Stabbing

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:41 pm

I do not want to return to discussing guns, which is exactly like telling a Christian that God does not exist. But I do want to make a small point, that may have escaped certain people.

Stabbing wounds are usually survivable. They may require emergency surgery and the miracles of modern medicine, but most people who are stabbed will live.

The reason for this is simple. Most of the vital organs and vulnerable arteries in the human body, due to millions of years of evolution, are protected to a large extent. The heart and lungs are inside a cage of bone. The brain is behind a thick bony skull. To try to kill someone by stabbing them requires precision in the stab, and a hell of a lot of force to drive a knife into a well protected vital organ. Often, when a person is murdered by stabbing, it requires a frenzy of stabbing, and literally dozens of stab wounds to kill.

Even cutting a throat is easier said than done. Hollywood makes it look easy, with the soldier hero sneaking up behind a guard and killing him with one slash. But that is fiction. In truth, the vital arteries in the throat are well protected behind layers of muscle and a cartilage strengthened windpipe. A single slash of a knife will not go through all these. And any slash of the throat that fails to cut the well protected arteries is survivable, given good medical care.

In the old days, decapitation was the preferred execution method in many places. But it was frequently botched. Often it took two to four strokes of sword or axe to cut a head off, and the poor guy being executed suffered incredible pain. Medieval executioners were highly skilled and very muscular. They used a heavy axe sharpened to razer sharpness, and a head on a block, to be able to cut through with one stroke. The whole reason for the invention of the guillotine in France was to enable decapitation without stuff ups.

It is just not that easy to kill with a blade. A bullet, though??? It laughs at all that bodily protection and drives trough it all, often leaving a bigger exist wound than entry.

So please, pro-gun arguer.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:58 pm

Actually, the reason why edged-weapon wounds are survivable is another one: the truly deadly ones are banned:

A couple of stabs with a stiletto to the chest, requiring basically no strength, will kill anyone, by collapsing the lungs and/or piercing the heart. Same for a bayonet.
Curved, long blades will cut straight through a person if the attackers has any skill.
And knifes with serrated edges and channels to let the blood run will bleed a person out in very few minutes.

All of these weapons, because they are so deadly, are banned - they can not be made or sold unless made useless one way or another, to be used for exhibition only.

Edge weapon control has worked fine in the past. But somehow the mere idea to try something similar for guns seems to be uncontemplateable to many.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19478
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Stabbing

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:02 pm

Ali al Zilla.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19478
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Stabbing

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:02 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:

Edge weapon control has worked fine in the past. But somehow the mere idea to try something similar for guns seems to be uncontemplateable to many.

Hypergunning is an addiction.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:21 pm

Even a bayonet is not easy to kill with, which is why bayonet training and practise took so much of a trainee soldier's time.

But a bullet smashes straight through bone, muscle, and even standard armour plate. To suggest to me that people with knives are as bad as people with guns is a direct insult to my intelligence. Guns kill far more people with far less effort.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:26 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I do not want to return to discussing guns,

But you're going to anyway. :roll:

Lance Kennedy wrote:which is exactly like telling a Christian that God does not exist.

I keep telling you, God does not exist, but do you listen??

Lance Kennedy wrote: But I do want to make a small point, that may have escaped certain people.

And which people are those?

Certainly not me. I have already addressed this point more than once and demonstrated the flaw in your argument.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Stabbing wounds are usually survivable. ... It is just not that easy to kill with a blade.

I'm sure these three victims will be comforted by that:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-isla-vista-father-20150120-story.html

In a single rampage, Elliot Rodger killed three people with a gun and three people with a knife. It did not take him 400 times more effort to kill people with a knife than it did with a gun.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:28 pm

Not the point, Lance.

I agree that with the edged weapons available you will have a hard time inflicting deadly injuries unless you are very well trained - unlike guns.
As long as you can hit center-mass, you will most probably permanently maim or kill a person. Any other hit will probably require multiple surgeries, probably leaving permanent damage.

The point is that we got rid of the most lethal edged weapons because we knew they were of no use except for killing - they don't work as self-defense unless 'attack' counts as defense.
Guns could very easily made to be less lethal and still work for self-defense, starting with limits to muzzle-velocities, calibers and ammunition types.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:30 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Not the point, Lance.

I agree that with the edged weapons available you will have a hard time inflicting deadly injuries unless you are very well trained - unlike guns.
As long as you can hit center-mass, you will most probably permanently maim or kill a person. Any other hit will probably require multiple surgeries, probably leaving permanent damage.

The point is that we got rid of the most lethal edged weapons because we knew they were of no use except for killing - they don't work as self-defense unless 'attack' counts as defense.
Guns could very easily made to be less lethal and still work for self-defense, starting with limits to muzzle-velocities, calibers and ammunition types.

You could be right, but it doesn't matter, because: Second Amendment.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:38 pm

xouper wrote:You could be right, but it doesn't matter, because: Second Amendment.


Wrong.

It has been clearly established that gun control does not violate the 2nd Amendment. It might limit the laws the Federal Government can pass on the matter, but states can pretty much do whatever they please as long as they don't outlaw outright.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:46 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You could be right, but it doesn't matter, because: Second Amendment.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You seem to be proposing an outright ban on lethal guns in favor of less lethal versions. Such a ban is clearly unconstitutional.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:47 pm

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238223

Knives and the Second Amendment

David B. Kopel, Independence Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law
Clayton E. Cramer, College of Western Idaho
Joseph Olson, Hamline University - School of Law

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 47, pages 167-215, November 21, 2013

Abstract: This Article is the first scholarly analysis of knives and the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense.

There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives.

Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. ...

The authors also agree with Lance that knives are much less dangerous than guns, so I will concede that Lance does have a point. ;)

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:56 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You could be right, but it doesn't matter, because: Second Amendment.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You seem to be proposing an outright ban on lethal guns in favor of less lethal versions. Such a ban is clearly unconstitutional.


Wrong (I can do this all day!)

I said make them less lethal, not ban lethal ones.
It would be good to read someone's post, just out of courtesy, you know?

The 1st amendment, which I hope you will consider at least as important as the 2nd, has had limits put in to avoid its more dangerous aspects. Something similar could be done to limit the more violent results of the 2nd one. No harm, no foul to the constitution whatsoever.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:05 pm

Modern guns could be outlawed completely either as outmoded as there is now a formal militia or because the ratio of benefits to harm when only muskets were the technology is WILDLY different for the more lethal modern arms.

It will change when the public finally demands it and the Pres appoints pro gun control Supremes to fashion a court based on common sense and a return to "original intent" of the framers: Guns OK because they actually aren't all that lethal. In that day, a skill archer was much more threat than a man with a musket. The whole point of the gun is that it takes no skill to use.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:10 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:You could be right, but it doesn't matter, because: Second Amendment.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You seem to be proposing an outright ban on lethal guns in favor of less lethal versions. Such a ban is clearly unconstitutional.


Wrong (I can do this all day!)

I said make them less lethal, not ban lethal ones.

There are already less lethal firearms, so what you are proposing has already been done.

ElectricMonk wrote:It would be good to read someone's post, just out of courtesy, you know?

Right back at you, sport. go read what I wrote, I did not put words in your mouth. I very carefully said "seem to be". I did not say you "were". Is the difference not obvious enough to you?

ElectricMonk wrote:The 1st amendment, which I hope you will consider at least as important as the 2nd, has had limits put in to avoid its more dangerous aspects.

That's misleading. There are no limits based on "danger". The only limits to the First are those that relate to illegal behavior. For example, hate speech is not illegal because hate itself is not illegal, regardless how "dangerous' such hate speech might be.

ElectricMonk wrote: Something similar could be done to limit the more violent results of the 2nd one. No harm, no foul to the constitution whatsoever.

Legal scholars disagree with you on that point.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:13 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Modern guns could be outlawed completely either as outmoded as there is now a formal militia or because the ratio of benefits to harm when only muskets were the technology is WILDLY different for the more lethal modern arms.

It will change when the public finally demands it and the Pres appoints pro gun control Supremes to fashion a court based on common sense and a return to "original intent" of the framers:

The recent Supreme Court rulings are  based on the "original intent".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:18 pm

1. "The only limits to the First are those that relate to illegal behavior." /// First Amendment is very regulated as to time, place, and manner of expressions. Libel and Slander are examples. Those are not illegal but form the basis for civil lawsuits and act as a restriction on free speech.

