FBI: More deaths from hammers and clubs than assault rifles

People have been calling for assault rifle bans..because apparently deaths caused by them are out of control. However the official crime stats don’t support their contention.

It is official and from no less a source than the FBI official crime stats. More people are killed each year in the US from attacks with hammers and clubs than with assault rifles.

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 an assault 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.

There you are, the facts speak for themselves.

While we are talking about banning things that kill people…

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.

And here is a little pop quiz for you to see if you can tell the difference between an “assault rifle” and a hunting rifle…please do not put your answers in the comments…I’m actually interested in the results.

two guns


Which gun would you ban under the proposed assault rifle ban?

  • Neither (51%, 76 Votes)
  • The bottom one (35%, 52 Votes)
  • Both (9%, 13 Votes)
  • The top one (5%, 7 Votes)

Total Voters: 148

Loading ... Loading ...

THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Marcus50

    Add hand guns to the mix and the tally might be somewhat different.

    • Darren

      According to those same stats, handgun murders totaled 6,220 of a total of 8,583 firearms-related murders. Perhaps the focus in US should be wider than just rifles, as it is here in NZ?

      • Hugewon

        Handguns tend to be a lot easier to steal, pull out to shoot a family or kill yourself with

  • Rodger T

    Oh, and teeth,surely someone somewhere has been bitten to death.
    Let`s not forget banning arseholes,I`ve dropped a few killer farts in my time.

    • Darren

      89 people died of asphyxiation, so I guess that counts.

    • Mitch82

      Don’t forget the 8 Australians that die each year from putting their tongue on a 9B battery.

  • Dumrse

    Yea but……. when a nutter with a hammer goes rampant in a Mall he is unlikely to manage a tally like an auto weapon can.

  • A.random.reader

    Yawn. More intentional misrepresentation from Whale.

    Semi-automatic rifles are a force multiplier. The call for regulation relates to their use in spree killings.

    Please name a single US spree killing that was carried out with hammers or clubs?

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather

      Jan. 21-29 1958 Lincoln & Bennet, NE Douglas, WY USA

      10 Killed Also killed two dogs

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers look for the ones with M in the weapons columns…there are a few…and yes there is one in the US.

      • In Vino Veritas

        Kersplatto. Game, set and match, Whale.

      • A.random.reader

        You didn’t even bother to read the wikipedia article that you quoted. This means that you are either lazy or dishonest.

        The list of victims:

        Robert Colvert (21) – shot to death
        Marion Bartlett (57) – shot to death
        Velda Bartlett (36) – shot to death
        Betty Jean Bartlett (2) – stabbed & strangled
        August Meyer (70) – shot to death
        Robert Jensen (17) – shot to death
        Carol King (16) – shot to death
        C. Lauer Ward (47) – shot to death
        Clara Ward (46) – stabbed to death
        Lillian Fencl (51) -stabbed to death
        Merle Collison – shot to death

        So eight out of the eleven victims were shot to death!!

        Which simply proves my comments about guns and spree killers.

    • BR

      How about the Oklahoma bombing?

      The twin towers?

      Perhaps not with hammers or clubs, but no guns of any kind were involved.


      • Ronnie Chow

        Jesus , Fuck , what about the Nazi gas chambers , no guns involved ?

        What about Hiroshima , Nagasaki . NO GUNS INVOLVED.

        The discussion is on restricting heavy firepower , to ATTEMPT to cut down on multiple homicides , by a society feeling quite powerless and afraid , and the ramifications of that change should new laws be enacted .
        You do not need to pointlessly expose your vast knowledge of how people have been murdered other than with guns . It proves nothing .

        • Rodger T

          Shit Ronnie, do think I should hand over that suitcase nuke I have in my closet now or wait `til the cops have an amnesty?

        • BR

          “what about the Nazi gas chambers, no guns involved ?”

          Firstly, you speak of the actions of a government, not of a crazed individual with a desire to mass murder.

          Secondly, there were guns involved, but they were only in the hands of the perpetrators. The victims of the Nazi gas chambers were denied access to weapons of any kind. A tyrannical government’s first priority is to disarm those it would subjugate. One of the first things Ferdinand Marcos did when he came to power was to demand that everyone turn in their guns, or face execution.

          “The discussion is on restricting heavy firepower”

          How do you define “heavy firepower”?


      • And they hijacked the planes with box cutters.

