If it's not one thing, it's another...

[Nelson]

I would trade the US gun problem (and yes I think we have one) with the UK’s knife problem in a heart beat. Knives are far less lethal. Guns are easy to employ and deadly. You don't need to be a marksman to be deadly. Very few people have accidently cut themselves to death or inadvertently mortally stabbed a friend.

The UK is fortunate that hoods resort to blades instead of guns. That said, outlawing knives is silly. Virtually anything can become a weapon but most things have plenty of practical uses that make the people possessing them more productive and effective. Tremendous and frequent utility is a fair compromise for small danger. Guns on the other hand offer tremendous and frequent danger in return for small utility.

Firearms have no practical day in and day out usefulness for the ordinary citizen that can begin to compensate society for the misery they cause. This is why the whole “If you outlaw handguns why not outlaw knives or cars” argument is absurd.

[Redleg]

Have any of you ever killed another human being or even an animal with any weapon?

Some of the comments on this thread would indicate that you have not - nor do you have any idea how easy and difficult it is at the same time.

A sharp knife cuts very well and kills just as efficiently as a gun. Comments saying knives are not efficient or easy to kill with - are naive at best - and disengous at worst. Men killed each other for over a 2000 years with sharp pointed sticks and then knives. The hardest part about killing is to decide that - it is necessary or something that needs to be done. This is what a person with a moral conciense (SP) is going to think before doing such an act - and he will most often freeze in making that decision.

WHat most of you are forgetting is that the criminal that decides to kill another human being has already made that moral choice - and the weapon that he/she uses is just that - the weapon they decide to use.

There is a statistic out there that shows just how efficient home defense is with a weapon - most times all it takes is the noise of the weapon being cocked and the homeowner stating he has a weapon for the bugler to leave. If the person intends you harm in the first place - its a different story.

[Kanamori]

"Firearms have no practical day in and day out usefulness for the ordinary citizen that can begin to compensate society for the misery they cause"

In Wisconsin, deer hunting is quite necessary, and we have about 700,000 registered deer hunters. Our herd is somewhere around 1.8 million, and there were more than 20,000 deer-vehicle (smaller than usual) accidents last year, of which, more than 800 led to injury (many were incapacitating). Our violent crime rate was 7.1% in 2003

[Tribesman]

In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument
Don't you think that the downward trend has more to do with Zero tolerance policies and things like the 3 Strikes sentancing rather than increased gun ownership . More criminals off the street leads to less crime .

Knife killing
Ahhh the poor little girl couldn't find mummys gun so had to use a kitchen knife instead .

[Xiahou]

In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument
Don't you think that the downward trend has more to do with Zero tolerance policies and things like the 3 Strikes sentancing rather than increased gun ownership . More criminals off the street leads to less crime .

I never said it was a direct result of gun ownership. I'm just saying that it discredits the gun grabber argument that less guns equals less crime. There are countries with gun bans and growing crime, while we have more and more guns and falling crime. Clearly that argument doesn't hold water.

Ahhh the poor little girl couldn't find mummys gun so had to use a kitchen knife instead .

Says something about the lethality of knives if a 9year old can kill with one. Sad stuff.

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't you think that the downward trend has more to do with Zero tolerance policies and things like the 3 Strikes sentancing rather than increased gun ownership . More criminals off the street leads to less crime .

The same inconsistencies can be found in the "less guns, less gun crimes" argument. I would argue that taking away all the law abiding citizen's guns didnt have much to do with the low crime rate in Britain just as allowing all law abiding citizens to have guns hasnt done much one way or the other to affect crime rates here in the states.

The only difference is that those of us with without criminal records get to enjoy a little extra freedom and a fun hobby that most British dont.

[A.Saturnus]

My point was to show that a gun ban in the UK did not "solve" your crime problem, in fact it continues to grow. In the US, violent crime has been trending downwards in the face of ever increasing gun ownership. I think this points out nicely the absurdity of the argument that if the US would simply ban firearm ownership our violent crime would go away. That's nonsense, and their is no evidence to even suggest that.