2. "For example, hate speech is not illegal because hate itself is not illegal..." /// Hate speech is illegal. Hate itself is not illegal.... but you gotta keep it to yourself to be safe from prosecution and pesky civil suits again.

Gee Xouper..... you post as if you have never had a basic primer in your constitutional rights. I guess the NRA Talking Points really are limited.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:19 pm

The recent Supreme Court rulings are based on the "original intent". /// Yep, every single case.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:27 pm

xouper wrote:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2238223

Knives and the Second Amendment

David B. Kopel, Independence Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law
Clayton E. Cramer, College of Western Idaho
Joseph Olson, Hamline University - School of Law

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 47, pages 167-215, November 21, 2013

Abstract: This Article is the first scholarly analysis of knives and the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense.

There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives.

Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. ...

The authors also agree with Lance that knives are much less dangerous than guns, so I will concede that Lance does have a point. ;)


Ha, ha..........so, I think Lance had links and studies to back what is only common sense regarding the lethality of guns compared to knives. I have 20 knives in my kitchen and have cut myself by accident many times........ "common sense." So, I wonder what other nuggets might be in the article approved by Xouper? Some musings on the limits of gun ownership perhaps? Would the article be authoritative then? How about the entirety of the Michigan Law Journal???? Common sense?

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:39 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Guns could very easily made to be less lethal and still work for self-defense, starting with limits to muzzle-velocities, calibers and ammunition types.

xouper wrote:
You seem to be proposing an outright ban on lethal guns in favor of less lethal versions. Such a ban is clearly unconstitutional.


very clearly written and read: I did not propose a ban (and even seem to), you put that into my mouth because you read and write too fast.

If you want me to post who your posts 'seem' to say ...
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:40 pm

I would like to say thank you to Xouper for admitting that my point about knives being less dangerous than guns is correct.

Is Xouper also willing to take the next logical step, and admit that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:1. "The only limits to the First are those that relate to illegal behavior." /// First Amendment is very regulated as to time, place, and manner of expressions. Libel and Slander are examples. Those are not illegal

In the US, defamation (slander or libel) is indeed illegal.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2. "For example, hate speech is not illegal because hate itself is not illegal..." /// Hate speech is illegal.

In the US, hate speech is not illegal.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gee Xouper..... you post as if you have never had a basic primer in your constitutional rights.

That's comical coming from someone who has the facts backwards in the above cases.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I guess the NRA Talking Points really are limited.

NRA talking points have no relevance to any of the above.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:11 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:The recent Supreme Court rulings are based on the "original intent". /// Yep, every single case.

For the two recent cases about the Second Amendment, they did indeed rule in accordance with the "original intent".

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:22 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I would like to say thank you to Xouper for admitting that my point about knives being less dangerous than guns is correct.

I should have conceded that point a long time ago. Sorry. In general, I do not really think knives are as dangerous as guns. That does not mean that if a person is intent on killing, that having a knife instead of a gun will stop him.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Is Xouper also willing to take the next logical step, and admit that fewer guns would lead to fewer murders?

Nope. That is not the "next logical step". There is no incontrovertible evidence that the primary cause of the homicide rate is the weapon.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:30 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:Guns could very easily made to be less lethal and still work for self-defense, starting with limits to muzzle-velocities, calibers and ammunition types.

xouper wrote:
You seem to be proposing an outright ban on lethal guns in favor of less lethal versions. Such a ban is clearly unconstitutional.


very clearly written and read: I did not propose a ban (and even seem to), you put that into my mouth because you read and write too fast.

If you want me to post who your posts 'seem' to say ...

From now own, if it seems I have misstated your position, it is not because I am trying to put words in your mouth. There is no point in arguing against a position you do not hold. So please just correct me instead of accusing me of not reading what you wrote, and I will do likewise. Is that fair?

Let's get back to your argument.

Did you (or did you not) propose making guns less lethal? If so, then there are already guns that are less lethal. That has not solved the problem you are trying to solve.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Stabbing

Postby Gord » Tue Dec 29, 2015 12:34 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Ali al Zilla.jpg

That is so Christmassy.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 29, 2015 1:19 am

xouper wrote:Nope. That is not the "next logical step". There is no incontrovertible evidence that the primary cause of the homicide rate is the weapon.



