Recently the comparison to hammers has been made. Hammers could be used as a means of committing blunt trauma. Occasionally screwdrivers have been used to kill people. I researched that once; there were something like 3 to 5 in this century, worldwide.
Here is the Fake News Nation report - Fox Noose just loves to make stuff up that isn't true, and conservatives just wolf it down without critical thinking or any kind of fact checking or normal skepticism. As you look at this, think about how many people have been killed in the last 30 days that you know of just by AR-15s. Then ask yourself how many instances of someone being killed by a hammer you've read or seen or heard. While there certainly are more people killed and injured with handguns, there are still enough killings and suicides and accidents with long barrel weapons too.
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles
By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com
According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.
This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.
However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.
Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.
For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.
Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.
So here is a handy dandy little factoid that blows away the straw argument that firearms are 'just' inanimate objects. They are inanimate objects, yes, but they are a category of inanimate objects designed to kill with ease and efficiency, making them a false equivalency to other forms or kinds of inanimate objects. When firearms deaths decline to only triple digits for the entire population of the United States, we can have a fair and reasonable discussion of them as just another kind of inanimate object. Until that happens, it is a false and specious argument, not a valid or serious one.
According to the CDC, in 2010 there were only 912 total deaths from blunt force trauma (all causes). In the same year, 31,672 Americans were killed with firearms.All causes would include hammers and fists, baseball bats, chairs, frying pans, sticks and stones, bricks, the ever popular fireplace poker, bookends, and the occasional shoe, iron, thimble, toy car, or a coffee mug (a charge of murder for using which there was a recent acquittal) ; clearly guns, including rifles, are very much more dangerous. This doesn't begin to address the injuries to others in addition to deaths.
Since the Sandy Hook massacre, we have had 18 people a day die from firearms, with an untold additional number of people seriously injured. It would also include deaths from falling television, and 'ping pongs', as claimed by a nutjob right wing Texas state legislator, who claimed there were more deaths from EITHER falling flat screen televisions and/OR 'ping pongs' each year. I have yet to be able to find a single death from playing either ping pong, or the vintage video game pong. While there might be a few DIY injured fingers from missing a nail and striking one's thumb, that is realistically NOTHING like deaths or injuries that cripple, maim, or severely wound.
Equally clearly, right wing media sources ranging from the blogosphere to fake news to frantic right wing extremist fanatics like Alex Smith are dishonest and foolish, and only appeal to people like themselves.
Breitbart News is living up to their late great namesake. He was an unscrupulous charlatan and they're continuing the good work.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what your point is. Their point is that so called "assault weapon" like the AR-15 kill fewer people per year than hammers. Rifles take up a very, very small portion of US homicides, smaller than hammers or fists. Keep in mind these are just rifles overall; not even rifles that would qualify as "assault weapons".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
There's the FBI data if you want to read it. Though there is a category for "unknown firearm", it's important to note that a very minor portion of these are likely rifles. FBI data relies on reports from local law enforcement; unknown firearm would imply a local provider did not give the type or recover a bullet fragment for analysis rather than that the wound is indistinguishable. Rifles produce very different wound patterns than handguns, such as temporary cavitation; thus it's unlikely that the two are being confused in a large number of cases.
You can say that handguns are a huge problem; certainly so if we look at the statistics. But "assault weapons" comprise a very minor part of any problem this country has with gun violence.
Welcome to penigma, Jack.
ReplyDeleteI have seen stats from the FBI which appreciably differ from your representation.
More than that, how many hammers are used each year in mass killings in the U.S.? None.
How many times are AR-15 or other military assault style weapons and/or expanded capacity magazines used, or were purchased for use, in mass killings? Most of them.
How many first responders and members of law enforcement are attacked with these weapons? Many, more than the civilian population.
There is also a larger percentage of the drug-cartel/drug trafficking exchanges with law enforcement that involve assault style weapons, compared to other kinds of weapons.
