Skip to main content

View Diary: Texas dad freaks out and shows why it is past time we ban assault-style weapons & ammo (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  your 2% number is not accurate in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S F Hippie, SilentBrook, nominalize

    reflecting the number of deaths by mass murder.

    1) The assault-style rifle is used 100% of the time in mass murders.

    2) I have not seen any FBI data that shows only 2% of all homicides in America were from "assault-style weapons."

    The FBI tables I have seen they do not differentiate between non-assault-style guns and assault-style guns.

    For instance, the FBI Tables do not let the reader know if the "rifle" is an "assault-style" rifled or not.

    Also, the FBI Tables do not let the reader know if the "handgun" is an "assault-style" handgun or not.

    Therefore, I would like to know where you get the idea that 2% of those murdered by guns were murdered by "assault-style" handguns or "assault-style" rifles.

    3) By your logic, we should stop trying to find a cure for Breast Cancer because more people die from lung cancer  than any other type of cancer --- we  should stop trying to find cures for all other types of cancer until we cure lung cancer.  

    I think you are trying to deflect from the realty that in order to reduce the number of deaths by mass murder we need to ban the weapons that cause mass murder.  A hammer is not used in mass murder, but 100% of the time, Assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition are used in mass murder.

    •  murderous people cause mass murder (0+ / 0-)

      whether they use guns, bombs, or arson.

      on point number one, you are flat-out wrong.  it is not the case that 100% of mass murders (a term not limited to shootings) involve an "assault-style rifle."

      Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

      ...In the 2000s, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

      point number two:

      the stats you cited, interestingly enough, show both murder rates and firearm involvement in them decreasing.

      ...1,202 mass murders between 1900 and 2009. Of those, 12%, or 142 incidents, were massacres in public such as the Denver shooting early Friday morning and at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Columbine in 1999.

      But those kind of mass public shootings accounted for less than one-tenth of 1% of all murders in general, he said.

      so let's take that ratio -- 1/10th of 1% -- and look at the FBI data for 2006 as a hypothetical, since it has the highest numbers.

      Total murders:  15,087
      mass shooting percentage of total murders:  0.001%

      mass shooting number of murders:  15
      total firearm murders:  10,225

      15 murders out of 10,225 isn't even 1 full percent.  i say "2% tops" to be overly generous in estimating the impact of mass shootings/"assault weapon" events.

      as for point number three, nothing could be more apples and oranges.  the point about these types of guns and incidents being a very small portion of our (gun) violence is that if we are going to go to the mat, it should be for something more broadly effective than an AWB, especially one like DiFi's which is already so riddled with grandfathered exceptions and other silliness as to be toothless.

      there are other, much more effective means of addressing violence involving all types of guns.

      i am not your enemy; i just disagree about the value of an AWB and question the importance of making it a priority.


      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:42:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your data is scewed (0+ / 0-)

        because the data collected by the FBI does not say whether the weapon used was an assault-style weapon nor does the data table from the FBI let the reader know how many of those murdered were murdered by high-capacity assault ammo.

        I am not your enemy either but your post implies that you think mass murders are ok, because not enough people are murdered that way, so why should we bother trying to reduce the number of deaths caused by Assault Weapons used in mass murder.

        We are not allowed to own bombs -- but because not enough civilians in America have been killed in bombings should bombs be ok to own?

        More people die from Lung cancer than from Breast cancer so should stop trying to find a cure for Breast Cancer because more people die from lung cancer  than any other type of cancer

        Should we stop trying to find cures for all other types of cancer until we cure lung cancer?

        The goal is to reduce the number of deaths by mass murder.  Your 2% number is disingenuous because the FBI does not indicate if the firearms used are Assault-Style or not.

        Also, that 2% number, while it may only be a number on a piece of paper to some, in reality, that 2% number is someone's child that they buried.

        So yeah, we disagree.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site