Rugby league star Johnathan Thurston has expressed a desire for racial harmony in Logan City, despite the bashing death of his uncle Richard Saunders (inset) in a Woodridge park in 2008. (photo credit: news.com.au)

It’s all my fault, apparently. (Just ask my ex – she boarded that train when it was parked at the station years ago, before it’s initial run.) Yep. Back in February of this year, I wrote a satirical piece on a mass murderer’s attack at a men’s mall with a hammer. I used humor to point out the ridiculousness of the far Left’s strategies, tactics, and positions on gun rights, showing how, if guns were ever banned, murders wouldn’t be. One of the comments we received on the story pointed out that, as a prison guard, he’d observed that about one-third of the inmates imprisoned for murder had used a hammer – not a firearm – in the commission of their crime. I thought that was an odd but interesting factoid. But today comes word that a judge in the Land of Oz is actually proposing a ban on hammers.

I’m not making this up. Last year, an Australian citizen, Richard Saunders, was in a city park, enjoying a couple of adult beverages with his mates. A group of some eight Samoan yoots (as My Cousin Vinny might say), armed with fence palings, a hammer, concrete blocks, stones and bottles took umbrage with the older group, and decided to confront them. The discussion turned violent, and Saunders was killed by the group.

Bad luck for the roving band of gang-bangers – Saunders was the uncle of Rugby League star Jonathan Thurston. (In the Land Down Under, as here in the Colonies, there’s nothing like a star connection to bump your tragic tale of woe to the front page and keep it there.) The murdering hooligans were tried, and convicted. But that, apparently, was not enough for the judge.

In Brisbane, Supreme Court Justice Ros Atkinson suggested that the Queensland Government should look at introducing laws to restrict carrying hammers which might be used as weapons.

During submissions for a juvenile offender, Justice Atkinson noted that while he was not the one to use the hammer in the attack the juvenile had been carrying a hammer before the events of the night. “It is such a dangerous thing to do and it is almost inevitable that somebody would be hurt,” she said. Justice Atkinson asked the prosecutor, Todd Fuller, SC, if there should be legislative reform to make carrying a hammer in such circumstances an offence.

Mr. Fuller said there had been legislation introduced in other areas of concern such as spray cans which were used for substance-sniffing and graffiti. There’s no word yet from the judge on if she believes that fence palings, concrete blocks, stones and bottles should also be banned.

Pause with me, whilst we ponder the implications of a world where anything that might be used to harm someone else would be banned to prevent an assault or murder.

Okay. Think that one through? If you’ve taken this to it’s logical conclusion, you see a world with no cars, guns, bats, hammers, trees (branches could be used to hurt someone), clothing (risk of strangulation), solid food (risk of choking), bodies of water (drowning) and no possessions at all. (Fosters envy, and really when you think about it, anything could be used as a weapon.)

So imagine our planet, devoid of any surface detail, just one big, smooth marble. Imagine all the people, standing around naked, starving. And the animals standing around, licking their chops. In short, you have the world as envisioned by PeTA, Greenpeace, the Earth Liberation Front, Earth First, the Sierra Club, and just about every other extremist, environmental group out there.

Do you see a pattern here?

I’m not saying that this is some kind of coordinated plot to take us all back to the Stone Age. (Come to think of it, I’m not NOT saying it either.) But there’s a common leitmotif that runs through the (lack of) logic and (irrational) reasoning of the Far Left. The idea of banning hammers to prevent assaults is soooo Nanny State, I have a hard time believing that anybody would buy off on this. Except that, due to the Slippery Slope we’re on, it could bloody well happen.

Set the WABAC machine for just after the Civil War, say. If you tried to pass ANY kind of “gun control” measures, you’d have been issued a new kind of uniform, one that included a canvas blazer with wrap-around arms. And a clubhouse with rubber walls. Over time, even the craziest of ideas can start sounding reasonable, as long as you’re A) willing to wage a war of attrition to get there, and B) you’re willing to take the long view, and be patient.

Is banning hammers as dumb an idea as it sounds? Of course it is. But in a Nanny State, it can happen. Wouldn’t it be smarter to ban the Nanny State instead?

18 Responses to Life Imitates Art Dept: Australia Considers Banning Hammers

  1. I think that you are taking it a little over the top,and over using the word ban!
    that a drunk 18year old who is armed with a hammer in a club can be prosecuted for it,is all they are talking about!it does not mean that a carpenter cant carry his hammer around town.(if there should be legislative reform to make carrying a hammer in such circumstances an offence.)

  2. davvehall:

    But the idea of a “ban” is not that far fetched. Would you be happy with having to get a permit to carry a hammer outside your home? Proof that you are a carpenter for “Type 1 Hammers”, proof you are a stonemason for “Type 2 Hammers”, etc.? Because that’s how it starts and where it ultimately ends up. Its always “well meaning and reasonable” or “for the children” or some such nonsense.

