Countering "Guns make it easier to kill"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

ZeSpectre

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
5,502
Location
Deep in the valley
Mods: I intended this posting as information useful for activist activities (during debates and so forth). If this isn't the appropriate place for this please feel free to move it.
-----------------------------------------------------
"FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles"
"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."
Click to expand...

Full article at:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
 
More discussion and information in General at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690639&highlight=Uniform+Crime+Report.

It is good to present tables 8 and 20 from the FBI UCR and provide the interpretation to folks.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Below is the overall violent crime trend graph provided in the 2012 UCR showing that we've been reducing violent crime in the U.S. for the past 5 years. Looking at the Homicide data reflects the overall drop in the past 5 years and looking at the details in table 8 shows the reduction over the past 5 years in homicides where firearms were used and where rifles (and hands/feet, blades, shotguns, handguns, etc.).
violent-crime-offense-figure.gif
 

Attachments

  • FBI expanded-homicide-data-table-8.pdf
    48.8 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Guns make it easier to stop an attacker. Plain and simple. Which would you rather see?

21 year old, 105 pound unarmed college girl vs. unarmed 200 pound attacker? (happenchance)
The same girl vs. a 200 pound attacker with a tire iron? (he chose to follow the law before attacking someone and carried a legal weapon even under a total gun ban)
The same girl vs. a 200 pound attacker armed with a gun (because he's willing to commit assault and/or murder, he ignored the gun ban)
The same girl with a gun vs. the attacker with a gun?

Assuming the attacker is faster than the student, she would very likely lack the ability to fight back or escape unless she were armed. With a gun ban, the attacker *MAY* not be armed with a gun. And he can easily beat, choke, stab, or bludgeon her without access to a gun. This is assuming he follows gun laws. If she has a gun, however, she can use it as a deterrent and convince the attacker to back down. If he doesn't, she has a tool to fight back with that can actually make him stop, no matter what weapon he had.

Of course, our society thinks that a girl found dead in an alley is morally superior to one who is explaining to the cops how those holes got into the BG, so maybe antis are hoping this will lessen the amount of morally superior women that are attacked.
 
Scribs,

The emphasis is using objective numbers provided by reliable sources instead of logical arguments.

To take your approach into the real of statistics from authoritative sources we can present references to studies indicating 800,000 to 2.5 million uses of firearms each year to stop a violent crime to support the argument that firearm owners reduce their risk of violent crime compared to the diminishing risk over the past 5 years of having a firearm used to commit a murder. Further information in the form of the growing number of shall issue carry states vs. may issue, the growing number of CCW permits, the growing number of firearms sales or AR sales all bounced against the fall in violent crime and homicide and firearm homicides over the same 5 year period.

Our Resources page provides several links to that sort of information, but the linked GunCite website compiles facts. http://www.gunfacts.info/
 
Last edited:
I prefer logical arguments. I can remember those. If I start quoting stats that I can't remember who came up with, then I'm an unsourced idiot.
 
What?!!?

Just download pull it all into an email and then send it to your phone. Anyone foolish enough to argue with your logic and then get deluged with data. Watch the seize while reading it (or snore).
 
Here is another treasure trove of facts.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...e-research/hosb0212/hosb0212-tabs?view=Binary

This is from the Home Office of the UK and shows how the much vaunted UK approach to firearms isn't all it is touted to be when compared to other European countries. Countries like France that have far less restrictive firearms laws and allow AR ownership have a similar overall homicide and violent crime rate as the UK. Countries with less restrictive firearms laws such as Germany and Sweden have LOWER violent crime and homicide rates than the U.K. This data shows that the U.K. has neither the moral or technical high ground on firearms ownership restriction since countries with comparable rates or lower are far more liberal on firearms ownership. IOW, it ain't about the guns when countries that allow them have lower rates than those that don't.
 
guns making easier to kill is like saying toilet paper makes it easier to relief yourself

when you have to go you go toilet paper or not

same for killers if they want to kill they will
 
I yet to get into a debate with an anti gun person who would even look at facts compiled by the FBI. They say prove it, once I do prove it they are like lalalalala I can't hear you.
 
I yet to get into a debate with an anti gun person who would even look at facts compiled by the FBI.
Click to expand...

I have and I was able to bring him 90% to our side of things to where he abandoned AWB, and registration. He's still hung up on 10rd magazine capacity, but our discussion was cut short.

OTOH, I did encounter someone who listened to the facts, but reverted in a couple of days and resorted to "we just don't want guns on our subways".

We HAVE TO TRY or we concede the field to the other side's propaganda.
 
Well since there are roughly the same amount of cars and guns in the country and you there are three times the number of deaths in cars its the cars that make it "easier to kill".
You would think with roughly 300 million firearms in the country we would all be dead by now.
 
The car argument has already been discredited over and over. You'd have to use the data on intentional use of a car in homicide to make the comparison and we'd be hurt by that data.

Table 8 of the UCR shows that hands and feet, the most basic "tool" for violence and murder, are 3 times as likely to be used in murders as rifles. That statistic right there should debunk the guns make it easier to kill since beating someone to death is far more common a risk. A more telling statistic is that rifles are used only a twentieth as often as handguns. We have to be careful about pushing handgun owners onto the tracks comparing the use of handguns in violent crime to rifles.

Also note that the use of rifles in murders has fallen along with the dropping violent crime rate.

Ignorance leads to prejudice which leads to fear and hatred. It is also known as bigotry and we should take every opportunity to point out that people who refuse to educate themselves on the facts and still insist on putting restrictions on gun owners are as much a bigot that supported "Jim Crow" laws.
 
The car argument has already been discredited over and over. You'd have to use the data on intentional use of a car in homicide to make the comparison and we'd be hurt by that data
Click to expand...

I only somewhat agree with this. I use the arguments of DUIs, which still are responsible for more deaths than guns. People using cars irresposibly compared with people using guns irresponsibly. We don't ban cars because of these people, nor should we ban guns because of these people.

This is a valid argument.

I agree that the "cars kill more people than guns" argument by itself is not valid.
 
Cars make it easier to transport illegal drugs/alcohol/race etc. NASCAR was built around the moonshine runners during prohibition in outrunning police officers.

Knives make it easier to cook but you can also stab someone to death.

Matches make it easier to start arsons but they also light gas fires on stoves that don't have a working pilot light or recreational campers.

Firearms make it easier to kill people yes. That is undeniable. Estimates show firearms are used at least 500,000 times a year to prevent crime or save life. In addition, millions of Americans will never shoot their firearm in anger or defense and do recreational shooting.
 
The DUI argument works for cars or alcohol if you can get good numbers on par with the UCR. I would be careful to check total, homicide, and murder numbers for firearms related deaths to avoid getting trapped by a higher irrelevant number in the argument. We need to compare abuse/neglegent use in DUI against the same for firearm.

The danger in even using DUI is that licensing of operators will be pointed out and unless we want to get trapped in the argument for licensing gunowners we need to know that trap is there.
 
The abuse of the car during a DUI is my main point. While I will argue this, I have found that it is easier just to attack the logic (or lack thereof) of banning 'assault weapons.' It is much easier to point out the low percentage of crimes these guns are actually used in, that the ban is not banning the gun and rather banning cosmetic features of the gun, and attacking the argument of 'theyre only made to kill as many people as possible' argument by pointing out all the legitimate uses for these guns.
 
I wouldn't even use the DUI argument. I'd ask if they think an SUV is a safer vehicle to get into a collision with than a Smart*. And if they think large cars should be banned because some people prefer to drive small cars.

Then ask them how a tactically-superior weapon is "less safe" to defend one's self with than a single-shot 22. And ask if all should be disarmed because some refuse to protect themselves.

SUVs serve no real purpose; their off-road capabilities are rarely used, nor their towing abilities, nor even their kid/grocery capacity on any given day. Yet many prefer to drive them for better crash protection, and few complain. Unless your opponent is also a greeny-weenie (in which case, write them off, since they obviously yearn to till potatoes as a serf), they will hopefully concede that one's personal protection trumps society's need for percieved "safety," and rightfully so.

TCB

*Smarts meet our safety regs, but I have my doubts the Germans have defeated basic collision physics.
 
I totally disagree with the car argument being discredited. The most common cause of deaths in driving accidents is negligence by speeding, texting or talking on a cell phone while driving, and DUIs. All are products of breaking the law while using a vehicle. That is in direct parity to firearms ownership when the huge majority of gun deaths are the result of breaking the law in the use of that weapon. The vast majority of car drivers will never kill a person with their car but an even greater percentage of gun owners will never kill a person with their firearm.


Also, when you talk about "irrelevant numbers" in the discussion do you think it is a coincidence they always use intentional homicide statistics when talking about the number of gun deaths? Last years total of 11,000 included 260 citizens who fired in defense of their own lives in justifiable homicides and over 450 people who were shot by the police. They also use the 11,000 number as a justification to ban assault weapons when only about 100 or so of them were actually using assault weapons. (Not including 33 of them which were police shootings which I suspect would mostly be AR15s.)


Additionally, the number one argument the anti's love to use if that guns KILL so many people that something HAS to be done yet they seem completely unaffected by the idea more people are killed by cars, medical errors, blood poisoning, etc..........it is a good tool to present to people the hypocrisy of the argument. When I apply the same methodology to cars; horsepower limits, background checks, sobriety devices, bans on sport cars, etc.... most people will not approve of the idea of limiting their freedom with a car to save lives. It helps them understand the mindset of why we don't want our rights limited with firearms in the false idea it will stop criminals from committing acts of murder.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top