Is gun crime worse than hammer crime?

[Owen Sparks]

Many states and cities have enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns. Why should firearms be singled out? Is murdering a person with a gun somehow worse than murdering him with a knife or a claw hammer or with a ten pound rock?

Or is murder murder?

Last week a criminal was executed in Mississippi for killing a man by beating him to death with a common carpenter’s claw hammer. Would the crime have been worse, more brutal and evil had he shot the man?

Anyone who has dealt with prisoners knows that they will come up with all manner of improvised weaponry. An unopened can of soda in a sock can be swung with enough velocity to kill a man. Any piece of scavenged metal can be scraped on concrete until sharp and fashioned into a crude but deadly dagger. The wire from a common spiral bound note book can be made into a deadly garrote. Are these or any other weapon somehow less offensive than a gun?

Or is the tool employed irrelivant when compaired to the intent and result?

 

[rich_t]

Many states and cities have enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns. Why should firearms be singled out?

Politcal BS comes to mind.

 

[cbrgator]

The difference here and in so many other situations is that the firearm was developed for the purpose of killing. A hammer was developed for the purpose of banging stuff into other stuff. This person here just chose to bang it against a person, but that wasn't its intended purpose. The gun, while also a tool, was to be a more effective life-taker.

That being said...

I am with you 100%, but that is the reason why guns are singled out.

 

[Sixtigers]

With respect, I don't buy that argument.

Under that theory, your average police officer is designed for killing.

Yes, a firearm can kill. I do not buy firearms to kill. I buy them to protect my family and myself. If another individual misuses a tool to commit murder, the tool is not to blame.

Saying firearms are designed to kill is akin to saying Corvettes are designed to perform bank-robbery getaways.

 

[rich_t]

Let's not go down that whole road of what firearms were originally designed for.

It's been done to death.

They were indeed originally designed as a combat tool. I don't think even the NRA tries to deny that.

A murder is a murder. The tool, be it firearm, hammer, knife or hands and feet, doesn't matter in my opinion

By our laws a murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The tool should NOT matter.

 

[Deer Hunter]

A hammer was developed for the purpose of banging stuff into other stuff

Like skull fragments into your cerebellum?

 

[Owen Sparks]

Killing and murder are two entirely different things. No inaniment object can be in and of itself evil. Only the use you put it to can be evil. Guns ARE made to kill. They were used by George Washingtond army to kill so many British soldiers that they quit trying to subjigate the people. They were used to kill Nazis so well that Hitlers plans of world domination were ended before all of the jews were exterminated. One was used by Joe Horn to stop two illegal aliens from carrying off his neighbors property.
There is a time to kill. It sometimes is the only way to protect life, liberty and property. There is NEVER a proper circumstance to committ murder.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

Nice theory, but one man's patriotic duty is another man's war crime.

I think the last word on this topic is from about 40 years ago:

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

 

[rich_t]

Nice theory

What theory would that be?

 

[ChrisVV]

I dont care what you people say, Absolutely nothing is worse than hammer time.

 

[jakemccoy]

A criminal bludgeoning a person to death with a hammer is more brutal and more sadistic than shooting the person. Murdering someone with a hammer requires close proximity and a heightened level of intent that only a hardened (or insane) violent criminal could stomach. A hammer is not specifically designed to kill. Accordingly, using such a tool to murder someone presumptively raises the level of malice aforethought. On the other hand, using a gun to kill someone may be spun as an accident or as an act done without malice.

Is gun crime worse than hammer crime?

No, hammer crime is worse actually.

Why should firearms be singled out?

They shouldn't be.

Is murdering a person with a gun somehow worse than murdering him with a knife or a claw hammer or with a ten pound rock?

Or is murder murder?

Would the crime have been worse, more brutal and evil had he shot the man?

Are these or any other weapon somehow less offensive than a gun?

Or is the tool employed irrelivant when compaired to the intent and result?

No
Yes
No
No
Yes

 

[jrfoxx]

A murder is a murder. The tool, be it firearm, hammer, knife or hands and feet, doesn't matter in my opinion

agreed.

As to the idea that guns were "designed to kill", well, if thats the case, so were bayonets, spears, bows, arrows, cannons, and some knives, yet I dont see any "sentencing enhancement" for them, so the argument is bogus no matter how you look at it.

 

[TAB]

dont care what you people say, Absolutely nothing is worse than hammer time.

go to youtube.com type in Cheeky girls.


Now back to OP, there should be no diffrence between when a gun is used and when another weapon is.

The reality is that in the minds of most of the population, crimes envoling guns are worse then the use of other weapons. If the public didn't demand it( directly, or indirectly by relecting people that write those laws) then they would have never been written.


I do favor harsher punishments for people that use guns obtained illegally in crimes, but that is something completly diffrent.

 

[chieftain]

Murder is murder. Any argument about methods is specious.

As in the gun control argument. Once you start talking about "gun crime" vs crime in general, you have lost the argument.

It should be about crime. Tools don't commit crimes, criminals do.

If you start talking about guns, hammers, knives, etc. you are starting down the path the British are heading. Right now they are talking about knife control. Why? Because Gun control didn't work. Not one of those knives or guns committed a crime. Criminals did.

Anyone trying to blame anything (society, guns, poverty, hammers, knives, race) or anybody besides a criminal for the crime they committed is well, let's just say not to bright, or trying to divert your and other folks attention to something other than trying to stop that particular crime.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Deanimator]

Is gun crime worse than hammer crime?

Ask playwrite Joe Orton... if you know how to hold a seance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Orton

 

[kentucky_Dave]

I have murdered my thumb many times over the years with the face of a new 28 oz milled face framing hammer.
Every time I get a new hammer it wants to battle the side of my thumb for a while.

The hammer is by far a more brutal and violent means of dispatch, and our all knowing government should ban all hammers immediately.
Licensing and purchase restrictions should be imposed immediately.
Increased jail terms are necessary for possession without a tool belt or nails.
Felons found in possession are prohibited.
Straight claw hammers are to be considered assault weapons, evil by nature and only permitted with the proper license.

 

[lacoochee]

The difference here and in so many other situations is that the firearm was developed for the purpose of killing. A hammer was developed for the purpose of banging stuff into other stuff. This person here just chose to bang it against a person, but that wasn't its intended purpose. The gun, while also a tool, was to be a more effective life-taker.

That being said...

I am with you 100%, but that is the reason why guns are singled out.

In the spirit of debate, I believe hammers were not originally designed for pounding nails (a way later invention), they are the direct lineal descendants of clubs, which were used almost exclusively in tribal warfare. Google knob kerry, shileighly, indian war club...etc.

I suppose you also advance the argument that hammers are nothing more than fancy heavy rocks with a handle...I wonder which came first? Using a rock to smash open a bone to get at the marrow of some prey animal or smashing the head of the first guy that looked at your girl? I would bet that both actions happened within minutes of each other.

Hammers are evil implements from a much more primitive time, they should be banned from our civilization and we should embrace the future, wherein nails are wished into framing timbers...

The time has come for all good men (and ladies) to unite against these primitive "tools" of Satan (unless of course you are in Law Enforcement since nothing used by the "Blue Paladins" could ever be used for evil).

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Many states and cities have enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns.

Got any examples?

 

[charon]

In the spirit of debate, I believe hammers were not originally designed for pounding nails (a way later invention), they are the direct lineal descendants of clubs, which were used almost exclusively in tribal warfare. Google knob kerry, shileighly, indian war club...etc.

Ahhh,

BUT, firearms have also evolved from weapons used "only to kill" into common carpentry tools, supplementing the drill. For example, producing holes in a wall to run a satellite TV cable:

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15698864/detail.html

Or, as an alternative to an impact wrench:

http://www.citynews.ca/news/features_16704.aspx

The waters truly are muddied

 

[Sistema1927]

I am already on record, here.

 

[leadcounsel]

A hammer is, arguably, the worlds OLDEST killing tool. A hammer is just an evolved club or a club with a rock tied to the end for killing your enemies and is millions of years old.

Warhammers were used in mideval times and were very effective warfare tools.

Materials and designs have changed the hammer to suit carpentry needs, but they are still extremely effective killing tools.

I think enhanced sentencing for using a tool (be it a gun, mail fraud, 'computer crime' etc.) are plain stupid and used only for 'stacking' punishment.

The underlying crime (attempted murder, murder, fraud, etc.) is what should be charged. The fact that you were wearing running shoes instead of bare feet is irrelevant.

You could expound on this to infinity. The person drove a faster car, designed to speed away from a crime. The person wore running shoes to get away faster instead of bare feet. The person used a modern ski mask to hide his identity. The person used a flashlight to sneak in the dark.... yada yada yada. Villianizing tools is just an excuse for weak prosecuting skills.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

Quote:
Many states and cities have enhanced penalties for crimes committed with guns.

Got any examples?

"Gun Crime Means Hard Time"--in Texas, no less:
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/4185169-1.html

Quote:
Nice theory

What theory would that be?

This comment, right before mine: "There is a time to kill. It sometimes is the only way to protect life, liberty and property. There is NEVER a proper circumstance to committ murder."

In Texas, shoot someone to defend your property, you're a hero. Do the same in some parts of Illinois, you're going to prison. My point being, there are not always clear-cut distinctions between rightful and wrongful taking of life.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

"Gun Crime Means Hard Time"--in Texas, no less:
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing...4185169-1.html

Despite the articles sensationalism there is no sentence modifier for committing a crime with gun in TX (or any other state that I am aware of).

Here is information on Texas Exile:
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/1328bh.pdf

What Texas Exile does is charge violent felons caught with a gun (even if they are committing no other crime) with illegal possession of firearm by a felon. This is a violation of a 40 year federal law. In addition the program spend money to "advertise" this fact so that felons may be less likely to use a firearm. I am not naive to think a felon will stop committing crime but they may turn to other forms of crime like burglary on a property where nobody is home.

If you believe felons should be legally able to pack heat then lobby to change the law. Until it is changed it is illegal thus if they do it and get caught they should expect to go to jail. Do you believe if a cop searches a felon and he has a firearm he shouldn't be charged?

Once again I am looking for a single statute anywhere where a sentencing is increased if a firearm is used in a crime.

If there is no such law anywhere then we are debating about how bad something that doesn't exist is.

 

[WheelGunMom]

Nevada has an enhanced penalty for use of a "deadly weapon" during the commission of a crime. I imagine other states have similar provisions.

See http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-193.html#NRS193Sec165

To answer the OP's question, it's going to depend on what your state law says. If it is not clear from the statutory language/definition what types of weapons (e.g. -- a hammer) are covered, then you'd look to any interpretive court decisions or the legislative history behind the law.

 

[Rugerlvr]

I guess enhanced penalties for gun use in commission of a crime is meant to be a deterrent in the same way the death penalty is. If there's some empirical evidence that it actually deters gun crime, then as a law-abiding citizen who cherishes my gun rights, I'm for it. If all of the evidence for it is merely allegorical, then I guess I could care less.

Personally, what I find outrageous is a situation where the mere presence of a gun can turn a misdemeanor into a felony, say, possession of Marijuana. A few grams of MJ, a misdemeanor, add a gun, and someone is facing PMITA prison time.