It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI: More People Killed with Fists & Hammers than Rifles & Shotguns

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

This whole political dogma that preaches, "It's for our safety" is total BS!

If these government criminals actually cared about our safety they would show it by coming down on the chemicals put into our food by the !0 Corporations that are responsible for 90% of the food products we buy!

I just thought I would bring that up to show how and agenda can supersede common sense for those intelligent enough to think about the hypocrisy shoved down our throats on a daily basis by the Edwin Béarnaise globalist puppets......




posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?

Do you have an answer?



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Kandinsky

The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?

Do you have an answer?


Well my guess would be that those that tend to lean left of the podium feel that a semi auto rifle is probably more accurate at distance with greater mag capacities than your standard semi auto pistol. That being said pistols in the right hands at close quarters can be deadly accurate. Therefore of course, ban semi auto rifles. Sarcasm intended



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix
There is a slight problem with the FBI numbers.
these numbers include suicide...
While I'm sure the guns account for a pretty good chunk of suicides, (people who want to die for one reason or another) I'm fairly sure the number of folks using their own fists and hammers is low.
So actual numbers on gun "homicide" are lower than presented.
(Edit)
Just to be clear to those hand and hammer grabbing scum out there.
If you infringe my right to hammers and hands, I do have a 3d printer and schematics for prosthetic hands.
I will have to get the DIY community to make me some hammer plans however.



edit on 29-5-2014 by g146541 because: The right to bear mammers shall not be infringed!



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?


I have an answer. Hysteria induced by the media (ultimately to sell advertising) and politicians eager to politicize any issue. What a lot of posters in this thread are choosing to ignore is that irrational fear is promoted equally on both sides of this mostly fraudulent "debate." There is no popular national support for any sort of serious restriction on gun ownership. Every time there is a mass shooting, we go through the exact same drill and the only real outcome is a spike in gun sales.
edit on 2014-5-29 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: g146541
a reply to: Phoenix
There is a slight problem with the FBI numbers.
these numbers include suicide...
While I'm sure the guns account for a pretty good chunk of suicides, (people who want to die for one reason or another) I'm fairly sure the number of folks using their own fists and hammers is low.
So actual numbers on gun "homicide" are lower than presented.
(Edit)
Just to be clear to those hand and hammer grabbing scum out there.
If you infringe my right to hammers and hands, I do have a 3d printer and schematics for prosthetic hands.
I will have to get the DIY community to make me some hammer plans however.




You're wrong. Look at the title of the table. "Murder Victims by Weapon, 2008-2012"



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You are correct.
There is a certain amount of hysteria on both idea of the issue.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Hey now! Fists and hammers and all the kitchen knives, cars, motorcycles, axes and hatchets, shovels, alcohol, baseball bats...and...and..

All these things? They CAN kill people as well. But its the person weilding them that kills. People kill people....



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


We clearly have to ban fists and hammers.


Absolutely, and why not?

Sharing the same logic most of those anti-gun zealots use, who needs fists or hammers anymore?

You don't need a hammer. If you need something fixed in you house, you should just call a repair man, he is able to operate a hammer safely, you are not. The only people that need hammers these days are murderers and carpenters, and if you aren't a carpenter, you don't need a hammer. Just to be safe we need to register hammers so that only license carpenters can purchase hammers. Non-carpenters in the possession of hammers means instantly felony.

Nobody needs their fists anymore. We live in a safe society where fists are no longer needed, an facts are obviously showing that fists are incredibly dangerous. People do need their hands, so amputation might be a bit extreme (might!) Instead I suggest implanting muscle monitors in everyone's hands. If you flex your hand into anything close to a fist you are jolted with some 2 million volts to dissuade you from doing so in the future.

Also, people who draw fists on paper, or say the word "fist" in public, or those that utilize rubber fists in their sexual encounters will be thrown into jail as well. Well, not the rubber fist people, they are a protected victim class and allowed use of their fists, natural, rubber, or otherwise.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: twohawks

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Kandinsky

The point, which some seem to miss, would be this:
If handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of firearms murders, why try to ban only certain type of rifle?

Do you have an answer?


Well my guess would be that those that tend to lean left of the podium feel that a semi auto rifle is probably more accurate at distance with greater mag capacities than your standard semi auto pistol. That being said pistols in the right hands at close quarters can be deadly accurate. Therefore of course, ban semi auto rifles. Sarcasm intended


Honestly I don't think they even put that much thought into it. They want to ban things because they look scary, or because a few bad people used them. That is the total depth of their thought process, it's superficial as hell.

Until all the gun control supporters actually educate themselves about firearms (no chance in hell, why should someone be education about something they talk so much about?) they are never going to realize gun control is based on nothing but IMAGE and IMAGE does not save lives, period.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
But I've never heard of a mass punching or bludgeoning happening. So...there's that weak argument before someone actually tries to seriously bring it forth.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Echo3Foxtrot
Check out the story of 'The Killing Fields'.
Most of the victims were bludgeoned to death.
I do believe the figures amount to 'mass'.

The Killing Fields



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Echo3Foxtrot
But I've never heard of a mass punching or bludgeoning happening. So...there's that weak argument before someone actually tries to seriously bring it forth.


And what's your point?

Do you think the people who were killed with hammers and fists cared it was only them, and not a group of people being smashed to death?

