Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

[CFLarsen]

Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

If you kill with a gun:

• You can do it from a distance.
• You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is.
• You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself: You can get caught, wounded, killed yourself.
• You can surprise the victim.
• You can kill in secrecy.
• You can kill in anonymity.
• You can kill someone far stronger than you.
• You can kill, even though there are other people around the victim.
• You can kill with far more efficiency than with a knife.
• Your victims are far less likely to survive and testify against you.
• You can kill more than one person very quickly.
• You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help the victim.

If you kill with a knife:

• You can't do it from a distance, unless you are a skilled knife-thrower.
• You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime.
• You have to be close, thereby endangering yourself: You can get caught, wounded, killed yourself.
• Your chance of surprising the victim is much smaller.
• Your chance of killing in secrecy is much smaller.
• Your chance of killing anonymously is much smaller.
• Your chance of killing someone stronger than you is much smaller.
• You may be able to kill someone in a crowd, but then you run a risk of being overpowered.
• You can't kill as efficiently with a knife.
• Your victims will have a far greater chance of surviving and testifying against you.
• You can kill more than one person, but much slower.
• You can't frighten away people who are far from you, who want to help the victim.

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%.
Source: FBI

About half of all American homes have at least one gun. But knives are found in every kitchen.

Guns are far more dangerous than knives. Deal with it.

 

[Diamond]

What about rolling pins?

 

[Grammatron]

While I think guns are on average more "danerous" than knives your post is not correct. I'm too tired to take apart your post right now and I'm sure by morning someone will already do it, however you have few assumption that are just plane wrong and your use of statistics is a dishonest.

The biggest example of how wrong you are is of course "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime." How exactly me stabbing someone in...let's say a heart leaves my DNA at the scene? Do knifes have no handles where you are from?

 

[Ranb]

Here is my spin;


If you defend yourself with a gun:

You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself when a much stronger person attacks you.

You can defend yourself from someone far stronger than you.

You can defend yourself, even though there are other people around to help your attacker kill you.

Your attackers are far less likely to survive and attack you later you.

You can kill more than one attacker very quickly.

You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help your attacker kill you.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

The biggest example of how wrong you are is of course "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime." How exactly me stabbing someone in...let's say a heart leaves my DNA at the scene? Do knifes have no handles where you are from?

It is virtually impossible not to leave DNA anywhere. You walk through a room, a hair falls off. You scrape against something, and you leave skin cells. You spit out saliva each time you speak.

In a knife-stabbing scene, up close and personal, leaving no DNA? Gee, sounds like in the movies. The ghost ones.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Here is my spin;


If you defend yourself with a gun:

You don't have to be close, thereby endangering yourself when a much stronger person attacks you.

You can defend yourself from someone far stronger than you.

You can defend yourself, even though there are other people around to help your attacker kill you.

Your attackers are far less likely to survive and attack you later you.

You can kill more than one attacker very quickly.

You can frighten away people who are far from you, but wanting to help your attacker kill you.

Ranb

The 'muggings go down just like in the movies' school of handgun defence.

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

It is virtually impossible not to leave DNA anywhere. You walk through a room, a hair falls off. You scrape against something, and you leave skin cells. You spit out saliva each time you speak.

In a knife-stabbing scene, up close and personal, leaving no DNA? Gee, sounds like in the movies. The ghost ones.

I think you watch too much CSI or whatever the equivelent show is in your country.

It would be impossible to collect DNA unless the murder was commited in a clean lab room.

Furthermore, vast majority of those murder statistics from guns you cited were not conducted by snipers 100s of feet away but in the same room or with in a close proximity.

So you would leave your DNA at the scene. So either your point about guns is wrong "You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is" or your point about knives is wrong "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime."

Chose one, either way you are wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

Here is my spin;

That would be justifiable homicide. Check the same page, table 2.17: 1% are justifiable homicides.

Your right to defend yourself comes at a very high price: A pile of dead bodies.

 

[AWPrime]

Here is my spin;

Sorry that is another subject.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

I think you watch too much CSI or whatever the equivelent show is in your country.

I think I saw the show a couple of times while I was living in the US. I prefer Quincy.

It would be impossible to collect DNA unless the murder was commited in a clean lab room.

Not at all:

DNA breakthrough in Lindh killer hunt

Killer trapped by DNA loses appeal

Forensic tests reveal killer's ID

Nurse killer's DNA profiled

Life for Lynette White murder

You want more real-life examples of how killers with knives leave DNA? I got plenty.

Furthermore, vast majority of those murder statistics from guns you cited were not conducted by snipers 100s of feet away but in the same room or with in a close proximity.

Doesn't change the fact that you can kill from a distance.

Lee Harvey Oswald. Charles Whitman. Mark Essex. Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad.

So you would leave your DNA at the scene. So either your point about guns is wrong "You don't leave DNA at the scene where the victim is" or your point about knives is wrong "You will leave DNA at the scene of the crime."

Chose one, either way you are wrong.

Not at all. You don't leave DNA if you are far away from the dead person, if you shoot from a distance. But you do, if you stab him up close.

 

[Leif Roar]

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%. [/B]

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

 

[Ranb]

Have to include nuclear weapons then too. I believe the death toll is less than 200,000 in Japan for nukes, including their own processing plants. Sorry, I could not resist.

Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

Not at all:

DNA breakthrough in Lindh killer hunt

Killer trapped by DNA loses appeal

Forensic tests reveal killer's ID

Nurse killer's DNA profiled

Life for Lynette White murder

You want more real-life examples of how killers with knives leave DNA? I got plenty.

Is it true for all the cases or not, because your claim makes it sound like person with a gun will no leave DNA evidence, which is false or a person with a knife will leave DNA evidence no matter what, which is also false.

I have plenty of anecdotal evidence too.

Doesn't change the fact that you can kill from a distance.

Lee Harvey Oswald. Charles Whitman. Mark Essex. Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad.

You can kill with a knife as well, from a distance. Gun just makes it easier.

Remember, I am not arguing that knives are as dangerous as guns, just that some of your points are ridiculas and some are wrong.

Not at all. You don't leave DNA if you are far away from the dead person, if you shoot from a distance. But you do, if you stab him up close.

Well if DNA collection is as easy as you claim it is than you most certainly will leave DNA in the location of where you are shooting from. And that location can be pin-pointed far easier that it would be to collect DNA.

 

[Ranb]

Re: Time to bury another myth: Knives are as dangerous as guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen

And the hard facts prove it:

From 1998-2002, between 63-67% of all murders were committed with firearms. Knives or cutting instruments only accounted for 13%. [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

Have to include nuclear weapons then too. I believe the death toll is less than 200,000 in Japan for nukes, including their own processing plants. Sorry, I could not resist.

Ranb

 

[CFLarsen]

Is it true for all the cases or not, because your claim makes it sound like person with a gun will no leave DNA evidence, which is false or a person with a knife will leave DNA evidence no matter what, which is also false.

It is very likely that you will leave DNA. Better?

I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA. Can you?

You can kill with a knife as well, from a distance. Gun just makes it easier.

If you want to kill with a knife from a distance, you have to throw it with enough force, you have to rotate the knife so it hits with the blade first (pretty darn difficult!), and you have to hit areas of the body that are soft enough.

I'd like to see you penetrate a skull with a knife at a distance.

Well if DNA collection is as easy as you claim it is than you most certainly will leave DNA in the location of where you are shooting from. And that location can be pin-pointed far easier that it would be to collect DNA.

If you are shooting from a place that can be investigated for DNA, yes. Malvo and Muhammad, car.

However, since you are not in a scuffle, all things being equal, you should be able to cover your tracks much better.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And by this logic semi-automatic guns are much more dangerous than fully automatic guns.

Have to include nuclear weapons then too. I believe the death toll is less than 200,000 in Japan for nukes, including their own processing plants. Sorry, I could not resist.

It depends on where Claus is going with this, but I suspect that this will turn out to be irrelevant.

My guess is that Claus is addressing the good old "if you banned guns, people would just kill each other with knives" justification for gun ownership. If that is the case, you remarks are not relevant.

Claus is on very solid ground this time. Guns are more dangerous than knives, both for premeditated killing and for impulsive killing.

 

[Grammatron]

It is very likely that you will leave DNA. Better?

It's better that you can alter your point based on logic, but I think neither is more likely to leave DNA. In fact a gun is worse since it will leave gun powder residue. I just think you should drop that point all together since it does nothing to help your over all point.

I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA. Can you?

No. Collecting it is another matter all together, though.

If you want to kill with a knife from a distance, you have to throw it with enough force, you have to rotate the knife so it hits with the blade first (pretty darn difficult!), and you have to hit areas of the body that are soft enough.

I'd like to see you penetrate a skull with a knife at a distance.

Why when your kneck is a far better target? That is if I am skilled enough with a knife to properly throw it to begin with.

If you are shooting from a place that can be investigated for DNA, yes. Malvo and Muhammad, car.

However, since you are not in a scuffle, all things being equal, you should be able to cover your tracks much better.

Well you just said above that, and I quote "I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA." So...which is it?

 

[Zep]

Fish knife or butter knife? I always get those two mixed up... Anyway, it's a LOT safer to spread butter on bread or eat salmon with either of those than with a .357 Magnum.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's better that you can alter your point based on logic, but I think neither is more likely to leave DNA. In fact a gun is worse since it will leave gun powder residue. I just think you should drop that point all together since it does nothing to help your over all point.

I disagree.

Why when your kneck is a far better target? That is if I am skilled enough with a knife to properly throw it to begin with.

My point exactly. You need a loooong time practicing with a knife to do that. With a gun, fire away. Repeatedly.

Well you just said above that, and I quote "I can't really see how one can protect oneself from leaving DNA." So...which is it?

A missing "not". I can't really see how one can protect oneself from not leaving DNA. That'll teach me to use convoluted sentences...

 

[Grammatron]

It depends on where Claus is going with this, but I suspect that this will turn out to be irrelevant.

My guess is that Claus is addressing the good old "if you banned guns, people would just kill each other with knives" justification for gun ownership. If that is the case, you remarks are not relevant.

Claus is on very solid ground this time. Guns are more dangerous than knives, both for premeditated killing and for impulsive killing.

More dangreous, yes but how much more? One also has to consider related crime statistics such as burglary which tends to go down in areas with high gun ownership. And of course most criminals do not use legally purchased weapons.

It is a complex question question and a problem, but I don't see how a silly thread like this moves the debate forward.

Slightly off topic, didn't Australia pass some resolutions banning certain types of blades recently?