So your point doesn't hold up; there are sufficient problems with attacks by these kinds of weapons - and we need to be including those individuals who are injured not just those who are killed in the numbers. Given that far fewer people are dying from gun shots these days, those numbers are significant.
Baseball bats and hammers are not designed as weapons. AR-15s and other assault style weapons are designed to be only that kind of weapon, nothing else. Your argument is specious. They are part of a weapons arms race that should be ended and de-escalated. As former General McChrystal notes, there is no legitimate reason for them to be in civilian hands, and they are far from a 'minor' problem.
I'm not sure how the FBI statistics differ from my presentation. Certainly, the numbers are there. Hammers and other blunt objects numerically outnumber rifle deaths, there's not much of a way around it.
DeleteYet the question we're posing is how does this country address gun violence. Your blog has been keeping a running tally of gun deaths since Newtown, correct? Most of those are not "mass killings", such events are relatively rarely. Even the Brady Campaign's running list of mass shootings, which doesn't meet FBI definition of "mass murder" since it examines every incident in which three of more people were shot (some incidents have zero fatalities) rather than four or more killed, only has approximately 50 cases of rifles being used in mass shootings or were in the arsenal of "mass shooters" since February 25, 2005. The list ends at the date of December 14, 2012, seven years and ten months later; giving us approximately seven cases a year in which rifles were used in "mass shootings". Given that the list is somewhere around 140-150 such incidents (Brady Campaign estimates 20 mass shootings per year), assault weapons don't even seem to be getting used in the majority of cases, only maybe a third.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two
During that time period, countless thousands more were killed by hammers or baseball bats, or handguns for that matter. The former two may not have been intended as weapons in the modern era, but they can be used as such very easily. Besides, there was a time in human history where those were explicitly weapons (wooden club and hammer) and were carried by the soldiers of the era. Though military arms have shifted, the lethality of those objects hasn't changed. And certainly addressing the overall problem of gun violence in this country would be better served attacking handguns, since they're getting used in a majority of such cases. As for the problem of law-enforcement being attacked by rifles, it varies by year. There hasn't been a consistent trend on whether or not officers get disproportionately targeted. Officers were more likely to be killed with rifles (if killed at all) in 2002, 2003, 2004 when the AWB was in place than they were in 2011 (last year data is available), though this trend surged in 2009 and 2010.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2011/tables/table-27
As for McChrystal, I take his account with a grain of salt. Though the stars have been used as evidence that he's an expert, there's plenty of people who have combat experience who would disagree with him, and plenty of people who've experience violence who would. It's important to note that as he has no combat experience (he has an EIB instead of a CIB or CAB, the latter two are given for experiencing combat), so his argument (based on wound ballistics and cartridge power) is about as academic as most people's. I'm guessing most people reading this have never actually shot anyone with an M4, neither have I; so we're all speculating based on second hand accounts, as is he. I'm also sure there's a litany of people out there who use .223 chambered weapons for practical purposes like pest control or hunting so their opinion is about as valid as McChrystal's on whether or not .223/5.56mm belongs in our society.
All blunt objects do not represent specifically hammers (much less hammers used by handyman as has been asserted) as greater than rifle deaths. My point is however that you need to look at injuries, not just deaths, which adds significantly to the numbers.
DeleteYes, I'm aware that mass shootings are relatively rare in comparison to more individual / small numbers of shootings; school shootings in particular are relatively rare in comparison to other shootings. Would you then agree that the premise of putting armed guards in schools is therefore stupid given that rarity?
Where the numbers get interesting is around the 3 to 4 person shootings, that are so common to murder / suicides. If you start to include those, especially with adding in - as we should - injuries from them, the numbers of mass shootings goes up.
Both of my co-bloggers are experienced military; one with 12 years in our army, the other a retired officer and combat vet; both of them have experience with these weapons, and both appear to support the general.
Also Jack I would refer you to the most recent post of mine about the hoax Brady campaign photos. Perhaps you are too willing to believe the worst about those who promote gun control?