  • Young and Dumb

    It’s far harder to murder somebody with a hammer or a club than it is with an assault rifle. Many people would have difficulty killing someone by bludgeoning them to death rather than opening fire with a rifle.

    In the instance of a spree killing utilising either weapon it would take a lot longer to kill 30 people with a blunt object (even if the aggressor was killed in melee combat) in comparison to using an assault rifle and emptying the clip.

    • In Vino Veritas

      I think the salient point here Y&D, is that only one mass shooting has occurred in the USA since 1950 in a place where the general population were permitted to carry arms. And in that instance, 6 people of the 540 odd killed in mass shootings in the US, were killed. Schools are easy targets for these nutjobs because they don’t permit anyone to carry firearms, and that is to where they will gravitate.

      • Meg

        Ever hear of an American style mass shooting in a kiwi school?

        No, because we have reasonably sensible gun laws in NZ.

        • In Vino Veritas

          Meg, ever hear of trying to divert the discussion with a red herring comment? There have been 10 mass killings (four or more people) in NZ since 1840. Not all of them involved firearms. These occurred in a variety of places, not surprising really, since NZ’rs are generally unarmed and unable to defend themselves. The point is, people who want to shoot other people will go to the place where they have the best chance of shooting the most people in the shortest possible time, without the possibility that someone will shoot back. In the USA, thats a school, in NZ, it could be a shopping mall, a cinema or any public place with a large population. Try David Bain for instance. David Gray or say Stephen Anderson.

          • If there is ever a mall shooting in NZ iI reckon it will be at Sylvia Park

          • Dave

            I dont think we can ever predict. The Bain murders, a sleepy little settlement, the Port Arthur massacre in a sleepy little settlement as well. I hope we never have to test the theory.

          • In Vino Veritas

            Thank goodness that place exists. It’s sure to have saved Botany from being a target…..

  • History of Violence

    Both the same gun Ruger 1022
    One stock other in assault type “case”

    • Orange

      “please do not put your answers in the comments…”

    • Honcho

      My thoughts exactly, fitting a composite stock with a piccatiny rail does not an assault rifle make.

  • Meg

    There is simply no need at all for the general public to have access to these sorts of weapons. None at all.

    • Proving once again that you do not know what you ar talking about…that rifle is a Ruger 10/22…I own one…it has shot hundreds of Rabbits.

      • Meg

        Sigh, you can be thick sometimes, still it is my fault for not being clearer.

        I was talking about the military style guns. There is no need for the public to ever have access to them.

        • Do you mean like the one at the bottom of the picture? That style of gun? Clarify please what you mean by military style.

        • BR

          How do you define a “military style gun”?


        • Pissedoffyouth


          “There is simply no need at all for the general public to have access to these sorts of weapons. None at all.”

          “Sigh, you can be thick sometimes, still it is my fault for not being clearer.

          I was talking about the military style guns. There is no need for the public to ever have access to them.”

          You weren’t talking about military style guns, as the guns pictured are simply a rifle, and the same rifle in drag.

          Would you compare a picture of nana’s Honda Civic and then the same model Civic with big bore, spoiler and bright green neons and call the “pimped out” Civic a race-car?

          No, its just the same shopping trolly, but with lipstick.

          That gun isn’t military style – however if the bottom gun was an AK47 or AR-15, then maybe it could be considered as one.

          • So what constitutes a military style assault rifle…is it the calibre? What it looks like? It’s heritage? A pistol grip? The magazine? What is it?

          • Pissedoffyouth

            When you say it like that I’m not sure anymore.

            I was going to say “something the military would use”, but they use binoculars – are binoculars military style eye wear?

          • They use raybans as well…

          • Honcho

            Standard issue is actually randolphs, but i get what you mean, units with more relaxed dress standards wear what ever is most fashionable at the time though, ray bans, a lot of oakleys … next we will be banning those.

          • Ronnie Chow

            In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

            For rifles, those characteristics included:

            Telescoping stock

            Pistol grip

            Bayonet mount

            Grenade launcher

            Flash suppressor

            For shotguns:

            Telescoping stock

            Pistol grip

            A capacity to hold more than five rounds

            For handguns:

            Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor

            A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold

            Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded

          • A.random.reader

            The definition of a Military style semi-automatic is laid out in the NZ Arms Act.

            An MSSA is any “self-loading” firearm (other than a pistol) with any of the following features:

            1. Folding or telescopic butt
            2. Bayonet lug
            3. Free-standing military-pattern pistol grip
            4. Flash suppressor
            5. A magazine that holds (or looks like it could hold) more than 15 rounds of .22 rimfire, or 7 rounds of any other cartridge.

  • cows4me

    As usual those calling for a ban on assault weapons in the US either fail to understand the 2nd amendment of the constitution or they are deliberately mudding the waters.The usual suspects question why there is any need for an assault weapon, usually claiming a assault weapon is not used in hunting. No where in the 2nd amendment are firearms mentioned for hunting. The second amendment grants the citizens the right to bare arms simply as a counterbalance should a tyrannical government ever come to power in the USA. Assault weapons are simply an evolutionary stage as far as firearms go and the right for law abiding US citizens to us them is most valid. You can be sure if a totalitarian government was to rise up against it’s citizens they wouldn’t come armed with hunting rifles and shotguns. In fact the government as far as weapons and armaments go would easily have the upper hand, they would just have great difficulty containing a well armed population.

    • Hugewon

      Well said c4m thats why nobody invaded US soil in WW2. Too many armed citizens.

      • Dumrse

        And your reference is ????

        • Hugewon

          AH, sorry, it is a misquote that I didn’t realise was fake:

          Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was
          deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens
          with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral
          Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: “You cannot invade mainland United States.
          There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

          But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even
          though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet
          postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s
          wartime fleet ever saying it.


    • Hazards001

      Dead right!

  • Richard McGrath

    Guns don’t kill people. Chuck Norris kills people.

  • Economist

    It’s not about “need” – it’s about the constitution

    Scalia has ruled, very clearly, that any man-portable weapons system is constitutionally protected.

    So fuck the Ruger: Let’s talk M203s, FIM-92s, FGM-148 and my personal favorite, M-29.

    • In Vino Veritas

      Are you talking about the M29 Weapons System or the M29 Mortar? Both take more than one person to carry them about.

      Or are you thinking the XM-29?

    • Oh wow, if SCALIA has ruled it, then it’s settled LMAO! What an imbecile.

  • Mr_Blobby

    Don’t know why Whale bothers with this type of post. All you get is a lot of uninformed claptrap from people who let their emotions run away on them.

    Death by motor vehicles, tobacco, alcohol, hammers, clubs of every sort, screwdrivers, knives, suicide, bad life choices, etc all seem to be acceptable, and all are probably preventable.

    When are we going to accept that people will die? It’s natural and it just happens. Given the growth in the World population we are not doing a very good job of controlling the population, my guess is that nature will have to help us out in some way, before we spread out like a virus and engulf the whole planet and like a virus kill ourselves and the host off.

    • Hazards001

      Well aren’t you just the happy bastard of 2013…give yaself a slap

  • KiaOra

    Calling for a ban on high capacity magazines seems to make sense to me. The type of weapon is irrelevant. What gives the spree killers luxury is capacity to kill. If they have to stop to change magazines they can be overpowered by an unarmed person, as has happened. If you need 30 rounds in one mag to go hunting deer you must be a really bad shot.

    • Dave

      KiaOra, Kiaora….. Mate, I’m pretty anti major auto weapons in the hands of civilians, but limiting the size of the magazine is going to do very little, they could carry two or three weapons, or / and have several Magazines and simply quickly swap them, and carry on shooting.

      • KiaOra

        This has been proven when a brave teacher took down a shooter while he was reloading. I am pretty sceptical but this actually makes sense and gives anyone a chance. It is also not impinging on their rights to own any weapon they choose. I realise that mag limits can be circumvented but most of these peeps are not bright enough to do it.

    • RealityTV

      The VT shootings were all done without high capacity assault rifles. Like Dave said, someone could walk in with ten 6-shot revolvers and continue to shoot and kill as many people as have happened with AR/AK variants. The only reason AZ didn’t result in more deaths was because someone acted when the guy reloaded, the scenario I described has no reload, you just keep pulling a gun out a firing (whether it’s from a holster rig on the body, or a bag of guns).

  • Democracy are two wolfs and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. Liberty is a well armed lamb disagreeing. Ben Franklin

  • RealityTV

    Neither of these guns is an assault rifle as they are both civilian semi-auto rifles. An assault rifle is a military grade gun that is capable “selective fire”, changing between full-auto, burst and sometimes semi-auto fire. FYI – they both look like .22LR semi-autos, I’d guess both are Ruger 10/22’s in two different body styles. Both can hold 5/10/25 round magazines and shoot each bullet as fast as you can pull the trigger (like most guns can do today, from revolvers and handguns to rifles and shotguns).