Your Response was posted! Click here to see it.
Posted on Jan 8, 2016
Do these murder by weapon type statistics support a case for banning assault rifles?
8.43K
128
120
9
9
0
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?
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?
Gun Control
Politics
Weapons
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 21
6
6
0
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
Sir that is the biggest problem politic's it's the politicians trying to take away our fundamental rights a little piece here and a little piece there eventually we will have no rights at all. we have already given up so many of our rights to preserve security over liberty. eventually we will have neither if we don't reverse the trend and soon. what was that saying those who give up freedom for security will soon have neither nor deserve them.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr It's a Benjamin Franklin quote, and one worthwhile for sure.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
Capt Richard I P. - Thank You Sir i knew i had seen it some where before but i could not remember right off hand who had said it. and yes it is quite true and worthwhile statement. along with those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. and we are certainly forgetting our history and getting ready to repeat it.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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/
"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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
1LT Aaron Barr
But yet we never hear of the left wanting to ban hunting rifles and ammunition, even though that ammo is bigger and more powerful than "assault" rifle ammunition.
But yet we never hear of the left wanting to ban hunting rifles and ammunition, even though that ammo is bigger and more powerful than "assault" rifle ammunition.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
ah but they have tried going after ammo and in some states they have passed ammo bans and limits. or another scheme is taxing per bullet which has been implemented in a few places. any scheme going after bullets i feel still goes against the constitution. rather it be written in there or not it impacts the use of weapons period so should not be something they can go after.
(0)
(0)
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."
(3)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
well said. I just wish the Liberals would be honest and admit that they really do want to take guns away from people.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
well said MSgt Curtis Borders and a better job of doing it then what i had done. and you have pointed out in a better way part of what i was trying to get out here.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I believe that liberals are on the side of taking guns away. Not all want to. But some do. What upsets me about it is I believe if we had no guns. The murder rate would go up
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
SP5 Christine Conley
Or you could simply open or concealed carry, as long as that is legal where you live. That way you don't ever have to worry.
Or you could simply open or concealed carry, as long as that is legal where you live. That way you don't ever have to worry.
(0)
(0)
CPO Frank Coluccio
Sorry LTC, but you need to pay closer attention to Mom's Demand Action and Michael Bloomberg supported groups. This is a mainstay of their argument to get an "Assault Weapons" ban in place
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt
Of note, Hillary went into a diatribe during the recent Democrat debate about "an epidemic of gun violence." In actuality, from the FBI's own numbers, gun crime is near or below mid 1960's levels, certainly not an epidemic. Democrats and those out to curtail civil rights have been notoriously miss-stating the data for years. Veterans should pay close attention to this debate, we're one of the prime groups being targeted by leftists.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
SP5 Christine Conley - I think you bring up a good point. Every election we rehash the same issues and same arguments. So, what do you think are the biggest problems and issues that the candidates should be discussing?
Personally, I think climate change and renewable energy should be at the forefront of the debate. Not whether or not it's a real thing, but what we can actually do to reduce our impact on the planet and how we can develop sustainable energy resources for the next millennium.
Personally, I think climate change and renewable energy should be at the forefront of the debate. Not whether or not it's a real thing, but what we can actually do to reduce our impact on the planet and how we can develop sustainable energy resources for the next millennium.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt
SP5 Christine Conley - I agree completely. In reality, gun control, abortion, and especially climate change (man made), are non issues meant to avert our attention away from the pressing issues of national security, deficit spending, federal overreach, taxation, etc.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
man made climate change is really a farce made up to get us off of other more pressing matter such as government over reach and the ever increasing size and expense of government. we now have a debt there is no way to pay back we hardly pay back the interest owed let alone touching the principle. what scares me most is the possibility of defaulting on that debt. which is becoming more likely every day as the government keeps expanding our debt. even if congress began balancing the budget it would not reduce the debt. and what really irks me is the fact that the government is giving handouts to other countries while we have our own people living on the streets. use that money to help get the homeless of the streets and reduce our public debt first and foremost.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google