AR 15 only dangerous in the hand of crazies..mine hasn't hurt anyone in over 25 years..BTW neither has my hammer..
DeleteKelly, welcome and thank you for your comment.
DeleteAR 15s are designed to spray fire, to function as a weapon which is similar to military weapons in design, not designed to be similar to other sporting weapons. I have no doubt that you have never harmed anyone; the problem is that they are designed for serious harm to people, that they provide the potential to do so, as do large capacity magazines in conjunction with them.
As the New York Times noted in October 2011 regarding the DC assault and large capacity weapons ban - please pay special attention to the second to the last sentence, which I highlighted in bold italics:
"The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”
The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.
It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.
I've dinged my thumb more than a few times with my hammer, btw.
dog gone, the AR-15 (or any other firearm) doesn't "spray fire". The projectiles go straight and fairly precisely where they are aimed. It appears as though you are using the metaphor "spray fire" to describe an automatic weapon which, of course, the AR-15 is not. Additionally, the AR-15 isn't "designed" to do serious damage to people. Rather, it is a gun and, as such, it will do serious damage to anything the projectiles hit. What the projectiles hit depends on who is aiming the gun. The mere presence of an AR-15 or M-16 doesn't "invite mayhem" and doesn't "put all around at high risk". A MENTALLY UNBALANCED person or criminal with an AR-15 or M-16(or any other gun, for that matter)"invites mayhem and puts all around at high risk". Don't get me wrong, I understand your purpose is to demonize and denigrate gun owners, but at least lay off the dramatics a bit. (I am not attempting to limit your first amendment right, but I am merely raising the point in the interest of keeping this discussion civil and rational.)
ReplyDeleteSo, anyway, where we really should be focusing our attention is on fixing our broken mental health system, securing our schools, and prosecuting violent criminals. No matter how many laws we pass banning guns of all types, recalling guns, buying back guns, burning guns, or whatever else you want to do to get rid of guns, criminals and the clinically mentally ill will still have guns and law-abiding citizens will not. So, as a nation, are we going to get serious about protecting our children from the criminally insane or are we going to criminalize the actions of otherwise law-abiding citizens and pat ourselves on the back for doing great works which will accomplish nothing toward protecting our loved ones? That's the question we're really addressing, isn't it?
BTW, sorry about your thumb. You need to get license for that hammer and then you'll be safe.
The problem with this is that you will argue with me no matter what number I provide for what the rate of fire would be: especially if the number is high.
DeleteYou would like the number to be a low one since you wish to portray weapons with a proven appeal to mass murderers to be benign and as being somehow innocuous.
But there is a reason that most mass shootings are committed with a semi-automatic weapon rather than bolt, pump, or lever action: and that is the rapidity for which semi-automatic weapons can fire. Most of these incidents are over in a matter of minutes.
This is because Semi-automatic weapons can have a high sustained or effective rate of fire. The rapid rate of fire is solely based upon how fast someone can pull the trigger between rounds, and I have heard people fire semi-automatic weapons quickly enough that they sounded as if they were firing a fully automatic weapon.
And if someone is at a high rate of fire--no one is going to stop and say: "Excuse me--what is your rate of fire?"
Additionally, the fact that a semi-automatic does not have the same extent of muzzle climb as a fully automatic weapon means that the fire is far more controlled and aimed.
If anything, I find your taking umbrage with the term "spray fire" as attempting to diminish the fact that these weapons can and do fire at a rapid rate: a much higher rate than bolt, pump, or lever action.
Are you saying that the videos of "bump-fire" are somehow faked?
Then, top top off your silly comment you quote yet another mantra of the "pro-gun" side which is: "we really should be focusing our attention is on fixing our broken mental health system, securing our schools, and prosecuting violent criminals."
The problem is that those actions take money--are you willing to pay the taxes to accomplish those tasks?
But, you make the most laughable comment in prosecuting violent criminals.
