How to refute the more murders with hammers than rifles fiction that is sweeping right wing websites

[Mortos]

There is a meme sweeping the right wing blogosphere and mainstream media right now that cherry picks figures from FBI crime stats for 2011. Breitbart's (rest his soul) website has an article up that reinforces morons preconceived NRA beliefs that guns are by far safer than common household tools like hammers. There is only one problem, the article intentionally takes one specific weapon, rifles, and dishonestly compares it to dozens of weapons; the FBI stats for blunt objects do not differentiate between hammers, clubs, tire irons, nunchuks, bricks, crowbars, baseball bats, beer bottles, billy clubs, poles, cinderblocks, irons, and dozens of other weapons that are used to bludgeon people or bash their brains out. It also conveniently leaves out every other type of gun murder.

A true comparison shows guns are responsible for more deaths than all other weapons combined.

Here is the Breitbart article

Here are the actual FBI stats

Here are the facts; In America in 2011, 8583 people were murdered by one type of weapon, guns (an additional 18,000 + committed suicide with firearms). Less than half that amount, 4,081 were killed by every other weapon known to man including knives, blunt objects, poison, fire, pushing out a window, cars, hands, explosions, drowning, narcotics, strangulation, asphyxiation and the mysterious "other" category.

The truth is, the probability of being murdered by a gun in America is double that of being killed by any other weapon or method available to humankind...combined.

[JoePhilly]

1. If they think a hammer is so lethal, maybe they should use THAT for protection.

Or to kill deer.

[MsPithy]

65. Excellent point!

It should be custodians armed with hammers protecting our schools, not gunslinging teachers.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

66. I do believe DeLay is too busy at the present.

[samsingh]

77. excellent point

[HereSince1628]

2. I think the 8583 number is homicides...and doesn't include ~17000 gun suicides

that occur every year.

[pangaia]

4. Great point.

How many people kill themselves with a hammer?

[pscot]

5. I knew a guy who killed his sister

by hitting her with a beer bottle. I have also known several people who were murdered with guns.

[pangaia]

98. Thats freightening.

Sorry to hear..

[NYC_SKP]

16. I support a persons right to end their life.

It doesn't help the failed argument much anyway.

[HereSince1628]

43. Just trying to get toward an accurate number of gun deaths

Nothing more. Homicides are just 1/3 of the deaths by guns.

And I suppose within the ridiculousness that, technically some of those guns do have parts called 'hammers' which if conflated with carpentry hammers would also change the arithmetic. The gun folks do seem to like everything to be technical as in "triggers don't ignite percussive explosives, hammers do".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Thank you. That was exactly my thought.

On one side you have rifles. (Which, by the way, were designed with the specific purpose of killing, injuring or simulating killing/injuring)

On the other side you have every possible blunt object known to man. (Almost all, if not all, were designed with the specific purpose of doing something other than killing, injuring, or simulating killing/injuring.)

It's false equivalancy at its greatest. Almost as infuriating as the whole "guns vs. cars" line that gets regurgitated over and over and over.

[X_Digger]

26. What does the 'intent' of an object have to do with the uses to which it's put?

Even assuming I buy the assumption that any particular gun was 'designed with the specific purpose of killing, injuring..' etc, which I don't..

From a public safety standpoint, the intent of the designer has no bearing on the discussion IMHO, merely the incidence of harm represented by the indicated means.

So please, enlighten me. Why does the "original intent" of any tool have any bearing on the relative safety of the tool? I would assert that if we’re going to talk purpose, it’s not the intended purpose of the original designer that is important, rather the purpose to which the tool is actually applied.

Then we can discuss the different purposes to which firearms are applied, and compare the relative incidence of usage, one purpose to another (use in crime vs self-defense vs target shooting) or incidence of one purpose of guns versus other tools for that same purpose (guns vs knives in crime).

[Tommy_Carcetti]

40. It goes to why the object is purchased.

If I buy a car, I'm not thinking about how I might have to use that to kill someone, whether the killing is justifiable or not.

But if I buy a gun....well, you'd know.

A gun is not just an ordinary object. It is a weapon, and designed as such.

[X_Digger]

47. Do they still sell telepsychology degrees on the internet?

What does the intent of the designer have to do with the intent of the purchaser? That's quite a leap to intuit, telepsychology aside.


If the primary intent of guns are to kill / injure, and that's why people buy them, then that means the majority of guns are defective?

~300,000,000 guns and ~380,000 uses of them in crime, suicide, injuries, homicide.

So you're saying that 99.9% of gun owners are misusing their firearms by NOT killing or injuring someone?



No, you trying to ascribe moral choices to people who buy guns falls flat on its face.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

80. It's a pretty easy correlation, actually.

Designer/manufacturer=Intent to produce and sell a deadly weapon. (Naturally, at profit)

Purchaser=Possessing the actual knowledge and potential intent to use said deadly weapon, whether for lawful purposes or otherwise.

Let's not play stupid. For the most part, people don't buy guns as decorating pieces. (And by that I mean modern functional guns, not antique relics). They buy them knowing they could end up using them for their intended purpose, that being as a deadly weapon. Now, it's true that many guns will never be used beyond the shooting range. But even by doing that, they are preparing for the potential use of the gun as a deadly weapon. (And for the record--before you jump on me--I have no problem with people going to shooting ranges. I'm just again making note of an underlying reality.)

Let's stop pretending that people who make and sell guns are simply making and selling some ordinary household item, like a toaster or something mundane like that. They are selling something specifically designed as a deadly weapon. And they are doing so at a profit. Which in and of itself is fine. Except that I have a serious problem when profit begins to trump the general welfare of the public at large. I have a problem with it when it comes to healthcare, and I have a problem with it when it comes to guns. So when I see gun control laws that may have the ultimate effect of less guns being sold because of things like background checks or waiting periods, and I see those being opposed by gun manufacturers/sellers and their lobbyists because (ultimately) of profit, yeah, I have a problem with that and it needs to be addressed.

And your numbers argument fail to add up, so to speak.

Yes, there are 300,000,000 guns in the country but not 300,000,000 gun owners. Many gun owners (like Nancy Lanza) have multiple guns. Now, let's compare gun owners to gun deaths. And we'll remove deaths from things like hunting accidents and accidential discharges. Now, if you then run a comparision of the ratio of gun owners to non-accidential gun deaths to the ratio of say car owners to non-accidental car deaths, or hammer owners to non-accidential hammer deaths, or baseball bat owners to non-accidential baseball bat deaths, I can bet good money that the numbers will show a lot higher number of gun deaths to gun owners then all those other objects that *could* theoretically be used as a deadly weapons.

And that's a force to be reckoned with. I don't care if you say that the vast majority of gun owners won't actually use their guns to kill somebody, saying there's not a problem with guns in this country is sticking one's head in the ground.

[X_Digger]

81. If we go with 80,000,000 gun owners, it becomes 99.5%..

..of gun owners whose firearms must be defective.

Who would by a product that is only used "for its intended purpose" 0.475% of the time?

Which is more likely, that my math is off, or that gun owners don't "intend" to use their arms to "kill or injure"?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. If they are actually shooting their gun at any place other than a range....

.....it's almost certainly used with the intent to injure or kill. Legal or not.

And if it's being shot at the range, it's being used to prepare one's self for the former situation.

It's a deadly weapon. It's designed as a deadly weapon. And it's used, pursuant to its intended design, as a deadly weapon.

Take two people, one in line at a hardware store to buy a hammer and one in line at a gun shop to buy a gun. What are the chances that the guy in line at the hardware store is thinking about the possibilty of using his hammer to kill someone or something? Now, what are the chances that the guy in line at the gun store is thinking about the possibility of using his gun to kill someone or something? I would think that there is a good chance killing is on the mind of at least one of those guys, but most likely it's not the guy with the hammer.

And it's because of the gravity of that purchase that the item being purchased must be subject to a greater level of scrutiny and regulation.

[X_Digger]

83. Target practice and recreational shooting = "preparing to injure or kill"?!?

I think that branch you're hanging from has a small crack. Feel free to step out further, though.

And trying to buttress it up with the "or something"? Transparent.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

85. How frequently do you see these?

It's a common staple at just about any shooting range anywhere.

Sure, you can imagine it being that armed home invader and you are justifiably protecting your family, but it's still a reality check as to what the gun's intended purpose is.

[X_Digger]

86. Are the olympians similarly "preparing to kill and injure"? LOL!

Again, why would someone buy a product that only serves its intended purpose 0.475% of the time?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

88. Yes, the millions of Olympic sharpshooters that we have in this country.

Who exactly are you supposed to be kidding? What exactly was going through your mind when you bought your own gun(s)? I would think you were at least cognizent of the fact you were buying a deadly weapon and not a washing machine.

[X_Digger]

89. The last gun I bought, was for IPSC competition.

Like most gun owners, the major thing I will be "killing or injuring" is paper or tin cans. Maybe some bowling pins, if I can find the box of them in the attic.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

91. And that's the only gun you have?

One that you exclusively use for regulated competitive shooting events?

[X_Digger]

93. I don't hunt (like 80% of gun owners.)

I have a few wall hangers that have significant historical value, and one family heirloom from my great-grandfather, but all the guns that I actually shoot are for recreation.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

94. ISSF or ISPC?

I know there is a difference....

[X_Digger]

97. IPSC (pistol), postage match with a few friends who don't live close anymore..

.. or just target shooting for the zen of it.

[tm52]

113. ha, ha...

geez, as if it took him this long to realize how ridiculous he looked.....

[lastlib]

45. I think saying that a gun is "designed" to kill is a flawed argument...

A gun is designed to hurl a projectile at a high velocity. Nothing more. But that design gives guns a capacity for lethality under the broadest range of conditions that exceeds any other object or tool. That capacity for lethality dictates that certain controls be placed upon them for the safety of society.

This disposes of the "guns vs. cars-or-any-other-object" argument.

[Erose999]

63. So if the purpose of a gun is not to kill, then what is it? I know AR's are really designed for

suppressive fire, but the point of suppressive fire is the potentiality of killing. And since "civillian" or "sporting" AR's use the intermediate cartridges that have little use in hunting game, and the need for "suppressive fire" from a rifle cartridge is highly unlikely in defending ones home against a burglar... one can surmise that the sole purpose of such a weapon is to kill people.

[Soft Tips]

46. equivalency

On both sides you have killers.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. Using what? nt

[Mojorabbit]

61. People have been killing eachother since the dawn of time

I would guess that guns or no guns they will continue to do so. I would love a ton of research or a movement to stop the killing period, but that would be hard when we elect leaders who spend their time looking to do just that and that there is a huge economic benefit to do so.

[Mortos]

6. I did some further research

Those numbers don't include suicides by firearm. The last year I could find that data was from the Center's for Disease Control website for 2007 are here:

Firearm suicides

Number of deaths: 18,735
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1

I couldn't find any information on the number of people who kill themselves with hammers.

[Heidi]

8. I would also be interested in knowing the number of people

who end their lives with hammers.

[LiberalFighter]

14. The gun wackos should demonstrate on themselves.

[Heidi]

21. Well, I don't want to see anyone get hurt,

but that'd be more evidence of widespread hammer-related violence than I've seen so far.

[Xipe Totec]

101. Or how many shoot themselves while totally hammered nt

[Mojorabbit]

62. Here is something from the fbi

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
on edit the number where rifles or shotguns are used is pretty small. Handguns seem to be the tool of choice when talking firearms.

[Heidi]

7. Kick.

[aikoaiko]

9. Its fair to reframe the argument away from the rifles-hammers comparison but its not fiction.

But the rifles versus hammer homicides is a fair rebut to people who say we must ban semi-automatic rifles because they have been used in too many homicides.

[Savannahmann]

12. Then you go to the families in Sandy Hook

Tell them the death of their loved one, their child, was a slight aberration, point out how their child was far more likely to die by being hit with a hammer. Hammers may kill more people total, but are they designed to kill dozens in a minute or two? The answer is no. Don't you dare try and give me that crap about how the gun isn't designed to kill. The AR clones are all copies of military rifle, and the Military buys them based upon their ability to KILL, not just look cool.

[aikoaiko]

20. You apparently read a lot more into my post than actually written.

Yes, there are big differences between a AR rifle and a hammer.

Every criminal homicide is deeply personal to the loved ones of the victim. I wouldn't minimize the death to a loved whether by firearm or hammer.

You are incorrect that AR15s are copies of the military rifle. They do not function the same in a very important way -- fully automatic fire via selection switch.

Some ARs are designed for defensive use, some for hunting, and some for competitive or recreational shooting.

[Paladin]

51. Oh, Come On.

AR-15's are of course copies of a military rifle. They are designed to resemble military weapons just as closely as possible, and they are marketed as such, to a segment of the public that hates wooden stocks as much as they love hi-cap magazines and bayonet lugs. That semi-auto vs. full auto distinction you Gun Enthusiasts cling to so desperately just doesn't cut it, anymore---not in general public discourse, anyway. It's nothing more than an effort to control the debate by means of esoteric detail, and I say that as a long-time gun owner, someone who's familiar with the buzz words.

And if any unpleasant trait characterizes the gun activism movement, it is the calculated and constant minimizing of gun-related deaths and the suffering they cause. As always, there is sad evidence of this, every single day here at DU.

[JoeBlowToo]

59. Yep, I wish I had been able to say it so succinctly...

Many of us here have been beaten about the ears with gun terminology.

[aikoaiko]

67. One of the things that I never hear from anti-RKBA advocates is...

One of the things that I never hear from anti-RKBA advocates is "well, if you're going to have semi-auto rifles you might as well do away with the machine gun moratorium and NFA registration and allow civilians to buy fully automatic rifles on form 4473 because there really isn't any difference."

Never. Why? Because there is a big difference. And those who seek to ban AR type firearms often want to conflate semi-auto with fully-auto.

Or maybe you are willing to back up what you say and support civilians purchasing newly made machine guns just like semi-auto rifles (if semi-auto are allowed to remain as they are) if there isn't really a meaningful difference. Are you?

[X_Digger]

68. Some 'esoteric detail', eh?

Let's see if you get a bite. Soemhow I doubt it.

[Savannahmann]

87. They are designed to do one thing.

That is to rapidly fire a large number of bullets. The military didn't select the 556 bullet because it was pretty. They picked it because it kills people. They picked that rifle because it kills people. The gun companies make them because people buy them. Oh you can put sporting labels on it, or target or whatever. The point is that the rifle is essentially a copy of a military rifle. Oh fine, it doesn't shoot full auto. Whop de doo. Let's see. What rifle was used in the Aurora Batman massacre? An AR copy. What rifle was used at the Sandy Hook Massacre? Another AR Copy. Do you expect me to believe that these rifles were chosen because of their exceptional sporting credentials?

It's past time to ban them. Well past time to ban all the military copies. The Mini-14 is a scaled down version of the M-14. It needs to go. The AK-47 is another military rifle. Oh they don't shoot all machine guns style, so they're fine. Nuts.

[aikoaiko]

90. By that standard nearly all civilian firearms are variations of military firearms.

Including bolt actions and revolvers.

What makes a rifle, pistol, or shotgun more useful for self-defense also makes them useful to people with evil intent. I will grant you that.

[bmelton]

120. Factually incorrect

> The military didn't select the 556 bullet because it was pretty. They picked it because it kills people. They picked that rifle because it kills people.

Factually incorrect. They didn't *pick* the 5.56 round in the first place, they picked the 7.62/308 round, in the original AR-10, which is far more lethal and offers greater range.

When the 5.56 was picked, it was a concession, and one not made on grounds of lethality at all. It was selected because the 7.62/308 rounds were heavy, and the 5.56/223 round was both lighter to carry and smaller enough in diameter that a third more rounds could be held in an equivalent sized magazine.

[Heidi]

23. Do you have any data on nail guns? (nt)

[aikoaiko]

28. I do not.

[X_Digger]

10. So it's not really a fiction, you just don't like the comparison, eh?

Blunt objects were used to kill more people than rifles- all rifles, including 'hunting guns' or 'assault weapons'.

So it's a valid comparison if the major talk about gun control is about 'assault weapon' bans, yes?

[JoePhilly]

15. Since blunt objects are so effective, maybe people should use those for home defense.

[X_Digger]

18. Effective for murder = effective for defense? Your logic, it has a sad. n/t

[JoePhilly]

24. Isn't getting killed a fear that a bugler might have?

[X_Digger]

30. Yes, if he bugles at 5am outside my house.

A defensive weapon serves its purpose if it allows a defender to remain unharmed while stopping an attack. To do so with a blunt object would require a) sneaking up behind someone, b) grappling with an attacker within arm's range, or c) ninja-like throwing abilities.

[JoePhilly]

33. So your point is that guns provide a more effective weapon when one's goal is to

incapacitate an attacker, or in fact, anyone else?

Right?

So the fact that there are more murders with blunt objects than with rifles, is a moot point regarding the weapon's effectiveness for killing people.

Guns are more effective and should be selected over hammers, if the goal is the incapacitation (or killing) of others (singular or plural).

[X_Digger]

36. Guns are more useful in defending oneself than blunt objects.

But on the list of things that might kill me, I'm more likely to be killed by a blunt object than a rifle, much less an 'assault weapon'.

[JoePhilly]

39. Unless that assult weapon is in your house. Then your risk of death by such a

weapon goes up.

And you (or some one else in the house) certainly won't be committing a murder suicide with a blunt object.

[LanternWaste]

99. You appear to re-qualify in mid-stream...

You appear to re-qualify in mid-stream...

Useful vs. Likely.

(I understand the convenience of doing that)

[X_Digger]

100. Two sentences, two thoughts.

Utility and risk are things we all consider when choosing tools for a purpose.

[hack89]

32. What weapon will a burglar be more likely to have - a gun or a hammer?

Getting within arms reach of a stranger in the middle of the night is not the wisest strategy - especially for those of us no longer in our prime.

A gun allows me to stay at a safe distance.

[JoePhilly]

70. So regardless of the data the RW presents, the weapon of choice for

incapacitating or killing some one else, is a gun.

[hack89]

74. The weapon of choice for self defense is a gun - there, I fixed it for you. nt

[JoePhilly]

75. Why would I use a hammer to incapacitate some one when a gun allows

me to do so from a safe distance.

I guess maybe if I can't get a gun, then I have to go with a blunt instrument. And as a result, my killing spree is likely to be limited to those I can sneak up on.

[hack89]

79. I am only concerned with protecting myself from that guy with the blunt object

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2019, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)

that is bent on killing me. Get it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. Said the National Blunt Object Association?

NBOA?

Where can I purchase one of these blunt objects? Is there a blunt object show coming up soon? Can I go to my neighborhood blunt object store? Would you recommend me having a concealed blunt object license?

No?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[X_Digger]

22. You likely have a blunt object within arm's reach. Ban blunt objects!

They sell them *everywhere*, gasp!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

29. What is this blunt object of which you speak? nt

[PavePusher]

103. Many fine stores near you....

http://www.acehardware.com/home/index.jsp

http://www.lowes.com/

http://www.homedepot.com/

[Tommy_Carcetti]

105. I looked on those websites. None of them sold any product called a Blunt Object.

I saw hammers, wrenches, etc., but who wants all that pesky household utility of those items?

[krispos42]

11. All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.

Likewise, all rifles are guns. Not all guns are rifles.

Rifles account for 323/12,664 or 2.55% of all homicides. They account for 323/8,583 or 3.76% of all gun homicides.


Breitbart's article (which you made me click... ewwww) is absolutely right when it says that more people are killed by blunt instrument (496) than rifles (323) per year.


To be fair, given that 1,684 gun-related deaths were by an unknown type of gun, let's estimate the true number.


There were 6,899 gun-related deaths in which the type of gun is known. Of which, rifles were 323/6899, or 4.68%.

There were 1,684 gun-related deaths in which the type is unknown, so we can estimate that 79 of those were killed by rifles, assuming the same proportions.

So total killed by rifles is 323 known plus 79 assumed = 402, best guess. Still lots less than blunt instrument.



We have to face the fact that, despite the potential lethality of modern rifles, particularly modern semiautomatic tactical rifles, it is very rarely realized. Far less so than handguns.


We also have to fact the fact that a certain percentage of murderers that use guns would use something else. Remember, 8,583 times in 2011, a person decided to kill somebody with a gun. That person came to the conclusion that a human being had to die, that it was the best way to solve whatever problem was between the two of them, and THEN decided the best tool for the job was a gun.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. I would compare it to oil rigs, though.

In the wake of the BP oil disaster, you had apologists for the oil companies talking about how this accident was only one oil rig, while there were dozens of dozens of oil rigs out there in the Gulf of Mexico that hadn't exploded and caused a massive oil spill.

To which I would respond, yes, but you saw the devastation that resulted from a single oil rig disaster. Do you really want more of those ticking time bombs out there, just to imagine that type of damage over and over and over?

Similarly, yes, compared to handguns, the percentage of homicides resulting from semiautomatic assault rifles is relatively small. But it doesn't change the fact that the utility of such semiauto assault rifles for legal private civilian use is dubious at best. And it doesn't make the Aurora and Newtown shootings any less horrific and needless, both of which were carried out utilizing such weapons. Why enable more such disasters even if they are relatively few and far between?

If there was a real legitimate use for an AR-15 with a 30 piece clip, perhaps I'd differ. But I just don't see such a legitimate use.

[rrneck]

13. Hmmm,

8583 people in a country of over 300,000,000. I feel safer already. Thanks.

[hack89]

17. It certainly points out why an AWB will not make America safer

The majority of mass shooting (more than four victims) involved handguns. The worst one in recent history, the Va Tech shooting, involved two handguns with standard magazines.

Rifles and shotguns account for about 3% of all murders. And very few of the suicides which make up the majority of gun deaths. Which makes this fixation on assault weapons nothing more than security theater. To accept the continued legal ownership of semi-automatic handguns is to accept that future mass shootings like VT are a certainty.

There will be one shot at the gun control ring - the idea of piecemeal gun control legislation is a fantasy. If you only have one shot at it for the next decade or so, why not do something that addresses the vast majority of gun violence?

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Technically the 9mm used at Virginia Tech fell within the constrains of the old

AWB, having a 15 round magazine, rather than the allowed 10+1 under the 1994 CAWB.

Would it have made a difference if he had to reload 15 times instead of 11 times? Maybe, maybe not.

[ieoeja]

25. Apparently, they do not need guns to protect themselves from criminals. They need it for arguments.

Some interesting facts in that link. Far and away the most common known cause of homicide is an argument.

You are much more likely to be murdered as the result of an argument, than in the commission of a crime.

I was surprised to see how little gang related killings there are. Everyone is always talking about gang killings, but they don't seem to be one of the larger causes of homicide.

[sinkingfeeling]

27. If they're going to break down the total murders by guns, into various types, like rifles, then

they must do the same with 'blunt instruments'. How many hammers were used as murder weapons vs bats vs candlesticks vs 2-by-4's vs rocks? If the fools are classifying all blunt instruments as 'hammers' then rifles, shotguns, etc. get lumped into 'firearms'. And their own 'source' says there were 8583 people murdered by firearms vs. 496 by blunt instrument.

[Recursion]

41. OK. Then compare it to bare hands and feet

No multiplicity of weapons there. Still significantly more murders than rifles.

[sinkingfeeling]

50. What? Where's that individual weapon listed? That's classed with

'Personal weapons' and has 'etc.' after it. Compare 'rifles' with 'Strangulation' or 'Asphyxiation'.

[X_Digger]

57. 726 for hands, fists, feet, etc.

Personal weapons refers to a part of the body, but doesn't include strangulation.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

[sinkingfeeling]

72. That's multiples. Like 'firearms'.

[Soft Tips]

53. blunt fact

Automobiles, buses and trucks can be quite blunt. Lump that.

[Turbineguy]

31. In other news...

It was discovered today that people who say they vote for Democrats have been buying hammers in large quantities.

[JoePhilly]

35. There are three hammers at my house and we've never been robbed!!!!

Well, it's four hammers if I count the sledge hammer in the garage ... but that's just for hunting, and occasionally fishing.

[Turbineguy]

42. I'd never actually counted them before

but I've got ten hammers.

That's probably just enough to qualify me to be a member of the National Hammer Association.

Of course, we'll need our own Constitutional Amendment.

[X_Digger]

60. Hammer nut! ;)

I counted mine recently, and I was at.. umm.. 11 that I could lay hands on pretty quickly.

[JoePhilly]

71. I didn't count my rubber mallet either.

[GreenTimer]

121. Does a Cresent wrench count?

Sometimes I cannot find a hammer.

[JoePhilly]

34. Ask them how often a blunt object is used in a murder suicide.

I'm betting that its pretty rare.

[Recursion]

38. OK, then compare rifles to bare hands and feet.

No multiplicity of weapons there. Bare hands and feet still kill more people than all rifles.

Rifles really just aren't a statistical presence in murder stats. Even most mass shooters don't use them.

[sir pball]

44. It's not fiction, and it does raise a very good point

Point being, LONG GUNS are used in fewer homicides than blunt objects, or knives, or hands and feet...the vast majority of firearms homicides are by HANDGUN; as much as you may think to the contrary, you have a finite amount of political capital on this issue. You can spend it on some pointless feel-good long-gun legislation (AWB) that, even if it were 100% foolproof and effective, would reduce firearms homicides by a few hundred a year (discounting the fact that assault weapons aren't near 100% of those murders), or you can spend it on some form of restrictions on handguns, or more generalized controls, that would have a far greater impact on gun crime in America.

The political reality is that you can't do both...so what's it gonna be?

[LeftinOH]

49. It's this simple: You can run away from blunt objects and knives,

or maybe even fight back. When somebody has a gun, running away or trying to fight back is hopeless. Think about it: Somebody coming at you with a hammer or baseball bat? Throw a chair at them, or run. You don't have that option with a gun.

Comparing gun deaths to blunt object/knife deaths is like comparing apples to bowling balls.

[PavePusher]

104. Many people can't do any of that, but can use a gun defensively just fine. n/t

[progressoid]

52. You don't need to go to RW websites to get read that meme.

It's alive and well here on DU.

[99Forever]

54. Gun huggers skew every available fact..

.. to protect *the precious*.

Must suck to go through life as such a fearful coward.

[bluestate10]

55. About the same time that the Sandy Hook killings were happening, in China, a deranged

man attacked young children with knives. He injured 20 children, none of them were killed. Adam Lanza killed 26 people within a matter of minutes with the guns that he shot his way into Sandy Hook with. If Adam Lanza had knives, it likely wouldn't have gotten into Sandy Hook.

[bowens43]

58. Never argue wit fools

They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience...

[Erose999]

64. If only the people of Sandy Hook had had more hammers.... a John Henry armed with a 12lb. sledge in

every school.

[Smilo]

73. Yes, anything can be used as a weapon

but guns were designed to kill and do so effectively.

[samsingh]

76. the nra supports hammers over guns

[Hugabear]

78. Screw the NRA and anybody who uses their talking points

n/t

[Riftaxe]

84. So in order to refute it we ignore the fact

that rifles, killed fewer people then bare hands/blunt objects.

That is not really refutation, especially when you link to the FBI stats that go directly against what you are trying to refute.

The fact that non rifles are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms homicide is a different argument entirely. Yet in complete dishonesty you find major differences between a crowbar, and a baseball bat...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

96. A handgun and a semiauto rifle is a lot more similar....

...than a baseball bat and a crowbar.

For example, the former pair has the same intended purpose, while the latter does not. And oh what an intended purpose it is!

[Riftaxe]

108. In what world?

I can understand not seeing the difference between a tricycle and an 18 wheeler, but still... that is a bit hard to swallow.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

109. In reality. nt

[ileus]

92. We should all demand guns stop killing people.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. Yup.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022131827

[tatertwat]

102. Why would you want to refute something that's true?

Right wingers are cherry picking because that's what left wingers do. You're the ones who want to ban automatic weapons, aka rifles. But at every turn, right wingers and left wingers find that they can't get anything done because the other side would rather be little punks and talk semantics than get at the heart of the issue.

How much of those numbers are because someone was defending themselves with a gun? Also, where are the numbers for gun violence from cops? Are those listed? Since you left wingers trust your government and police with automatic weapons, please show me statistics that show that every time they've discharged their weapon into another human being, that it was done in the name of justice.

The truth is the probability of being murdered because you couldn't defend yourself (there's never a cop around when you need them) is always higher than if you could defend yourself. The truth is you left wingers are no better than the right wingers. Both of you want to rule by fear.

[booley]

107. speaking of cherry picking

Right wingers are cherry picking because that's what left wingers do.You're the ones who want to ban automatic weapons, aka rifles.

not all automatics are rifles. those things are not synonymous

And Feinsteins bill isn't "ban all the rifles"

Feinstein's bill would ban the "sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds," among other things.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/03/gun-nut-claims-that-hammers-are-more-deadly-than-guns

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=28d0c499-28ec-42a7-902d-ebf318d46d02

probably should be careful about accusing somethign of others that you yourself are doing right inside the accusation.

Oh and two wrongs make a right is also a fallacy.

Also..

How much of those numbers are because someone was defending themselves with a gun? Also, where are the numbers for gun violence from cops? Are those listed? Since you left wingers trust your government and police with automatic weapons, please show me statistics that show that every time they've discharged their weapon into another human being, that it was done in the name of justice.

And I would love to see the numbers for that. Here's the thing though. It may be hard ot come up with a real study from the CDC of ATF or other government agencies because the gun lobby has been so successful in making fire arm research political suicide.

Makes one wonder if the data really supported them, why work so hard ot hide it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

110. Best troll name ever. nt

[Scout]

106. thank you for this

just used it on a facebook "friend" who badly needed it.

if hammers are so great, they don't need guns, eh? LOL

[GoCubsGo]

111. Yeah, I wish I had it a few days ago.

The one I saw was from CNN, who was quoting Fox News. I knew CNN has fallen far, but I didn't realize they had fallen so bad as to use Fox News as their source. How pathetic.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

112. What needs to be refuted exactly?

It's silly on its face. There is simply no equivalency between guns and hammers or guns or cars or anything else. There are a lot of things that people can use to intentionally or unintentionally harm or kill another person but AFAIK there are only a few things out there that can kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time. Hammers aren't one of them! IMHO it's just a smokescreen to obscure the debate over whether or not we need to regulate guns better in this country and how.

[handmade34]

114. FYI

clicked on Breitbart link and was attacked by virus... my Norton caught it and maybe it's just me but maybe be warned

[jinx1]

116. Thanks for info

This crap is all over the discussion boards and I used this info to shoot them where it hurts. Someone mentioned a possible virus on the Breitbart link...it is what they deserve for going to that site ever!

[uppityperson]

119. Lies, damned lies and statistics. And FRP. eom

[rug]

122. Death by spoon.

"But it hurts like hell."

[Maraya1969]

123. It's not a rifle that I see. It is an automatic weapon