Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Post by saraid216 » Wed, May 08, 2013, 4:31 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #136

tome wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of deaths per baseball bat are far higher than the number of deaths per "assault weapon", making baseball bats deadlier by far. Wait, are you really claiming that a baseball bat is deadlier than an assault weapon?

Yes, per baseball bat. If you are looking at banning something because it causes deaths. You want to look at how many deaths are caused per item. Reducing the number of items by X will result in Y fewer deaths. Baseball bats kill more people per baseball bat than do "assault weapons". What other reason could you have for banning something other than reducing harm. Looking strictly at the numbers banning baseball bats…

  - The number of baseball bats available,
  - The number of baseball bat homicides,
  - The number of assault rifles available,
  - The number of assault rifle homicides

Post by mseebach » Wed, May 08, 2013, 4:32 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #54

corresation wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

750 were killed by hammers or clubs which includes any blunt force attack (vase, bat, golf club, etc. I am assuming that you're accurately quoting a number, though last I saw that number was more in the 450 range). Secondly every home has numerous objects that qualify as "clubs", many of them serving valid, functional roles (for instance to hammer, or to hit balls, etc). In many households a firearm has one single pu…

>The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control". Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime. It was only after that was defeated that people started talking about universal background checks. >Those guns that…

Post by ebbv » Wed, May 08, 2013, 4:36 PM UTC

Pewpewarrows wrote: post #179

ebbv wrote: post #45

Of course it is. All violent crime is down. That has nothing to do with the fact that kids are still accidentally getting shot. I propose a new law; if a child (under 18) is found in possession of a gun the gun owner is fined $50,000. If the gun's ownership cannot be established, the parents or legal guardians are fined $50,000 instead. People might be a little more serious about locking up their guns and not letting…

This is an awfully wrong approach. As with things like Alcohol, if you teach your children how to operate and act responsibly, they get into less trouble with it as an adult. If you stilt their growth and don't allow them to touch a gun until they're 18, they won't have developed enough to handle it themselves without supervision.

Post by thomasjames » Wed, May 08, 2013, 4:41 PM UTC

dmix wrote: post #2

Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0 Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote. Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support. That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.

Post by mh- » Wed, May 08, 2013, 4:44 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #174

learc83 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control". Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime. It was only after that was defeated that people started talking about universal background checks. >Those guns that…

> Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime. That's because they knew that the nuts in NRA and other pro-gun lobbies would never in a 1000 years accept a total "gun control" law. So they scaled down their proposal. Plus you also have this BS…