Here is an article that I got from JPFO on most commonly used weapons for Homicides. And a breakdown of them and how often each weapon was used. And it comes from a 2019 FBI report. And these stats are just not used by Biden and the rest of the ANTI-GUNNERS. And that is because it shoots holes in their ANTI-GUN NARRATIVE…
Makes me think of that old trope, “my hands are registered as deadly weapons.”
Looks like that ought to be the law well before they start banning any rifles!
A couple points:
- Homicide includes justified, accidental, and suicidal killings — so the chart doesn’t say much about violent crime.
- While the chart absolves long arms from reported types, it still attributes almost 75% of deaths to firearms of all types.
Doesn’t exactly defend against the gun-ban league.
Here is a video showing attempted homicides and actual homicide, both using firearms, yet one somehow doesn’t fit the pie chart.
It is worth viewing the whole video, closer to the end there is respectable commentary from Sheriffs.
I’m with the commentary from the Sheriff at the end of the video! The Deputies tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, even small talk about each other’s family, none of that mattered, then they ambushed the Deputies.
If Alexander8 video link doesn’t work try this one.
Homicide is the intentional killing of another person, so accidents and suicides would not be included in that number from the article. If you include accidents and suicides the total number is usually 30-40k/year (varies every year) most of that is suicides.
I don’t have a source handy right now, but I seem to recall that somewhere around ~1000 homicides per year are “justifiable homicide” (not murder) which most of that is done by the police. I could be wrong on that number, give or take, but I think it’s in the ballpark.
So the numbers in that chart are pretty indicative of violent crimes as about 12-13k of the almost 14k reported will be “murder” instead of a justifiable homicide. Murder definitely counts as violent crime.
There’s no defense really against the gun-ban league. But we can point out when they don’t make sense (which is often).
The primary target of gun-banners is “assault weapons” and more specifically AR-15 and similar weapons (basically all semi-auto rifles). I’m sure they’ll eventually get around to all the guns, but right now they feel like assault weapons are the easy button.
From the way the gun-ban league positions their ads, articles, videos, etc… you’d think ALL gun deaths (the 40k number) were the result of an assault weapon. But the reality (according to FBI stats) is that what anti-gunners call “assault weapons” are only responsible for a tiny fraction of gun deaths every year. Approximately twice as many people are beaten to death (hands and feet), four or five times as many are bludgeoned to death, another four or five times are stabbed to death, all more than assault weapons. But no one talks (yet) about banning hammers, knives, and feet even though they kill more people than assault weapons.
I didn’t try to figure out whether that article or its sources used a specific definition for homicide, but I did check elsewhere.
Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful.
Legal Dictionary | Law.com
a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm
Homicide - Wikipedia
Silly internet. How’s a person supposed to know what to believe?
Sure, the scary black rifle is a flag to rally fear and outrage. And their “assault weapons” include your pistol grip shotgun, your Mini-14, and all manner of other statistical insignificances. But if you don’t think they are after your handguns and removable magazines right now, I think you need to pay closer attention. New gunners didn’t buy mostly ARs and AKs — they bought mostly handguns, and we are all targets of current campaigns.
@techs… did you… intentionally… remove parts of the definition before you pasted them in here?
I mean… it could be… and I’m far from an expert on this subject so take with a grain of salt… but it could start by not creatively snipping out parts of a definition
Literally the first sentence in both links you linked to which I’ve bolded below and anyone who clicks those links can very clearly see states the definition is one person killing another. The rest of it explains all the different ways that it can be a homicide (self defense, accident [aka you Cheney someone ], murder, etc).
From your own link to Legal Dictionary…
n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime.
And from your own link to wikipedia.
Homicide is an act of a human killing another person. A homicide requires only a volitional act that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm. Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war (either following the laws of war or as a war crime), euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death. These different types of homicides are often treated very differently in human societies; some are considered crimes, while others are permitted or even ordered by the legal system.
I will say I am surprised at dictionary.law.com collectively lumping in suicides with homicides, that’s the first reference I’ve ever seen do that. And even their definition of suicide says “the intentional killing of oneself” so that pair of definitions seems a bit illogical and contradictory, but who am I to judge ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. So Today I Learned, and that means it’s a good day.
