FBI Stats Show Knives Kill Far More People Than Rifles In America - It's Not Even Close

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  last year  •  107 comments

By:   Virginia Kruta (The Daily Caller)

FBI Stats Show Knives Kill Far More People Than Rifles In America - It's Not Even Close
Recent shootings in Atlanta and Boulder are driving a renewed push to "assault-style" rifles like the AR-15.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners


The article is not a defense of AR-15, or more appropriately, assault style rifles.  The provided data clearly show that assault rifles are the weapon of choice for high casualty mass shootings that receive an abundance of attention by the press.

What the article shows is that the politics of gun control is being driven by media attention and not by the evidence.  An assault rifle ban garners a lot of publicity and will score political points but actually will do very, very little to address mass shootings or gun crime.  The politics of gun control is only a dog & pony show and not about governing or public safety.  More people are killed with knives than with rifles.

Handguns are actually the weapon of choice for the dirty business of killing people.  Handguns are the weapon of choice in police shootings, too.  Hand guns are the weapon of choice for most mass shootings, too.  But those mass shootings are only to kill people and not to attract media attention.

Gun controls that focus attention on assault rifles will accomplish almost nothing other than feed media controversy used to divide the country.  Banning assault rifles certainly won't address gun crime.  We shouldn't allow politicians and the media to get away with this.  We should be demanding more of our law makers.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Recent shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, and Boulder, Colorado, are driving a renewed push to ban "assault-style" rifles like the AR-15 — but according to FBI data, far more murders are committed with handguns, knives or even hands and feet.

The FBI's most recent data from 2019 shows that while firearms account for the vast majority of homicides overall — 10,258 — the number of homicides committed using a rifle (364) is much smaller.

Handguns were listed as the primary weapon in 6,368 cases, and shotguns accounted for another 200. There were 45 cases that named "other gun" as the weapon, and 3,281 cases in which the type of firearm was not specified. Assuming the unspecified cases follow the same ratio as the reported firearm types, the number of cases in which a rifle was used would increase by approximately 120 — bringing that total number to 484.

In addition, 600 people were killed in 2019 with what the FBI refers to as "personal weapons," meaning hands, fists or feet. Knives or other "cutting tools" accounted for another 1,476 homicides — about three times the number killed by rifles.

Despite that data, following nearly every mass shooting in recent history, there has been a push to tighten gun control laws — but, more specifically, to ban the AR-15 or other "assault-style" rifles.

The argument behind that push was that the AR-15, due to its power and versatility, appeared to be the weapon of choice in a number of mass shooting events.


Boulder: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Parkland: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Aurora, CO: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Midland/Odessa: AR-15
Poway synagogue: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15
— Adam Best (@adamcbest) March 23, 2021


"You don't stop there (why did he do it?). You then protect communities by minimizing the risk should harm come to pass. This weaponry does not allow us to do that. People always ask "why is the AR-15 so popular?" Because it kills. I have a simple answer. Because it kills." @cnnpic.twitter.com/JGqYZMgmHt — Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) March 24, 2021


What public good comes from the sale of AR15s? (& I grew up in Montona, with plenty of guns in the house. I used to hunt, but never with an AR15. I'm a militant defender of the 2nd amendment.) https://t.co/mKNGoOVjXY — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) March 24, 2021

While the AR-15 does appear to be the weapon of choice for the more highly-publicized mass shootings, the fact that any instance in which at least four people are shot and killed is qualified as a "mass shooting" means that the numbers can be dramatically skewed by gang-related and drug-related activity. Throughout 2020, some argued that mass shootings in inner cities were a result of the stress and lockdowns of the coronavirus pandemic.


Despite some of the reports you're seeing, 2020 was not a reprieve from mass shootings. It was a reprieve from a certain type — the kind that gets a lot of media attention.

Last year, mass shootings soared, with Black communities hit hardest.https://t.co/gRHhdM7f2f

— Chip Brownlee (@ByChipBrownlee) March 23, 2021

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Nerm_L    last year

An assault rifle ban is only about media attention and scoring political points.  Banning assault rifles will do very little to address gun crime.  We should be demanding more from politicians.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @1    last year
An assault rifle ban is only about media attention and scoring political points.  Banning assault rifles will do very little to address gun crime. 

It addresses "mass shootings".  Something very difficult to do without assault style weapons and large capacity magazines.

We should be demanding more from politicians.

Republican politicians have blocked even the smallest response to these shootings.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    last year

If we would address gang violence they would drop a lot more. Of course Democrats have no interest in that; as it would hurt a small portion of minorities vote they cherish so much.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    last year
It addresses "mass shootings".  Something very difficult to do without assault style weapons and large capacity magazines.

Did you know there were 63 mass shootings during the first seven weeks of 2021?  There were at least 614 mass shootings during 2020 and at least 434 mass shootings during 2019 in the US.

An assault rifle ban only addresses mass shootings that attract a lot of media attention.  And the purpose of gun control politics, so far, has been to attract media attention and score political points.

Republican politicians have blocked even the smallest response to these shootings.

The most stringent gun controls on assault rifles advocated by Democrats would do very, very little to address gun crime.  The gun control legislation that receives so much media attention only kicks-the-can and allows lawmakers to do nothing.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.2    last year

I think some of our friends here need to look up how shootings are defined.

"Different media outlets and research groups use different definitions for the term "mass shooting" For example, crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive defines a "mass shooting" as "four or more shot (injured or killed) in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter," differentiating between mass shooting and mass murder. [2] "

Doesn't mean they are all totally deadly.

"The  United States Congressional Research Service  acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition and defines a "public mass shooting" [3]  as an event where someone selects four or more people and shoots them with firearms in an indiscriminate manner, echoing the FBI's definition of the term " mass murder ", but adding the indiscriminate factor. [4] "

That being the case, Chicago has a mass shooting every weekend.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    last year

Chicago has a mass shooting every weekend.

But, typically, the shooters there aren't politically exploitable. 

