Politix

Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

GUNS

Does This Chart Prove Assault Weapons Ban Won't Help?

More murders caused by fists and feet

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Murders in the US, 2010 / Image: Washington Examiner

Obama and other lawmakers have called for a revival of the assault weapons ban, which would bar rifles like the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza. So would an assault weapons ban drastically reduce US gun deaths?

The answer is no – to a first approximation. The chart above shows that only 2.75% of homicides were caused by rifles in 2010.

More people were killed with "hands, fists, and feet" than with assault rifles, notes conservative pundit Timothy Carney, who created the chart. Carney notes that massacres often employ semi-authomatic weapons - " which make killing large numbers of people much easier. But massacres are very, very rare compared to isolated homicides.

What the numbers do suggest is that banning handguns would really put a dent in the murder rate. Handguns accounted for 46% of all homicides in 2010. But a handgun ban hasn't been on the legislative table for decades.

Via the Blaze and the Washington Examiner.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

After seeing this graph, do you think any weapons should be more restricted?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    @Hireman so you would sniff your own feet? Interesting concept, however... the only way to KNOW you have TFSD Toxic Foot Sweat Disorder would have been for you to smell them which means you would have died and been unable to respond to my question.

    Are you Sure you don't work for the government?
  • View all 8 replies >
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    All laws apply to those who follow the law or do you think we should issue certificates to everyone confirming that they follow the law so they can buy a gun? I'm sure that would work - not.
  • u
    ProCCW
    !
    @UKviewpoint It was more or less a joke about bans. Bans only apply to those following the law. A ban alone does nothing but make people who only rule with emotions feel good. Logically addressing all aspects of the problem will result in more tangible solutions. We have the criminal and their mental profile, Security, and the weapon used. Security is easy, just requires funding, but people do not like the thought of arming our schools. Not sure why. We have no problem protecting our country,money, federal buildings, stadiums, politicians and the famous rich people who can afford armed security guards. Weapons bans for criminals is an oxy moron. Tighten up the loop holes in the guns laws we have. Mental health reform is the hard answer. Accessibilty to affordable mental help. The general public does not understand the problem with mental health issues.
  • u
    ProCCW
    !
    @UKviewpoint not sure if a USA and uk comparison can be accurate beings that uk is lest than 1/4 populated than the US. We could look at our State of Illinois which is very close in land mass and poulation as all of the UK. Illinois has has the strictest bans and weapons laws in the US. The crime rate is so high that citizens of Illinois are practically begging to be allowed to carry concealed arms. Besides, had the US citizens not been armed in the 1700's we would all be under the rule of the Queen, not that that is a bad thing, but none the less we became a free scociety because of guns. Had we not been armed in the 30's and 40's we would all be speaking German today, including you.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @ProCCW The stats are a comparison by head of population so they can compare. I was not saying that your army should not have guns or even your police, just your general populace who do not need them or would not if you had proper gun control in place.
  • View all 44 replies >
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    Horrible poll.

    Anyhow, banning guns has never been the answer. obama can try to steal our guns, like he steals our money, but the 2nd Amendment reaffirms we have the right to have weapons. There are a number of things that patriotic Americans can do to make this country safer. None of them revolve around disarming the good law abiding citizens of this country.
  • martydotcom
    !
    The poll is proof that you can make statistics say whatever you want.
    Without stating the distribution, number of each in circulation the results are meaningless documentation suitable for analysis of those who attended the College for the Terminally Vague
  • SavageMazx
    !
    @UKviewpoint and you are now 100% more likely to die in your own home with out anyway to defend yourself... unless you have a pocket knife......oh wait, you can't have those either.... Sorry UK give me freedom to protect myself any day over what you guys have.
  • View all 40 replies >
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    Perhaps people would simply like to talk this out in the open. Explore all possible scenarios, ask questions of this possible plan or that possible plan...And then perhaps come up with some sort of consensus as to how to tackle this problem---If that makes them "morons"...then I submit that you really don't want to solve this problem in the first place, and simply want to attack anyone who sincerely does.
  • marine1
    !
    It has to do with responsible people being denied their freedoms because of irresponsible people who choose to manipulate societies compassion and legistors who choose to manipulate society.
  • o
    bambi33
    !
    Sonny, UK,
    To any objective observer, the issue was settled over 200 years ago when We The People forbade the government from even so much as infringing upon our inalienable right to bear arms for any, and all, legitimate purposes. Consequently, there is literally no point in "talking this out" - as there is nothing to talk about.
    We aren't seeking to restrict your right to express your (questionable) feelings (though, you in the UK may not even have such rights)- and you expect us to be receptive to "talking" about allowing you to disarm us - reducing us to mere subjects? That is monumentally presumptuous.
    We respect your choice to remain pacifists. I must insist that you reciprocate regarding our choice not to be pacifists. We are NOT your enemy. Neither do we cause you any harm. It's the violent criminals and lunatics you should focus on, NOT the good, peaceable, law-abiding, citizens who pose no threat.
  • bsking
    !
    @Sonny this "issue" has been settled for a long time. just because the idiots in Washington decide to ban a product... does not change the reality of life. a mentally ill person who has murder in their heart will kill people with a spoon if necessary. we had assault weapons bans. they did nothing except make weapons more intriguing and more expensive. the last weapons ban lead to a dramatic increase in ownership. when the government banned alcohol it lead to a new form of organized crime and black market industry. the idiots in Washington who are talking about banning guns are living proof of the old adage and interpretation of insanity ; continuing to do the same thing over and over expecting different results.

