A dose of Reality-More people are killed with blunt objects than All Types of Rifles Combined

While democrats ramp up the cries for “assault weapons bans” let’s look at reality.

As the nation continues to reel from the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are revisiting gun control legislation.

Yet, more people are killed annually with hammers and clubs in the United States than are killed with rifles of any kind, according to recent Federal Bureau of Investigations statistics.

While 467 people were killed with “blunt objects,” like hammers and clubs in 2017, 403 were killed with rifles, the recent FBI crime statistics show.

The FBI includes single shot, semi-automatic, pump action, bolt action and those firearms which are categorized by Democratic lawmakers as “assault weapons” in its “rifles” category. Therefore, only a percentage of the 403 deaths attributed to rifles were carried out by “assault weapons.”

“Knives or cutting instruments” were used to kill 1,591 people, the 2017 crime figures show, while 403 were killed with rifles. **nce, people are four times more likely to be stabbed to death than get shot with any kind of rifle.

**According to the FBI report, more people were killed annually with “personal weapons” like “hands, fist, feet,” than rifles and shot guns combined. [https://lauraloomer.us/2019/08/11/fb.../#.XXMaD1RKhdg]


1 Like

3293 “other gun deaths” :joy:


You seem to think you’re making some sort of point here. What is it?

That there are 3293 gun deaths that are unidentifiable. Even if 10% of those where rifles… that would push it higher than clubbing and fists

Link? What percentage of them can be attributed to rifles?

Good stat.

How many mass killings happened when someone used a blunt object?


Are we trying to argue that “blunt objects” are better at killing things than guns?


I’m sorry, are people killed singly or in pairs any less dead? Do their families grieve less?

There clearly is no need for gun ownership when “blunt objects” are far more effective. Well done WR!


Great non-answer to my question.

It was an answer. Why should we be more concerned about mass killings as opposed to individual killings that collectively far outnumber those killed in mass killings?

Why do people want to own guns when “blunt objects” appear to be a far better means of defense? Did you read the OP?

Yeah I read it, where did it say they were a superior means of defense?

The title is clear. Are you confused?

Someone is. I don’t see superior means of defense in the title either.

WR is clearly indicating he thinks “blunt objectss” are more deadly than guns.

Otherwise this thread would be very disingenuous, right?


Sigh another idiotic thread based on the desire to fetishize guns.

Can you tell me which blunt object was designed by its very purpose to kill or maim as many living creatures in as short a time as possible?

Can you also tell me the last time the United States experienced multiple killings and injuries in a matter of minutes by one person at malls, schools, workplaces and other open areas where the perpetrator used a blunt object?

One last point if in your opinion blunt objects are somehow equivalent to guns then why dont you forego your gun and carry a blunt object? Better yet why not rearm the military with blunt objects because in your opinion they are more effective or as effective as firearms.


No, he thinks what he said, that more people are killed by that method than with rifles.

1 Like

Retarded question. Mass killings are far more traumatizing to the public at large.

1 Like

I don’t think this thread went the way the op planned…