#1 FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles01-03-2013, 07:26 PM
I propose a ban on hammers and clubs (no more nights out clubbing ladies)
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.
Please don't shoot me
01-03-2013, 09:53 PM
Somebody call for evil judge pig?
The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
01-03-2013, 09:58 PM
The year the first "assault weapon" ban was enacted, more people in Chicago were murdered with baseball bats than the listed assault weapons. Baseball bats must be banned!
Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
THIS POST WILL BE MONITORED BY THE NSA
01-03-2013, 10:39 PM
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- San Angelo, TX
Any statistics on people getting murdered by the blunt force of a rifle butt? Ha...that something worth documenting...
01-04-2013, 10:39 AM
01-04-2013, 11:05 AM
I am not debating gun control with this argument, just providing some insight after arguing about gun control with my sister over the holidays.
My sister supports a total ban on any assault rifle, not that she nor I have a clear understanding of what defines that type of rifle. She generally means something that can rapid-fire and take out lots of targets in seconds. Her argument is that a person can take out a lot of people quickly, before any of the people around, even if well-armed, can respond. It's more difficult to kill that many people at once with a baseball bat, knife or other type of weapon.
My sister takes her argument to the extreme that she doesn't even support the right of people who own gun ranges keeping semi-automatics for use there only. Her argument is that firing guns at ranges is just mentally simulating killing people, therefore it is not something that should be allowed. I told her that her argument borders on violating more than just the second amendment, but possibly even the first-I told her that you can't control what people think or dream about. She got really mad, and since she's been sick, I let it go.
01-04-2013, 11:58 AM
An assault weapon is a weapon that is capable of selective fire, which means that it can fire in single shot mode (semi-automatic, where one trigger squeeze equals one shot) or a burst/multi-shot mode (full-auto, where the weapon fires automatically as long as the trigger is depressed). Fully automatic weapons are already banned, so what your sister really wants to ban is any repeating weapon, i.e., any weapon that can hold more than one round and which can be fired without having to manually engage the action. There are currently over 80 million households in the United States with gun owners (officially, but I believe the real number to be substantially higher). An outright ban would transform roughly half the country into criminals, and a signficant percentage would not only resist confiscation through subterfuge (hiding weapons, fake sales, etc.,), but would actually fight back with those guns if someone showed up to take them. Even if nobody fired a shot, just the sheer volume of searches and warrants would become a civil liberties nightmare. If it turned violent, it would be on a scale not seen here since the Civil War (in fact, it pretty much would be a civil war). Most of the police and military would oppose the ban and if it came to open defiance, would side with the gun owners, which would severely impede confiscation attempts, and turn large swathes of the country into no-go zones for law enforcement. Think of the Prohibition era, when police fought bootleggers and home-brewers in every town in America, and you get a vague idea of the type of issues involved, but the scale would be an order of magnitude greater.
In order to carry out your sister's attack on the Second Amendment, we'd have to void the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, not to mention eliminating all manner of other legal protections. For someone who probably considers the Patriot Act unacceptably invasive, she's sure advocating a lot of civil liberties violations.
01-04-2013, 12:49 PM
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|