    ..... or watching a dog chasing its tail.
  • View all 24 replies >
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @PNWest It just proves that carelessness around children leads to tragedy. My cousin quit his job as a paramedic after responding to a call about a child who had crawled under a car left jacked up in a driveway, who then died after knocking the car off the jack. Can't blame the car for that.
  • View all 7 replies >
  • u
    Clarke12
    !
    unless somone can magically make all weapons disappear, imposing bans on certain guns will do nothing to stop nutbags in the future. the term "assault" applied to a gun was a political creation started back in the 90's in an effort to implement a gun ban. the original ban had no teeth, anyway; what it did was restrict bayonets, folding stocks, and similar modifications that made a gun "look" like a military-issue weapon. the left, with media reporting, folds everything in this debate under one blanket, which is why the right believes they are looking to remove all guns. most people do not even know that there are at least 6 calibers more powerful than the.223 Bushmaster. why would you not start at the top and work your way down? once again, the nation is reactive instead of proactive.
  • u
    ProCCW
    !
    I agree with everything you say. A ban will only be a feel good action to calm the emotions of those who are fearfulband not versed on firearms. Most importantly, it will be a "Look what i did for you" talking point for re-election. What a sham!
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    It may not stop all gun-deaths but it would be a step in the right direction. Better that than doing nothing. If people stopped listening to the NRA more would be done.
  • o
    bambi33
    !
    @UKviewpoint,
    Your failure to offer anything to support your outrageous claims, reveals that you are simply blowing smoke. Moreover, it would be a step in the WRONG direction - revoking the rule-of-law, and reducing the people to mere subjects. You may be fine with that in the UK, but in America we are happy being private citizens - beyond the reach of administrative bureaucrats.

    As for the NRA - I rarely ever listen to them. They are far to willing to compromise and negotiate. Now, please tell me why you feel compelled to advocate for disarming the good, peaceable, law-abiding, American citizens - thereby rendering ALL the innocent absolutely defenseless against the heavily armed homicidal lunatics and criminals?
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @bambi33 That is comical bambi. If you read some of the other question replies you would see that I am the only person on this subject who has provided any evidence to support my statements. I will repeat them here for your benefit although since you have not provided any evidence to support your claims you seem to me to be a hypocrit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
    US 10.2
    UK 0.25
    Japan 0.07
    The US has 41 times more deaths by firearms than the UK because of their abundance of guns. Stop the criminals getting the guns. Australia did it and the deaths reduced considerably.
    You are not beyond the reach of administrative bureaucrats any more than we are. You have police and laws just like us. Don't kid yourself. And if you didn't you would have been destroyed as a nation years ago.
  • o
    bambi33
    !
    @UKviewpoint,
    As you well know, the "destruction of America" was wrought by leftist liberals operating as useful idiots for the globalists - NOT by peaceable, law-abiding, citizens. And NO, as private citizens, we are NOT subject to government administrative jurisdiction. And even criminal jurisdiction must operate through a jury. That is the unique characteristic of American private citizens that distinguishes us form mere subjects - such yourself. I expect it is well beyond your capacity to comprehend.
    As for your incessant verbal assault on the good people of America - I am utterly stunned that you could manage to summon the nerve to lecture (regarding the issue of responsible gun ownership) us Americans – who’s grandfathers sent (to you Brits) their own private personal weapons for England’s defense, as well as their sons to fight and die in order to rescue your (imprudently disarmed) country (twice) from annihilation at the hands of leftist, socialist, fascists. You, sir, have elevated the concept of ungraciousness to an unprecedented level – and have earned the (well deserved) scorn of every good American – who has no need to justify his standing as a free, private, armed, citizen to ANYONE – least of all, you.
  • View all 6 replies >
  • u
    nomocrap
    !
    You have apparently never shot a gun of any type. In order to hit you target with a so called "assault rifle" you have to aim in the exact same manner as any other rifle. If you don't want to aim you would have to have a shotgun. There is not different in a civilian model AR-15 or AK-47 and any semi-automatic hunting rifle except looks and the fact that the AK-47 and especially the AR-15 is extremely under powered to hunt deer sized game or above. A real assault weapon is automatic fire meaning you pull the trigger once for multiple shots. These are what the military uses and have been illegal for private ownership for decades without an expensive and difficult to get permit from the ATF. The only reason any criminal or deranged individual would use a so called "assault rifle" in the commission of a criminal act is because the gun looks scary. It is not as efficient for mass murder as a shotgun and it is not as powerful as a big game caliber semi-auto hunting rifle. Banning scary looking rifles won't stop these tragedies. If the nut case can't get his scary looking rifle he will get something else because it is not the tool that commits the crime it is the criminal. Take away every gun in the US and he will commit his crimes with a machete, a sword or do like Timothy McVey and build a bomb from easily purchased materials and blowup the entire school. You can't stop a criminal from committing crimes by taking his tools he will just find new tools. Timothy McVey killed 168 people in a matter of seconds with diesel fuel and fertilizer. His one act killed almost half as many people as rifles killed in 2010 according to this chart. Where is the push to ban diesel fuel and fertilizer? Once again it is not the tool it is the criminal. Criminal control not gun control!!!!
  • droberts
    !
    @UKviewpoint You hand picked countries to make your point Through Mexico in...there rate is closer to 20. There is no definitively evidence proving gun bans decrease homicides
  • View all 17 replies >
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    John_Matrix
    !
    @UKviewpoint

    Well if the was nothing to respond to and nothing to laugh about why did you respondm You must have inferred something from reading it or do you make a habit of responding to comments for no reason other than to be confrontational?
  • u
    Belin
    !
    I hate the massacre at the CT elementary school just as much as anyone else. I do not believe jumping in to ban anything with emotions running so high. Actually, I do not approve of the banning of any guns that are currently legal! I believe that our gun control laws should not change one iota! A massacre with an assault rifle is EXTREMELY rare. Plus if a criminal wants any type of gun, he will get it laws or new legislation in place. Does the U.S. think so much of itself that they believe our own country is the only one that makes weapons like these? A little trip south of the border and you can buy any weapon you want and for way less money. I criminal doesn't care that it is illegal. HELLO, he is a criminal. Then he can sell these restricted guns on the black market. There are also many governments of other countries that are all to happy to deal in legal arms trades. Either for profit or to harm others. An evil man set on a massacre will be able to get the guns he wants no matter how much legislation is passed.
    In an interview with a friend of the shooters mother, he stated that she did keep the guns locked up. I guess someone needs to in invent a new gun case that can be locked and can withstand some one trying to pick the lock and the abuse of someone beating on it until a hinge, screw or lock comes apart!
  • u
    Belin
    !
    @UKviewpoint
    Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. The information on that cite is written by people online. Not all or most of the information correct. If you are trying to prove a point to someone, never use Wikipedia as your source. As I stated before, if a person wants to get a certain type of gun, they can. Laws and legislation are not going to stop them. Minus the fact of how small England is, they are not bordered to the south by Mexico. In the US, a person will always be able to get whatever gun they want through the black market. That is a fact and it will not change!
  • u
    Belin
    !
    @UKviewpoint
    So do you want your right to bear arms taken from you? I do not, in any way. I would also like for my legally bought gun to be more lethal than the mans gun that breaks into my house with just myself and my 7yr old daughter living here.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @Belin Wikipedia is a collection of facts and those facts are collected from reputable sources as listed at the bottom of the page. I would trust those facts more than most encyclopedias which are generally out-of-date. The UK has many illegal immigrants flooding in from Europe all the time. Your argument does not hold. Your gun laws make it easy for criminals to possess guns.
  • View all 46 replies >
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    First off, an assault rifle and an assault weapon are two different things.

    An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1][2][3][4] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

    Assault weapon refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ass...

    http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Ass...

