Perspective: Murder by 'assault weapon'

[M14 Shooter]

From 2004 to 2011 inclusive - over 8 years

Total Murders.......... 138,810
Total firearms............ 93,538
Rifles......................... 3,850
Blades...................... 18,014
Blunt objects.............. 5,858
Hands, fists, feet, etc.. 8,246

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Assuming that ALL of the "rifles" were 'assault weapons' and that a different 'assault weapon' was used for each murder, you are...
>4.7x more likely to be murderd with a blade...
>1.5x more like to be murdered with a blunt object...
>2.1x more likely to be murdered with someone's hands/feet...
... than an 'assault weapon'.

Given how rarely they are involved in murder, what sound argument is there for banning 'assault weapons'?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From 2004 to 2011 inclusive - over 8 years

Total Murders.......... 138,810
Total firearms............ 93,538
Rifles........................... 3,850
Blades....................... 18,014
Blunt objects.............. 5,858
Hands, fists, feet, etc.. 8,246

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Assuming that ALL of the "rifles" were 'assault weapons' and that a different 'assault weapon' was used for each murder, you are...
>4.7x more likely to be murderd with a blade...
>1.5x more like to be murdered with a blunt object...
>2.1x more likely to be murdered with someone's hands/feet...
... than an 'assault weapon'.

Given how rarely they are involved in murder, what sound argument is there for banning 'assault weapons'?

The Government and the stooges that support it don't care about facts or figures. they only know Obama says to do it so it must be important.

 

[OKTexas]

Cause their scarey looking when you hold them up on TV, and it's easy to get people emotional about them. That's all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The silence from the anti-gun crowd is deafening.

 

[CMike]

Black guns are more dangerous.

 

[Obamanation]

Because they know that Obama's war on guns is totally unsupported. It's just about control. If it was about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals it wouldn't infringe on law abiding citizens.

The worst thing about it is that there are people who emphatically SUPPORT destroying the 2nd amendment!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still nothing from the anti-gun crowd.

 

[RoadVirus]

The silence from the anti-gun crowd is deafening.

But not surprising.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I imagine part of why gun deaths are less are because it's more difficult and expensive to buy a gun. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I wouldn't mind making it a little more difficult.

As I've posted before I was in and out of a gun store with a 12 guage shotty in less than 15 minutes and it seemed very strange to me that it was so easy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I imagine part of why gun deaths are less are because it's more difficult and expensive to buy a gun. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I wouldn't mind making it a little more difficult.

As I've posted before I was in and out of a gun store with a 12 guage shotty in less than 15 minutes and it seemed very strange to me that it was so easy.

Why? Do you support delaying legal purchases just cause you don't understand a right is a right? It takes all of a couple minutes to run a background check. Assuming one is required at all.

If I want to buy a hand gun I have to get a permit from the Sheriff, he has 5 days to give it to me. If I buy a rifle or shotgun it is just a matter of going in and buying them with a simple Federal form declaring I am who I say I am and declaring I am not disqualified by law.

 

[bucs90]

Hmm. Intresting stats for sure. As a proud AR15 owner (16" Rock River), I sit on the fence on the gun issue.

However, let me discuss a bit. Obviously, there are fewer murders by assault rifles than, say, blades or fists. Could that because so fewer people HAVE an assault weapon compared to how many people have a blade or fists?????????

 

[TheOldSchool]

I imagine part of why gun deaths are less are because it's more difficult and expensive to buy a gun. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I wouldn't mind making it a little more difficult.

As I've posted before I was in and out of a gun store with a 12 guage shotty in less than 15 minutes and it seemed very strange to me that it was so easy.

Why? Do you support delaying legal purchases just cause you don't understand a right is a right? It takes all of a couple minutes to run a background check. Assuming one is required at all.

If I want to buy a hand gun I have to get a permit from the Sheriff, he has 5 days to give it to me. If I buy a rifle or shotgun it is just a matter of going in and buying them with a simple Federal form declaring I am who I say I am and declaring I am not disqualified by law.

I'm pretty sure my handgun took about as long. Didn't need anything from the sheriff and didn't have to wait any number of days. I'm just saying that I live in close proximity with a ton of people where I'm from and it was a tiny bit unnerving to so easily have the ability to go on a minor killing spree.

I'm also from VA, about 20 minutes away from the NRA headquarters. Maybe it's different in other states.

 

[bucs90]

Im not saying assault rifles should or shouldnt be banned (I for one think they shouldnt because it wouldnt change shit).

But to throw around stats showing that fists and knives and handguns cause more death than assault rifles, well, the obvious answer is - of course. Everyone has a fist, virtually everyone has a knife, and the majority of personally owned firearms are pistols. Very few people actually own an assault rifle. Which, btw, is another reason why a ban wont change shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From 2004 to 2011 inclusive - over 8 years

Total Murders.......... 138,810
Total firearms............ 93,538
Rifles......................... 3,850
Blades...................... 18,014
Blunt objects.............. 5,858
Hands, fists, feet, etc.. 8,246

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Assuming that ALL of the "rifles" were 'assault weapons' and that a different 'assault weapon' was used for each murder, you are...
>4.7x more likely to be murderd with a blade...
>1.5x more like to be murdered with a blunt object...
>2.1x more likely to be murdered with someone's hands/feet...
... than an 'assault weapon'.

Given how rarely they are involved in murder, what sound argument is there for banning 'assault weapons'?

Yet another rightist who is clueless as how to counter arguments advocating gun control.

And your OP is also a perfect example of what not to do.

 

[bucs90]

I imagine part of why gun deaths are less are because it's more difficult and expensive to buy a gun. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I wouldn't mind making it a little more difficult.

As I've posted before I was in and out of a gun store with a 12 guage shotty in less than 15 minutes and it seemed very strange to me that it was so easy.

Why? Do you support delaying legal purchases just cause you don't understand a right is a right? It takes all of a couple minutes to run a background check. Assuming one is required at all.

If I want to buy a hand gun I have to get a permit from the Sheriff, he has 5 days to give it to me. If I buy a rifle or shotgun it is just a matter of going in and buying them with a simple Federal form declaring I am who I say I am and declaring I am not disqualified by law.

You have a right to vote. But, you must register to do that, and wait in line and follow procedures.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

OP makes an excellent point:

If murder can be done using all those things for weapons, if cars and hammers and merry go rounds can kill, why the hell do we need assault weapons with huge capacity clips?

Thanks for joining the side of those who want fewer dead children instead of the nutters who want more and more ways to kill CIVILIANS in non-war situations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

From 2004 to 2011 inclusive - over 8 years

Total Murders.......... 138,810
Total firearms............ 93,538
Rifles......................... 3,850
Blades...................... 18,014
Blunt objects.............. 5,858
Hands, fists, feet, etc.. 8,246

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Assuming that ALL of the "rifles" were 'assault weapons' and that a different 'assault weapon' was used for each murder, you are...
>4.7x more likely to be murderd with a blade...
>1.5x more like to be murdered with a blunt object...
>2.1x more likely to be murdered with someone's hands/feet...
... than an 'assault weapon'.

Given how rarely they are involved in murder, what sound argument is there for banning 'assault weapons'?

Yet another rightist who is clueless as how to counter arguments advocating gun control.

And your OP is also a perfect example of what not to do.

The Constitution is clear and has been reinforced by the Supreme Court. The Government can not restrict rights except with a compelling national reason. The sparsity of murders committed with assault weapons does not amount to a compelling interest. Thus it is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hmm. Intresting stats for sure. As a proud AR15 owner (16" Rock River), I sit on the fence on the gun issue.

However, let me discuss a bit. Obviously, there are fewer murders by assault rifles than, say, blades or fists. Could that because so fewer people HAVE an assault weapon compared to how many people have a blade or fists?????????

Blades and fists?

Amputate the killer's hands?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmm. Intresting stats for sure. As a proud AR15 owner (16" Rock River), I sit on the fence on the gun issue.
However, let me discuss a bit. Obviously, there are fewer murders by assault rifles than, say, blades or fists. Could that because so fewer people HAVE an assault weapon compared to how many people have a blade or fists?????????

If you want to argue that there's too few of them out there to worry about' that's OK by me.

Fact of the matter is the tiny number of people killed with them goes a long long way to illustrate how little of a danger they are to society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

From 2004 to 2011 inclusive - over 8 years

Total Murders.......... 138,810
Total firearms............ 93,538
Rifles......................... 3,850
Blades...................... 18,014
Blunt objects.............. 5,858
Hands, fists, feet, etc.. 8,246

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Assuming that ALL of the "rifles" were 'assault weapons' and that a different 'assault weapon' was used for each murder, you are...
>4.7x more likely to be murderd with a blade...
>1.5x more like to be murdered with a blunt object...
>2.1x more likely to be murdered with someone's hands/feet...
... than an 'assault weapon'.

Given how rarely they are involved in murder, what sound argument is there for banning 'assault weapons'?

Yet another rightist who is clueless as how to counter arguments advocating gun control.
And your OP is also a perfect example of what not to do.

Thank you for adding nothing of value to the discussion.