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
1.1.5  zuksam  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    last year
If we would address gang violence they would drop a lot more. Of course Democrats have no interest in that; as it would hurt a small portion of minorities vote they cherish so much.

That's why they go after assault rifles. Who are the majority of assault rifle owners ? Rural or Suburban White Males and who are the Lefts favorite target, Rural or Suburban White Males.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    last year
If we would address gang violence they would drop a lot more.

What would you suggest?

Of course Democrats have no interest in that

And when have Republicans shown any interest?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    last year
I think some of our friends here need to look up how shootings are defined.

Statistics are hard to find.  Not all shooting victims die.  IMO body bag reporting is a legacy of Vietnam.  This study suggests that gun related injuries are three times the reported gun related fatalities.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.8  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  zuksam @1.1.5    last year
That's why they go after assault rifles. Who are the majority of assault rifle owners ? Rural or Suburban White Males and who are the Lefts favorite target, Rural or Suburban White Males.

Based on news reporting, it certainly seems that way.  Gun control legislation seems to only address media attention to score political points.

It seems gun control advocates are only kicking the can and allowing lawmakers to get away with doing nothing.  We should be demanding more from our politicians.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
1.1.9  zuksam  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    last year
It addresses "mass shootings".  Something very difficult to do without assault style weapons and large capacity magazines.

For every assault rifle the ban would eliminate there are a half dozen hunting rifles with the exact same functionality that will still be available. Even banning high capacity magazines won't do a thing because there are so many out there already and if you can't get one it is easy enough to extend a magazine, you cut the bottom off one and the top off another double stack the springs and weld the cases together. That's how they used to make them before they were commercially available. Clyde Barrow made them (or had them made) for his Browning Automatic Rifle so he could fire 40 rounds before reloading instead of the standard 20.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  zuksam @1.1.9    last year
For every assault rifle the ban would eliminate there are a half dozen hunting rifles with the exact same functionality that will still be available.  Even banning high capacity magazines won't do a thing because there are so many out there already and if you can't get one it is easy enough to extend a magazine, you cut the bottom off one and the top off another double stack the springs and weld the cases together. That's how they used to make them before they were commercially available.

So what?  You can't stop them, no law does, but you can make it as difficult as possible for them.

Joe Blow can go to a gun shop and buy an assault type weapon, this means that Joe Blow can commit mass murder.

Joe Blow can go to a gun shop and buy a standard rifle, that means that with only single shot availability and no large magazines, it is much harder to commit mass murder.

Joe Blow off the street, does not know how to modify a standard rifle to increase the magazine capacity and even turn it fully automatic, this means Joe Blow will have a much harder time committing mass murder.

Clyde Barrow made them (or had them made) for his Browning Automatic Rifle so he could fire 40 rounds before reloading instead of the standard 20.

Clyde Barrow's job was bank robbery.  He learned the modifications because he knew he'd need them.  Joe Blow off the street is rarely going to put forth that effort (yes I know, some will), but how many mass shootings are spur of the moment? 

Boulder guy bought his a mere days prior to the shooting.  How many people will know how to get the various parts necessary for their particular weapon to make it more deadly.

Gun control laws cannot prevent crimes, but they try to make things more difficult for those crimes to occur.

Here's a few questions for you. 

Where you live, do you lock the front door at night? 

Did you know that most front doors can be kicked in simply and with only 1 kick?

With that knowledge, will you continue locking your front door?  Why?

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Participates
1.1.11  exexpatnowinTX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    last year
So what?  You can't stop them, no law does, but you can make it as difficult as possible for them.

Lets do the same for beer/wine/alcohol then.  The people that ABUSE those items kill tens of thousands of people every year.

Joe Blow can go to a gun shop and buy an assault type weapon, this means that Joe Blow can commit mass murder.

Never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing have you?

Joe Blow can go to a gun shop and buy a standard rifle, that means that with only single shot availability and no large magazines, it is much harder to commit mass murder.

Not really.  Cars, trucks and various other things have been used by people to commit mass murder.

Joe Blow off the street, does not know how to modify a standard rifle to increase the magazine capacity and even turn it fully automatic, this means Joe Blow will have a much harder time committing mass murder.

Might be before your time, but do a search for the Dallas Water Tower Sniper.  circa 1966

Clyde Barrow's job was bank robbery.  He learned the modifications because he knew he'd need them.  Joe Blow off the street is rarely going to put forth that effort (yes I know, some will), but how many mass shootings are spur of the moment? 

Hoiw do YOU know he knew he'd need them?  Have you ever considered he might simply have wanted to carry fewer magazines?

Boulder guy bought his a mere days prior to the shooting.  How many people will know how to get the various parts necessary for their particular weapon to make it more deadly.

Have you ever heard of that Gore invented Internet?  You can find out virtually anything including modifying guns or making bombs. 

Gun control laws cannot prevent crimes, but they try to make things more difficult for those crimes to occur.

How about we try to enforce the existing laws first, then if that fails we consider new or modifications?

Here's a few questions for you.  Where you live, do you lock the front door at night? 

1-None of your business, but currently in England.  And yes my door gets locked.

Did you know that most front doors can be kicked in simply and with only 1 kick?

Well, not quite.  That's totally dependent on the style and installation techniques used.  (I do have personal knowledge of Physical Security with a Masters degree and two books in print.)

With that knowledge, will you continue locking your front door?  Why?

I will most certainly will continue to lock my front door.   I know the capabilities of some more talented people that use methods other than kicking.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    last year
Joe Blow can go to a gun shop and buy an assault type weapon, this means that Joe Blow can commit mass murder. Joe Blow can go to a gun shop and buy a standard rifle, that means that with only single shot availability and no large magazines, it is much harder to commit mass murder.

A Ruger Mini 14 is considered a standard rifle,  has never been considered an "assault weapon" by anybody that I'm aware of. Yet it shoots the same ammunition the AR-15 shoots, has removable multi-round magazines including a 10 round, a 20 round, a 30 round (for the really stupid people who love jams the 100 round magazine), operates the same way and with the same receivers that an AR-15 has.  Not all standard rifles are single shot bolt action rifles, there are still a large amount of semi-automatic rifles. 

But a serious question,  why focus on the "assault weapon" in the first place?  Semi-automatic pistols are just as easy to use and easier to hide before one can get inside. 

This is why I continue to say a better approach is to fix the issues on the NICS side and work to prevent people who have no legal standing to purchase a gun in the first place. 

It just seems to be that you cannot put a ban on types of guns and really have any impact on gun crime. A person who wants to kill someone will find a way. As I see it, the only way to eliminate gun crime is to ban ALL guns and then go door to door to be sure you  have collected them all.  But this is not a solution that would be proposed in Washington because you know what the party that made this proposal would be called....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  exexpatnowinTX @1.1.11    last year
Lets do the same for beer/wine/alcohol then.

Alcohol by itself doesn't kill, and it is already illegal to drive or handle a gun while intoxicated.  Try a different example.

Never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing have you?

You're proving my point.  How many other mass killings have been committed that way?  So 1 every few decades sounds pretty good compared to almost daily mass killings. 

I thought you were trying to argue against me....

Cars, trucks and various other things have been used by people to commit mass murder.

How many times in the last 10 years have cars, trucks and various other things been used to commit mass murder?

How many times in the last 10 years have guns been used?

You're making MY point.

Might be before your time, but do a search for the Dallas Water Tower Sniper.  circa 1966

And once again, your only example was 50 years ago.  Just shows the unlikelihood of it occurring, and again making my point.  It doesn't happen frequently.

Have you ever heard of that Gore invented Internet?  You can find out virtually anything including modifying guns or making bombs.

So what?  Reading and actual doing are 2 different things.  Which is why reading how to make a bomb is NOT illegal, making a bomb is.

How about we try to enforce the existing laws first, then if that fails we consider new or modifications?

What existing law would prevent another Boulder from happening???

I will most certainly will continue to lock my front door.

Locking it will not prevent a break in, but it will slow that person down and even discourage them if they are just looking for an easy target.  That is why you are locking it.

Gun laws are the same thing, they will not prevent mass murders, but will slow them down and discourage them.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.12    last year
A Ruger Mini 14 is considered a standard rifle,  has never been considered an "assault weapon" by anybody that I'm aware of.

I said " assault type weapon", never claimed otherwise.

But a serious question,  why focus on the "assault weapon" in the first place?  Semi-automatic pistols are just as easy to use and easier to hide before one can get inside. 

History has shown that if someone is intent on committing mass murder, they have gone to " assault type weapons".  I cannot think of the last time a mass murderer did so with a handgun.    Though I am sure it has occurred infrequently.

Remember, they are basically terrorists, long guns are scarier than handguns.

This is why I continue to say a better approach is to fix the issues on the NICS side and work to prevent people who have no legal standing to purchase a gun in the first place. 

As long as gun shows and strawman purchases are legal, that will not work.

It just seems to be that you cannot put a ban on types of guns and really have any impact on gun crime.

If it is an impulse crime, it will slow them down.  Most ( not all ) of these shootings are impulse because they already had the tool (gun) or they had very easy access to one.

Australia put a ban on guns and their shooting deaths plummeted because of it.  Providing evidence that it does.

561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f?width=1100&format=jpeg&auto=webp

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.15  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    last year
History has shown that if someone is intent on committing mass murder, they have gone to " assault type weapons".  I cannot think of the last time a mass murderer did so with a handgun.    Though I am sure it has occurred infrequently.

Seung-Hui Cho used handguns for the mass shooting at Virginia Tech.  Jared Lounghner used a handgun in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Giffords was wounded.  But those were incidents that received a lot of media attention.

Here is an example of the most common type of mass shooting.  These types of mass shootings do not receive a lot of media attention.  There won't be vigils, thoughts & prayers by politicians, or flags flown at half staff.  There won't be protests with chants of 'no justice, no peace'.  The guy killed four and wounded one in an argument over a $1400 stimulus check.  

There were 63 mass shootings in the first seven weeks of 2021.  How many have received national attention?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.15    last year

you forgot Charleston and dylan roof , and last weeks shooting in Atlanta.....

Also factor in what constitutes a mass shooting by definition has changed over the past decade , it use to be 5 or more killed , now its 4 or more killed or wounded , change the definition / parameters and it can go up or down  dependent on the definition.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.17  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.16    last year
you forgot Charleston and dylan roof , and last weeks shooting in Atlanta.....

No, I didn't forget.  But listing all of the mass shootings that received a lot of media attention and pandering political empathy would be tedious.  

The Columbine High School mass shooting perpetrated by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in 1999 occurred while the Federal ban on assault rifles was in force.  Harris and Klebold couldn't use assault rifles because they had been banned.    

Gun control advocates want to ignore that the 1994 Federal ban on assault rifles didn't prevent Columbine.  In fact, the 1994 Federal ban on assault style weapons didn't reduce gun homicides and had no impact on shootings.

The point is that its not the weapon used in these incidents that is the problem.  Political grandstanding over assault rifle bans only addresses media attention to score political points and ignores the problem.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.18  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.17    last year
Harris and Klebold couldn't use assault rifles because they had been banned.    

well a true assault rifle has select fire capability (semi AND full auto) and those are very expensive and highly regulated, as for the defined assault weapons in the 94 AWB they were still available and grandfathered and available for sale through out the ban, all the ban did was make them more expensive .

harris and klebold used a mix of rifle , handgun and shotgun all bought through private sales even though only one of them were old enough to legally purchase any firearm. and i am fairly certain , all the firearms they did have , complied with the existing ban at the time including mag capacities. now if they used them all , i dont know.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.19  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.1.18    last year
well a true assault rifle has select fire capability (semi AND full auto) and those are very expensive and highly regulated, as for the defined assault weapons in the 94 AWB they were still available and grandfathered and available for sale through out the ban, all the ban did was make them more expensive .

And a small arm isn't a gun.  Guns are artillery pieces.  This is a gun.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.15    last year
Seung-Hui Cho used handguns for the mass shooting at Virginia Tech.  Jared Lounghner used a handgun in the Tuscon mass shooting where Gabby Giffords was wounded.