Actually, I haven't seen enough evidence for any position in this debate. I don't advocate a gun ban. I merely want to point that the rising crime rate in the UK and the declining crime rate in the US aren't proof that guns reduce crime. There are a lot of factors that could explain that, for example regression to the mean.

[Tribesman]

I never said it was a direct result of gun ownership
The truth is it has nothing to do with levels of gun ownership , violent crime levels depend on the number of violent criminals on the street . Having a gun tucked in your belt isn't going to stop a mugger stabbing you in the back . Even if they tackle you face on they will drop you before you have a chance to use your gun . Unless you want to walk around with it in your hand at all times just waiting for someone to try it on , which will probably result in you slipping on a dog turd and shooting a passer by .

[Papewaio]

Have any of you ever killed another human being or even an animal with any weapon?

Some of the comments on this thread would indicate that you have not - nor do you have any idea how easy and difficult it is at the same time.

A sharp knife cuts very well and kills just as efficiently as a gun. Comments saying knives are not efficient or easy to kill with - are naive at best - and disengous at worst. Men killed each other for over a 2000 years with sharp pointed sticks and then knives. The hardest part about killing is to decide that - it is necessary or something that needs to be done. This is what a person with a moral conciense (SP) is going to think before doing such an act - and he will most often freeze in making that decision.

WHat most of you are forgetting is that the criminal that decides to kill another human being has already made that moral choice - and the weapon that he/she uses is just that - the weapon they decide to use.

There is a statistic out there that shows just how efficient home defense is with a weapon - most times all it takes is the noise of the weapon being cocked and the homeowner stating he has a weapon for the bugler to leave. If the person intends you harm in the first place - its a different story.

Farm boy here. I can remember watching at age four sheep being culled by having their throats slit. For some reason we didn't try that method on the bulls... a gun was used.

Also when I lived in NZ it was illegal to shoot sheep. Why? Because it is rather easier to kill them from a distant and then take them away then try and get close and kill them.

I have also seen guys kill wild boar with a knife.

Knives are deadly. They used to kill (or chop off penises) in crimes of passion quite often.

However it is one of the most bogus claims to state that a knife is as deadly as a rifle. Why bother to use rifles if the k-bar is going to do the job?

Do the military in Iraq patrol with guns or pikes?

[Ironside]

Have any of you ever killed another human being or even an animal with any weapon?

Some of the comments on this thread would indicate that you have not - nor do you have any idea how easy and difficult it is at the same time.

A sharp knife cuts very well and kills just as efficiently as a gun. Comments saying knives are not efficient or easy to kill with - are naive at best - and disengous at worst. Men killed each other for over a 2000 years with sharp pointed sticks and then knives. The hardest part about killing is to decide that - it is necessary or something that needs to be done. This is what a person with a moral conciense (SP) is going to think before doing such an act - and he will most often freeze in making that decision.

Well this is aimed for all that has been using this type of argument.

Why is the military using firearms and have been using it for 400 years instead of knives (as a primary weapon that is, so don't come running with marines getting knife-training today)?

Nuff said.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Having a gun tucked in your belt isn't going to stop a mugger stabbing you in the back . Even if they tackle you face on they will drop you before you have a chance to use your gun .

Have you ever had any experience with this? I highly doubt it. Perhaps you should tell this woman that guns aren't usefull for defending one's self. Or any of the thousands of Americans who use a gun each day to defend themselves.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Perhaps you should tell this woman
Yeah right Rabbit .She shot at an unarmed attacker in her home while he was distracted , so the relevance to the points I made are ????? None whatsoever .

[Xiahou]

I never said it was a direct result of gun ownership
The truth is it has nothing to do with levels of gun ownership , violent crime levels depend on the number of violent criminals on the street . Having a gun tucked in your belt isn't going to stop a mugger stabbing you in the back . Even if they tackle you face on they will drop you before you have a chance to use your gun . Unless you want to walk around with it in your hand at all times just waiting for someone to try it on , which will probably result in you slipping on a dog turd and shooting a passer by .

Sure, if you carry a gun and someone (you dont know who), on a crowded street wants to put a knife in your back- there probably isnt much to be done about it. Most thugs on the street don't operate like hired assassins though, nor would I expect most violent crime to take place in broad daylight on a busy corner.

A statistic I'd like to see if someone can find it, is what the US per capita crime rates would be if you removed areas that have the strictest regulations on gun control... NYC, New Jersey, Maryland, D.C., Chicago, California, ect.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah right Rabbit .She shot at an unarmed attacker in her home while he was distracted , so the relevance to the points I made are ????? None whatsoever .

You think it'd be harder to shoot at someone 10 feet away than to get a hidden gun out while being violently assualted?

The relevence of the points you made to actually reality? None whatsoever.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Knives are deadly. They used to kill (or chop off penises) in crimes of passion quite often.

My point exactly - knives are indeed deadly - when one's desire is to harm another.

However it is one of the most bogus claims to state that a knife is as deadly as a rifle. Why bother to use rifles if the k-bar is going to do the job?

Do the military in Iraq patrol with guns or pikes?

Well this is aimed for all that has been using this type of argument.

Why is the military using firearms and have been using it for 400 years instead of knives (as a primary weapon that is, so don't come running with marines getting knife-training today)?

Nuff said.

Now did I say that a firearm was not efficient or less efficient then a knife. Did I mention the military, or was I refering only to civilian application of weapon in criminal activity as per the discussion of this thread?

The answer is really quite simple and military use or efficiency of weapons is not what is being discussed now is it? What is being discussed is the criminal use of weapons.

What I stated was very simple - a knife is also an efficient weapon to kill with if that is what one desires to do with it. Nor was a talking about military applications of firearms. Which is a different catergory then applying to the use of weapons in criminal acts.

The bogus arguement is using why the military went to firearms to justify one's position as it relates to civilian criminal use of weapons. Something many of you on this forum seem to want to do.

Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is. Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.

The results just might surprise you.

However it goes to show how disengous some of your arguements are on this issue.

[Tribesman]

You think it'd be harder to shoot at someone 10 feet away than to get a hidden gun out while being violently assualted?
Get real rabbit , who the hell mugs someone from 10 feet away , you get up close and you get them by surprise , preferably from behind , so having a gun in your possession is practically useless .

[ICantSpellDawg]

long island frankfurter?

And I love Emerika, I love guns, I will bust a cap into any conservative's ass if he/she/it tries impose "morals" on me. I will also shoot intruders, robbers, burglars, and my neighbor's annoying dogs.

Hell, i carry at least a knife or a roll of coins on me at all times.

i love guns too, only i love them because they help me to impose "morals" on people

[LittleGrizzly]

Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.

redleg seen as i haven't got a clue where i would find those, and seen as you now is it stabbing range ?

Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is.

i have to disagree a knife is not as efficient for killing as a gun.

Im just wondering seen as knifes are as effective for killing as guns, why do criminals seem to prefer guns to knifes ? and why do homeowners prefer guns to knifes for home defense ?

[Papewaio]

What I stated was very simple - a knife is also an efficient weapon to kill with if that is what one desires to do with it. Nor was a talking about military applications of firearms. Which is a different catergory then applying to the use of weapons in criminal acts.

The bogus arguement is using why the military went to firearms to justify one's position as it relates to civilian criminal use of weapons. Something many of you on this forum seem to want to do.

Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is. Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.

The results just might surprise you.

However it goes to show how disengous some of your arguements are on this issue.

Most shooting is done within something like 5 to 15m if not closer still.

How many mass slayings with knives are done?

How many bank robberies?

How many guns for home protection are used on those they are supposed to protect?

