That's the right link. It's about parachutes. Yes, that's what I intended to link to. I highly recommend reading it, it's quite amusing.
It's an article that was originally written, by people who don't understand the
why behind medical research standards, to make fun of (argue against) complaints that alternative medicine and other unproven treatments have not been verified through double-blind placebo-based testing. The argument is that if enough people have personally attested to good results from the treatment, insisting on rigorous and standardized testing before approval is superfluous and silly. The premise itself is completely wrong (parachutes are machines intended to slow the fall of a load, not medical treatments intended to address or treat an illness or other medical condition), and the argument it's intended to make is also completely independently wrong. And while I'm not surprised that anyone else here at JREF would be familiar with the "article", I am quite surprised to see a JREFer thinking it's a good enough argument to reference in support of
any topic. Likewise, I'm quite surprised that, in a topic where facts, figures, and studies are often used in support of both sides, you would actually try to imply that any positive claim, let alone one like "knives are not as effective as guns", is somehow beyond contest.
And such a woman will be better off with a knife instead?
Yes, there will be a class of people who will not be able to use a gun effectively for self defense. But that class of people is a significantly smaller group than those who will not be able to use a knife effectively for self defense. So your statement, while literally true, is useless as an argument in this discussion.
In a discussion about the generalities of knives and guns as weapons, you introduced a special situation where a knife's general advantage would disappear or be less useful. My main idea on this tangent is that a special situation can almost always be found that would rob any method's advantage, including that of guns.
The consequences of bad judgment with a car are potentially horrific too...
We're talking about self-defense weapons, as used for self-defense. The consequences that can come from unwisely using cars, caustic chemicals, sailboats, plywood, giraffes, or spaceships while operating those things as intended are irrelevant in this context.
The fact that a knife is less likely to hurt someone through bad judgment is merely a consequence of the same factors that make it much less effective for self defense, period. And favoring a less effective means of self defense BECAUSE it is less effective is, well, stupid.
You're repeating this assertion that knives are
less effective, because "you have to be closer to use them", but I'm still waiting to be convinced that A = B.
That's nice in theory, somewhat naive in practice. If you wait until someone is actually attacking you within arms length, you've waited too long.
This is just another way of saying "I disagree with you". I already know you do.
And they're also much less likely to successfully protect you from an attacker, for the very same reason.
Still waiting.
Again, you're basically arguing knives are better because they're less effective. That's not a compelling reason to prefer them for the task.
No, I'm arguing that I think they're better because the worst case scenario when using a knife (or similar weapon) - I am unable to stop someone from assailing me - is in my estimation less negative than the worst case scenario when using a gun (I kill an innocent person).
But perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps your argument is simply that you don't think people should be permitted to have weapons for self-defense, but you'll permit knives because they're not very effective for the task.
No.
), I would stop if someone pointed a gun at me. A knife? Probably not.