And again, you are showing that handguns are used less frequently and to less effect. 

Remember, laws do not prevent the crimes, laws are meant to discourage and to make it harder to commit them.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.21  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.20    last year
And again, you are showing that handguns are used less frequently and to less effect. 

The crime statistics show handguns are used most often and with greater effect.  Ignoring the evidence to pick & choose crimes that fit political pandering and score political points won't solve anything.

Remember, laws do not prevent the crimes, laws are meant to discourage and to make it harder to commit them.

Laws are not a deterrent.  Laws give permission for enforcement to use violence which somewhat acts as a deterrent but can also act as an incentive.  Suicide by cop is a real thing.  The severity of punishment is intended to discourage the crime.  If crimes continue after laws are enacted then it's likely the punishment isn't sufficiently severe.

Remember Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine?  The Columbine mass shooting happened in 1999, 5 years after the 1994 Federal ban on assault rifles was enacted.  The Federal ban on assault rifles didn't prevent Columbine.  In fact, the 1994 Federal ban on assault rifles didn't reduce gun crime or mass shootings.  Politicians scored political points with the Federal ban on assault rifles but actually didn't do anything significant.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.21    last year
The crime statistics show handguns are used most often and with greater effect.

Not for mass murders.

Laws are not a deterrent.  Laws give permission for enforcement to use violence which somewhat acts as a deterrent but can also act as an incentive. 

You're saying that people don't commit crimes because they are afraid to get beaten up by cops?  That's ridiculous.

The Columbine mass shooting happened in 1999, 5 years after the 1994 Federal ban on assault rifles was enacted.  The Federal ban on assault rifles didn't prevent Columbine.

Are you just refusing to listen???  Okay, one more time.

Laws do not prevent the crimes, laws are meant to discourage and to make it harder to commit them.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.23  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.22    last year
The crime statistics show handguns are used most often and with greater effect.
Not for mass murders.

Nope.  

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 143 different handguns being used in 95 incidents between 1982 and March 2021. These figures are calculated from a total of 121 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from but they are just plain wrong. Handguns are used more often and to greater effect in mass shootings as well as smaller shootings (although the number of people shot doesn't really make much difference to me).  Semi-automatic rifles used in mass shootings are more reported on as a high-profile issue. As any murder is wrong, I have to wonder why some murder's are more high profile and are reported on more.

Laws do not prevent the crimes, laws are meant to discourage and to make it harder to commit them.

You are correct,  laws do not prevent crime. A person's moral code and/or fear of punishment is what prevents crime. But removing the tool used in the crime doesn't prevent the crime either. Sounds to me what  you are suggesting here is harsher punishment for the crime.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.1.24  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.22    last year
Not for mass murders.

Mass shootings happen more frequently than the national media and politicians would have the public believe.  The narrative being pushed by gun control advocates only addresses media attention and ignores the evidence.  This happened two days ago.  The fact that ten people were shot, two fatally, isn't politically useful so the political activists don't pay attention.  The media attention will be focused on the cop that shot a Black guy and certain politicians will erupt in spittle spewing outrage to score political points.  And the mass shooting will go unnoticed.

Renewing the Federal ban on assault rifles wouldn't have prevented what happened in Virginia Beach two days ago.  The proposed laws aren't addressing what is happening.  Gun control advocacy is only pursuing political points; gun control advocacy isn't trying to address real problems.

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Participates
1.1.25  exexpatnowinTX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    last year

First, I apologize for not responding much earlier, but I have much more important activities to do during the day that waste time on a forum like this.

Lets do the same for beer/wine/alcohol then.
Alcohol by itself doesn't kill, and it is already illegal to drive or handle a gun while intoxicated.  Try a different example.

Thank you for making my point.  Firearms do not load, aim, or fire themselves without the intervention of a human being either.

Never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing have you?
You're proving my point.  How many other mass killings have been committed that way?  So 1 every few decades sounds pretty good compared to almost daily mass killings. 

Short memory span?  Have you already forgotten the Tsarnev brothers in Boston?

I thought you were trying to argue against me....
Cars, trucks and various other things have been used by people to commit mass murder.

How many times in the last 10 years have cars, trucks and various other things been used to commit mass murder?

How many times in the last 10 years have guns been used?
You're making MY point.

Immaterial.  Vehicles have been used as weapons for killing innocent people.  The number of times is irrelevant, unless of course you accept people intentionally killing innocents with motor vehicles as opposed to firearms.

Might be before your time, but do a search for the Dallas Water Tower Sniper.  circa 1966
And once again, your only example was 50 years ago.  Just shows the unlikelihood of it occurring, and again making my point.  It doesn't happen frequently.

Ok..  Dallas?   Or are you only concerned if someone uses a scary black rifle as the weapon of choice?

Have you ever heard of that Gore invented Internet?  You can find out virtually anything including modifying guns or making bombs.
So what?  Reading and actual doing are 2 different things.  Which is why reading how to make a bomb is NOT illegal, making a bomb is.

Thanks for making my point.  Owning legally obtained firearms is not illegal.  Using them for an illegal action is.

How about we try to enforce the existing laws first, then if that fails we consider new or modifications?
What existing law would prevent another Boulder from happening???

What law existing or proposed would stop it?

I will most certainly will continue to lock my front door.
Locking it will not prevent a break in, but it will slow that person down and even discourage them if they are just looking for an easy target.  That is why you are locking it.

Hardly, I lock my door as a force of habit.  Further, if someone is still stupid enough to enter my home while I'm present, I'll encourage them to smile for the flash, and that flash will not be from a camera.

Gun laws are the same thing, they will not prevent mass murders, but will slow them down and discourage them.