[Redleg]

Does a firearm make it easier for the criminal to preform that act? Sure if they desire to shoot the person from a distance - however take a look at the statistics on close range firing of weapons verus long range use for criminal acts.

redleg seen as i haven't got a clue where i would find those, and seen as you now is it stabbing range ?

Most people can not hit what they are aiming at. The statistics are fairly simple to find if you want to search.

A sample.

Firearm Defensive Training
Precision UNDER Pressure
Bureau Of Justice Statistics Reveal:

Attempting to use complex motor skills such as sight alignment is impossible under life threatening conditions.
Most armed confrontations occur at a range of less than 10 feet and in light too dim to see the gun sights.
Half of the bullets fired during firefights do not hit their designated targets.
Fine motor skills that require a deliberate cognitive process and physical coordination deteriorate under stress.
The majority of murders are committed with a firearm.
The average engagement time is 2.5 seconds.

http://dmi.mindfireis.com/frontEnd/c...?categoryID=37

Criminals will use weapons to achieve their desired result - to harm you, take your processions, and to render you inefficient in defending yourself. If the criminal intends you harm - a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being once the criminal has decided what is intent is.

i have to disagree a knife is not as efficient for killing as a gun.

Im just wondering seen as knifes are as effective for killing as guns, why do criminals seem to prefer guns to knifes ? and why do homeowners prefer guns to knifes for home defense ?

Once again - try actually reading what I have written instead of attempting to counter a point that I have not made. The arguement I am using is that knives are indeed dangerous and are just as efficient at killing others - when the criminal's intent is to do just that.

Frankly gun control - and the jest of this article - about weapon control is an action of governments that want to overprotect its citizens. Nothing more. However I see from the jest of the other responses - some of you just don't get it - because of your inablity to see beyond you own position and arguement.

Nothing of what I have stated is toward the gun control arguement - What I have stated is that knives are just as efficient in killing other human beings when the intent of the criminal is to do just that. However some of you can go on believing what you want. I don't like handguns myself - because there is limited purposes for that type of weapon. I prefer my shotguns and rifles. However those that advocate gun control wish not only to remove handguns - but other firearms.

Arguements such as these statements are disengenous and I image the individual knows it.

How many mass slayings with knives are done?Can you remember the killings in Africa not to long ago - lots of people killed with macheties

How many bank robberies?

How many guns for home protection are used on those they are supposed to protect?

[LittleGrizzly]

Once again - try actually reading what I have written instead of attempting to counter a point that I have not made.

you said

a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being

i would assume a criminal or someone defending thier house would take the most efficient killing weapon, most when given the choice would pick a gun over a knife, why they are equally eficient at killing does this occur ?

sorry if im misunderstanding you im not doing it intentionally but it does appear to me its the argument your making...

some of you just don't get it - because of your inablity to see beyond you own position and arguement.

maybe you are the one who just doesn't get it ? maybe you are the one who can't see past your position or argument ? maybe instead of trading insults we should stick to the argument ?

[Redleg]

Once again - try actually reading what I have written instead of attempting to counter a point that I have not made.

you said

a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being

i would assume a criminal or someone defending thier house would take the most efficient killing weapon, most when given the choice would pick a gun over a knife, why they are equally eficient at killing does this occur ?

sorry if im misunderstanding you im not doing it intentionally but it does appear to me its the argument your making...

Yes a knife is just as efficient in killing a human being - in fact a knife is probably more efficient if you want to use the word correctly. Most individuals that commit crimes with a gun shoot more then once at their intended target - so as far as efficiency goes... I can play the word game even more given the nature of the discussion. People pick guns because it gives you more chances at hitting the target not because its an efficient killing device. - verus only one that the knife offers.

some of you just don't get it - because of your inablity to see beyond you own position and arguement.

maybe you are the one who just doesn't get it ? maybe you are the one who can't see past your position or argument ? maybe instead of trading insults we should stick to the argument ?

