5 ms·

Considering that rifles are used to kill fewer people in the United States than knives, fists, hammers, or bats, Mother Jones' attempt at scaring people about t

by jstalin 13y ago

Considering that rifles are used to kill fewer people in the United States than knives, fists, hammers, or bats, Mother Jones' attempt at scaring people about those who build their own guns rings a little hallow. But I get it, AK-47s look scary and so we should all be outraged. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/...

ctide 13y ago
Yeah, it'd be awesome if everyone knew about this so we could really drive that rifle number up and make it competitive with other kinds of guns. Think of how many people could be brandishing their own unmarked AK-47 instead of having to resort to killing people with bats! So barbaric!
- aidenn0 13y ago
  I guarantee just the cost of parts for what was built in the article exceeds the budget for most guns used in crime. On top of that it's not at all concealable which makes it even less attractive for crime. In places where you can walk down the street with a rifle and not draw attention, and the markets are flooded with kalishnakov based designs are very prevalent though, and were the market to get flooded, then they would be more common. I don't think enough people are going to hand build these to make that the case in LA though.
asynchronous13 13y ago
Here's a summary of the 2011 data from the linked statistics: 8,583 - Homicides by firearms (all types) 323 - Homicides by rifles 1,694 - Homicides by sharp objects (knives, etc) 496 - Homicides by blunt objects (clubs, etc)
- angersock 13y ago
  The full table for firearms (2011) is: Handguns 6220 Rifles 323 Shotguns 356 Other guns 97 Firearms, type not stated 1587 So, er, yeah. GP is correct in their statement that rifles (indeed, it would seem, all longarms) are less favored for homicide than sharp and blunt objects.
  - Retric 13y ago
    Not really, type not stated just means unknown some of those are clearly going to be Rifles. If 200 of those where Rifles then it would be more popular than blunt objects.
    - angersock 13y ago
      You presume too much... these are the conclusions the data support--anything else is just handwaving.
    - hga 13y ago
      But with 1.5 orders of magnitude difference in the officially known enumerated types we can be pretty sure the officially unknowns don't wildly vary from knowns. Plus the number of rifles used is so small people who track of this sort of thing would likely have an idea if something weird was happening. My only caveat is bodies found without a recovered bullet; almost all centerfire rifles have greater energies and sectional densities than normally used handguns, so the bullet is more likely to exit. To get a handle on this we'd need breakdowns on where they happened (e.g. city, almost certainly a handgun, rural, a rifle is more likely, if only because of concealment issues). Or talk to coroners, the wounds will be somewhat different.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mikestew 13y ago
Look scary? Just the media-hyped name alone is enough. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Americans couldn't distinguish between an AK-47 and a Glock by sight alone. (I'd concede that it may not be a majority, but at least a surprisingly large number.)
overgard 13y ago
That makes a lot of sense -- rifles are very hard to conceal compared to handguns. I imagine if you wanted to kill someone, you'd want a weapon that's easy to conceal, easy to dispose of, and quiet. Rifles are none of those things.
gosu 13y ago
AK-47s scare me about as much as any other gun. It's "good" that rifles are used to kill fewer people than other weapons, and we should choose our battles accordingly. That doesn't change the fact that I want to make it as hard as possible for crazy people or people on a power trip to be able to fashion machines designed to efficiently kill people like me. That seems like a simple principle. Maybe the best way to achieve that here is to let these things stay in obscurity. Maybe not.
- duck 13y ago
  I want to make it as hard as possible for crazy people or people on a power trip to be able to fashion machines designed to efficiently kill people like me. I would worry more about cars, corporations, and governments. :)
  - gosu 13y ago
    None of those were designed to efficiently kill people like me. The OP's point is that I should be worrying more about handguns, and he's right - but that doesn't mean I can't worry about other things designed to pose a threat to my person too.
    - hga 13y ago
      As the quarter billion disarmed people killed by their own governments in the 20th century, plus all the combatants killed in two "World Wars" and many many others show, there is no single better instrumentality for "efficiently" killing people than governments. In more than a few cases, and most of the deaths, this is by design (Communists and Nazis).
      - gosu 13y ago
        It's true that some governments have killed their own citizens unjustly and en masse. I don't think that my own government poses such a threat to me. If you're a US citizen who feels like their government was designed to efficiently kill its citizens, and if you think that you can prevent that, then we probably can't have a constructive discussion. I don't know if people just want to start a interesting conversation, or if they feel like disparaging government somehow refutes my point. I hope it's the former, because it doesn't. If you understand why I don't want people to have access to tools designed to kill people like me, but consider government to be an existential threat, it should still be pretty obvious that the list of priorities is something like 1. handguns, 2. rifles, ..., N. governments.
minamea 13y ago
This is bullcrap. When someone has a rifle pointed at you, you don't care what the statistics are. You know your life is in danger and much, much more so than if someone had a knife or "blunt object". How is it supposed to make me feel safe that anyone can have a rifle? I'll just trust in their goodwill and hope they won't kill me with it if I piss them off?
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  The question is, how likely are you to end up with a rifle pointed at you? Not very.
MChristopherson 13y ago
Note as well that, as far as I can tell, he did not build an AK-47. He built a copy of the semi-automatic version that is available to gun enthusiasts. He did not build what your average user of an AK would call an AK: a fully automatic machine gun.
- oijaf888 13y ago
  Are you sure its not a semi-automatic AKM? Also I don't think any user of an AK-47 would call either a machine gun, more likely a rifle. A user of an AK-47 would probably call a RPK a machine gun though.

