More People Killed with Hammers and Clubs than Rifles

Source

If we follow the logic of Congress and use FBI statistics, the government should outlaw hammers and clubs.
According to the FBI’s annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Awr Hawkins, writing for Breitbart, cites the government figures: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618, Hawkins writes.

Moreover, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by rifles.
But you won’t hear Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and the gun-grabbers in Congress calling for outlawing and “grandfathering” hands.

The FBI stats underscore the fact that for Feinstein and crew job one is outlawing the possession of modern firearms. Preventing the murder of children comes in a distant second.

A government that kills thousands of innocents in Pakistan and Yemen and has slaughtered millions since the Vietnam War – including more than 500,000 children through disease, starvation and malnutrition in Iraq – doesn’t give a whit about the murder of school kids in Connecticut.

Feinstein’s jihad against the Second Amendment is about disarming the American people. It is about making sure the government maintains a monopoly on power....

Full Article here

And knives:

From the FBI site :

www.fbi.gov...

Interesting how those statistics break down take California a state that has one of the most heavily regulated firearm laws:

California had 1790 murders a total of 1220 firearm related 866 handguns 45 rifles 50 shotguns, 259 "unknown"

Let the govt outlaw guns , It's not gonna change nothing , there are so many unregistered guns on the streets that it would be impossible to collect them all.......The American people will never give up their guns , there will be a civil war before that happens . This ain't nothing but govt saber rattling.

Significantly absent here are the number killed by pistols.

Don;t kill the messenger here; I'm a lifetime NRA member. Just sayin'

I am always leery anyone starts parading the "For the children" argument.

Pulling that card is an emotional appeal that is designed to camouflage a weak argument, over riding logic.

If you look at teenage driving deaths, staggering numbers are caused by txting while driving, more CHILDREN die every year from texting while driving than by guns.

So where are the calls to make cell phone use for 18 and older people only, or to restrict the type of cell phone children can have, say ones with safety features such as locking the phone down while traveling at 10mph or above.

There are none because there is not some hidden agenda behind such a movement, such as there is with banning Guns.

eta About 6,000 deaths and a half a million injuries are caused by distracted drivers every year, how many children died by random gun violence Around 3000.

Its not about the children.

Originally posted by schuyler
Significantly absent here are the number killed by pistols.

Don;t kill the messenger here; I'm a lifetime NRA member. Just sayin'

But but Ar-15s kill more people!!!!!!!

Maybe the new law will be to have hammers and knives under lock and key. They shall register them and there should be a limit on how many you can have.

Banning tools will not affect the murder rate. I laugh at anyone who thinks that.

Well done - by referring only to deaths by rifle (348 deaths out of the total 9,146 caused by guns in 2009) you seem to have tried to create one of the most misleading threads I've seen in three years on ATS.

Your source quotes FBI figures from this link

www2.fbi.gov...

It gives numbers of murders in the USA by weapons by year from 2005-2009, and it gives the figures for handguns, rifles, shotguns, other guns and 'firearms, type not stated'.

The number of deaths by rifle - the only number you quote - is the lowest of the main categories in each of the five years. In 2009 the number of murders in each category was:

Handguns - 6,452

Rifles - 348

Shotguns - 418

Other guns - 94

Firearms, type not stated - 1,834

I make that a total of 9,146 murders by guns/firearms in 2009

Compared to that figure of 9.146 -

The figure for knives or cutting instruments was 1,825

The figure for blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) was 611

The figure for personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) was 801


Why did you choose to leave out all those other figures?

reply to post by Snippy23


According to those stats firearm related are on the decline why did someone choose to leave out that?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Mental note: If I ever decide to run into a mall and take out a bunch of citizens, I should use a hammer because statistically speaking more deaths happen by hammer, therefore I have better odds of taking out more folks with a hammer than I do with an AR15.

Thanks for the info, OP.
Obviously I need to arm my home with more hammers.

Silly me.

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Mental note: If I ever decide to run into a mall and take out a bunch of citizens, I should use a hammer because statistically speaking more deaths happen by hammer, therefore I have better odds of taking out more folks with a hammer than I do with an AR15.

Thanks for the info, OP.
Obviously I need to arm my home with more hammers.

Silly me.