Of the 20 plus thousand guns laws already on the books, show me ONE that has slowed down someone hell bent on killing other people for no reason other than the fact that they exist.  One will be sufficient.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Nerm_L @1    last year

Rarely carry an AR-15 but always carry a blade and a pocket pistol. Have used both.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2    last year

I carry my buck knife and a 9mm with hollowpoints. I'd be changing magazines by the time some dumbass teabag rambo could swing the barrel of his AR up above his waist.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.2.1    last year

I knew that I liked you for a reason.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.2.3  Veronica  replied to  devangelical @1.2.1    last year
9mm with hollowpoints.

but but but - you can't carry a gun - you are left leaning & we all know that anyone on the left (Democrats) want to take away everyone's guns.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    last year

as an old white guy I can blend easily and the realization that I'm not a trumpster dipshit is the last thought they will ever have. want to buy a slightly used AR? only been dropped once. sorry, no paperwork on it.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.5  cjcold  replied to  Veronica @1.2.3    last year

Seems liberals own and shoot firearms. My 30;06 shoots 1MOA.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.6  devangelical  replied to  Veronica @1.2.3    last year
but but but - you can't carry a gun

... plus a .380 in an ankle holster when I travel.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2.5    last year

I got rid of all my long guns in 2010, because the teabags were becoming a little too tempting.

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.2.8  Veronica  replied to  cjcold @1.2.5    last year

We own some, too.  FUnny thing though - no one has been knocking on our doors to take them away - I wonder why?

 
 
 
Veronica
Masters Expert
1.2.9  Veronica  replied to  devangelical @1.2.6    last year

Knew you were being sneaky.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
1.2.10  arkpdx  replied to  Veronica @1.2.8    last year

Not yet. Just give them a chance and they won't just knock on you door to take them but knock it down. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.11  cjcold  replied to  Veronica @1.2.3    last year

We are liberals. That means we get to shoot guns whenever we want.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.12  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.2.6    last year

The problem being is walking with a limp.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.13  cjcold  replied to  Veronica @1.2.8    last year
I wonder why?

Because this liberal owns firearms and I told the rest to back off?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Nerm_L @1    last year

I'm looking at your stats that were linked in your article.  It does indeed show that knives kill more people than rifles.  1476 to 374 in 2019.  Wait...  What's this category called "firearms, type not stated"?  3280 deaths.  There's also a category called "other guns"  Whatever that is caused 75 deaths.  Some states refuse to collect data on gun deaths.  I wonder why?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  SteevieGee @1.3    last year
"other guns"  Whatever that is caused 75 deaths. 

Plausable explanation of that? ever read about people celebrating something and just going out and shooting guns off into the air? as the song says what goes up must come down .

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
1.3.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.1    last year

The table does say homicide data.  Is shooting into the air attempted homicide?  Does that include the firearm, type not stated?  3280 deaths is a lot of lead falling from the sky.  3280 is a huge number and could easily render the article bullspit.  It's certainly spinning the data.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  SteevieGee @1.3.3    last year

shooting into the air would likely be considered wreckless endangerment , if some one is killed legally it would be an unsolvable manslaughter case of some degree.

 what likely is being looked at is if someone died , homicide is homicide  intended or not when statistics are involved , as for breakdown , as you said not all states use the same criteria for their reports or what they will report if they report anything so breaking down firearm   type can be a challenge without sifting through every police report  and unless the police /investigators recover the weapon they might not know for sure , how many rifles are chambered for common pistol rounds ? or vice versa , ballistics tests can give them a direction to go in and a general idea  , but its not fool proof and never will be. .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.4    last year

just for shits and grins i dug out one of my reloading books , and there are 8 different calibres of bullets that use the same diameter bullet as the .223 rem/5.56  nato , if all they have to go on is the fired projectile , it can be any of those 8 different rounds .

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
1.3.6  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.5    last year
just for shits and grins i dug out one of my reloading books , and there are 8 different calibres of bullets that use the same diameter bullet as the .223 rem/5.56  nato , if all they have to go on is the fired projectile , it can be any of those 8 different rounds .

The biggest difference between .22LR, .22WMR, and .223 is muzzle velocity.  The energy imparted on the bullet flattens the ballistic curve.  The small bullet size and weight means the energy is not transferred efficiently to a target.  For the .223 to be effective its necessary to design the bullet to fragment.  That's why civilian ammunition is prohibited for military use.

AR-15s were designed as military survival rifles for people who don't know how to shoot.  The high muzzle velocity flattens the ballistic curve so the .223 is a point & shoot firearm over moderate distances.  Using a .223 requires no skill and very little training.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Nerm_L @1.3.6    last year

I have never had any of the rifles i have shot using a .224 diameter bullet intentionally "fragment " in a hunting round , one wants controlled expansion , not fragmentation, all fragmentation does is make meat inedible and unuseable . and pretty much all 8 of the calibres that use a .224 diameter bullet are known to be pretty flat shooting decreasing that ballistic curve you mention.

Why do you think the AR platform is so popular?

 i can give a few reasons i think it is .

 ammunition use to be cheap because of surplus  since the round  was adopted by the military.

in the last 50 years , every person who has been in any form of the military has used the platform for qualification , and to qualify one must first be instructed and trained on the weapon,   so weapons familiarity would play a part in its popularity.

another factor in popularity is ease of maint. its easy to clean and take care of .

The platform is extremely customization friendly, more so than other models .

 now why do i often choose it over say the mini 14 or my single shot when im out taking care of fence?

well military training and familiarity play a big part , ammo cost is negligible since i make my own and often custom make it for that one particular firearm.

 what am i facing while out taking care of fence that i would even need a rifle handy?

 its calving season here , and the guys that hire me to ride fence and repair fence also expect me to take care of varmints and anything that endangers their cattle , here its coyotes , feral dogs which do pack up in groups larger than 6, those are the 2 biggest predators , skunks , usually nocturnal but if seen during the day usually have a desease such as rabies which can spread to the cattle , one no one expects , porcupines , they eat wood , more specifically treebark usually, but they have teeth like beavers that have to be constantly worn down , a porcupine can do a hell of a lot of damage to wooden fence posts.

 i like the fact that usually all i need is one 20 round magazine , it carrys the right amount of ammo , when the mag is inserted its safe and easy to see so its not lost or i am fumbling somewhere in my ATV saddlebags or pockets looking for a bullet.I hate loose centerfire ammo especially when its in with objects that can through the right bounce can become an adhock firing pin, not worth the miniscule risk over the terrain i travel.

