Interesting statistics from the FBI

J

JimDandy

New member
In this downloadable spreadsheet
The FBI breaks down murders by weapon and state. In only ONE state in the Union and it's outlying territories, does murder by long gun outpace murder by knife.

Edit Hit the submit by oopsie...

Michigan is the only place where people used killed more with rifles and shotguns than by knives. By all of 1. I'm working on it now to include % columns and comining different things.. like a column adding shotgun and rifle together into long gun... May try putting all the non-firearms into an AOW category :p
 
Whoops, missed that one. But thanks for pointing it out. Still somewhat surprising. I knew handguns were more often to blame. And I knew firearms far outpaced the others. What I didn't realize was that knives were so much more common than non-handgun firearms. Makes the AWB seem even more pointless feel-good-do-SOMETHING-work.
 
But don't forget that Dianne Feinstein's new AWB would include millions of handguns if she has her way. I find it interesting that more people are murdered by "Hands, fists,
feet, etc" than by rifles in the US.
 
Last edited:
JimDandy, all the stats from 2004 through and including 2011 are available as Excel spreadsheets. I've compiled them and then charted the results.

You should try that. Makes for an interesting graph.
 
Well, just to play "devil's advocate" (it's in my nature)

If you consider "Firearms/type unknown" you could conclude that some of those are long guns, therefore in many cases the number would be higher than other means.

Just pointing out something that an observant ANTI will look to.
 
Jo6pak - I would think that when they say "Firearms (type unknown)" that it would mean a death with no weapon/projectile recovered. That being said, logically you could surmise that the percentage of handguns, rifles, or shotguns remains fairly consistent in the "unknown" category.

For example in California, 90% of murder by firearm are verified handgun, 4.7% for rifles, and 5.2% for shotgun. I would carry over the same percentages for the "Firearms (type unknown)" category and end up with 233 handgun involved murders, 12 rifle involved murders, and 13 shotgun involved murders. (The numbers don't exactly add up to 259 since I dropped all but two decimal places.)

Maybe I'm way off, but that is how I would look at it/explain it to someone.
 
I would imagine they know it's a firearm, but not exactly which kind- either because of the dual nature of the ammunition, or being unable to scientifically identify it. Not being a ballistician or criminologist my details may be off, but I would hope the theory is sound... a .45ACP round is MOST LIKELY from a pistol, but could be from a Thompson. A 9MM round likewise is most likely pistol, but has several AR chamberings. A .223 round is most likely rifle, but could have ballistic properties suggestive (based on impact force, penetration, etc) of a barrel too short for a rifle, and thus suggests but doesn't prove an AR pistol.
 
I just downloaded the excel form and started playing with it. It seems that if saving lives was really what is important with this gun ban they would look at handguns and handguns alone. They account for approx. 72% of all gun related murders and approx 49% of all murders. This data really shows that an agenda is being pushed and nothing more.
 
I can't disagree with that, but also think the agenda is more reaching than what is currently on the horizon. They can't ban handguns. Heller already decided that. So they go after the "scary" looking things because they have the most traction there. After that they just keep taking bites at the apple. The agenda isn't scary guns, its guns.
 
I agree, it's the "look" of the guns that they're playing off of now to get the process rolling. To people who shoot the guns and hunt with guns it's comes off as ridiculous because we know that a gun a pistol grip is no more dangerous than a straight stock rifle. It's the vast majority of the people that think an "assault" rifle shoot 1000yds fully automatic through armor plates that are going to get us in trouble. This is what scares me. For example: At my family Christmas this year this topic came up. My uncle, who does not hunt or shoot regularly but does own guns says that he thinks they should be illegal and that nobody hunts with those guns. Of course I tried making my plea but he was convinced that he was right and I'm sure he felt he was. After all he watches the news every night. They tell him how the guns work.
Another lady at our church also commented that there is no reason for somebody to own one of these guns.

I think a huge part of the problem here is that the majority of the population - and I could be way off on this - thinks that an "assault" rifle is what they see in the movies and hear the news broadcast about. They will not see any problem with banning such a weapon and will call those that are fighting for the guns crazy.

I don't know what the solution to this is other than some kind of rational explanation of what guns are and aren't to those who only know what they have seen on tv.
 
At that point ask them why you shouldn't have the same gun the cop down the street does, and point to these statistics... that they aren't the guns used in crimes.

Follow that up with this gem from the ATF courtesy of Time Magazine. Be very afraid of that .38 Special... Not the M4
 
I've pointed out these numbers to people. Shock and disbelief follow. Easy prejudice doesn't mix well with cold facts.

As long as your doing our homework for us:
do the UCR stats that the FBI collects measure shots/homicide. I'm asking b/c I have a feeling that the number of bullets used in the average homicide is going to come up short of 10. Meaning: small capacity magazines aren't going to stop any meaningful percentage of handgun murders.

I think that the NYPD does the only large (annual) study of how many bullets are fired in an "average" shooting incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top