Box cutters brought 3 planes down eh.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Mental note: If I ever decide to run into a mall and take out a bunch of citizens, I should use a hammer because statistically speaking more deaths happen by hammer, therefore I have better odds of taking out more folks with a hammer than I do with an AR15.

Thanks for the info, OP.
Obviously I need to arm my home with more hammers.

Silly me.

Box cutters brought 3 planes down eh.

Oh geez, that's right.
Thanks for the reminder, I need more boxcutters too.

All these silly guns I have are a sense of false security.
Hammers and boxcutters are where it's at.

After all, statistics don't lie.

reply to post by CranialSponge


Those stats show that firearm related deaths are on the decline so they dont lie and then they armed pilots I guess for that "false sense of security".

I don't think you can make the assumption that if people don't have access to a gun then they'll ALWAYS switch to another weapon.

The statistics don't tell us under what circumstances or state of mind the perpetrator committed the murder. Normally the argument to which is "does it matter how you're killed, if you're dead you're dead."

A gun is immediate and its absence may have resulted instead with a beating, a slap or a indeed a fatal stabbing. Bur we just don't know. Do we?

ok...but what would happen if those people with clubs or hammers had guns?

reply to post by neo96


I guess firearm deaths are on the decline because apparently hammers are the more deadly weapon since they are being used more often. Again, statistics don't lie... if firearms were the better choice then obviously they would be the ones used more often, no ?

I missed the memo, but am grateful to the OP for informing me that hammers are by definition the better choice for a weapon.

/end sarcasm



Do you see the stupidity of comparing apples with oranges ?!
You're cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

There's a reason why we chose firearms rather than hammers to protect our homes and/or to go hunting with.
Need I state the obvious ?

Enough with these silly little comparative argument threads that fail right from the get go.


Edit to add:
These ridiculous apples to oranges threads makes us gun owners look like a bunch of morons incapable of logical thinking.

People having been tossing statistics back and forth for weeks now. Putting things in perspective clearly illustrates that the government doesn't want a safer America, it wants a gun-free America.

Chicago, one of the toughest anti gun cities had over 500 gun related deaths in 2012.

So it is clear that removing handguns would not make anyone safer, it will make more people actually at risk.

Why does the government want to take away our weapons?

So people will rely on government protection instead of depending on personal responsibility for ones safety.

Originally posted by beezzer
People having been tossing statistics back and forth for weeks now. Putting things in perspective clearly illustrates that the government doesn't want a safer America, it wants a gun-free America.

Chicago, one of the toughest anti gun cities had over 500 gun related deaths in 2012.

So it is clear that removing handguns would not make anyone safer, it will make more people actually at risk.

Why does the government want to take away our weapons?

So people will rely on government protection instead of depending on personal responsibility for ones safety.

edit on 4-1-2013 by beezzer because: (no reason given)

Something Larry Correia wrote about the school shooting but actually applies to any location IMO
The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement= 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians= 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when the altercation started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

Same can be said about a store, mall, sidewalk or anyplace people gather. I always come back to the 100 pound lady who is confronted by some 210 B.G. who wants to rape pillage and plunder..... Maybe God created mankind for his own reasons but a firearm makes a man and woman equal for defending ones' self from brute force..

Well, if you're going to up and kill somebody, you should at least have to work for it!

There should be some way we could make it really really hard to do, then the lazy ones will stop killing all together

Originally posted by Snippy23

Your source quotes FBI figures from this link

www2.fbi.gov...

It gives numbers of murders in the USA by weapons by year from 2005-2009, and it gives the figures for handguns, rifles, shotguns, other guns and 'firearms, type not stated'.

The number of deaths by rifle - the only number you quote - is the lowest of the main categories in each of the five years. In 2009 the number of murders in each category was:

Handguns - 6,452

Rifles - 348

Shotguns - 418

Other guns - 94

Firearms, type not stated - 1,834

I make that a total of 9,146 murders by guns/firearms in 2009

Compared to that figure of 9.146 -

The figure for knives or cutting instruments was 1,825

The figure for blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) was 611

The figure for personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) was 801

Then why is our lovely government want to start by taking out “assault guns” if top of the list is taken by Handguns (6,452), while Rifles – only 348 ? So they are not after our safety, are they?