Slate wrote Aurora Shooting: How did people commit mass murder before automatic weapons? "Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns."
2 comments:
Great article. I was thinking the same thing when the anti-gun crowd wanted to use this incident as justification. Let’s face it, people are pretty easy to kill (from a mechanical perspective). Throwing a molotov or two into the theater would likely have generated more carnage, but not calls to ban gasoline. There are much stronger arguments to encourage stronger gun control and the conflation with such tragedies only dilutes the message.
I'm torn on that actually. I liked the article from a historical perspective. I agree that it's wrong to rush in new legislation, otherwise you get the Patriot Act. But it's also true that such tragedies can be the proper impetus. Otherwise the NRA just says it's not needed. The Brady Bill came out of the Reagan shooting, so I think it's reasonable to bring up stuff and discuss.
I do agree that the "he bought 6000 rounds of ammo over the Internet!" is a red herring. Seems like a reasonable thing to want to buy in bulk and without sales tax (and we should change that). Also I know the definition of assault rifle in legislation has sometimes been poor.
I've seen a lot of mixed statistics but I do think we have much more gun violence than other advanced nations with stronger gun controls. I think it's reasonable to regulate like a driver's license, but I think the 2nd amendment doesn't allow that (though I do think the militia clause has meaning).
Post a Comment