It would appear, Xouper, that you are looking for 'proof' which does not exist outside maths.

However, the logic is sound.
We all know that attacks happens, when one person (usually a young man) physically attacks another. The vast majority of those attacks do not lead to murder. Just bruises, and in extreme cases, concussion.

However, when one person attacks another, and the attacker has a gun, then the end result is much, much, much more likely to be murder, simply because guns are much more lethal than fists or knives.

This logic is backed up by the fact that, in nations with more guns, there are more murders. At least when you compare like with like.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:11 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:Nope. That is not the "next logical step". There is no incontrovertible evidence that the primary cause of the homicide rate is the weapon.

It would appear, Xouper, that you are looking for 'proof' which does not exist outside maths.

I have explained more than once that I do not ask for "proof". You know this and yet you keep bringing up this same straw man.

I am merely pointing out that your evidence is hotly disputed and it is contradicted by other evidence.

Lance Kennedy wrote:However, the logic is sound.

Wrong.

In any case, you need more than just "logic" to make your case. You also need good evidence. You have neither.

Lance Kennedy wrote:We all know that attacks happens, when one person (usually a young man) physically attacks another. The vast majority of those attacks do not lead to murder. Just bruises, and in extreme cases, concussion.

However, when one person attacks another, and the attacker has a gun, then the end result is much, much, much more likely to be murder, simply because guns are much more lethal than fists or knives.

This logic is backed up by the fact that, in nations with more guns, there are more murders. At least when you compare like with like.

You are merely repeating the same old flawed arguments and factual errors that have already been refuted repeatedly. You have added nothing new. They were wrong the first time you posted them, and they are still wrong now.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:31 am

Xouper

You have never refuted that argument with anything that makes sense. It is simple. Attacks happen. If the attack includes a gun, then it is very likely death will result. 1 in 8 bullet wounds is lethal. If the attack involves a knife, then the person attacked will probably live. Only 1 in 400 stab wounds, according to British statistics, is lethal. That logic is irrefutable.

If more guns are in the community, as in the USA, then more attacks will involve guns, and more people die. The simple fact that the USA, the western developed nation with the most guns, also has vastly more murders than other western developed nations, and half the total murders are done with hand guns, is strong backing for the irrefutable logic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 3:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

You have never refuted that argument with anything that makes sense.

Yes I have. I have cited statistics that refute your argument. And evidence trumps rhetoric every time.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If more guns are in the community, as in the USA, then more attacks will involve guns, and more people die. The simple fact that the USA, the western developed nation with the most guns, also has vastly more murders than other western developed nations, and half the total murders are done with hand guns, is strong backing for the irrefutable logic.

Wrong.

You keep repeating this same flawed argument without adding anything new. Your argument is refuted by the mere fact that of all the states, Vermont has the highest rate of gun ownership and the lowest homicide rate. Your argument is also refuted by the mere fact that in the US the number of guns has been going up and the homicide rate has been going down. That is a direct refutation of your "argument". Your argument is also refuted by the plain fact that in countries that have recently imposed major gun bans, the homicide rate did not go down.

There is no correlation that shows more guns means more homicides. And even if there were such a correlation, correlation does not imply causation and you have not given any evidence that more guns cause more homicides.

Sorry, Lance, but you have not made your case. You just keep repeating the same old falsehoods like a broken record.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:23 am

illegal: criminal vs civil wrongs

Hate Speech: constituting real and present threat of harm to others vs something less.

Original Intent: lip service. What was the original intent of the framers in constructing gun rights in an age of the Musket?

Its all definitional.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:illegal: criminal vs civil wrongs

I did not say defamation is criminal, I said it was illegal. You said it is not illegal. Are you now changing your claim? It's quite OK with me if you do.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hate Speech: constituting real and present threat of harm to others vs something less.

In the US, hate speech is not illegal. Go look it up.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Its all definitional.

Yes, the law defines what is not legal.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 29, 2015 5:20 am

We agree: its definitional.

Definitional: the answer changes depending on how you define the words in the question. Definitional is not just what one person thinks it is. Its what all the various definitions come up with....and then you define context.

Context: the subject actually being talked about.

Semantics: how certains words and phrases interact with one another according to their accepted definition and the emotional relationships attached thereto.

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:We agree: its definitional.

I did not dispute the definitions, I merely pointed out that you got the facts wrong.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:32 pm

Xouper

Why do you keep repeating bulldust?
You have been told numerous times that the increase in guns is NOT, NOT and ABSOLUTELY NOT an increase in people with guns. It is simply gun nutters buying more guns. That is a fact widely understood. It is also true that the period following the biggest drop in gun ownership 'coincided' with the biggest drop in murder rate.

Actually, I do not think those two are directly connected. It is just that the period following 1993, which saw the biggest gun ownership drop, and the biggest drop in murder rate, was also 'coincident' with the biggest drop in the number of young men in the population. With fewer young men, there are fewer idiots to buy guns, and fewer murders.

Your Vermont argument would be valid ONLY if we were claiming gun ownership was the sole determinant of murder rate. We have never made that claim. Gun ownership is one of a number of factors involved, though it is one of the more important.

Vermont is a part of a cluster of states that form what is known as New England. For cultural reasons, New England has a much lower murder rate. New Hampshire, next to Vermont has an even lower murder rate than Vermont. Both those states abut against Canada, and are as far north as it is possible for a US state to be in the east.

Steven Pinker pointed out a gradient in murder rate going down the east coast, from New England in the north with low murder rates, to Florida and Mississippi in the south with high murder rates. Pinker also pointed out that this gradient 'coincided' with an increase in the vigilante ethic.

Vermont has a low murder rate because it is part of a cultural group that is less vengeful, rather than something to with gun numbers.

Nevertheless, several universities have found that, as an overall average, murder rates by state correlate with gun ownership. So gun ownership is a strong factor in determining murder rate.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 6:53 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Why do you keep repeating bulldust?
You have been told numerous times that the increase in guns is NOT, NOT and ABSOLUTELY NOT an increase in people with guns. It is simply gun nutters buying more guns. That is a fact widely understood.

Sheesh!

You are the one who keeps saying "more guns" instead of "more gun owners". I am just following your lead. I can only address what you actually say, so if you do not mean "more guns", then don't say "more guns". Perhaps you should clean up your own sloppy wording before complaining about mine.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:05 pm

Fair point, Xouper.
I am using short hand. Do you accept what I said?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:22 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Fair point, Xouper.
I am using short hand.

Well, then, so was I. ;)

Lance Kennedy wrote:Do you accept what I said?

I will accept that the number of gun owners in the US has been more or less constant over the past couple of decades.

I will also point out that most of the studies you have cited correlate number of guns per capita, not number of gun owners.

In any case, it is a documented fact that the number of concealed carry permits has been rising over that same period (one permit per person), and the homicide rate has been going down.

Since you like to argue that correlation implies causation, then according to that argument, the increase in concealed carry is the likely cause in reducing homicides. If you reject that conclusion, then you must reject the premise it was based on.

Speaking of concealed carry, just for fun, I'll add something to the conversation that I have not posted before.

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

Police Gun Control Survey: Are legally-armed citizens the best solution to gun violence?

... PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.

... More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

... What checks the sociopath from completing his act is fear. Fear of the unknown or known gun carrier who is going to punch his ticket to hell right then and right there. This has an immediate effect on reducing violent criminal activity.

... In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?”

Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five.

I seems an overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers in the US do not agree with your position to ban civilian ownership of handguns. And as you have often said, the majority wisdom is often right.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Dec 29, 2015 7:59 pm

I see you added some more stuff to your post after I had already replied to it.

Lance Kennedy wrote:It is also true that the period following the biggest drop in gun ownership 'coincided' with the biggest drop in murder rate. Actually, I do not think those two are directly connected. It is just that the period following 1993, which saw the biggest gun ownership drop, and the biggest drop in murder rate, was also 'coincident' with the biggest drop in the number of young men in the population. With fewer young men, there are fewer idiots to buy guns, and fewer murders.

I commend you for explaining why that short (cherry picked) correlation may not show the actual cause, that the drop in murder rate might be from some other cause.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Your Vermont argument would be valid ONLY if we were claiming gun ownership was the sole determinant of murder rate.

Not so. It is valid to show that guns are not the primary cause or even one of the more important causes.

Lance Kennedy wrote:We have never made that claim.

I accept your clarification that guns are not the "sole" determinant (cause). It is not my intention to argue against a position you do not hold.

However, it seems to me you have indeed claimed that guns are the "primary" cause.

You have claimed that fewer guns will result in a lower homicide rate. That claim does seem to be the major reason why you want all (civilian) handguns banned in the US.

If that is not a reasonable interpretation of your position, then please clarify exactly what your claim is and why you think the US should ban all (civilian) handguns.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Gun ownership is one of a number of factors involved, though it is one of the more important.

What exactly does that mean? Are you conceding it is not the most important factor?

Lance Kennedy wrote: Vermont is a part of a cluster of states that form what is known as New England. For cultural reasons, New England has a much lower murder rate. New Hampshire, next to Vermont has an even lower murder rate than Vermont

There are other states outside New England with similar statistics. Are you conceding that in some states, guns are not one of the important causes of the homicide rate?

Lance Kennedy wrote: Steven Pinker pointed out a gradient in murder rate going down the east coast, from New England in the north with low murder rates, to Florida and Mississippi in the south with high murder rates.

So climate is the most important factor in driving the homicide rate? ;)

Lance Kennedy wrote: Pinker also pointed out that this gradient 'coincided' with an increase in the vigilante ethic.

Are you saying that a cultural factor is more important in driving the homicide rate than number of gun owners?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Vermont has a low murder rate because it is part of a cultural group that is less vengeful, rather than something to with gun numbers.

Are you conceding that in some states guns are not the driving factor in homicide rate?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nevertheless, several universities have found that, as an overall average, murder rates by state correlate with gun ownership. So gun ownership is a strong factor in determining murder rate.

If guns are not a factor is some states, then how do you know guns are a factor in any state?

Also, none of those studies say that gun ownership is a strong factor in determining murder rate. In fact the authors explicitly say the cause cannot be inferred from the studies.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stabbing

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:35 am

Xouper

Guns are a major driver of high murder rate, but not the only one. I have always said this. I also quoted Steven Pinker who lists the vigilante ethic, a cultural influence, as another major influence.

However, a vigilante may kill or only wound. He is far more likely to kill if he has a more lethal weapon. Statistics show this to be hand guns, with half of all murders in the USA done with hand guns. (This statistic is unique. There is not another country on the planet which has half of all murders done with hand guns.). This makes sense, since a hand gun can be easily carried and hidden. If a person wanted to carry a weapon, and not be noticed by police, he will not carry a long gun.

So there are two major factors here, driving a high murder rate. The vigilante ethic is strong in the USA, but not so strong in New England. It also is likely to result in people getting hand guns. I suspect that the high gun ownership in Vermont, that you love quoting, is mainly long guns for hunting. (It is not as high as you suggested, though. I looked it up. Vermont has 28.8% gun ownership, according to one source, which is less than the USA average. A second source told me it was 42%?????? Still well below the maximum. I think these figures are somewhat unreliable.) Since very few murders are done with long guns, this fits the picture.

I have, so far, not found a break down in hand gun ownership by state. Such a statistic would be valuable, and I suspect it will correlate even more closely with murder rate than overall gun ownership. But your government dances to the gun manufacturer's tune and has seriously discouraged research into the social impact of guns.

Another comment. Normally gun control laws enacted by specific states have little impact on death rates, for the simple reason that people can go to another state to pick up guns. But there is one exception. It is not easy to bring guns into Hawaii, and Hawaii has stricter state gun laws. Guess what? Hawaii also has the lowest gun murder rate in the USA. This is almost certainly cause and effect. Few guns. Few gun murders.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Wed Dec 30, 2015 2:52 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Guns are a major driver of high murder rate, but not the only one. I have always said this.

Please clarify: Of all the factors driving the murder rate, are you saying guns are not the most important factor?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Hawaii also has the lowest gun murder rate in the USA.

Please cite your source for that.

The data here do not support your argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Lance Kennedy wrote:This is almost certainly cause and effect.

Maybe so, maybe not. We need actual evidence, not mere supposition. Science is based on empirical evidence, not on theoretical musings, as you are fond of saying.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Few guns. Few gun murders.

The same thing can be said for cars: few cars means few deaths from drunk drivers. Few "object x" means few deaths from "object x". That is practically a tautology and does not support your argument against guns.

Your claim was that fewer guns means fewer homicides, not just fewer gun homicides.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest