…and gun-shooting statistics:
For a variety of reasons having to do with social and economic factors the firearms murder rate went down. What the current debate really seems to be about is whether rapid-fire guns increase the frequency of a special kind of crime called mass shootings. However, this is a somewhat artificial category. Mass shootings are a subset of the larger phenomenon of mass killings, sometimes referred to as rampage killings. “A rampage involves the (attempted) killing of multiple persons at least partly in public space by a single physically present perpetrator using (potentially) deadly weapons in a single event without any cooling-off period.”
It is one killer, one place, one time, many victims in a setting outside of war. The data collected on this type of even notes the type of weapon used, which is not always a firearm. It is mass killings that one would want to reduce, not just mass shootings.
The brothers in the Boston Marathon bombing didn’t use guns. As with the “War on Terror,” this is the insanity of going after inanimate objects, instead of the would-be murderers.
[Monday-morning update]
Six ways Bill Clinton lies about the “assault weapons” ban.
To be fair, though, Bill Clinton lies about a lot of things.
Except they really aren’t going after an object, but rather a group of people who they blame for the event and are innocent but happen to be a group Democrats despise.
Bingo.
I was going to say the same thing.
Um, given the subject of this post, I feel the need to correct a misconception regarding the Boston Bombers. They actually did use a gun (they killed one of their victims, an MIT policeman, that way).
The overwhelming majority of their victims, though, were killed or injured by pressure cooker bombs. Therefor, if there’s any logic to this ban-frenzy at all, pressure cookers must be banned. So too must be hammers (used in a surprising number of murders!). And also, rocks, which are used fairly often as murder weapons, must likewise be banned. I do realize that the latter would be rather rough on folks living in the Rocky Mountains, but hey, something must be done!
You forgot about Boeings. It’s too dangerous for me to own a rifle but John Travolta can own a 707?
Don’t give them ideas… they want to stop commercial air travel. They don’t mind private jets at all though, so Travolta’s 707 is just fine, even if he’s using it for solo commutes. A 707 carrying a hundred paying passengers, though, is an abomination and a threat to the environment.
I fondly recall that many of these private-jet-using enviro fanatics, while at a climate conference in Cancun, signed petitions calling for the banning of dyhydrogen monoxide, due to it being such a potent greenhouse gas. (for those unaware, dyhydrogen monoxide is a satirical way of saying H2O)
On a serious note, the real reason the Left wants to confiscate firearms is on full display at the moment, in Hong Kong. Millions of protestors at the total mercy of a tyrannical government. That’s the way the Left likes it – can’t have the people telling the State what to do, after all.
“Was the spike from the mid-1960s driven by accelerants other than weapons availability, explaining why gun murder rates per 100,000 went down but mass killings of all sorts went up.”
Cheap gas being the driver for arson mass killings? Given the price of gas in the 1960s, maybe so, maybe so.
Let’s see, the price of gas in Japan is about $4.24 USD/US gallon. The Kyoto Animation Arson Attack used 11 gallons of gasoline to kill 35 people, or 3.2 dead/gallon. Not exactly a CAFE killing, IMHO. That’s $1.33 per dead. TulAmmo 40 S&W FMJ is $0.225 per round, and if you need any more than 4 rounds per dead to do the job…well, you’re not very good. So Japanese accelerant attacks are 48% more expensive than a cheap handgun attack.
But back in the ’60s, gas was $0.28/gal. Oh, man, you could have offed 11.4 peeps/gal! What a deal!
Seriously, you don’t need guns, bullets, gasoline, knives or anything else to kill a lot of people. Just go into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!” and you will probably kill half a dozen or more at no cost whatsoever. And I really hope you drop dead before you do.
Those things Marines used at places like Iwo Jima to take care of caves and bunkers are completely legal, and hopefully nobody will ever use one because that would be a more serious problem.
Man-portable firearms are a lame way to kill lots of people, which is why even the military rely primarily on artillery.
Russian ammunition, comrade? Now the KGB-RNC-NRA conspiracy is undeniable!