“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.” Brian Palmer at slate.com in his article, Going Postal, Pre-Pistol [h/t Don Natale]

20 Responses to Quote of the Day: But…But…But… Edition

  1. I think that Rwanda has shown that even if you take away the guns, men will still find a way to slaughter.

  2. Yesterday, at Portland’s gun show, I held a Ka-Bar Becker BK7 knife that can possibly be described as the old ka-bar fighting knife on muscle building steroids. It would make a really nice close in defense tool after the ammo is gone or when you are within arms reach of your attacker. The only thing I’d change about the knife is to give it a new handle or grip which is easily done.

    • I have one. It’s a fantastic fighting/utility/survival knife, but a little big for EDC, and a lot of places limit carry blade length to 3″ or less (CCW permits often only let you conceal a gun, not anything else, which is pretty silly). I also recommend the Gerber LHR, LMF or Prodigy.

      • Darth,

        Check out the new and smaller BK15, 16, and especially the BK17 models by Ka-bar Becker. I have the BK5 stripped of the black paint and with a new micarta handle. I’m selling my BK2 model. It’s built like a tank yet is too much of a generalist knife.

  3. I think McVeigh clearly showed that a rifle isn’t needed to kill lots of people and McVeigh actually chose that target to reduce the possibility of people not associated with that federal building of being killed.

    Personally, if I wanted be a mass killer, I’d use explosives and chemicals, all of which I can make in my kitchen/mad science laboratory.

  4. We can include the 9/11 victims under the explosives. While they didn’t build bombs they used planes as bombs.

  5. I don’t see the point of making these comparisons since you aren’t comparing apple to apples… Medical technology was much less capable of saving lives in the past, and no communication infrastructure also prevented effective policing and fire protection. If the mass Seattle stabbing mentioned in the linked article had happened today, most of the stabbings would’ve been survivable, since the four of his six victims died of infection days later, not the immediate wounds… You could go through the whole list of those and see how modern tech and policing would’ve prevented them.

    Trying to argue that guns are inherently less dangerous than knives or fire is wasting time. In modern times, you’d need very special circumstances to be able to kill more with fire or knives than a gun. Effective explosives are not readily available in a manufactured state to the general populace, and are even harder to deploy effectively.

    Using cherry-picked pseudo-logic to support 2A rights is like loading a Cabot 1911 with old corroded ammo… you’re dramatically weakening what should be a solid argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *