[rockdoc123]

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: 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.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the "murder by rifle" numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

[url]http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles#ixzz2GyfwVCt2
[/url]

So based on this statistic maybe Mike Holmes show (Holmes on Homes, sorry a Canadian homebuilder show but I don't know any US ones) should be banned for the blatant display and indiscriminate use of claw hammers in each episode? With regards to clubs as weapons this will create a huge problem for the USGS and the Golf Channel.....and I can definitely say you will have to pry my Callaway 60 degree wedge from my cold dead hands!

I guess this begs the question how many mass killings were conducted with hammers...that would be an interesting statistic.

Seriously though this seems to point to the fact that the US is not suffering from having to many guns, it is suffering from having too many idiots (that number might be a lot less if you got rid of most of the politicians but still an alarmingly high percentage of your population).

[Lore]

It's another fallicious argument that two wrongs make a right. Over 400 people have died by gun violence in the US since the Sandy Hook incident. Death by extension, in that there are other means to commit murder, doesn't exanurate the availability and use of such destructive weapons.

[dissident]

It's hard to kill dozens of people with a hammer or a knife. So this is the typical apples to oranges comparison that is intended to obfuscate the issue.

If I was in a public place I would be more worried about my risk of being gunned down in some shootout between gangs or by some nut on a rampage. The key points here are public place and risk pertaining to a 3rd party. Domestic conflicts and settling of scores are not pertinent.

[careinke]

It's another fallicious argument that two wrongs make a right. Over 400 people have died by gun violence in the US since the Sandy Hook incident. Death by extension, in that there are other means to commit murder, doesn't exanurate the availability and use of such destructive weapons.

So you are arguing for a ban on hammers?

Now lets bring up cars.......

[AgentR11]

It's hard to kill dozens of people with a hammer or a knife.

How many hundreds of thousands died in Rawanda via machete? It is trivial to kill that number with a knife, or gasoline, or bleach+ammonia, or any other horrific ways that people can kill other people.

If I was in a public place I would be more worried about my risk of being gunned down in some shootout between gangs or by some nut on a rampage. The key points here are public place and risk pertaining to a 3rd party. Domestic conflicts and settling of scores are not pertinent.

Automobile trumps all in the instance you are referring to. I'm all for banning personal automobiles from the face of the planet.

[autonomous]

According to the CDC, leading causes of violence-related deaths in 2010 are:
Motor vehicles: 33,687
Unintentional poisoning: 33,041
Unintentional fall: 26,009
Suicide by firearm: 19,392
Homicide by firearm: 11,078
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/images/LCD/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.gif

Maybe rifles aren't so much of an issue, but handguns are responsible for the majority of suicide or homicides by gun.

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms.

The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the United States, not including weapons owned by the military. 114 million of these were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States



Top ways to die by age group:
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/images/LCD/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.gif

[rockdoc123]

According to the CDC, leading causes of violence-related deaths in 2010 are:

so why are these numbers so wildly different from the FBI analysis?

[rockdoc123]

just went to the FBI data site and see what the issue is. The news I linked to on the FBI report was comparing long barrel weapon related murders to hammers and clubs and did not speak to handguns which of course are the big player according to the CDC graph. Still looks a bit different from the FBI information though.

So from this do you read that a ban on handguns is reasonable but long barrel weapons should be allowed? This is essentially the situation in Canada currently. You can obtain a permit for a side arm if you have a good reason and pass all the scrutiny to obtain a Fire arms acquisition certificate. You are required to keep that weapon secured in your home and if you move it you must obtain a transit permit. Basically a pain in the backside so anyone who owns a handgun to use for target shooting usually stores it at the target range under lock and key. Canada tried to limit the ability of individuals to own rifles and shot guns through the firearm registry program but that has been disbanded as it was quite unpopular and didn't seem to be very successful.

[Pops]

My thought is there should be a guaranteed federal concealed carry "right" for pistols and maybe to own a pump gun. But only with strict licensing requirements (don't know what they are - it doesn't matter, just strict and enforced and guaranteed (no local Chief sign-off)) and everyone else should not be allowed to own handguns or repeating anything - including shotguns.

Change the laws from "Do A Line- Go To Prison" to "Use a gun go to prison".

Bolt action sporters, 3-rounds or so maybe, single and double barrel guns, maybe those little single shot target pistolas. Enough to blow off your own head and you wife's but not half the class.

I own guns including semis and pumps. But I don't care how many cool black plastic semi auto rifles you have, they aren't going to protect you from a drone with a hellfire missile, or even the modern small town paramilitary assault platoon I mean police.

Give that wet-dream up.

And don't go all "BATF will know about me!!!" They know everything about you already.

Sure the punks aren't going to give theirs up, which is why you as a law abiding citizen are allowed, by federal law, to carry.

[Lore]

It's another fallicious argument that two wrongs make a right. Over 400 people have died by gun violence in the US since the Sandy Hook incident. Death by extension, in that there are other means to commit murder, doesn't exanurate the availability and use of such destructive weapons.

So you are arguing for a ban on hammers?

Now lets bring up cars.......

As dissident points out that's just a red herring. Hammers are meant to pound nails, cars are meant for transportation. They're not intended for use as an instrument of mayhem. There are only two uses for guns, killing and practicing to kill.

Following your logic, if hammers, baseball bats and cars were such effective weapons of death then maybe we should just remove guns from the military and equip them with 16 oz. construction hammer side arms and a Ford Focus.

[ralfy]

I was going to say what Lore wrote, and add that even driver's licenses should no longer be required for operating motor vehicles (i.e., if the premise is that there won't be any control over the use of hammers, then there should be no control over the use of guns and other products, including vehicles), or that it should be mandatory for all citizens to carry hammers and clubs because that may "deter" others from using hammers and clubs to harm or kill others, etc. If pro-hammer uses complain, they can look at another event that involves more deaths and argue that that's the "issue," ad nauseum.

In the end, the only logical thing to do is to assume that gun control is not the same as a gun ban, that gun control in the form of registration, background checks, and training are needed to lessen the difficulty of identifying ownership of weapons used in an incident, to minimize gun accidents, etc., is practical and does not in any way violate the Constitution (which does not claim that rights may not be abridged by law) or the Second Amendment (which is about forming well-regulated militias), and that one should look at studies that involve multiple factors to consider.

[vaseline2008]

There have been studies that state that there is a "violence" gene. However, the person with said gene is usually more peaceful than the norm. Only until the person experiences personal abuse does it get activated.

What seems to be ignored is that personal violent experiences are the cause of violent people. Prisoners who have committed violent crimes, i.e., murder, rape, etc..., have all been victims of early childhood abuse either by their parents, care takers, or others in their immediate environment.

Let's face it, violence breeds violence, hate breeds hate and love breeds love, let's not play the blame game and look for a scapegoat and try to treat the real causes of problems.

[AgentR11]

My thought is there should be a guaranteed federal concealed carry "right" for pistols and maybe to own a pump gun.

As long as economic status or political status do not make it easier or harder, and it is SHALL ISSUE, you might have something reasonable. One of the most offensive things to me on the carry issue is places where politicians or people who can afford lawyers can get a carry permit, and the average gas station clerk can not, or can not afford it.

All that said, unless an incredible shift in partisan alignment happens in both the congress, and the courts, your suggestion just won't pass or survive challenge. Maybe it'll happen in the future, I dunno.

[AgentR11]

even driver's licenses should no longer be required for operating motor vehicles

Just a note for honesty. A driver's license is not required to operate a motor vehicle. Only to operate that vehicle on public right of ways. My nephew's been operating motor vehicles without a license since about the age of 8 or so.... on private property.

So, no license required to own and operate a firearm on private property.
License required to carry a firearm in public accomodations; sounds like CCW.

Background check - got a pretty darn good system right now. Background checks will never catch people who have no criminal record to be background.

Training could be better - but most CCW licenses have some practical training/testing to them. And you don't need training to operate a motor vehicle on private property either.

I like the comparison.

[autonomous]

In a 1997 national survey of more than 16,000 students in grades 9–12, 18 percent said they had carried a weapon outside the home in the previous 30-day period (Kann et al., 1998). The problem is more severe in inner-city neighborhoods. One study involving 800 inner-city high school students reported that 22 percent of all students said they carried a weapon (Sheley and Wright, 1993)

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/188992.pdf

Gang-bangers who carry a handgun do so illegally and are responsible for 18% (2020 out of 11,078) of the homicides by firearm in 2010.
http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

[vtsnowedin]

If you want to get serious about saving lives then you should ban tobacco. There you have 444,000 deaths per year on average of fourteen years prematurely.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statist ... mortality/
Another thing that irks me is listing gun suicides as a gun death as if the gun caused the suicide. A gun suicide is a gun owner that has come to the end choosing his own time and place to check out saving himself the last indignities of a slow painful death at the hands of our rapacious health care system. Take the guns away and any intelligent person will find the next best method and your total number of suicides will not drop by any significant amount.

[Lore]

Most of these mass killings have been committed by what would be considered demented flyweights. The only thing that gave them the power to perpetrate their heinous acts was the gun. Even an unhinged mind can consider such acts would be unlikly using less lethal instruments of murder.

[ralfy]

Just a note for honesty. A driver's license is not required to operate a motor vehicle. Only to operate that vehicle on public right of ways. My nephew's been operating motor vehicles without a license since about the age of 8 or so.... on private property.

Unfortunately, most operations don't involve such circumstances.

So, no license required to own and operate a firearm on private property.
License required to carry a firearm in public accomodations; sounds like CCW.

Obviously, as it is assumed that the firearm will not be used elsewhere, and the owner is easy to identify.

Background check - got a pretty darn good system right now. Background checks will never catch people who have no criminal record to be background.

Obviously.

Training could be better - but most CCW licenses have some practical training/testing to them. And you don't need training to operate a motor vehicle on private property either.

Let's put it this way: if you want to avoid smashing up your vehicle even in private property, then you'll probably want to receive some training rather than resort to guesswork.

I like the comparison.

Indeed.

[MrEnergyCzar]

I'd imagine most gun crimes aren't committed using a "rifle". That would be highly unlikely. It's an odd way of looking at it. Kind of like saying more people die from falling down then crashing a Toyota car. Improperly locked guns of all types is probably a huge issue. Of course, not everyone can afford to put their guns in a Fort Knox safe at home either...

MrEnergyCzar