lets get back to familiarity , if i use any other rifle to diagnose or fix a misfire or malfunction would often require a set of tools and alot of disassembly to check things out to see whats not doing what its suppose to. 

 with my choice , i simply push out the rear retaining pin and hinge it open and i can see the guts of the lower and quickly see if something is broken or jammed up, if thats all good i can easily pull the bolt and check its condition. something one cannot do to others .

 rule i live by is if it has tit , testicles , tires or has any moving mechanical parts , it will eventually present a problem. way to fix the problem is to be familiar with what your dealing with intimately. and a big part of firearms safety is to really know your firearm .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.7    last year

well 22 lr and 22 wmr  are rimfires , the 8 i see are all centerfire rounds 

 22 hornet

222 remington

223 remington(5.56)

222 remington magnum

22 PPC

225 winchester

22-250 ( also known as a barrel burner)

220 swift

all 8 mentioned one can pull the projectiles from and load into the others cases , the rimfires , you cant .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.3.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to    last year

preaching to the choir....

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.3.10  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.3.8    2 months ago

I enjoy the .22LR conversion kit for the AR.

Perfect for small game and inexpensive target practice. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Nerm_L @1    2 months ago
Banning assault rifles will do very little to address gun crime.

Given what they are claiming doesn't involve actual "assault rifles".  Really shows the ignorance of the left and the politicians.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2  Ed-NavDoc    last year

Well, I guess the USMC issue K-Bar combat/survival knife I have had all these years falls under the category of "assault knife". I guess I can expect that to be banned soon as well...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    last year
Well, I guess the USMC issue K-Bar combat/survival knife I have had all these years falls under the category of "assault knife". I guess I can expect that to be banned soon as well...

Banning knives won't address gun crime any more than banning assault rifles.  It's all empty hype intended to get people to make stupid arguments that allows politicians to kick-the-can and do absolutely nothing.

We're being played for suckers.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
2.1.1  zuksam  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1    last year

If banning weapons stopped violence prisons would be the safest places on earth but we know they are not.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    last year

So now i have to be concerned about all my dads butcher knives i inherited when he passed?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.3  cjcold  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    last year

The K-bar is a fine blade but I prefer a dual edged dagger for fighting.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  cjcold @2.3    last year

I was trained by a Marine Gunny who was a instructor for Force Recon. I am sure there are better knives out there, but I'm old fashioned and comfortable with my old K-Bar.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.3.2  cjcold  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.3.1    last year

I was trained by Remy Presus in Modern Arnis and Escrima.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
Professor Guide
3  Larry Hampton    last year

....something about bringing a knife to a gunfight....

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1  cjcold  replied to  Larry Hampton @3    last year

Mom was a Girl Scout leader and never went anywhere without a knife.

She preferred Swiss Army knives.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @3.1    last year

Actually lost one of her Swiss Army knives at KCI. She forgot all about it.

She told the security "dude" to give it to his kid.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4  Tacos!    last year

You’re much more likely to be killed with a blunt object (fist, rock, hammer, club) - the oldest kind of weapon technology there is - than you are by an “assault rifle.” The same is true for more advanced tech like knives or pistols.

But politicians always want to be able to say they did something about a problem, and it needs to be quick and easy so they can brag about it at re-election time.

There are more guns than people in the United States. If it was just a gun problem, we’d have a lot more dead people than we do and fists wouldn’t outkill rifles. We do have a people problem, but if we’re fair with ourselves, we have to acknowledge that it is a tiny percentage of the people.

Any measures we take to stem gun violence should be targeted at the people who are the problem, and not at good people who own guns but never hurt anyone. You would think that we would want to go after the most numerous problem first. Handguns kill about 6,000-8,000 people a year and rifles (of any type, not just assault) kill 300-400 people every year. A child could see which problem is more urgent.

But I am more interested in why people kill other people. We collect piles of data on how people are killed - the weapon; the race, age, and sex of killer and victim; location; time, etc - but there is precious little focus on motive. You can shuffle the weapons around all you want, but a person who wants to kill will still find a way to do it. Remember the blunt objects.

Wouldn’t it be better to have a society where people didn’t want to kill someone else in the first place? I think so, but those solutions are not quick, easy, and ready for a re-election sound bite.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @4    last year

But sometimes folk just have to be killed. God does it ll the time.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @4    last year
Wouldn’t it be better to have a society where people didn’t want to kill someone else in the first place? I think so, but those solutions are not quick, easy, and ready for a re-election sound bite.

Yes, that is where the problem lies.  It's not the type of weapon being used to make a threat that is the problem.  The threat itself is the problem.  And attention given to those making threats encourages more threats.

Doesn't matter if people are threatened with bare fists or the latest military hardware.  There are only 3 options for responding to any threat:  run, hide, or fight.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
5  Split Personality    last year

Boulder shooting: Police confirm suspect used AR-15-style pistol (usatoday.com)

Not a rifle, shit, there goes all those complaints, move the ten deaths over to the pistol column./s

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
5.1  arkpdx  replied to  Split Personality @5    last year

Even if it was an AR 15 it would not matter. An AR 15 is NOT an assault weapon. 

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Participates
5.1.1  exexpatnowinTX  replied to  arkpdx @5.1    last year
Even if it was an AR 15 it would not matter. An AR 15 is NOT an assault weapon.

But it is one of those really scary black rifles.   

That begs the question.  If the radical left hates those scary black rifles that much, does that make them racist?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.3  cjcold  replied to  exexpatnowinTX @5.1.1    2 months ago
scary black rifles

My girlfriend has an AR in pink. It's just as dangerous. 

(She is actually more dangerous than I am).

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Expert
6  Hal A. Lujah    last year

I’ve never owned a gun and never had a need for one.  There have been tense occasions where having one would have been an unnecessary option that could have turned an unpleasant situation into a terrible situation.  The really nice thing about not having a gun is that there is a corresponding zero percent chance of a tragic gun accident happening to people and children that I care about on my property.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
6.1  Freewill  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    last year
I’ve never owned a gun and never had a need for one.  

Same here.  That’s why I was trained in other methods and weapons, like the pencil.  (-:

If I did own one I’d make sure that I and others in my household were properly trained on the care and safety of the weapon.  Which is precisely why organizations like the NRA exist in the first place.

I have several friends in law enforcement and I’ve been to the range many times with them and other friends who own firearms, to the point where I’m getting pretty good at it.  Got to shoot at a local Sheriff's department training simulator a couple years back and the guys running it said,  “ Holy shit!  Are you sure you’re not in law enforcement!”  Maybe I chose the wrong profession....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  JohnRussell    last year

Nerm, if you were in your local grocery store or Walgreens and suddenly someone appeared who shouted "I'm going to kill you all", and looked at you, would you rather he have a gun in his hand or a knife? 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @7    last year

LOL easy answer , i want them to have a knife.

 remember you set the parameters John.

 being it is local i would be following my states gun laws IF i happen to be armed , and IF the store is not designated a gun free zone ( none here are anymore).

 My new carry gun is my new "snake charmer " , a 2 shot derringer that shoots either 45 LC or .410 shotshell.

 now the they have provided me with pretty much all the things i personally  need to use deadly force in self defense  by my own self imposed rules ( mine are stricter than the actual law allows). 

 they have stated their  intent by saying im going to kill you all, and by looking directly at me personally( being targeted)

 (remember you set the parameters) , and having a visible knife , demonstrates capability 

 the last one i need to make sure is filled is opertunity , them simply standing there looking does not fill that , but the moment they take one step forward towards me they have.

 now here is a progression on how things would go from that point.

 "snake charmer" would be drawn and cocked as it was raised .

 IF that did not stop the forward movement in my direction, the next thing that would happen is i would fire the first round.

Now keep in mind this is a 2 shot derringer , both barrels cannot be fired at the same time , but by cycling the hammer i can choose which barrel will go off first and which barrel will go off second . Currently its set up so the top barrel goes of first and that barrel is loaded with a .410 shotshell with game shot #4 to be exact that shot would be aimed at the head/ face of the individual, being that it only has a 3 inch barrel the spread of the shot ,at 15-20 ft would likely be about a 3 ft spread, so numbnuts is running or advancing face first into a wall of lead that will likely be blinding or at the very least cause enough physical pain to make them realize they made a very "poor" choice as they realize pieces of flesh are no longer in place.

 Now if they continue to advance closer, hammer is cocked again , that brings the second barrel into battery , that ones loaded with a .45 LC  with a 255 grain lead round nosed bullet( not copper jacketed) whose point of entry would be just about the brow line on the forehead, making a neat 1/2 inch circular hole going in and a 2 " hole  where ever it comes out .

 IF at any time the attack is aborted by the assailant , they are held for LEO to deal with. it they dont abort , what happens is on them.

 elapsed time, i would say its about 8 seconds start to finish .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1    last year

And here is some additional info for you John.

 even a lowly underpowered 2.5 inch  .410 shotshell  has a muzzle velocity equal to a full blown .44 magnum round  within 20 ft, factor in the flash, muzzle concussion  things will be getting real interesting on the business end when it goes off.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.1.2  charger 383  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @7.1.1    last year

I have been thinking about getting one of those .410/45 derringers   

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
7.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  charger 383 @7.1.2    last year

just make sure its a well made one , and that it fits your hand  and it has some weight to help with recoil.

Mine is made by bond arms out of grandbury texas

right now im stuck using factory ammo and it has a kick , once my reloading dies come in for 45 LC  i can down load the 45 part , the 410 its not worth reloading to down size so it still has a bit of a kick even using light target/skeet loads .

 Oh and its VERY VERY loud...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @7    last year
Nerm, if you were in your local grocery store or Walgreens and suddenly someone appeared who shouted "I'm going to kill you all", and looked at you, would you rather he have a gun in his hand or a knife? 

Doesn't really matter because I'd still have the same 3 options in both cases:  run, hide, or fight.  The problem isn't the weapon being used to threaten people.  The problem is the threat itself.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @7.2    last year
Doesn't really matter because I'd still have the same 3 options in both cases:  run, hide, or fight.  The problem isn't the weapon being used to threaten people.  The problem is the threat itself.

It's a lot easier to run from a knife than run from a gun. And its easier to fight someone with a knife unless the guy with the gun lets you get close enough to grab his hand. Since he intends to kill you not argue with you, I doubt he would let someone get within arms length. I guess hiding would be the same against a gun or knife, you hide before the killer sees you. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
7.2.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.1    last year
It's a lot easier to run from a knife than run from a gun. And its easier to fight someone with a knife unless the guy with the gun lets you get close enough to grab his hand. Since he intends to kill you not argue with you, I doubt he would let someone get within arms length. I guess hiding would be the same against a gun or knife, you hide before the killer sees you. 

Is it?  Machetes don't need to be reloaded.  These are just a few examples from 2020 and 2021.

In these instances the people being attacked had 3 options:  run, hide, or fight.  The commonality is the motivation of the person wielding the weapon; it doesn't matter what weapon is being used.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8  Buzz of the Orient    last year

I wonder if the "Happiness is a Warm Gun" advocates are ever concerned that the rate of gun deaths in America is EIGHT times the rate of gun deaths in Canada (i.e. per 100,000 population), which puts America in the same range as the most primitive uncivilized third world countries.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    last year

last i heard or looked buzz , gun deaths from ALL causes per capita is between 5 and 6 nation wide according to the FBI uniform crime statistics  and that was about 6 months ago .

 of course not all jurisdictions  report their statistics to the FBI UCS  which skews their accounting.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1    last year

and here is some more info i have read in those crime reports regarding gun deaths 

usually about 70% give or take is suicides  people ending their own lives , that is a mental health issue that needs to be addressed.

about 20 % give or take is related to criminal activity usually attributed to gang activity and innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross fire , criminals dont follow laws or care who they hurt .

 about 4% are  non LEO persons using deadly force legally in self defense

another 4 % give or take is deaths at the hands of LEOs that are deemed justified 

 1 % are deaths at the hands of LEOs that are not justified 

the last 1% are pure accidental

 these do fluctuate from year to year and even from season to season , but that is generally how it breaks down.

 its all available in the uniform crime reports if one has the patience to sift through the different catagories and if they want to take the time to look for it.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Expert
8.1.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.1    last year

Gee sounds like more attention (Money and trained professionals) addressing mental health could lead to less deaths and therefore less insistence to "Take away the Guns" 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.1    last year

And here is another question for you Buzz?

 what do you think is the most common firearm used in gun deaths?

 about 85 -90 % are all handguns 

 next would come shotguns

 last on the list is rifles of any kind .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @8.1.2    last year

No arguments from me but im just a dumb hick who lives in the sticks.

 might want to think about this as well

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Expert
8.1.5  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.4    last year
think about this as well

I had. Thanks, facts matter !

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.3    last year

So what?  Guns are guns are guns.  Assault and automatic weapons just make it easier to kill more people faster.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Participates
8.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.6    last year

No one legally has either assault nor automatic weapons in the US except by also possessing a special nearly impossible to get permit from the government. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.7    last year

You'll have to forgive my ignorance about automatic or semi automatic or extended cartridge or whatever since I have never owned or ever wanted to own a gun in my life except for the water pistol and cap gun I had when I was a kid.  I am not obsessed by or dream about or even THINK about guns.  The only time I ever used a gun, it was a rifle for target shooting in high school or at a carnival to win a prize, and the only time I even saw a pistol up close was when the neighbour of our Florida condo brought it in to "PROUDLY" show me.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Expert
8.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    last year

IMO: Buzz many of the "My Rights" people seem to kind of in their mind believe their/our individual rights outweigh the safety of the masses. 

Many times in national issues and emergencies like the pandemic and gun control issues it shows. 

Correct or not ? Again, IMO: I think what's being asked and when and why can make a little difference for a short time. Some don't.

My philosophy on my rights is; I have the right to do what I want as long as it's legal and does not harm or interfere with others rights.

I expect the same in return. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
8.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    last year
I wonder if the "Happiness is a Warm Gun" advocates are ever concerned that the rate of gun deaths in America is EIGHT times the rate of gun deaths in Canada (i.e. per 100,000 population), which puts America in the same range as the most primitive uncivilized third world countries.  

How does Canada handle violence?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @8.3    last year

A hell of a lot better than the USA does.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
8.3.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.3.1    last year

However, there was just a stabbing incident in Vancouver.  Some crazy guy killed a woman and injured 5 others with a knife - a very unusual occurance.  There might well have been six dead if he had had a gun instead of a knife.  He was arrested, of course. No details yet. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
9  Gordy327    last year

While knife deaths occur more frequently than rifle related deaths specifically, firearms in general cause far more deaths than knives.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    last year

There was a suspected road rage incident on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago today. Someone shot from their car at another car he had a road rage altercation with and an innocent 2 year old was hit in the head by the bullet.  The toddler has brain damage and is described as in "grave condition" by the hospital. 

Nice job gun lovers.   Of course if the raging party had sent a knife in the direction of the other car rather than a bullet the 2 yr old boy wouldn't be near death in the hospital tonight. 

 
 
 
exexpatnowinTX
Freshman Participates
10.1  exexpatnowinTX  replied to  JohnRussell @10    last year
There was a suspected road rage incident on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago today. Someone shot from their car at another car he had a road rage altercation with and an innocent 2 year old was hit in the head by the bullet.  The toddler has brain damage and is described as in "grave condition" by the hospital.  Nice job gun lovers.   Of course if the raging party had sent a knife in the direction of the other car rather than a bullet the 2 yr old boy wouldn't be near death in the hospital tonight. 

So, you will have no problem with the "gun lovers" in America laying blame for the violence and destruction last summer on the BLM movement and Democrats?  Thank you for the broad brush you allowed us to utilize.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @10    last year
Nice job gun lovers. 

That is certainly a very strange comment.

What did gun lovers have to do with the idiot shooting someone in a fit of rage?

You must have a whole lot of gun lovers up there based on recent sales.

Add that to the usual mayhem in Chicago and you may see a significant rise in homicides in the next year or so.

When will your local and state officials restrict guns as you wish?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
10.2.1  Gazoo  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2    last year

It was probably gang related, as most shootings in chicago are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gazoo @10.2.1    last year

If there was only a way to keep the gangbangers from breaking those gun laws!

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
10.2.3  Gazoo  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.2    last year

If only they would make guns illegal in chicago everybody could sing songs as they walked past the lollipop trees by the marmalade river.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Gazoo @10.2.3    last year

Progressives should pass some stricter gun laws in Chicago.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.4    last year

Why dont you [DELETE]  address the point of my comment instead of trying to rag on Chicago ? 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
10.2.6  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2.5    last year

[delete

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10.2.8  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.4    last year

well tex i think the residents of illinois spoke pretty loud last year when they were responsable for what some are saying is 20% being the most common number , of all firearms sold in the nation according to the NICS, this of course is not counting the illinois gun black market , or residents visiting out of state relatives and coming back with  a firearm that the relative happens to no longer needs and just gives it to them . even with all the anti gun laws and regulations illinois has.

yep i think they are talking loud enough for even a deaf person to hear.

And i think its going to be a looooong hot summer too.

 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
10.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @10    last year
There was a suspected road rage incident on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago today. Someone shot from their car at another car he had a road rage altercation with and an innocent 2 year old was hit in the head by the bullet.  The toddler has brain damage and is described as in "grave condition" by the hospital. 

Did the shooter use an assault rifle?  Would an assault rifle ban had changed anything?

The point of seeding this article was to show that gun control politics is being driven by media attention and not by evidence.  The gun control measures being proposed will score political points but will do very little to address the type of gun crime in your example.

 
 

Who is online

Ender


15 visitors