More people are killed by hammers than rifles
More people are killed by hammers than rifles is an argument frequently used by Americans who disapprove of gun control, specifically the restriction or banning of assault rifles. A graphic with the heading, "Facts gun control advocates don't want you to know" made the rounds on Facebook in 2013, and the argument really became popular when it was taken up by Fox Nation, and posted on Twitter by Republican Greg Abbott, attorney general of Texas at the time, and later Governor of Texas.
How the Argument Is Dishonest
Murder Not Death
My first problem with the argument is that it is often presented using the word "killed" rather than "murdered." If you take a look at the actual FBI data cited, the chart makes it clear that the numbers are homicides. The Facebook graphic properly uses the term "murder," but Greg Abbot used the term "killed." This may sound like a quibble, but it has big implications. The FBI is not including accidental deaths or suicides. When you take these numbers into account, the values will probably be altered considerably because very few people kill themselves with blunt objects, but how many kill themselves with rifles?
Blunt Objects Not Hammers
Although both the Facebook graphic and Greg Abbot mention hammers and clubs, when I hear this argument, the arguer usually only mentions hammers, either way, they're not fully honest because the FBI's data combines all blunt objects into a single group. While this includes hammers, it also includes baseball bats, golf clubs, rocks, and so forth. Notice that "firearms" is broken up into five sub-categories. "Blunt objects" could have thousands of categories, but, if you were to divide them into five equal sub-categories, the numbers would be smaller than rifles.
Unknown Firearm Type
The FBI data includes a sub-category in firearms called "type not stated" in which a person was murdered with a firearm, but the police report didn't include the specific type of the firearm. This number is quite large, more than rifles, shotguns, and other firearms combined, and it probably contains a fair amount rifles which would increase the total numbers. There is also a section on the bottom of the chart called "other weapons, or weapons not stated" which could potentially add more to the total number of rifles. However, to be fair, considering that handguns account for such a high percentage, most of the "type not stated" category is probably handguns.
How To Make It True
In order for the argument to stated truthfully, it must be re-worded to something like, "According to the FBI, fewer people are murdered by rifles in America, than by all blunt objects combined, when you exclude murders where the firearm type is not known." An argument worded in that manner is true, but it certainly doesn't have the thrust of the dishonest soundbite. However, now that it is true, we can address it.
The Point of the Argument
I can think of two primary ways to interpret this argument.
Using Murder Rate As a Metric For What to Restrict
This is a straight forward look at the argument. It asks, why are lawmakers picking on rifles when they only account for a fraction of murders in this country? In this case, the argument implies that lawmakers should focus their energy on those murder weapons that account for the most murders. The problem with this approach is that it backfires on people who are against gun control because the weapon most commonly used for murders, by far, is handguns.
Another question to ask is, why did the FBI sub-divide firearm related murders? I doubt it's because they believe that rifles and shotguns are as fundamentally different as other categories like fire and drowning. I think a more reasonable answer is that the FBI is more interested in firearm-related murders because they are, by far, the most common murder weapon, more than all other methods of homicide combined.
Also, an unexpected side-effect to using murders weapons to decide what should be restricted is, one could argue that we should eliminate the restrictions on explosives and extremely toxic poisons since so few people are murdered by them.
Pointing Out the Folly of Using Murder Rate
I think the primary intent by the people employing this argument is to say, everything can be used to murder, and, since we can't ban everything, there is no sense in banning guns.
This is similar to a gradient problem, and, like all arguments based on a gradient problem, it ignores the fact that lines still have to be drawn. In this case, societies have to restrict things that are extremely dangerous. There are a million gradients of danger between butter knives and nuclear bombs, each only fractionally more dangerous than the next. And, even if we can't come up with a non-arbitrary reason for why one should be allowed and the next restricted, if we want to keep society in existence, we still have to restrict nuclear bombs.
However, when it comes to firearms compared to hammers, there is a non-arbitrary distinction to be made. While both can be used as a murder weapon, a gun is specifically designed to kill, but a hammer is not. You could argue that a gun is designed to frighten people away, but the only reason people are frightened by a gun is because it so easily has the potential to kill.