 75% since 1993, gun homicides have dropped 49% since then as well. Meanwhile, firearms sales are at record levels along with gun ownership, and carry permit issuance has increased. The percentage of homicides committed with so called "assault weapons" is somewhere around 0.0005%.
Going after guns and lawful gun owners makes zero sense unless one has a diabolical agenda. For example: you have two credit cards with a $3,000.00 balance. The first one has an interest rate of 1.3% (percentage of preventable deaths in the U.S. caused by firearms, including accidents, homicides [justifiable & criminal], and suicides), the other has a whopping 23% interest rate (percentage of preventable deaths in the U.S. caused by medical misadventure). The smart person pays into the higher interest loan, even ignoring the low interest loan completely, as quickly as possible.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 8 at 2016 12:35 PM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:35:04 -0500

But, but, but... "assault" rifles are SCARY!

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Jan 8 at 2016 1:43 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:43:48 -0500

EVERYBODY should be called out when they misrepresent the facts.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 3:58 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:58:44 -0500

I am wondering on something. If they have a rifle, handgun, shotgun category.....what do they mean by "other guns"?

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Jan 8 at 2016 6:32 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 18:32:21 -0500

Anyone who misrepresents the facts needs to be called out on it. Sometimes with tact, sometimes without. Sometimes brutally without tact.

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Jan 23 at 2016 6:14 PM

CPO Frank Coluccio — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 18:14:55 -0500

Response by SrA Marlin Taylor made Jan 24 at 2016 1:26 PM

SrA Marlin Taylor — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:26:33 -0500

Considering the politicians that are passing these laws have no clue what an assault weapon actually is, but need to just leave it alone and let the people decide what type of what they want to buy. Every little bit they put it out there it's just another little bite out of the second amendment. Enough is enough.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2016 4:24 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:24:17 -0500

Do the statistics on alcohol-related automobile deaths support the banning of alcohol, cars or both? Do the statistics on drug related deaths (legal and illegal) support the banning of drugs? Do the statistics on death by heart attack support the banning of sodas, pizza, fast/junk food? Or better yet, do the statistics on death by heart attack support a mandatory PT program?

Death by violence is a problem of our society, and that needs to be solved. The item used in causing the death has nothing to do with the statistics, but is a convenient scapegoat for people unwilling to think beyond the currently popular sound bites.

Response by CPO Frank Coluccio made Feb 4 at 2016 5:27 PM

CPO Frank Coluccio — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:27:09 -0500

First lets get some terminology right.
"Assault Rifles" are not readily available for purchase. In order to sell them you need a special license. In order to buy one you need a Class III Federal Permit which is hard to get, expensive, and are tracked by the BATF&E. "Assault Rifles" are military weapons that aren't limited to just guns. If it is a gun/rifle, there are some VERY specific characteristics to fall into the category. One for them is a FULLY AUTOMATIC/BURST select mode of fire.
Aaron Blake wrote: "The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle". According to the Associated Press Stylebook, the media should differentiate between "assault rifles," which are capable of fully automatic firing, and "assault weapons," which are semiautomatic and "not synonymous with assault rifle."" in Jan 2013.

The term 'Assault Weapon" is a manufactured term to try and get rifles that LOOK dangerous banned or placed on a list, i.e. a regular M-1 Carbine, Semi-Automatic Rifle with it's original wood, traditional stock is just classified as a rifle. Replace the stock with a folding one and install a pistol grip and flash suppressor, and ALL of the sudden it is now classified as an "Assault Weapon" even though its function or modes of fire are unchanged. Another rifle that often changes designation because of PURELY cosmetic changes is the Mini-14.
The M-4 and the AR-15 look almost identical. The M-4 is an "Assault Rifle." the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that has been deemed an "Assault Weapon" because its appearance is the same as the M-4.
Stupid right? But the politicians and anti-gun people would rather scare people into submission, than present them with the true facts.