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
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
I. Leading Causes of Death
Cause of Death
(click cause for more information)
Number
of Deaths
% of Total
Deaths*
All Deaths 36,831,770 100%
1 Heart Disease 9,691,733 26.3%
2 Malignant Neoplasms 8,458,868 23.0%
3 Cerebrovascular Disease 2,164,572 5.9%
4 Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 1,977,988 5.4%
5 Diabetes 1,080,298 2.9%
6 Alzheimer's Disease 1,053,207 2.9%
7 Influenza & Pneumonia 875,143 2.4%
8 Nephritis 659,829 1.8%
9 Traffic Accident 594,280 1.6%
10 Septicemia 514,771 1.4%
11 Poisoning 475,907 1.3%
12 Firearm 464,033 1.3%
13 Liver Disease 443,341 1.2%
14 Hypertension 358,138 1.0%
15 Fall 329,528 0.9%
16 Parkinson's Disease 294,137 0.8%
17 Pneumonitis 256,305 0.7%
18 Suffocation 215,797 0.6%
19 Benign Neoplasms 212,204 0.6%
20 Perinatal Period 203,864 0.6%
21 Aortic Aneurysm 192,122 0.5%
22 HIV 170,136 0.5%
23 All Other Causes 6,155,509 16.7%
Cause of Death
(click cause for more information)
Number
of Deaths
% of Total
Deaths*
All Deaths 36,831,770 100%
1 Heart Disease 9,691,733 26.3%
2 Malignant Neoplasms 8,458,868 23.0%
3 Cerebrovascular Disease 2,164,572 5.9%
4 Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 1,977,988 5.4%
5 Diabetes 1,080,298 2.9%
6 Alzheimer's Disease 1,053,207 2.9%
7 Influenza & Pneumonia 875,143 2.4%
8 Nephritis 659,829 1.8%
9 Traffic Accident 594,280 1.6%
10 Septicemia 514,771 1.4%
11 Poisoning 475,907 1.3%
12 Firearm 464,033 1.3%
13 Liver Disease 443,341 1.2%
14 Hypertension 358,138 1.0%
15 Fall 329,528 0.9%
16 Parkinson's Disease 294,137 0.8%
17 Pneumonitis 256,305 0.7%
18 Suffocation 215,797 0.6%
19 Benign Neoplasms 212,204 0.6%
20 Perinatal Period 203,864 0.6%
21 Aortic Aneurysm 192,122 0.5%
22 HIV 170,136 0.5%
23 All Other Causes 6,155,509 16.7%
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
Sharpton to Baltimore to organize march to Washington - CNNPolitics.com
Rev. Al Sharpton is headed to Baltimore this week to meet with community leaders and plan a march from that city to Washington, D.C.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
SGT (Join to see) - But justifiable or not justifiable. Not all homicides are murder.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
No, but often times "justification" is little more than an opinion. Plenty of homicides this past year were ruled justified inspire of a preponderance of evidence otherwise.
It simply boils down to who died and who stands to be punished for the crime.
In that regard, yes, they are.
It simply boils down to who died and who stands to be punished for the crime.
In that regard, yes, they are.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
Capt that is the really sad part there are more emotional thinkers around then factual thinkers.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SP5 Christine Conley, good catch; thank you. I should have had quotation marks around "thinkers".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
"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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
the M1 Carbine during world war 2 and korea they were the weapons of choice and considered assault weapons by the military the other rifle i dont quite recognise it looks like a modified M1 Carbine and would also be considered an assault rifle. the only difference is the top one is modified and the lower one is not. but try getting a liberal to realise that just because it has modifications like a pistol style grip and a folding stock does not make it any different the the plain jane model. they consider anything that has a folding stock a pistol grip or a foregrip an assault weapon. what truly means to me at least a modern assault weapon is one that has select fire on it. but when you boil it down any weapon that can be fired rapid fire by just squeezing the trigger quickly is an actual assault rifle. even though it has to be pulled each time to fire a round off. i have seen some folks who can rapidly pull a trigger and hit their targets with great accuracy.
but to put a simple answer to your question it would be both.
but to put a simple answer to your question it would be both.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
They are the NWO!!!!!!!! they are trying to disarm us and enslave us!!!!! lol
(0)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
PO3 (Join to see) - many don't am neither am i fully prepared because i too am some what doubtful and pray i'm never going to see that situation.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr - ...I know we haven't encounter each other that much on RP, I believe this is our first time have an conversation too ... ... I am a little bit too sarcastic ... just to let you know.