However, back to the OP’s article, the FBI doesn’t count suicides in there. It’s kind of a known thing, and you can usually tell by the total number if any particular dataset you are looking at is including suicides or not. The “gun violence” numbers are pretty well known and they total between 30-40k (varies year to year), usually 2/3rds of those are suicides (about 25k give or take), and the rest (about 15k) are homicides and accidents. So if you see a total approaching 30-40k it includes suicides, if the number is 10-15k it is usually only homicides (and maybe accidents). FBI won’t be counting suicides or accidents, only homicides (and murders are included in homicides), so you can also tell by the source as the CDC usually is the one counting suicides and accidents.
Oh, I’m definitely paying attention. I’m in Virginia and we spent the end of 2019 and early 2020 fighting against those parts you mention. Anti-gunners were trying to expand the definition of what it means to be an “assault weapon” to almost anything semi-auto. The template they used in Virginia was subsequently used in a few other states up until COVID hit and then they all went to the back-burner (but not put away completely).
I could probably have been more clear, but I was referring to the most common bans they (anti-gunners) are trying to push. I’m painting with a broad brush here… For example, Biden’s campaign was centered around “assault weapons” like “normal people” know them which is AR15s, AK47s, etc. Similar rhetoric was said by all the democratic candidates during the debates leading up to the 2020 elections. States like CA, NY, NJ, MD, etc have already effectively banned them (to no effect on gun violence). They (anti-gunners) don’t usually mention the others (handguns, semi-auto shottys, etc) although we all know they’d LOVE to get them. But the main wedge they will use to get that foot in the door at the national level is via the scary black rifle. As long as that holds, things downstream (handguns, semi-auto shottys, etc) are mostly safe. Meaning they probably won’t ban handguns before they ban ARs. I know there are some heinous bills currently in the house, but those have very little support and very little chance of going anywhere (I hope i don’t eat those words later ).
“New gunners didn’t buy mostly ARs and AKs — they bought mostly handguns” this is 100% true and this is why I think banning handguns is pushed to the back burner for now because they know their base isn’t really interested in it (due to COVID/riot/looting fears). But their base is still mostly OK with banning scary ARs as they don’t see a need for them. I suspect when/if things go back to “normal” they will have more leverage to begin again after those fears recede into memory. These folks (anti-gunners) are in it for the long haul.
So again circling back to the OP, providing “normal people” with data is a good thing. Banning ARs won’t make even a tiny dent in “gun violence” because they make up such a tiny percentage of gun deaths. Its not a magic bullet, but if it makes someone pause even a little bit then its a helpful tool to present to those who might be on the fence. And there are a lot of people on the fence or indifferent towards gun control and those are the folks we need to educate.
Off-topic gripe — USCCA just broke their community pages in my primary browser, and they don’t display quite right in my backup. Those flaws were introduced to the main USCCA site some time ago, so I’m floundering here and pondering next moves. Back to the main event.
Yes, I did — because you already knew that:
- one common definition is killing another person, and
- another common definition is intentionally killing another person, and
- another common definition considers homicide to always be a crime.
Anyone old enough to remember real dictionaries might recall that the first definition listed is not necessarily the most accurate or “best” definition — but the most common in general use. Turns out that legal definitions are very often not the common meaning.
I was not able to relocate the sources and definitions I checked for my original comment, which very closely followed the literal construction of the word homicide = the act of killing by a person. So all volitional acts — intentional and unintentional, criminal and non-criminal, self and other — basically everything except “the gun just went off” and “killed by the hatchet”. [Curse you, wicked internet!] Anyway, I quoted the less common definitions which mirrored my initial findings and cited my sources so anyone could confirm that the definition(s) they believe in are also a thing.
I guess I sort of see where you’re coming from — sorry if it looks like intent to deceive. Like I said, I did not attempt to discern which dataset or definition was used in the OP citation. I’m certainly aware that while neither is perfect, FBI terms point toward crimes, while CDC terms try to point toward causes. My concern was to caution against using the dramatic pie chart expecting it to be a “magic wand” argument when other plausible datasets or definitions might be used to undermine one’s position — see where that gets us.
BTW: I like this ¯_(ツ)_/¯ — I didn’t know I had all of those characters.
I sure hope you don’t have to eat those words. My perception is that you might. I think that the “assault weapon” symbolized by a silhouette of an M16A1 from the 1960s is just a label. The definitions attached to “assault weapon” will be grabbing at things like semi-auto, removable mags, capacity, “features”, materials — just like the last time, only more so. Not some day, but any day the maneuver might pass unnoticed or unchallenged.