If only you realised how weak the firearms laws are that you support. How they are designed to make prosecution difficult, if not impossible. After all, it must be shown that someone "knew" what they were doing was illegal (18 USC 921 et seq).
To top that off, then you use the term "otherwise law abiding citizens" not realising that is only a euphemism for criminals.
After all, They wouldn't be criminals if it weren't for all those pesky laws. And as you lot like to point out, criminals don't really obey laws--but that is why the criminal justice system has the punishment that you say you want to see meted out to them.
Fortunately, Glide Rider, we do not need to demonise gun owners or in any way try to make them look stupid.
You already do a wonderful job of that on your own with each clichéd "rebuttal" of our position. In this case, you want to both enable criminals and punish them.
Please come back when you have made up your mind what it is you are trying to do here.
Glide Rider, perhaps you are making the assumption that I and my co-bloggers are in favor of gun control, and that we are not firearms proficient ourselves - or that we haven't also fire semi-automatic and full auto firearms. You provide no support for your assertions, which frankly sound like a third hand repetition from some of the least knowledgeable gun huggers. Please research your assertions more carefully.
DeleteWe are prosecuting too many people, not too few, which is why we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world - NOT something of which we should be proud. We also have THE highest rate of firearms deaths and injuries among comparable developed countries -- another thing of which we cannot be proud. CLEARLY relying on individuals to be responsible with firearms is a failure. Clearly putting more armed people in schools do NOT make our schools safer (although it does tend to put more kids into the criminal justice system).
And since most people who shoot other people, either fatally, wounding them, or shooting at but missing them are NOT mentally ill, from criminal justice analysis of such shootings, blaming the shootings we do have on mental health problems is inaccurate.
We have a GUN problem. Countries which more rigorously restrict firearms do NOT have the equivalent problems with firearms, not injuries, not fatalities, not suicides, not murder/ suicides, no accidents, not threats with firearms, not children harmed by guns, and NOT GUN CRIME. Limiting guns WORKS. It works in the states that do so, it works in the nations that do so.
And YES, semi auto firearms, both long and hand guns do bump fire / spray fire. It is established fact, not fiction. That is why the findings I quoted to you from the DC decision are considered findings of FACT. It is also fact that is backed up by military experts - perhaps you should acquaint yourself with their testimony as experts as well, including to Congress.
Sorry, but I find it impossible to accept your assertions given our personal experience, and the testimony of people who are clearly better qualified as experts, such as the top brass of our armed forces.
We need gun control, we need greater safety FROM those who have guns, not more guns. While lots of gun owners brag about how safe they are - statistics do not bear that out. And certainly the loud and stupid at the NRA convention this past weekend, especially the idiot Nugent and the new NRA president only reinforce that to be a fact.
Welcome to penigma, Glide Rider, and thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteThe AR 15 does spray fire, sometimes referred to as bump firing; it is a technical term used equally by both the pro-gun and gun control sides of the issue. It IS factual that semi-automatic rifles are capable of doing this, and it refers to an extremely rapid rate of fire. When fired from the hip, or otherwise rapid fired, it is not fired with the intention of accuracy, but rather of 'spraying' an area with bullets, as suppression fire rather than precision or sniper fire.
As to your contention the AR 15 is not 'designed' to kill people, courts have found otherwise, and it is marketed similarly to the court findings when sold for protection rather than sport (ie hunting etc.)
So, unless you can demonstrate to me that you have credentials superior to those recognized by our judicial system in testimony about how this weapon and others that are similar are designed, you are factually incorrect - and rather uninformed.
I would refer you to the decision in 2011, re the DC assault weapons and large capacity magazine ban which found (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/no-right-to-bear-assault-weapons.html?_r=0):
The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”
The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.
It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person.
I look forward to your explaining how your credentials prove you to be a better expert than those that testified in the above case - and many other cases.
My thumb is fine; I now use a lovely little plastic gadget that keeps my fingers safe. I defer further technical expertise to my co-bloggers, both military men of some considerable experience.