by jstalin 13y ago

ctide 13y ago

Yeah, it'd be awesome if everyone knew about this so we could really drive that rifle number up and make it competitive with other kinds of guns. Think of how many people could be brandishing their own unmarked AK-47 instead of having to resort to killing people with bats! So barbaric!

aidenn0 13y ago
I guarantee just the cost of parts for what was built in the article exceeds the budget for most guns used in crime. On top of that it's not at all concealable which makes it even less attractive for crime. In places where you can walk down the street with a rifle and not draw attention, and the markets are flooded with kalishnakov based designs are very prevalent though, and were the market to get flooded, then they would be more common. I don't think enough people are going to hand build these to make that the case in LA though.

asynchronous13 13y ago

Here's a summary of the 2011 data from the linked statistics: 8,583 - Homicides by firearms (all types) 323 - Homicides by rifles 1,694 - Homicides by sharp objects (knives, etc) 496 - Homicides by blunt objects (clubs, etc)

angersock 13y ago
The full table for firearms (2011) is: Handguns 6220 Rifles 323 Shotguns 356 Other guns 97 Firearms, type not stated 1587 So, er, yeah. GP is correct in their statement that rifles (indeed, it would seem, all longarms) are less favored for homicide than sharp and blunt objects.
- Retric 13y ago
  Not really, type not stated just means unknown some of those are clearly going to be Rifles. If 200 of those where Rifles then it would be more popular than blunt objects.
  - angersock 13y ago
    You presume too much... these are the conclusions the data support--anything else is just handwaving.
  - hga 13y ago
    But with 1.5 orders of magnitude difference in the officially known enumerated types we can be pretty sure the officially unknowns don't wildly vary from knowns. Plus the number of rifles used is so small people who track of this sort of thing would likely have an idea if something weird was happening. My only caveat is bodies found without a recovered bullet; almost all centerfire rifles have greater energies and sectional densities than normally used handguns, so the bullet is more likely to exit. To get a handle on this we'd need breakdowns on where they happened (e.g. city, almost certainly a handgun, rural, a rifle is more likely, if only because of concealment issues). Or talk to coroners, the wounds will be somewhat different.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

mikestew 13y ago

Look scary? Just the media-hyped name alone is enough. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Americans couldn't distinguish between an AK-47 and a Glock by sight alone. (I'd concede that it may not be a majority, but at least a surprisingly large number.)

overgard 13y ago

That makes a lot of sense -- rifles are very hard to conceal compared to handguns. I imagine if you wanted to kill someone, you'd want a weapon that's easy to conceal, easy to dispose of, and quiet. Rifles are none of those things.

gosu 13y ago

AK-47s scare me about as much as any other gun. It's "good" that rifles are used to kill fewer people than other weapons, and we should choose our battles accordingly. That doesn't change the fact that I want to make it as hard as possible for crazy people or people on a power trip to be able to fashion machines designed to efficiently kill people like me. That seems like a simple principle. Maybe the best way to achieve that here is to let these things stay in obscurity. Maybe not.

duck 13y ago
I want to make it as hard as possible for crazy people or people on a power trip to be able to fashion machines designed to efficiently kill people like me. I would worry more about cars, corporations, and governments. :)
- gosu 13y ago
  None of those were designed to efficiently kill people like me. The OP's point is that I should be worrying more about handguns, and he's right - but that doesn't mean I can't worry about other things designed to pose a threat to my person too.
  - hga 13y ago
    As the quarter billion disarmed people killed by their own governments in the 20th century, plus all the combatants killed in two "World Wars" and many many others show, there is no single better instrumentality for "efficiently" killing people than governments. In more than a few cases, and most of the deaths, this is by design (Communists and Nazis).
    - gosu 13y ago
      It's true that some governments have killed their own citizens unjustly and en masse. I don't think that my own government poses such a threat to me. If you're a US citizen who feels like their government was designed to efficiently kill its citizens, and if you think that you can prevent that, then we probably can't have a constructive discussion. I don't know if people just want to start a interesting conversation, or if they feel like disparaging government somehow refutes my point. I hope it's the former, because it doesn't. If you understand why I don't want people to have access to tools designed to kill people like me, but consider government to be an existential threat, it should still be pretty obvious that the list of priorities is something like 1. handguns, 2. rifles, ..., N. governments.

minamea 13y ago

This is bullcrap. When someone has a rifle pointed at you, you don't care what the statistics are. You know your life is in danger and much, much more so than if someone had a knife or "blunt object". How is it supposed to make me feel safe that anyone can have a rifle? I'll just trust in their goodwill and hope they won't kill me with it if I piss them off?

andrewflnr 13y ago
The question is, how likely are you to end up with a rifle pointed at you? Not very.

MChristopherson 13y ago

Note as well that, as far as I can tell, he did not build an AK-47. He built a copy of the semi-automatic version that is available to gun enthusiasts. He did not build what your average user of an AK would call an AK: a fully automatic machine gun.

oijaf888 13y ago
Are you sure its not a semi-automatic AKM? Also I don't think any user of an AK-47 would call either a machine gun, more likely a rifle. A user of an AK-47 would probably call a RPK a machine gun though.