Anybody else noticed a trend from the anti-gun types who hang out on Huffington Post?
1) Handguns are the leading murder weapon
2) guns were
designed to kill
3) other countries like England banned guns and now have less gun deaths
4) a madmen with a "assault weapon" can kill a lot more people than a madmen with a baseball bat
we should ban guns!
A variation on #1 is guns are the leading murder weapon. Combined with #4, we get the hysteria over AKs and ARs, despite the repeated links to the FBI (
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html), where we see that rifles were used in only 348 homicides. That's less than blunt objects, less than hands and feet, and only about 1/5 as many homicides as with knives.
#4 also flies in the face of:
The Bath School Massacre (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre): 45 murdered, weapon: exsplosives
The Happy Land Massacre (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire): 87 murdered, weapon: gasoline and matches
The Daegu Subway Massacre (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire): 198 murdered, weapon: gasoline and matches
and those are just the ones that are considered mass murders. If we're counting attacks that are considered acts of terrorism we can add:
The Oklahoma City Bombing (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing): 168 murdered, weapon: explosives
September 11 Attacks (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks): nearly 3,000 murdered, weapon: explosives
"But wait! 9/11 was a terrorist attack using airplanes, you can't count that as a mass murder using explosives!" OK smart guy, they used airplanes as human guided cruise missiles carrying highly flammable/explosive jet fuel as a payload ... i.e. they used explosives. Remember, 3 of those attacks I just mentioned were accomplished using objects you can buy in stores with no paperwork, no waiting period, no background check, nothing.
Of course, the entire premise of gun control flies in the face of this from the CDC (
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm):
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Remember, the CDC is hardly the NRA or the SAF. They're generally described as being slightly anti-gun, at best.
All those points and more are repeatedly brought up and linked to during Huffington Post rebuttals, however the anti-gun types continue to cling to those 4 points I listed at the top. You'll even see the "43 times more likely to kill a family member or acquaintance" brought up every now and then to "validate" their anti-gun position. They also love to claim England has less crime ... without citing
any source.