High School Stabbings

[Mudcat]

For essentially the same reason, knives are also far less effective than guns for personal defense.

For the same reason, it's not as efficient for killing people. Think on that.

My thoughts are that this metric is both wrong and irrelevant.

I work two jobs and am a full-time student. I use knives in all three places, plus at home and a few other places beside for everything between opening boxes to preparing meals. Do guns have the same kind of utility?

First, plenty of people do target shooting with guns where the targets are not living things, and they do it purely for the pleasure.

How good for them.

Second, why is "living things" your standard? Do you consider hunting to be immoral? I don't.

I do not consider hunting immoral any more than I consider fishing as such. Yet if I was to say that a fishing rod has limited usefulness would you have the same objection?

And third, even if nobody used guns for target shooting or hunting, self-defense is still a legitimate use.

For people ignorant of statistics and the alternatives, sure.

My thoughts? You're inventing "facts" which simply aren't true. Firearms are used in the majority of homicides (but it's not a "vast" majority), but they are NOT used in the majority of robberies or assaults (which are far more common than homicides). In fact, the most common weapon used in assaults is the human body itself.

I stand corrected.

Did you make up that fact too?



I don't mind that you've got an agenda. I do mind that you've telling lies to advance it.

I neither lied nor made anything up, I was wrong. I admit to it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I work two jobs and am a full-time student. I use knives in all three places, plus at home and a few other places beside for everything between opening boxes to preparing meals. Do guns have the same kind of utility?

Again, this is irrelevant. Guns serve a legitimate purpose for which there is no similarly effective substitute. That is utility enough. It doesn't matter that they aren't used for opening boxes or preparing meals.

I do not consider hunting immoral any more than I consider fishing as such. Yet if I was to say that a fishing rod has limited usefulness would you have the same objection?

Why is "limited usefulness" even relevant? You still haven't explained.

For people ignorant of statistics and the alternatives, sure.

After your previous mistakes, you really should try to back up claims like this. In fact, given your previous mistakes, you should perhaps question yourself whether it's even true.

I neither lied nor made anything up, I was wrong. I admit to it.

It may not have been your lie, you may have repeated it because you believed it and I'll take your word for that, but the original source lied, and the false information was still a lie even though you honestly believed it.

 

[Checkmite]

For essentially the same reason, knives are also far less effective than guns for personal defense.

I don't follow your reasoning. Does it "not count" as self-defense unless your assailant dies or something?

 

[BStrong]

Effective!?!

I'd say such laws have been extremely effective at keeping innocent victims defenceless!

You do know BTW that ownership of anything more than two knives is politically incorrect and it is considered to be an "arsenal"...

My residence usually appears as if a earthquake hit a combination music store/weapons museum.

 

[BStrong]

So did the lack of machetes, chainsaws and baseball bats. Pssst, your agenda is showing.

I'll channel my uncle (Marines, Pacific, WWII & Korea, FBI after retirement) on this:

The kid should have ate his Wheaties, or he didn't have enough knife.

 

[Cylinder]

I don't follow your reasoning. Does it "not count" as self-defense unless your assailant dies or something?

Knives generally (without very specific set of skills and tools) require a person to be in very close proximity which negates the firearm's kind of relative physical ability force multiplier. Firearms aren't really the instant death machine as seen on TV. They project force beyond the range where a disparity of relative physical abilities becomes a liability.

 

[ABC10]

Are you also sticking with the arms the Founders had?

Nope, those arms have saved America and Europe's bacon a few times. We were going to defeat the Germans with muskets? I am quite sure those brilliant men know that things evolved.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't follow your reasoning. Does it "not count" as self-defense unless your assailant dies or something?

Not at all. If you pull out a gun and the mere sight of it stops someone from attacking, that's a success. I'd consider that the optimal success, in fact. But if you don't actually, you know, stop your attacker, then it certainly doesn't count as successful self defense.

Guns are far more effective for self defense than knives. Do you actually contest this assertion?

 

[Checkmite]

Knives generally (without very specific set of skills and tools) require a person to be in very close proximity which negates the firearm's kind of relative physical ability force multiplier. Firearms aren't really the instant death machine as seen on TV. They project force beyond the range where a disparity of relative physical abilities becomes a liability.

Fine; but how does that translate to a knife being less effective for self defense? Is that an actual fact, or is it a prediction?

The point of a knife after all, when used as a weapon, is also to negate physical ability disparity.

The gun has the advantage of range. However, as recent events have certainly highlighted, greater range in self-defense introduces this problem of a person having to make a subjective and typically pre-emptive judgment about whether he's actually in a self-defense situation, because in order for the gun to confer its advantage one must make use of that "range" while it exists (i.e., immediately, before the assailant has a chance to close the distance). When the person makes an incorrect judgment - that is, a self-defense situation did not actually exist - the consequences can be disastrous.

Whereas, with a knife or similar weapon, before it can be used, the assailant has to be close enough that the judgment as to whether a self-defense situation exists is much more objective.

 

[tyr_13]

After your previous mistakes, you really should try to back up claims like this. In fact, given your previous mistakes, you should perhaps question yourself whether it's even true.

I think he's referring to the stats about a gun in the home being much morel likely to be used against a loved one than it is to be used for defense. That is to say, the rate of accident, suicide, and intentional criminal use outstrip the use as a defensive tool. This is problematic for a few reasons, the most obvious of which is that reliable numbers on defensive uses are really hard to come by. I'm fairly confident that the main thrust of the point is accurate however.

What that stat tells us however is far more open to interpretation than what it is routinely cited in support of. There are a number of factors that drive this stat besides the possibility that guns are bad tools for self defense. For many gun owners, like myself, a gun is a tool and toy and not owned for self defense. The chances of me needing a gun to defend myself are rather low, but my chances of being able to employ them in self defense is even lower. I don't carry them around, and my ability to go to the building where I do not live and where they are secured, unlock the rack they are locked to, unlock the trigger lock each one has, go to the different room where the ammo is stored, and unlock the safe in which that is kept, and load them to use in self defense is well, slow. If I had immediate need of them I would not be able to get them. But then that's not why I have them. My chances of using them to shoot targets or hunt are much much greater based on the simple fact that that's why I have them in the first place. So the number of successful uses of self defense for many gun owners like myself is completely irrelevant.

Now in my view there are people (unfortunately a LOT of people) who own firearms for the explicit reason of defending themselves who have very, very little chance of ever needing it for that purpose, don't do what they need to do and follow the practices they need to practice to achieve that end safely, and usually both. This again doesn't mean that guns are ineffective or intrinsically bad tools for self defense, but that a lot of people are using them wrong. If someone doesn't practice, doesn't follow safe storage practices, doesn't learn and practice proper target identification and situational awareness, and doesn't live or work somewhere dangerous, then of course the chances of accident or misuse are much higher than defensive gun use. It also doesn't mean that people who do follow/do/have those things can't use them effectively. That's like saying fire extinguishers can't stop some fires from spreading because people use them wrong and derive a false sense of security from just having one.

I think a lot of these people who haven't educated themselves on the limits, dangers, and practices of owning a firearm need to not own them. They should learn that personal security is ten parts situational awareness and prevention, two parts conflict resolution, and one part force. Hell, I'm probably overestimating how many parts force still. The best way to achieve this without unduly burdening others seems to be the main sticking point.

How this relates to kitchen knives? Well about that...There are many ways to help prevent and avoid violence with them to when confronted with it that aren't guns, although that works well too. It's only tangentially related to guns, but directly related to violence and self defense.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think he's referring to the stats about a gun in the home being much morel likely to be used against a loved one than it is to be used for defense.

There are no such statistics. The study you refer to doesn't categorize anyone as "loved ones", it never measures defense use, nor does it distinguish between how the victim died in its final risk analysis (in other words, if a person were strangled in their home but they owned a gun, the study would count that as a gun contributing to the risk of homicide).

That is to say, the rate of accident, suicide, and intentional criminal use outstrip the use as a defensive tool.

Your conclusion does not follow from the actual results of the study, which never measured defensive use of guns.

This is problematic for a few reasons, the most obvious of which is that reliable numbers on defensive uses are really hard to come by.

True. And the study you refer to makes no effort to do so.

I'm fairly confident that the main thrust of the point is accurate however.

You shouldn't be.

What that stat tells us however is far more open to interpretation than what it is routinely cited in support of.

Quite so, especially if one gets confused about what was actually measured.

 

[tyr_13]

Hmmm, that link isn't working for me for some reason. I've seen a stat about how having a gun in the house makes one less safe discussed in many of the gun threads and it's completely possible that I misunderstood the details (or the details were misrepresented and I accepted it).

One thing I forgot to mention as a confounding factor is people rightfully afraid of violence against them and the gun not helping in that case, which doesn't mean that guns aren't good tools for defense of self and others, but that it isn't a perfect one. EDIT: The 'correlation not causation' component. The reason they were killed and the reason they bought a gun were both caused by a third factor. Looking at the study now, PeerBlock didn't like the link for some reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fine; but how does that translate to a knife being less effective for self defense? Is that an actual fact, or is it a prediction?

I consider it a fact. Do you need a study?

The point of a knife after all, when used as a weapon, is also to negate physical ability disparity.

In a fight, the point of a knife is the part that you sticks into the other guy.

But seriously, while knives may give the wielder an advantage in a fight which may help to compensate for lower physical ability, their effectiveness is still extremely dependent upon physical ability, much more so than guns. An old lady with a knife still isn't really a match for a young strong man, but an old lady with a gun is.

