Slog Comments

 

Comments (47) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Sir Vic 1
Hawkins does prove, rather convincingly, that the jawbone of an ass is still the ultimate weapon.
Posted by Sir Vic on January 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 2
I think he's conflating hurting oneself when doing home repairs - which is a serious risk, and most highly correlated with loss of balance and mild to severe heart attacks - with hammers.

Hammers are just tools. Tools that, if you get one of the sledges and put a nice leather loop on it, and balance it, can make an awesome short range killing weapon. But not as dangerous as guns, which, with few exceptions, are just used by gun nuts to kill people.

Anyone who thinks an AK-47 or AR-15 is a great hunting rifle is nuts. Now a 30.06 (or FN C1/C1) that's a decent hunting rifle.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 3
No, no, I'm tellng you, it's absolutely true. A man with a hammer is just as deadly as a man with a gun. This is why if we banned all guns, the right to keep and bear arms would be in no way infringed. Take away their gun and they'll arm themselves with hammers and baseball bats. No difference.

Anyone who says, "No, a hammer is not good enough, I need my shotgun" is just starting us down a slippery slope. The next guy will say, "No, a shotgun isn't good enough, I need a semi-automatic rifle!" Then the next guy says, "No, it has to be a machine gun!" Then they'll want Stinger missiles. Then a nuclear submarine. Then ICBMs. Where does it end?

The Second Amendment doesn't draw a line between hammers and shotguns, nor is there anything in the second amendment saying semi-automatic rifles are OK but machine guns are not. Not to mention nuclear bombs. No lines are drawn in the Second Amendment. It's only activist judges who made this up.

So arm the militia with clubs, hammers. Even CLAW hammers (did you see Oldboy! holy shit). It's the job of the legislature to draw the line, in order to assure all the rights of all the people. Not just the gun nuts' right to arms. Arms they want, arms they shall have.

And I'm not the one who said hammers are just as good as rifles. That's their argument and we should hold them to it.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on January 3, 2013 at 3:00 PM · Report this
Zebes 4
I know a guy who left a hammer under his car seat, and his kid found it and it accidentally went off and nailed the kid to his seat.

That shit is scarily dangerous. Guns don't kill people, hammers do.
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on January 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM · Report this
5
@3 No fair, using logic. What next, common sense?

Posted by Brooklyn Reader on January 3, 2013 at 3:16 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 6
It does prove that hammers were used to kill more people than all rifles including assault rifles.

No one would argue that a hammer is deadlier than a rifle, though having seen firsthand violence committed with both hammers and firearms, the hammer beating was far more brutal and disturbing.

It does show that a ban on assault rifles would have minimal impact on crime.

Also being that millions of people own "assault rifles" I know several people who's only rifle is an AR15, the data shows that assault rifle owners are not the people who are commuting murders in this country.
I
t it far easier to beat someone to death with a hammer when they are not armed with a rifle.

I also wish the handgun data was broken down by caliber, I am betting that it would largely be .380acp, .38spl, 22lr and .25acp as those tend to be the calibers of cheap handguns used in gang related crimes.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 3:27 PM · Report this
7
Hawkins should be challenged to put his theory to the test. A duel! He gets a bag of hammers and a bullet-proof vest. His challenger gets a rifle, laser-sight, one loaded 30-round magazine, and a helmet. Ten paces.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on January 3, 2013 at 3:27 PM · Report this
8
@6: But how easy is it to beat someone to death with a hammer if they have ... A HAMMER?

:O
Posted by Gloria on January 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM · Report this
treacle 9
Personally, I prefer Framing Hammers, so I can frame the shit out of stupid people.

Hawkins forgot to mention the 1,684 murders done with "other guns" (presumably assault weapons?) and "type not stated" (which could be any firearm, but presumably includes unstated rifles).

He ALSO forgot to mention the 726 murders resulting from "hands, fists, feet, etc." MORE THAN HAMMERS! Following his logic, we should all know what exactly to do with that information. TOTAL BAN ON NINJAS! Also: All martial arts should be hella banned, because that just turns someone into a walking weapon!. Man, I sure am scared now...
Posted by treacle on January 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM · Report this
treacle 10
Can we carry concealed hammers? Or is that just in Texas? I have a little ball-peen hammer I like to carry in a shoulder holster under my coat to defend myself against the crazies on my bus.
Posted by treacle on January 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 11
@9

No, statistically speaking assault rifles fall into rifles, and not "other guns" you are really grasping at straws. My best educated guess for "other" and "type not states" is pistol caliber carbines, firing pistol ammunition from rifle length barrel, or .22lr firearms, either would make it difficult for forensics to determine if the projectile was fired by a pistol or a rifle

@8
Pretty easy depending on the skill of the user, likewise most people shot with guns do not die.

A 19 year old girl beaten with a both sides of a claw hammer by her just released from prison step father remains one of the nastiest things I have ever seen.

@7
It has been shown that an attacker armed with a knife or blunt object can successfully attack an armed police officer from 21 feet before the officer can draw and fire.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 3:57 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 12
Feinstein's bill would ban ... handguns... that can accept a detachable magazine
So, every handgun except revolvers would be banned? Am I reading that correctly?

If so, I'm sorry, but that bill would have zero chance of passing.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM · Report this
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 14
What kind of hammer is it? A carpenter's hammer? A metal workers hammer? There MUST BE a ban on stone workers hammers NOW. March on Sunday at 12noon.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM · Report this
15
@12
California bans guns where the magazine can be ejected with fingers.
I'm wondering if this is similar.
So a semi-automatic with a 10 round magazine would be okay as long as the magazine lock needed a tool to work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in…
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on January 3, 2013 at 4:02 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 16
@12
Well Feinstein wouldn't want to ban her personal concealed carry piece, that would make her a hypocrite.

"And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco - an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense."

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.p…
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 17
hell, even the presidential debates don't meet the requirements of a high school debate. there simply is no debate in America that requires facts and logic.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM · Report this
18
Is a crescent wrench a hammer? I saw an episode of CSI where the perp killed someone with a wrench, despite having access to a range of hammers.
Posted by originalcinner on January 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM · Report this
psbirch 19
Meh. Compare "firearms" vs "not firearms" in the criminal totals -- 60-75% of homicides in most every aggregated category were from firearms. The only categories where firearms were not at least 50% of the weapon of choice were sex-related, larceny, "Child killed by babysitter", or "Institutional killings."

Posted by psbirch on January 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 20
Obviously we need to ban lunchpails. A lot people using hammers have lunchpails.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 21
@9 they will take my personal army of ninjas away from my cold dead Daimyo hands!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on January 3, 2013 at 4:30 PM · Report this
raku 22
The writer makes a good point. We should ban handguns along with assault rifles.
Posted by raku on January 3, 2013 at 4:33 PM · Report this
23
This is a fairly good illustration of why "assault weapons" bans are not statistically worthwhile in terms of reducing crime.

It is not, however, a good argument against gun control in a general sense.
Posted by doceb on January 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM · Report this
24 Comment Pulled
25
@6:

"I know several people who's only rifle is an AR15, the data shows that assault rifle owners are not the people who are commuting murders in this country."

Assuming you meant "committing", in which case you are correct. Assault Rifle owners are not killing large groups of children in minutes, their unhinged adult sons are.

I would now like to formally apologize to the Slog commenters for feeding the troll.. Please carry on.
Posted by derpyderpington on January 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM · Report this
Knat 26
Anyone who references Andrew Breitbart (or his website) for evidence to justify their position is self-selecting to be regarded as an idiot with no respect for reasonable discourse or the truth, just like Breitbart himself.
Posted by Knat on January 3, 2013 at 5:11 PM · Report this
27
Silly Hebrews thinking you'll remove a right guaranteed the people of the US while your illegal state bankrupts the US and begs for more guns to slaughter the rightful inhabitants of the stolen land. All the while Jew run Hollywood continues pushing its guns are glory and blasting away as an American pastime as Hollywood's Affirmative Action President signs into law more federal security acts you communists would have bemoaned about and railed against had a white, conservative, non-jew done the same. These security acts coming at the same time this marxist sends American troops to die fighting Sunni extremists in Afghanistan yet sends guns and money to the same Sunni nutcases in Syria, but that action in Syria is fine since Israel wants Assad to fall and the marxist doesn't speak with Negro inflection.
Posted by EarlHigh on January 3, 2013 at 5:22 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 28
@29
"anyone who finds facts in a media source that i don't like is dum"

-Stranger reader
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 5:35 PM · Report this
29
Gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
Posted by Justin Smith on January 3, 2013 at 5:46 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 30
@29
"keep your facts away from my feelings"
-Stranger reader
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 6:21 PM · Report this
31
@2 All I know is that if I attach a leather strap to a sledge there is probably a 90% chance of my seriously hurting myself if I try to do anything with it.
Posted by cracked on January 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM · Report this
32
@29:
With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.


Beg pardon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_mass…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Edwar…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_W… (note that they were all currently carrying and trained with firearms)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Alabam…

I'm moderately on the side of gun rights, but blatantly lying isn't going to get you anywhere.
Posted by doceb on January 3, 2013 at 6:42 PM · Report this
33
@25 So what we should do instead of banning assault rifles or guns in general is make people who do own firearms to buy a safe and keep them locked up when not in use? That would actually make more sense. Even if they were able to "ban" guns it wouldn't make much of a difference because firearms are old technology, they are everywhere and it's not very hard to go to the hardware store, spend $30 on various parts and make a gun or "zip gun" even a fully automatic one which is the true definition of an "Assault rifle". Plus banning any type of firearm just gives the cartels, smugglers and drug dealers another thing to push on our street corners.... Which they already do anyhow. We need to be going after the behavior or mental problems that cause people to do these things not the guns themselves. I'm afraid that the reason congress is moving to ban guns is because of a political agenda instead of a moral reason which should have us ALL questioning why.
Posted by CsScotter84 on January 3, 2013 at 6:47 PM · Report this
34
I was kinda hoping to bludgeon a few folks with my hammer! (Sigh-back to Craigslist!)
Posted by pat L on January 3, 2013 at 7:02 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 35
@32
There was no concealed carry allowed in CA at teh time of the San Ysidro massacre, nor in the Luby's massacre which prompted Texas to pass a concealed carry law. I am not familiar with the GMAC's corporate firearms policy in the event of the GMAC office shooting.

You are correct that not all spree killings happen in gun free zones, however the vast majority of mass shootings do happen within a gun free zone.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on January 3, 2013 at 7:04 PM · Report this
Knat 36
@28: Was that directed at me? You were saying someone else was dumb? Please, try again. I really want to see you make another attempt at that. See if you can top yourself.
Posted by Knat on January 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM · Report this
37
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead.

(lyrics from a Beatles song)
Posted by Juan Alfredo on January 3, 2013 at 7:33 PM · Report this
38
It's oddly weird that the first friend I ever had when I moved to the state of Washington was brutally raped and then murdered with a framing hammer.

The guy who killed her got out of the death penalty on a technicality. The bastard is still alive in Monroe State Penitentiary and his name is Brian Keith Lord.
Posted by CPN on January 3, 2013 at 10:58 PM · Report this
Delishuss 39
8th grade writing project.
Posted by Delishuss on January 4, 2013 at 4:25 AM · Report this
40
Half of all gun killings, that's nearly 4000 a year, are committed by black males, age 15-40. That's 4% of the population. Why no discussion of black 'gun nuts' and gangsta rap culture? Taboo?
Posted by Willful denial on January 4, 2013 at 8:32 AM · Report this
41
Guns, Welfare, Medical, etc.... Let the states decide what happens within their borders and remove the federal governments rights to do, well, anything other than provide for foreign policy and national defense, and then people can vote with their feet as to what kind of place they would live.
Posted by Fan of Darwinism on January 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM · Report this
42
I love this slippery slope comment,

" Then the next guy says, "No, it has to be a machine gun!" Then they'll want Stinger missiles. Then a nuclear submarine. Then ICBMs. Where does it end?"

Because so many people are crying for machine guns and and nuclear submarines. I agree you can never really pay attention to statistics because they can be slanted to say whatever you like them to - Mark Twain’s observation that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”suggests that a weak, even a false argument can be made to seem more credible with numbers - but I also think focusing solely on guns is not the answer . 2000 current gun laws are not working. I do not believe video games are the cause of these problems. We have clear issues when it comes to protecting the privacy of the mentally ill. Their privacy outweighs our safety. And the amendment in the PPACA that disallows healthcare professionals from collecting data about firearms from their patients isn't going to help matters. We also have a societal issue. We have an incredible lack of respect in our society, across the board, in every socioeconomic class. But as usual Americans want instant gratification that something is being done so they will focus on guns. When we focus on the youngest generation amongst us and concentrate on making them stand-up respectful people who respect themselves and others in 20 or 30 years we may once again have the society we want so desperately.
Posted by TC522 on January 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM · Report this
43
I love this slippery slope comment,

" Then the next guy says, "No, it has to be a machine gun!" Then they'll want Stinger missiles. Then a nuclear submarine. Then ICBMs. Where does it end?"

Because so many people are crying for machine guns and and nuclear submarines. I agree you can never really pay attention to statistics because they can be slanted to say whatever you like them to - Mark Twain’s observation that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”suggests that a weak, even a false argument can be made to seem more credible with numbers - but I also think focusing solely on guns is not the answer . 2000 current gun laws are not working. I do not believe video games are the cause of these problems. We have clear issues when it comes to protecting the privacy of the mentally ill. Their privacy outweighs our safety. And the amendment in the PPACA that disallows healthcare professionals from collecting data about firearms from their patients isn't going to help matters. We also have a societal issue. We have an incredible lack of respect in our society, across the board, in every socioeconomic class. But as usual Americans want instant gratification that something is being done so they will focus on guns. When we focus on the youngest generation amongst us and concentrate on making them stand-up respectful people who respect themselves and others in 20 or 30 years we may once again have the society we want so desperately.
Posted by TMC522 on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM · Report this
44
The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution which states a purpose.
"....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The constitution (and specifically the 2nd amendment) was designed to protect the people from a tyrannical government... and history repeats itself.
Don't forget ... the only reason you have the 1st amendment is because of the 2nd.
Posted by The Common Man on February 14, 2013 at 6:48 PM · Report this
45
Most of you idiots are missing the point of the article, being that there is a huge push to ban certain rifles with certain characteristics which are a tiny subset of overall rifle deaths. than banning handguns which are used in more murders. The author of this article should be writing for the Weekly World News.
Posted by thisarticlesucks on April 10, 2013 at 5:48 AM · Report this
46
They didn't say that, they said more people are killed by hammers and clubs than with rifles and shotguns. The point is that when people want to kill they will use whatever tool they can. in short banning guns the way you anti-gun nuts want won't stop murders, in fact they may increase..the criminals will keep their guns while law abiding citizens will be defenseless. The only people in favoring disarming citizens are criminals and authoritarian governments
Posted by srtxz on February 12, 2014 at 10:43 AM · Report this
47
You people are liberal idiots. Wake up...the Fed has you sheeps believing that they are looking out for you own good when in reality they have been trying to come up with ways to disarm the American Citizen for years. Those who have no idea WHY the Second Amendment is important and the RIGHT to own a firearm to ensure the safety of ones family AGAINST an unfair government should NOT be writing a BS dissertation calling responsible firearm owners and instructors "gun nuts".
Posted by icefalkon on July 2, 2014 at 6:16 AM · Report this

Add a comment