I actually have firearms and thousand of rounds, armor, food, water, basic medical stuff and gasoline stored :). If zombies raised ... I can survive only on the stuff I have in my house for at least a month. Zombies is the worse case ... because it is really hard to get to my water source when zombies running around .... if not zombie? I can actually live pretty comfortable for a year or more ... depend on how I ration it ... since I got two kids ... you know how much kids eat ... :)lol
I actually have firearms and thousand of rounds, armor, food, water, basic medical stuff and gasoline stored :). If zombies raised ... I can survive only on the stuff I have in my house for at least a month. Zombies is the worse case ... because it is really hard to get to my water source when zombies running around .... if not zombie? I can actually live pretty comfortable for a year or more ... depend on how I ration it ... since I got two kids ... you know how much kids eat ... :)lol
(0)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
PO3 (Join to see) - i don't believe in zombies but i do believe in cases of civil unrest. but i never hope to see it in my town or anyone else's. but as baltimore and ferguson have proved it can happen.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr - zombie is just a fun topic. More likely I would become the zombie than the survivor if that happen :P lol
Civil unrest like Baltimore and Ferguson isn't that bad, those are consider short term event. The longest and most likely event would properly a break down in USA, and a civil war started.
Civil unrest like Baltimore and Ferguson isn't that bad, those are consider short term event. The longest and most likely event would properly a break down in USA, and a civil war started.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
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
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
LCpl Mark Lefler, "so you do not believe we should have background checks of any kind?"
I hold a CDW permit and the state police run a background check on me every month. I have nothing to hide and have nothing against the practice; it allows me to buy guns over the counter just as I did in the 1950s without filling out more forms and waiting for yet another background check.
The problem I have with background checks is that they are ineffective. Law enforcement is not mandated to keep the records accurate and up to date, and mental health professionals and other officials are not required to enter dangerous mental cases into the database. Recall that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner passed the background check and bought his gun legally even though his severe mental disease was known by authorities but not entered into the background check database.
Also bear in mind that only 40% of those ineligible persons caught lying on the forms to purchase guns are ever prosecuted. If they don't enforce the laws they have on the books, what good is it to add new laws to be unenforced?
In addition to being ineffective, tightening the rules only harasses honest people without being much of an impediment to criminals. If I give a gun to my son or sell one to my brother or inherit one from my father I will have to go through all the bother and expense of complying with this new law even though we all have other guns already; there is absolutely no chance that crime will be reduced by having to go through this extra expense and bureaucratic red tape.
This push is only yet another ineffective yet bothersome action put forth by emotional leftist ideologues to harass legal gun owners whom the left dislikes, IMHO.
I hold a CDW permit and the state police run a background check on me every month. I have nothing to hide and have nothing against the practice; it allows me to buy guns over the counter just as I did in the 1950s without filling out more forms and waiting for yet another background check.
The problem I have with background checks is that they are ineffective. Law enforcement is not mandated to keep the records accurate and up to date, and mental health professionals and other officials are not required to enter dangerous mental cases into the database. Recall that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner passed the background check and bought his gun legally even though his severe mental disease was known by authorities but not entered into the background check database.
Also bear in mind that only 40% of those ineligible persons caught lying on the forms to purchase guns are ever prosecuted. If they don't enforce the laws they have on the books, what good is it to add new laws to be unenforced?
In addition to being ineffective, tightening the rules only harasses honest people without being much of an impediment to criminals. If I give a gun to my son or sell one to my brother or inherit one from my father I will have to go through all the bother and expense of complying with this new law even though we all have other guns already; there is absolutely no chance that crime will be reduced by having to go through this extra expense and bureaucratic red tape.
This push is only yet another ineffective yet bothersome action put forth by emotional leftist ideologues to harass legal gun owners whom the left dislikes, IMHO.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr
now your pointing out many of the things i worry about. the check system has many flaws is incomplete and we have laws on the books that they don't enforce judges making plea deals and short sentencing violent criminals. and the problem where they could start using it for a list of owners that could be used for a confiscation.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
Capt Seid Waddell - "Thinking that firearms were just designed for killing people is the emotionally-held position of the left, and it does not align with reality."
That along with the idea that every gun owner is a potential killer and we are all law abiding people until we break the law.
That along with the idea that every gun owner is a potential killer and we are all law abiding people until we break the law.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
PO2 Robert Cuminale - no, its completely realistic and completely correct. Firearms were invented, then developed for warfare, thats a fact, thats a historical fact, you don't have to like it, but it's a fact.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google