Why is a single event that kills 10 people more important than 10 events that kill 10 people? Why is the value you place on life so variable like that?

And as butcherguy points out, your wrong on your premise in the first place.
edit on 29-5-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: James1982

Wow, you...didn't really get what I was saying were you? That's ok, Junior, I'll smarten you up.

What I meant here was a point that's not a point. I've heard people attempt to make a point of melee weapons vs. firearms that amount to just that: mass shootings can and do happen, but mass stabbings, bludgeonings, beatings, etc. can but don't happen (that often). By the one, using one example from the 1970s Khmer Rouge isn't something I would have been something I would consider a point breaker.

Don't ask me why mass murders are always more appealing to the public over just a single body, but people blow up mass murder like it was the worst thing to happen since rock n' roll.

Read carefully next time.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Echo3Foxtrot
a reply to: James1982

Wow, you...didn't really get what I was saying were you? That's ok, Junior, I'll smarten you up.

What I meant here was a point that's not a point. I've heard people attempt to make a point of melee weapons vs. firearms that amount to just that: mass shootings can and do happen, but mass stabbings, bludgeonings, beatings, etc. can but don't happen (that often). By the one, using one example from the 1970s Khmer Rouge isn't something I would have been something I would consider a point breaker.

Don't ask me why mass murders are always more appealing to the public over just a single body, but people blow up mass murder like it was the worst thing to happen since rock n' roll.

Read carefully next time.


Maybe I misunderstood, as I have a hard time with points that aren't points, but It seemed like you were saying it makes sense to get rid of guns because mass shootings happen, but mass stabbings and bashings don't?

I then questioned why that matters, people are still dying, asking if a death in a mass shooting is more important than a death in a single bashing incident. I was asking for your personal opinion not what society thinks.

Then I commented that the previous poster provided evidence that you were wrong on your statement that mass bashings and stabbings don't happen, as they do. I'll throw in right now that mass stabbings are actually quite common in China if we are calling mass shootings in America common.

That shows that lack of guns doesn't accomplish what you think it does. It doesn't keep people safe. People will just go out and stab/hack a bunch of people instead of shooting them. But then there is no armed civillians to stop it, just like in China, or a school, or a "gun-free zone"

And now it's not that mass stabbings and bashings don't happen, it's just that they don't happen as frequently. Well, did you ever think that's because people have guns? Take away the guns then you will see more mass stabbings and bashing, with the problem again being that there is no armed civilians to stop it, and nobody can arm themselves for defense.

Guns are not creating this problem. Guns are a tool used by the problem. The problem being, people that want to kill other random people for really messed up reasons. Lets get rid of those people, or help them, or something, instead of taking the masturbatory stance of banning guns.

That's not to say depriving a person of tools to do evil won't make it harder, it will, but that tool is also used by good, normal people trying to defend themselves from that evil. Burning your house down will probably get rid of the rats, but you burnt your house down. Banning guns won't even get rid of the rats, there still there, but now you don't have a house!

If someone had a brain tumor, would you suggest taking pain killers as the solution? Or getting rid of the tumor? It seems like this society is geared for dealing with and addressing symptoms not causes, whether it be the medical industry , economic issues, social issues, or the political realm. nobody wants to deal with causes, they want to deal with symptoms and tangent occurrences.
edit on 29-5-2014 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
According to the FBI stats, between 8550 and 9528 murders were attributed to firearms in the years 2008-2012.

678-875 were attributed to 'Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)'



FBI source

Spreadsheet link


How many of those were legally owned? Gun laws only affect legal gun owners, after all. I'd bet most of those were illegally obtained weapons.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 04:33 AM
link   
You left out handguns. Only the government should have firearms. Guns should be banned. I'm tired of the mafia, bloods, crips, gangster disciples, folk nation, mass shooters who go off their meds, kids who accidentally shoot off their parents weapon, muggers, jealous lovers, black widows, drug runners, terrorists, mexican mafia, lee harvey losers, chesters etcetera. A bunch of cowards. And so are the people who stand up for the rights of cowards. I'm tired of hearing about a few regimes that used gun controll, saddam used to give people rifles as presents. Japan has no gun controll problems, they let people carry weapons like police collapsible steel batons and knives, lots of people are tired of crime.
There is no excuse for arming criminals over and over again. The rights in the constitution are not without exception. You can't shout fireIin a public theatre. You know why? A few people die. This is more than a few people. Only an imbecile would pass a law that said people could carry guns but not carry knives.
edit on 30-5-2014 by mattsawaufo because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-5-2014 by mattsawaufo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
What would be a "firearm not listed" to come out to 1800 deaths or so.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
So how many people go on mass murder sprees with their fists or a hammer? I'm guessing not to omany.

To spell it out for you fundamentalist gun righters: assault rifles and similar firearms with large magazines/clips/whatever enable the user to rapidly shoot/kill many persons.

But hey, keep up the specious arguments like this one for your echo-chamber buddies.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Given rifles make up 2% of firearm involved murders you'd have to wonder why all the hoopla over so-called 'assault rifles.'

This is why:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Violence Policy Center

The public is dumb as # and the anti-civil rights lobby knows it.

So all you anti-civil rights folk relish proudly in your ignorance. It couldn't be more obvious you're simply useful idiots to the control lobby. They write about your stupidity as a tactic to exploit!



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join