arma virumque cano (et alia)
Southern Beale posted on the North Carolina psychopath that killed his own two young sons before turning the gun on himself a week or so ago. Right on cue some deluded idiot pointed out that the murders could just have easily been done with a knife, a bow and arrow, hammer or any one of a number of other weapons. Some family members and close friends actually showed up to request some peace during their time of grieving.I'm okay with the family members telling Beale to fuck off. But what the hell could possibly happen to someone's mind to make them believe that violence is just as likely with any number of random lethal weapons as it is with guns?There is one way that I can think of to kill a roomful of people almost as fast as firing a gun. How about a bowl full of superball-sized iron or steel balls? Just grab one and wing it close-range at the head of your victim. Grab another one and try to kill the person who comes to his or her defense, ad infinitum. Bad throw? Just grab another iron ball real quick and wing it at the head of your next victim. Not so much? How about a sword? A person can wreak a lot of mayhem with a sword in a short moment of time while at the same time intimidating those around him with great fear. Yessir! A sword really is just as dangerous as a gun!That's how stupid most of the gun arguments that I hear sound to me. Maybe not on this blog so much. But it's still, more or less, the same idea of guns not killing people.
Guns are the weapon of choice for all deaths of violent crime.
Everytown loves to take totals over multiple years in order to make their r chart look suitably scary. And of course they never mention that this particular crime is declining, much like other violent crime has.
Are you saying guns are not the choice of weapon for violent criminals SS?
Never said that Anon.
So you are just again attacking the numbers, but you don't claim the conclusions are wrong. WOWSo you are saying guns ARE the choice of weapon for violent criminals?
No surprise you don't want to clarify.
But... we see that guns are less preferred for domestic abusers than for plain old murderers. As you often point out, guns are used in 2/3rds of overall murders, but here we see domestic abusers using them only 56% of the time. This isn't surprising, as this is specifically a male on female subset where the value of a gun isn't as important where there is a physical advantage. I bet the females who murder their male domestic partners chose guns more often, so maybe they should have shown that stat instead (though I've heard poison is quite popular as well- again something where a physical advantage is not as important).
Yes, and it's about the same.a a one on one crime. The gun murders include many incidents with multiple victims. So, considering those differences, the 56% is about the same, no?
Domestic murders aren't necessarily one on one. In fact a good percentage of the "mass shootings" that get cited by gun control folks are of the domestic variety. So no, I wouldn't say they are "about the same".
Fair enough. You can make a big deal out of the difference between 56% and 66% if you want, but I see that as more of your typical aggressive "baffle 'em" nonsense.
56% is clearly a majority, but TS wants to claim somehow it's bogus. And this is the gun loons number guy? HA HA HA HA HA