    Secondly, failing to have any of the above cited weapons is irrelevant if someone wants to commit mass murder. Or even personal murder. As the no portion of the poll said, you can't ban everything. I'd bet the average homeowners garage has all the makings for a usable cannon.
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    Well, I'm sorry but, yes....I have to ask....Because that has been the age old problem with this country...What's one persons "politician" is another persons "true representative"...After all, everyone has a very low opinion of Congress---yet.."but my representative is Great!".......So, Yes..I am asking?!?!?
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    So you're saying the politicians shot those kids? I've not heard that one before. Or are you saying the politicians are responsible because they did not introduce gun control? I could agree with that.
  • FFX_VA
    !
    @Sonny A representative serves all of the people in their district by reflecting their will and desires as a whole, as a community; whereas a politician puts their party and political agendas first. I'd surmise you think your representative is "great" because they have the same mindset and political leanings as you do.
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    @FFX_VA Well, frankly there are two legitimate schools of thought on the behaviors of our representatives...One, is as you so eloquently put it..."The representative merely votes on issues in a way that precisely reflects the will and desires of his district"...The other school of thought basically says..."The representative has a duty & obligation to lead and do whats in the best interest of his district, even if those actions are contrary to the will and desires of those in his district".....So there you have it....That same old "stand-of". I suspect, therefore, that's what the voting booth is for, come re-election time...Two neighbors can look at their representative---and decide for them selves which "camp" their representative falls in, and whether or not he/she as done a good enough job for the community (usually based upon some personal mental checklist of that particular voter).

    And as for "my representative"...No, he really does not have the same "mindset and political leanings" that I have. But he comes closer than the republican candidate did...
  • View all 7 replies >
  • o
    Sonny
    !
    The chart is flawed and proves NOTHING!.. First of all your question asked about "assault rifles"---Then answers its own question by placing "all rifles" in that category...Its nonsense and useless.
  • u
    idiot
    !
    these mass killers should have been on medication, all are phsyco's,
    legalizing pot would have given them the medication needed to prevent these murders.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @FollowTheMoney No, I suggest you stop giving guns to everyone except the police and armed forces. Too many stupid people everywhere.
  • FollowTheMoney
    !
    @UKviewpoint The police and armed forces are full of stupid people too, not to mention the criminals. Just because this works in the UK doesn't mean it will work in the Americas. We are different sort, not only from our history, but by the shear size of our nation, and the nature of our government.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @FollowTheMoney We are not that different mate believe me you just have a different history. People can change if they try. Lookk at how America has changed over the years. You are not the same people who were around when the 2nd amendment was created. Time to change. Stop fighting it. If you can give up smoking you can give up guns. At least if only the police and armed forces ahve guns that's a lot less stupid people with guns.
  • u
    Doodlebug
    !
    What caliber "Assault Weapon" did Cain use to kill Abel? One of the disciples had a sword and used it to cut the ear off one of the servants of the High Priest after Judas betrayed Jesus. I wonder if it was registered and had a high capacity magazine.
    Murder has always been with us and it will be here at the end.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    But you can reduce the number of murders with laws or are you one of those anarchist nutters who don't believe we should have any laws or government?
  • u
    Doodlebug
    !
    @UKviewpoint Gee, a UK nutter answered. What do you find offensive about my post? I guess you can't answer the questions so you resort to name calling.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @Doodlebug I did not call you any names. I asked if you were an anarchist nutter. I didn't say you were one. Why so defensive? Your last statement about murder may be factual but it implies that we can't do anything to reduce the numbers so we should not bother trying. That I find ludicrous. You might as well say law and the police do not reduce crime. Of course if you were an anarchist nutter you would say they don't.
  • u
    Doodlebug
    !
    @UKviewpoint Gee, Why do the Police carry guns?I I carry because it is too hard to carry a cop around. Is murder illegal? Disarming honest people will not lower the crime rate. Criminals will get weapons if they are made illegal. Law abiding people will be ordered to hand in their weapons. They will have no defense. I have had firearms all my life. I have never HAD to use one in self defense. I pray I never have to. You seem to be saying I need to bend over and pray no one tries to harm me or my loved ones.
    Read about Lexington and Concord in America's Revolutionary War. Open warfare broke out when British troops tried to seize stores of colonial gunpowder (Gun Control).
    That is the main reason our Second Amendment was put in OUR Constitution. It is odd to me to think a person from the UK would want to take away America's guns again.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @Doodlebug The trouble with the 2nd amendment is that it is not relevant anymore. It was a long time ago, times have changed. We have fought wars together. It is only used now as a justification for gun users and arms manufacturers to continue their hobbies/trades. The point of gun control is to stop criminals and crazies from getting guns. If I was a policeman and I saw someone with a gun, I would not want to wait until they shot me to find out they were criminal and not an honest citizen. What advantage do the police have if everyone is allowed to carry guns legally? Here's some more interesting stats for you to think about.
    In 2010 499 US soldiers were killed in Afghanistan.
    In 2007 about 32,000 Americans were killed with firearms in the US.
    Don't believe me? I can prove it if you need proof.
    Take away the guns and those numbers will reduce dramatically, to a level similar to the UK. Australia did it and so can the US.
  • View all 7 replies >
  • u
    seedtick
    !
    This chart only proves one thing...crooks use handguns most often because they can easily conceal them. If you don't believe me just look at gangsta movies from Hollywood. Police officers carry and use handguns more often than any other weapon. The handgun is the home defense weapon of choice by many.
    Assault weapons...these are the most effective killing tools one can use. They are automatic and have high volumn clips and magazines. But, a semi-automatic assault-style weapon with a small clip or magazine is no more dangerous than many other firearms that have been used by Americans for a hundred and fifty years.
    Hollywood's glorification of violence, gangsta rap, and violent video games should be on the chopping block before the reduction of 2nd Amendment rights. And, all of this must be in conjunction with the mental health issues.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    Rubbish. We watch the same movies in the UK but we are 41 times less likely to be shot here because we have less guns and more gun control. I'm sick of hearing about the 2nd amendment. Wasn't that so you protect yourself from wild cowboys and indians? Move on.
  • u
    seedtick
    !
    @UKviewpoint Consider this...the UK is smaller than the state of Oregon. The UK has a population of about 65 million compared to over 300 million in the USA. This means that people living in the UK are mostly shoulder to shoulder. There are few places to go enjoy the great outdoors and hunting is not a very popular sport. The USA has many thousands of miles of open spaces, mountains, etc. If you consider the state of Texas alone you find that it is 800 miles from north to south and 800 miles from east to west and has a population of over 26 million.
    My point is this...your statistics are irrelevant to the USA...there is no comparison. And, I don't care what you are sick of hearing concerning our constitution. It is our constitution, not yours so you need to move on.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @seedtick the stats are relevant because they are per head of population. If I went on the count alone there would be 164 times more deaths in the US than in the UK. The population density actually increases the chances of murders happening because we are so close together so I agree that it is more important for us to have gun laws. However as the population of the US increases the murders will rise and at some point you will have to change. You could do it now or later. In the meantime more children are dying.
    As for your constitution it's a broken record that grates on my nerves. You need a new CD. It's something to be embarrassed about like your dad's old trousers not waved in the air like a flag.
  • u
    seedtick
    !
    @UKviewpoint Opinions are like body parts...we all have them. Some are like your mother's nasty bits....best left covered up. And, some are like your sweetheart... proudly displayed for all to see. But, they are ours and we want
    others to respect them. I respect yours...I hope you do the same with mine.
  • View all 7 replies >
  • Jeff_Woehrle
    !
    The only thing the Connecticut incident has proven is that 'gun-free zones' are a bunch of hogwash. Likewise ANY so-called ban on guns. Those who would obey laws are not the problem, and those who are the problem will not obey laws.
  • UKviewpoint
    !
    @FollowTheMoney Funny I thought your origins were the UK. Never mind. We are not so different actually. I've met some of you and you seem quite normal except when it comes to guns. Your origins should have nothing to do with it. You are not living in the past. Times change. You are not playing cowboys and indians any more. People are getting killed and not just these school kids.
  • Jeff_Woehrle
    !
    @UKviewpoint Guns are a fact of life in America. The left can whine about gun control until the cows come home, but it won't change the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in America. To confiscate even one would create an issue, so perhaps the solution is to look at what doesn't work (gun-free zones) and implement something different.

    Disarming the law-abiding simply means that the law-abiding cannot defend themselves.

    I believe that a lot of Americans are tired of being told that we can't.
  • DARSB
    !
    358 lives were lost to rifles it's not worth the trouble to ban or otherwise control them.

    A similar chart for 2012 will probably look much the same, and that number of lives lost to rifles will include 20 school children. Is applying the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd amendment still not worth the trouble?
  • mudpike
    !
    @DARSB No sir , the lowly .223 caliber is actually an anemic round for hunting medium sized game such as deer. Nothing more than a cheap version of a battle-field weapon. Most hunting calibers are far more accurate . Plus , don't follow the hype, Lanza's Bushmaster was in the car on first reports , then it magically appeared on school grounds. Whatever happened to the other people seen handcuffed by police - even a child reported on it. Don't believe the Gov't. would lie to us - do ya ?
  • R Load more comments...