    Liberals can’t get over the simple fact that people are unpredictable and uncontrollable. They are not satisfied with the traditional concept of crime-then-punishment; they yearn to prevent crime and the only way to do that is make thinking illegal — they can then punish you for what you may be thinking about doing. Hate crime laws are the beginnings of that; how can a crime be more heinous that murder? By making it a hate crime based on someone’s dislike of the victim for some external factor like race or religion or orientation. After hate crimes come thought crimes. Paraphrasing Shakespeare “it follows as the night the day.”

    The real problem is that Liberalism has transformed itself from the classic belief in open mindedness, human rights and a liberal view of people and the world and into a serious mental disorder best dealt with using confinement and strong medication.

    • Would you be happy with having to get a permit to carry a hammer outside your home? Proof that you are a carpenter for “Type 1 Hammers”, proof you are a stonemason for “Type 2 Hammers”, etc.? .. No i would not,But i dont let my imagination run away with what the worst case scenario would be if some small law would be put in to place.do you know why?Because thats exactly what the gungrabbers do!They think that any small law that gives citizens more power to own and use guns, will end up in a drove of mass murders and every person with a gun is going to become an outlaw.. I am not a liberal, i believe that everyone who wants arms for protection and fun should be able to,and that the right for me and everybody else to protect their family is not only a right its a responsebility!!!!

    • John writes: Liberals can’t get over the simple fact that people are unpredictable and uncontrollable.

      This is not exactly true. Liberals have a rather gnostic view of the world and people, one in which everyone is essentially alike. Therefore, for them it is natural to expect that fundamentally incommensurate groups will live together, side by side, in harmony.

      In fact, people in general are very predictable, although some are not very controllable. A European (or someone from European descent) can be expected to behave in a certain way. If it were not so, then society would be unable to exist. Other groups likewise have their own characteristics. Group differences are only highlighted when hitherto exclusive groups are allowed to mingle. At that point, one cannot underestimate the power of difference. The only thing that can be expected, though, is violence.

      But the liberal ignores all this, and keeps repeating reality denying phrases such as, “diversity is our strength.” And when confronted with reality, the liberal becomes more deluded, and hence they want to “blame the hammer.”

  3. “So imagine our planet, devoid of any surface detail, just one big, smooth marble.”

    Sounds like a Brady wingnut’s wet dream.

  4. Since a hammer has a shape similar to a handgun, they should ban all these evil instruments of death.

    • Now somebody’s going to have to come out with an under-barrel hammer attachment for AR’s. Actually, I’m surprised that’s not already on the market.

  5. Well, if they’re going to regulate hammers, they’ll have to add screwdrivers, box cutters, and pry-bars to the list. Ax handles make for a club in a pinch, add that to the the list of controlled hand tools, as well as entire axes, God only knows how much damage these street gangs could cause if they got their hands on assault hand implements like that. Naturally, anyone caught outside the home with a kitchen knife is coming to or from an assassination, so make that a criminal offense as well.

    That ought to do it folks, now I’m off to regulate away world hunger!

  6. Will weneed a transfer stamp for a “California framing hammer” the one with the 24 ounce head and serrated face…Will apperance alone determine “suitability?” Wooden handled hammers o-k, fiberglass are only designed for faster swinging, serrated faced hamers serve no legitimate purpose in the hands of the common DIY’er!

    • “Serrated face” hammers are called framing hammers. And sadly most DIY’ers don’t know what a framing hammer is.

      I laugh every time someone asks me to come help them raise a shed or barn or frame their basement and I show up to find them using a smooth face cabinet makers hammer to frame walls. Amateurs!

      My frameing hammer has a skull and the words “Dead-On” embossed on it, if they start banning the hammers that are scary I am screwed because I love my framing hammer and they can have it when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

  7. People should just use more common sense with their hammers. If you have a hammer at home, keep it locked up in a safe out of reach of children and bad guys. The nails should be secured in a separate location again out of reach of children. Hammers should certainly be banned from drinking establishments. Malt liquor and mallets do not mix.

  8. Californians will be required to choose their hammer from the approved hammer roster, and then wait ten days for pickup. Steel nails are not allowed, as they are obviously designed to pierce armor. A maximum of ten nails may be carried per hammer.

  9. So imagine our planet, devoid of any surface detail, just one big, smooth marble. Imagine all the people, standing around naked, starving.

    And then when someone dies, their bones can be picked up and used as weapons. What? You never saw 2001: A Space Odyssey?

  10. “During submissions for a juvenile offender, Justice Atkinson noted that while he was not the one to use the hammer in the attack the juvenile had been carrying a hammer before the events of the night. ”

    Why do you need to ban carrying hammers to make this a punishable offense? You brought the murder weapon to a future murder scene and handed it to the murderer. Make that involuntary manslaughter and you’ve covered any utensil that will ever be used in the killing of men.

  11. IIRC, I read that domestic violence among the middle class in Asian countries (with strict gun control) often involves cleavers (with the woman often wielding).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *