It’s a pet peeve of mine; whenever someone – usually a smug little twerp who’s beein trained to think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, regardless of actual merit – starts out a soliloquy with “Actually…”, I usually want to smack them.
Hard.
So with a piece from earlier in the week from the Washington Post, by Christopher Ingraham – who is, more or less, the person I described in the first paragraph. But he’s at the WaPo, so I repeat myself.
And, er, “actually”,the article actually takes a radical departure – revealing a bit of the truth:
The study analyzed data on 221 gun homicides and 1,012 nonfatal shootings that happened in Boston between 2010 and 2014. On first glance, the numbers provided a confirmation of the depressing demographics of shooting cases: “Most gunshot victims and survivors were young minority men with prior court arraignments,” Braga and Cook found. “Most attacks occurred in circumstances where gangs or drugs played an important role.” Most occurred outdoors in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
This? In the WaPo?
It seems too good to be true. And it is exactly that, eventually.
But Ingraham thinks he’s onto something:
The results undercut the idea that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That catchy turn of phrase is often used by gun rights supporters to emphasize the human role in gun violence rather than the gun itself.
And this revelation that “undercuts” the absolute truism – the notion that perpetrators, not hardware, is responsible for crime (emphasis added)?
Analyzing data on hundreds of shootings in Boston from 2010 to 2014, Anthony Braga of Northeastern University and Philip J. Cook of Duke University found that on a bullet-per-bullet basis, shootings committed with a large-caliber firearm are much more likely to result in a fatality than those with a smaller-caliber gun.
In other words – bigger guns are more lethal.
This is what you get from America’s most respected journalistic outlet.
No word on whether large calibers make a firearm self-animating.
Maybe that’ll be on NPR…
Which is more deadly:
a) pen knife or bowie knife?
b) blackjack or Louisville slugger?
c) pebble or bowling ball?
d) .22 subsonic behind the ear or .44 magnum headshot?
Ingraham is a ditz!
Based on that analysis, a Colt Navy .44 caliber black powder revolver from the Civil War era would be far more lethal than a puny .223 caliber AR pistol from the 21st century.
A closer examination shows the analysts in the study distinguished by caliber AND powder. The .38 Special doesn’t make the “major” power factor for competitions, but .38 Super does and so does the .357 which is the same bullet size as the .38 and 9mm but sitting on a lot more punch. The reporter even mentions the 7.62 is smaller diameter but has more powder so it’s considered “large” but when the reporter advances his ban-the-big-one policy solution, it doesn’t take into account the facts he just wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/27/actually-guns-do-kill-people-according-new-study/?utm_term=.e72197c1a11f
Next up, snowmobiles are faster than snowshoes but use more fuel, killing Mother Earth. After all, he does live in Red Lake Falls, now. Might as well write about something he actually knows about. It’s sad he doesn’t have any neighbors who could educate him about firearms.
What about high power clips?
Soooooooooo, does that mean the government should ban the sale of shotgun slugs to young minority males?
If not, I am terribly confused…
No, Greg, because shotguns are not rated in Caliber, they go by Gauge, which is a completely different word – doesn’t even have the same number of letters – and therefore has nothing to do with this discussion. Any Liberal journalist could tell you that.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.03.18 : The Other McCain
The next study will merely state that a gun was used in 100% of gun homicides, therefore banning guns will end gun homicides.