The gun has the advantage of range. However, as recent events have certainly highlighted, greater range in self-defense introduces this problem of a person having to make a subjective and typically pre-emptive judgment about whether he's actually in a self-defense situation, because in order for the gun to confer its advantage one must make use of that "range" while it exists (i.e., immediately, before the assailant has a chance to close the distance).

I don't know what recent events you are referring to, but guns can still be pretty effective even at close range, and I can think of recent events which demonstrate that.

Whereas, with a knife or similar weapon, before it can be used, the assailant has to be close enough that the judgment as to whether a self-defense situation exists is much more objective.

Is it your contention then that one should actually enter hand-to-hand combat in order to defend oneself? Because, I gotta tell ya, that's a pretty risky scenario for self defense, especially if your attacker is stronger than you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm, that link isn't working for me for some reason.

Huh. That's strange.

Anyways, you should be able to find a link yourself, using the following info:

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes​

My link was the first that came up when I just put that whole text into Google.

I've seen a stat about how having a gun in the house makes one less safe discussed in many of the gun threads and it's completely possible that I misunderstood the details (or the details were misrepresented and I accepted it).

I suspect more of the latter than the former.

One thing I forgot to mention as a confounding factor is people rightfully afraid of violence against them and the gun not helping in that case, which doesn't mean that guns aren't good tools for defense of self and others, but that it isn't a perfect one.

Yes, you are correct. The study itself acknowledges that same point as a possible limit on the significance of the correlation they found.

 

[Kestrel]

Forget it.

 

[sadhatter]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a knife is a good guy with a knife.

Oh, wait...

In my experience it is pretty effective. Always carry a knife or two, only had to pull them twice in my life, both times the incident was avoided. People who are pulling a knife want to stab someone not get into a knife fight.

 

[sadhatter]

I see the pro-gun folks are still reluctant to admit the lack of fatalities and lack of missing chunks of survivor's brains here is significant.

Lack of success cannot always be attributed to the effectiveness of the tool. If the kid had planned more he could have killed a decent amount of people.

his lack of planning caused less fatalities, not his choice of weapon.

 

[Checkmite]

I consider it a fact. Do you need a study?

That seems to be the wrong link.

In a fight, the point of a knife is the part that you sticks into the other guy.

But seriously, while knives may give the wielder an advantage in a fight which may help to compensate for lower physical ability, their effectiveness is still extremely dependent upon physical ability, much more so than guns. An old lady with a knife still isn't really a match for a young strong man, but an old lady with a gun is.

Not if she can't see well enough or handle recoil well enough to shoot straight.

I don't know what recent events you are referring to, but guns can still be pretty effective even at close range, and I can think of recent events which demonstrate that.

You missed the point, which wasn't about the effectiveness of guns, but about the consequences of bad judgment.

Is it your contention then that one should actually enter hand-to-hand combat in order to defend oneself? Because, I gotta tell ya, that's a pretty risky scenario for self defense, especially if your attacker is stronger than you.

No; my contention is that one should wait to begin defending oneself until there's an actual attack to defend oneself against, rather than simply fear that one might get attacked. The gun has the ability to kill an assailant at range before he can get to his assailing; but this very ability is also the ability to kill an non-assailant at range for the crime of being angry at you and gesticulating wildly. Knives don't have this ability, which means my theoretical carrying of it (or another weapon such as a baton or a sap) is much less likely to be a liability for innocent bystanders.

 

[sadhatter]

That seems to be the wrong link.




Not if she can't see well enough or handle recoil well enough to shoot straight.



You missed the point, which wasn't about the effectiveness of guns, but about the consequences of bad judgment.



No; my contention is that one should wait to begin defending oneself until there's an actual attack to defend oneself against, rather than simply fear that one might get attacked. The gun has the ability to kill an assailant at range before he can get to his assailing; but this very ability is also the ability to kill an non-assailant at range for the crime of being angry at you and gesticulating wildly. Knives don't have this ability, which means my theoretical carrying of it (or another weapon such as a baton or a sap) is much less likely to be a liability for innocent bystanders.

Someone has not heard of throwing knives. I have about two dozen designed to be used for self defense. And a small gent like myself with little throwing experience can throw hard enough to split a fence post ( not plank ) with a couple months of light practice.

 

[Checkmite]

Obviously a guy carrying a typical kind of knife for self defense is not going to be throwing it at the bad guy - after all, if you miss, now you have no weapon at all (and the bad guy may now have a new one). Just because you can theoretically throw it at someone doesn't make a knife in general a throwing weapon - you can throw a steel baton or a blackjack at someone too, but that's not really how you're supposed to use it.

Special "throwing knives", "ninja stars", and this kind of thing are kind of a different class of weapon. These things which are specifically intended to be "ranged weapons" also have the same problem guns do in requiring too much subjective judgment IMO.