Want to see me insult someone - its not to hard. However when one counters an arguement with disengous rethoric - I have a tendency to point it out in a very direct and harsh way. Which is exactly what I have done - when you and others get off the disengous rethoric - then I will become less harsh in my response to your statements.

Many weapons that are used by criminals are already banned or restricted - but does that keep them out of the hands of criminals? No because a criminal already intends to break the law - hince the term criminal.

If you go back and read a little LittleGriz - you will find that I am against assualt weapons and handguns - but will not support futher gun control until the government adequately enforces the laws that are already on the books in my country. Restricting my ownership of hunting rifles and shotguns will not solve the problem, all it will do is make a vast majority of honest law abidding citizen violate the law.

New laws and new restrictions will not solve the problem - especially when the older laws are not being enforce adequately.

And then again it seems you haven't answered the initial intent of my first post. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill another human being - the weapon is the easiest thing after the decision. If an individual has no conscience or decides to kill another human being - the matter of getting the weapon to do it with will happen - be it a gun, a knife, a rock, or a sharp pointy stick. Gun control legistlation will never fix this problem - and its the reason why gun control will never get beyond the basic restrictions of certain types of weapons in the United States.

In Europe it seems you want to believe that the government will protect you and yours whenever it is needed. In the United States many people still believe that its up to the individual to protect themselves and what is theirs from the criminal.

[Papewaio]

I will admit that lightsabers are better then blasters.

Also when playing TW no matter the era (bar Samurai Archers) I tend to go all melee as sword beats missile...

[Xiahou]

Here's an article that sums up what I was trying to say nicely.

[Ironside]

And then again it seems you haven't answered the initial intent of my first post. Do you have any idea what it takes to kill another human being - the weapon is the easiest thing after the decision. If an individual has no conscience or decides to kill another human being - the matter of getting the weapon to do it with will happen - be it a gun, a knife, a rock, or a sharp pointy stick. Gun control legistlation will never fix this problem - and its the reason why gun control will never get beyond the basic restrictions of certain types of weapons in the United States.

The difference is the assulted person's defensive capabillities. As mentioned here, many things in a home can be used as a weapon. And a knife vs a bat is a much closer fight than a gun vs a bat. And entering a close fight isn't as certain even if your intent is to hurt.

Accidents and semi-accidents have also a higher risk to occur with guns.

[Xiahou]

Accidents and semi-accidents have also a higher risk to occur with guns.

Do they? I'd be interested in seeing data comparing the amount of injuries from gun accidents vs knives and other pointy household objects.

[Ironside]

Do they? I'd be interested in seeing data comparing the amount of injuries from gun accidents vs knives and other pointy household objects.

In a situation were both things were used as a potentional weapon? You're probably correct that on a general level knives causes more accidents, but that's not the issue here.

[bmolsson]

The same inconsistencies can be found in the "less guns, less gun crimes" argument. I would argue that taking away all the law abiding citizen's guns didnt have much to do with the low crime rate in Britain just as allowing all law abiding citizens to have guns hasnt done much one way or the other to affect crime rates here in the states.

The only difference is that those of us with without criminal records get to enjoy a little extra freedom and a fun hobby that most British dont.

Panzer, this was a very honest and realistic post. You really have your moments.....

[bmolsson]

I do believe that comparing knives and guns is a bit silly. Knives have more than one purpose, while guns have not.
When it comes to hunting, a hunting rifle is a totally different thing compared to a .38 hand gun.
Banning guns and knives in public places as well as for people that don't really need them seems to me as a reasonable and practical solution. If somebody runs around with a machete in the local shopping mall and have it concealed, nobody will complain. If he use it to cut down people or to threaten people to his own benefit, then he is in trouble. Can't really see why this is so hard to understand.

[Papewaio]

Do they? I'd be interested in seeing ...amount of ... accidents ... other pointy household objects.

like accidental pregancy using pointy 'household' objects...