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

[LittleGrizzly]

No, its easier for an unskilled person to kill another with a knife than a gun, imo. This comes from my experience at the range.. its not as easy as hollywood makes it out to be to shoot accurately with a pistol.

i would disagree, in very close combat a knife would have the edge, but anything further than a meter and the gun is much more preferable.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[Xiahou]

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

[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.

[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.....

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.