Split from PA Killings thread

[gnome]

Ryokan:

The first thing that came to my mind when I read about this case in the newspapers was, 'I'm glad teenagers in my country have no access to guns'.

luchdog:

Yeah. It's much better for the victim if they just use knives and blunt objects instead.

Gnome:

The point that you're ignoring, of course, is that it's much easier to kill with a gun.

luchdog:

The point, which you're evading, is that there is no causal link between firearms and homicide. And someone's just as dead either way. The fact that it takes a bit of additional effort to kill someone with a knife isn't all that relelvant.

gnome's new-thread reply:

Maybe we can make this real short (I HOPE)... I dispute nothing in your reply except the relevance point... a simple question: if an angry teenager was attacking you, would you prefer if he had a gun or a knife?

​

 

[Cleon]

Maybe we can make this real short (I HOPE)
​

A gun thread? I'm not sure if you're naive or just unobservant.

... I dispute nothing in your reply except the relevance point... a simple question: if an angry teenager was attacking you, would you prefer if he had a gun or a knife?

Quite honestly, it would depend on the situation and the circumstances. There are many cases (more than you'd think) where disarming someone with a gun is actually easier than disarming them than if they had a knife.

 

[Darat]

Knife without a doubt.

 

[gnome]

Quite honestly, it would depend on the situation and the circumstances. There are many cases (more than you'd think) where disarming someone with a gun is actually easier than disarming them than if they had a knife.

There are circumstances where a safety belt works against you in an automobile accident--however, you shouldn't have trouble answering whether you'd prefer to have a safety belt on in case of an accident.

By the odds, then, what would you prefer? Do you feel that these cases are more likely?

 

[RandFan]

There are circumstances where a safety belt works against you in an automobile accident--however, you shouldn't have trouble answering whether you'd prefer to have a safety belt on in case of an accident.

By the odds, then, what would you prefer? Do you feel that these cases are more likely?

Interesting question and a valid one. In many situations I would prefer a knife. A person who wants to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time is likely to have difficulty. If someone starts attacking people with a knife then I would feel much more confident of my chances of escaping than if he had a gun.

If I had a choice between two scenarios where someone was determined to kill me and do so by surprise, up close then I don't think that there is all that much difference. A knife is extremely lethal in the hand of an unexpected assailant. It is completely possible to dispatch someone with a knife and they would never even know it.

 

[zenith-nadir]

There are many cases (more than you'd think) where disarming someone with a gun is actually easier than disarming them than if they had a knife.

Sorry, but I gotta call you on this hilarious bit of bravado.

I once knew a guy who carried a gun, he had a concealed firearm permit and went to the range one a week to stay sharp. He used to always brag about the time "some punk" would confront him. Well that day came and his place of work was robbed at gunpoint by two gangbangers, not only did he not draw his gun a coworker was shot before he even had the chance.

So tell us Cleon...er...Jet Li...how is disarming someone with a gun actually easier than disarming them with a knife...

 

[Cleon]

There are circumstances where a safety belt works against you in an automobile accident--however, you shouldn't have trouble answering whether you'd prefer to have a safety belt on in case of an accident.

By the odds, then, what would you prefer? Do you feel that these cases are more likely?

Again, it depends on the situation. It depends if he's up close, far away, whether he knows how to use a gun to begin with (is the safety on?), etc. Right now this is just a rhetorical question, with little actual substance.

IMHO, of course.

 

[gnome]

The way I mean to be asking it is... if you don't know what kind of confrontation it's going to be, which is more likely to be deadly?

My intent is to generalize from there that a gun happens to be more dangerous than a knife. (Something I didn't expect to have to debate) .. and to generalize from there that if a violent teenager found it harder to get a gun, then there would likely be fewer killings.

That's where I plan on stopping. I'm not arguing for any specific laws or gun bans, and it's perfectly plausible that such an approach won't help. But I won't concede the point that an angry teenager with a gun is no more dangerous than one with some other weapon.

 

[casebro]

Ryokan:

a simple question: if an angry teenager was attacking you, would you prefer if he had a gun or a knife?

​

I'd rather he have a knife- and I have a gun.

 

[Cleon]

The way I mean to be asking it is... if you don't know what kind of confrontation it's going to be, which is more likely to be deadly?

Once again, it depends. It depends on the gun type, knife type, skill level, etc. Which is why I think rhetorical exercises like this are, by and large, useless. Nothing personal.

My intent is to generalize from there that a gun happens to be more dangerous than a knife.

No kidding? I couldn't tell.

.. and to generalize from there that if a violent teenager found it harder to get a gun, then there would likely be fewer killings.

Which is why, as the saying goes, "all generalizations are wrong, including this one."

That's where I plan on stopping. I'm not arguing for any specific laws or gun bans, and it's perfectly plausible that such an approach won't help. But I won't concede the point that an angry teenager with a gun is no more dangerous than one with some other weapon.

Oh, I wouldn't expect you to--you'd be foolish to, quite frankly, just as I'd be foolish to claim that an angry teenager with a gun is no more dangerous than one with some other weapon.

My point is simply that situations like this depend much more on specific information rather than overbroad generalizations, which don't (IMHO) particularly help to clarify anything.

 

[RandFan]

The way I mean to be asking it is... if you don't know what kind of confrontation it's going to be, which is more likely to be deadly?

My intent is to generalize from there that a gun happens to be more dangerous than a knife. (Something I didn't expect to have to debate) .. and to generalize from there that if a violent teenager found it harder to get a gun, then there would likely be fewer killings.

That's where I plan on stopping. I'm not arguing for any specific laws or gun bans, and it's perfectly plausible that such an approach won't help. But I won't concede the point that an angry teenager with a gun is no more dangerous than one with some other weapon.

Well, I still think the question completly valid. And I agree from a point of generalization that a gun is more dangerous.

 

[Flatworm]

If I had a choice between two scenarios where someone was determined to kill me and do so by surprise, up close then I don't think that there is all that much difference. A knife is extremely lethal in the hand of an unexpected assailant. It is completely possible to dispatch someone with a knife and they would never even know it.

I should point out that this argument would also apply to a baseball bat, tire iron, fireplace poker, etc. You could garotte someone with a shoelace under these circumstances, especially if you're stronger than them.

 

[RandFan]

I should point out that this argument would also apply to a baseball bat, tire iron, fireplace poker, etc. You could garotte someone with a shoelace under these circumstances, especially if you're stronger than them.

? 'k. Is there a point?

 

[gnome]

Once again, it depends. It depends on the gun type, knife type, skill level, etc. Which is why I think rhetorical exercises like this are, by and large, useless. Nothing personal.

Nothing personal taken... but this is what statistics and probability is for. As I pointed out with the seat belt example, whether one helps depends on the circumstances too, but it doesn't mean you can't make up your mind whether to wear one.

 

[Cleon]

Nothing personal taken... but this is what statistics and probability is for. As I pointed out with the seat belt example, whether one helps depends on the circumstances too, but it doesn't mean you can't make up your mind whether to wear one.

And what exactly are the statistics dealing with people when they're faced with an angry teenager with a gun, a knife, and a baseball bat?

 

[Flatworm]

? 'k. Is there a point?

Sorry,

My point is that it makes no sense to compare the lethality of weapons under the assumption of that the assailant can close with the target undetected. Under this assumption almost anything can be a weapon.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry,

My point is that it makes no sense to compare the lethality of weapons under the assumption of that the assailant can close with the target undetected. Under this assumption almost anything can be a weapon.

Cool, thanks.

ETA: Just to clarify, my point was that there existed situations where a knife would not be preferable. I would not say that it "makes no sense".

 

[gnome]

And what exactly are the statistics dealing with people when they're faced with an angry teenager with a gun, a knife, and a baseball bat?

Well, ya got me there. I can't state the answer with any authority, but I speculate that the cases where a gun is involved tend to work out worse... I present that as opinion, rather than fact.