Stabbing

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:32 pm

Lance: what is it about "we all understand except Xouper" makes you think that doesn't include me?
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 Jan 05, 2016 11:31 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Your argument that more crime may induce people to buy more guns may possible be valid when comparing states within the USA, but it cannot apply to the correlation across nations, where the limit on gun number is legal. So please drop that silly and invalid argument.

Sorry, Lance but you have that backwards. It is not logical to refute an assertion with a straw man argument as you tried to do.

One of your cited authors has suggested that perhaps the causation goes the other direction, that perhaps more crime causes more people to buy guns. That is not MY hypothesis, that is what one of YOUR sources said.

In order to falsify that hypothesis, it is not valid to cite an example of a country that has strong prohibitions against buying guns. In such a circumstance, it is not possible to determine that more crime would not have caused more people to buy guns because even if they wanted to buy more guns, they can't. Thus your example does not refute the hypothesis, since your example is simply not a valid test of the hypothesis.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On your X/Y business.

If you want me to take it seriously, you must demonstrate its relevance. I suspect you are trying to lay some kind of trap for me, and I am not a willing victim. I suggest, if you have a query, then restate it in a form that means something.

You have made claims to know what can be inferred from correlations. To demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, I gave a valid correlation and asked what you can infer from it. Asking such a fundamental question about correlations is entirely relevant to demonstrating that you know what you are talking about. But instead of answering the question, which is simple enough to answer by anyone who knows anything at all about correlations, you continue to avoid answering it, thus revealing that you do NOT in fact know what you are talking about, else you would have answered what is a very simple and straightforward question.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Bobbo

We all understand what correlation means. Except Xouper.

Then answer the question I posed and show us you know what you are talking about. Put up or shut up.

Lance Kennedy wrote: He is so hung up on his "correlation is not causation" slogan

Stop lying about my position. I have never said that, and you know it. You are being intentionally dishonest here, Lance. Shame on you.

Lance Kennedy wrote: (or correlation does not imply causation as he puts it)

That is indeed science's position on the matter, not just mine.

Lance Kennedy wrote: that he has blinded himself to the fact that correlation is actually strong evidence that causation is very likely present.

Wrong.

No scientist agrees with that. You are accusing science of being blind. Shame on you, Lance.

It is you who are in the minority opinion here, not me. And according to your own argument, the majority are often right. You can't have it both ways, Lance.

In any case, since your claim is that "correlation is actually strong evidence that causation is very likely present," then you should have no trouble answering my question about the X/Y correlation that I posted previously. There is a very strong correlation of 0.95 and thus according to your own argument, that "correlation is actually strong evidence that causation is very likely present".

Is that in fact your answer to the X/Y correlation I gave previously? Yes or no.


Lance Kennedy wrote:If the attacker has only a knife, or fists, then the odds are seriously against death occurring. Each stab wound, for example, has a chance of only 1 in 400 of causing death. However, if the attacker has a hand gun, each bullet wound has a 1 in 8 chance of causing death. Widespread gun ownership means more attackers having guns, and therefore more deaths.

Wrong.

Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is not a valid inference from that, as I have previously demonstrated. If someone is intent on killing someone with a knife, it does not take 50 time more effort to do so than if he had a gun. Your argument is simply absurd.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:35 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:To suggest that more gun ownership would NOT result in more murders is a logical absurdity.

Tell that to the people in Vermont (and several other states) where more guns does not mean more murders.

Contrary to your claim, it is not absurd, it is a documented fact.

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 Jan 05, 2016 11:58 pm

Xouper

I have already replied to the Vermont example.

On the X/Y correlation, the 0.95 correlation strongly suggests a link between the two factors. ie a relationship. That relationship may be causation, or may not. There are many different kinds of relationship. If a credible mechanism by which causation occurs, it strengthens that possibility.

Your idea that a person intent on murder will do it regardless of whether he has a gun or a knife is just silly. With a gun, it is far more likely that murder will result. With a knife, with only 1 stab wound in 400 being lethal, if nothing else, it gives time for other people to stop the arsehole. With a gun, that possibility does not exist.

Imagine 100,000 attacks over the course of a year. Now suppose half the attackers have a weapon. ie 50,000 attacks with a weapon. If those 50,000 attacks involve a gun, compared to 50,000 attacks with a knife, which will result in the most deaths? If you say knife or suggest it might be the same for both, those are idiotic answers. Guns kill more readily. Therefore more guns mean more murders. Both logic and the data agree on this.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Wed Jan 06, 2016 12:32 am

I would be quite surprised if an increase in guns does not equate to an increase in crime. First of all, gun thefts are crimes which could not occur if guns were not available to steal, but further – guns embolden would-be criminals by giving them a sense of empowerment. And even for normally law abiding citizens, having a gun available enhances the opportunity for a crime to be committed by accident or in the spur of the moment. Reduce guns, and crimes should go down.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:03 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I have already replied to the Vermont example.

It still refutes your claim that more guns means more murders. As long as you keep making that silly claim, then I will keep posting Vermont as a valid counter example that refutes it.

In a recent post, Lance Kennedy wrote:correlation is actually strong evidence that causation is very likely present.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On the X/Y correlation, the 0.95 correlation strongly suggests a link between the two factors. ie a relationship. That relationship may be causation, or may not.

That is not the same as your previous claim. Are you now retracting your previous claim?

In any case, if that is your answer to my X/Y question, then I accept it as the correct answer. Thank you for finally answering it. And now I have a quote from you that I can use every time you claim otherwise.

Lance Kennedy wrote:There are many different kinds of relationship.

We already know that. A correlation is by definition a "relationship", which should be obvious from the word "relation" in the word "correlation".

Lance Kennedy wrote: If a credible mechanism by which causation occurs, it strengthens that possibility.

Correct. That is what I have been saying all along. And by credible, I mean one with empirical evidence, not merely rhetoric.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Your idea that a person intent on murder will do it regardless of whether he has a gun or a knife is just silly. With a gun, it is far more likely that murder will result. With a knife, with only 1 stab wound in 400 being lethal, if nothing else, it gives time for other people to stop the arsehole.

Tell that to the families of the victims of Elliot Rodger. I'm sure those families will be amused (and disgusted) that you think Elliot Rodger was silly to think he could kill three people with a knife instead of using his gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

Sorry, Lance but your argument that it is 50 times more difficult to kill someone with a knife is contradicted by the evidence and by logic.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Wed Jan 06, 2016 1:53 am

TJrandom wrote:I would be quite surprised if an increase in guns does not equate to an increase in crime.

In the US, the number of guns has been going up and the crime rate has been going down.

I take it Vermont surprises you? Vermont and several other states have the most guns per capita and the fewest homicides per capita than most other states.

TJrandom wrote: Reduce guns, and crimes should go down.

I can see why that might be a reasonable thing to suppose. What does the evidence say?

In Britain, for example, they banned handguns and crime went up. (Granted they did not have many handguns in the first place, but that just raises the question, why ban them?)

So much for your "should".

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:09 am

What Xouper has taught us: Lots of variables give common sense deniers room to maneuver in cherry picking their examples to refute high correlations events.

No Guns = Zero Deaths from guns
All Guns = Maximum Death from guns

Where do you think the middle of the curve is?
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 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What Xouper has taught us: Lots of variables give common sense deniers room to maneuver in cherry picking their examples to refute high correlations events.

You have that backwards. The only way to get a correlation is to cherry pick the dataset. Without that cherry picking, there is no correlation.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No Guns = Zero Deaths from guns

True, but only because it is a tautology.

No "object x" = Zero Deaths from "object x".

Duh!

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:All Guns = Maximum Death from guns

Maybe so, maybe not. There is no data for that claim.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Where do you think the middle of the curve is?

Somewhere in the middle? ;)

However, there is no way to predict the homicide rate based only on the number of guns.

If you disagree, then let's try it:

Country A has about 20 guns per 100 people.
Country B has about 8 guns per 100 people.
Country C has about 30 guns per 100 people.

Can you say which of those three countries has the highest homicide rate?

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:52 am

However, there is no way to predict the homicide rate based only on the number of guns. //// Thats what a high correlation means.
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 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:14 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:However, there is no way to predict the homicide rate based only on the number of guns. //// Thats what a high correlation means.

It seems your comment is perhaps badly phrased.

Are you saying that a high correlation means there is NO way to predict the homicide rate based on the number of guns?

That makes no sense, so I am tempted to assume you mean the opposite.

If you believe there is a high correlation, then you can answer the question I posed.

Which of the three countries (A, B, or C) has the highest homicide rate?

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:25 am

I apologize Xouper. I am being flip. But less than 100% correlation means there are other factors involved in the analysis. Like cultural homogeneity, employment statistics, number of young males, availability of intervention services...all sorts of other issues. I just express the same idea in a number of ways thinking one expression might connect with someone when a different expression with the same meaning does not.
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
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 Jan 06, 2016 5:37 am

Xouper has no logic. He still claims that a knife is as lethal as a gun. The data clearly shows a gun is far, far more lethal.

On Vermont.
As I said before, there are more factors than just numbers of guns determining murder rate. What I have claimed throughout is not that gun ownership is the only factor. Just that it is a very important factor.

Vermont is part of a generally more peaceful north east. New Hampshire and New York also have low murder rates. In the south, murder rates are much higher. This is due to a difference in culture. Mississippi state for example, has roughly twice the murder rate of the USA as a whole and Louisiana has an even higher murder rate still.

But the fact that culture is one important determinant does not stop other factors also being very important, and number of people with guns is right up there as one of the most important.

If we look at all the developed western nations, we note :

The USA has the most guns per capita and the highest murder rate. By a very, very big margin for both.
Finland has the second highest murder rate and the second highest gun ownership.
Japan has the lowest murder rate and the lowest gun ownership.
Harvard University looked at 24 such nations and found a clear cut correlation between murders and gun ownership. They found exactly the same thing across the 50 states of the USA, despite places like Vermont.

The data shows, both for comparing American states and comparing western nations, that more people with guns means more murders. Since there is a very clear and credible mechanism by which more gun ownership leads to more murders, and no alternative credible mechanism exists, then the logical conclusion is that is a cause and effect relationship. More people with guns means more murders.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper has no logic.

Lance has no reading comprehension. And no logic. And no evidence. And no honesty.

Lance Kennedy wrote: He still claims that a knife is as lethal as a gun.

I never claimed that. Stop lying about what I say. You have a long history of lying about my position, even after I have corrected you.

I have already agreed that knives are in general less lethal than guns.

That does not change the fact that a person with a knife can kill just as readily as with a gun. And I gave evidence for that claim. It does NOT take 50 times the effort to kill with a knife, as you mistakenly claim.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On Vermont.
As I said before, there are more factors than just numbers of guns determining murder rate.

And yet you keep making the silly claim that it is only guns that are the relevant factor. You keep saying more guns means more homicides, without qualifying that other factors are more important.

Lance Kennedy wrote:But the fact that culture is one important determinant does not stop other factors also being very important, and number of people with guns is right up there as one of the most important.

That is your personal opinion, not based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. In Vermont (and in several other states), guns are clearly not the most important factor, so on what basis can you claim that guns are one of the most important factor in ANY state?

Lance Kennedy wrote:If we look at all the developed western nations, we note :

Translation: if we cherry pick the dataset ...

Lance Kennedy wrote:The USA has the most guns per capita and the highest murder rate. By a very, very big margin for both.
Finland has the second highest murder rate and the second highest gun ownership.
Japan has the lowest murder rate and the lowest gun ownership.
Harvard University looked at 24 such nations and found a clear cut correlation between murders and gun ownership. They found exactly the same thing across the 50 states of the USA, despite places like Vermont.

The data shows, both for comparing American states and comparing western nations, that more people with guns means more murders. Since there is a very clear and credible mechanism by which more gun ownership leads to more murders, and no alternative credible mechanism exists, then the logical conclusion is that is a cause and effect relationship. More people with guns means more murders.

You are just repeating the same old flawed arguments that have already been debunked, without adding anything new.

Boring.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:22 am

xouper wrote: ... In Vermont (and in several other states), guns are clearly not the most important factor ...


I suspect that even in Vermont, those murdered with a gun would claim otherwise.

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 Jan 06, 2016 9:01 am

xouper wrote:
That does not change the fact that a person with a knife can kill just as readily as with a gun. And I gave evidence for that claim. It does NOT take 50 times the effort to kill with a knife, as you mistakenly claim.
.


Totally wrong, as anyone with the least amount of sense will realise. To kill with a gun, on average, takes 8 squeezes of a trigger. To kill with a knife requires 400 energetic stabbing actions, as an overall average, based on data I have already given.

Not only that, but killing with a gun can be done at a distance, meaning your victim cannot fight back. Killing with a knife has to be done close up, permiting your victim to at least punch you. Guns and knives are NOT the same.

Frankly, Xouper, your insistance on pushing the view that a gun is no worse than a knife pushes my desire to remain courteous. When someone says something that is utterly moronic, how can I keep my self quiet and not tell them they are saying something utterly idiotic?

On Vermont

As I pointed out earlier, they do not have more than the average percentage of guns. Nor do we know how many of those guns are hand guns. Since 7 out of 8 gun murders are done with hand guns, a lot of long guns are not so important. It is the number of hand guns that count. Vermont is known as a hunting state. This implies more hunting guns, meaning long guns, and fewer hand guns. Since we have no statistics for number of hand guns, your so-called logic on Vermont is crap.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:That does not change the fact that a person with a knife can kill just as readily as with a gun. And I gave evidence for that claim. It does NOT take 50 times the effort to kill with a knife, as you mistakenly claim.

Totally wrong, as anyone with the least amount of sense will realise. To kill with a gun, on average, takes 8 squeezes of a trigger. To kill with a knife requires 400 energetic stabbing actions, as an overall average, based on data I have already given.

Wrong.

That is not what your data show. You have mischaracterized that data. The data you originally cited only says that (on average) 1 in 400 stab wounds are lethal. That does not mean it takes (on average) 400 stabs to kill someone. The mistake you are making is assuming that every stab wound was the result of an attempted homicide, which is clearly an unfounded assumption. That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.

In other words, it does not take 50 times more effort to kill someone with a knife. Your argument otherwise is totally specious.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Not only that, but killing with a gun can be done at a distance, meaning your victim cannot fight back. Killing with a knife has to be done close up, permiting your victim to at least punch you.

Tell that to the families of the victims of Elliot Rodger. I'm sure they will be comforted by the fact that Elliot Rodger had to get close enough to be punched before the victim died.

In any case, that difference did not stop him from killing three people with a knife, and he did it without stabbing each of them 400 times.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Guns and knives are NOT the same.

I never claimed otherwise.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Frankly, Xouper, your insistance on pushing the view that a gun is no worse than a knife ...

I never claimed that. Stop lying about my position. How many times do I need to tell you that?

I have already agreed that guns are more lethal than knives. That does not mean that it requires 400 stabs to kill someone with a knife, as you mistakenly claim.

Lance Kennedy wrote:... pushes my desire to remain courteous. When someone says something that is utterly moronic, how can I keep my self quiet and not tell them they are saying something utterly idiotic?

Now you know how I feel about your moronic and idiotic arguments.

Lance Kennedy wrote:On Vermont

As I pointed out earlier, they do not have more than the average percentage of guns.

Wrong.

The estimate is 70 to 75 percent of households in Vermont have guns. Even the liberals have guns in Vermont.

But even if you are correct that the actual number is closer to the national average, that still refutes your claim that more gun owners means more homicides, because the homicide rate in Vermont is so far below average.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nor do we know how many of those guns are hand guns. Since 7 out of 8 gun murders are done with hand guns, a lot of long guns are not so important. It is the number of hand guns that count.

Are you now changing your claim?

Previously you said more guns, without qualifying that you meant more "handguns".

If your (revised) claim is more "handgun owners" means more homicides, then you have just tossed out all the studies you cited since they do not compute the correlation on number of handgun owners.

As long as you keep making the silly claim that more guns means more homicides, then I will keep citing Vermont as a valid counter example that refutes that claim.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12220
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:57 pm

About Vermont.

I commented in the 2nd Amendment topic -
Herez the big secret with your gun packing crime free example: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm Colum 1 sez it all.

About gunz being way more effectiv than nives.

Its just silly to deny it. Sure, a running man can slit 1,000 throats in a nite, but he coud get the job dun (theoreticly) in less than a minit with a machine gun without breaking a swet. (altho not spesifikly slitting throats. The assumtion being that the throat slitting wuz intended to kill)
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:33 pm

The 'cleanliness' of guns has been massively popularized by entertainment media, movies above all: in order to avoid age restrictions for movies, violence is portrayed exceedingly bloodless and detached: a gun-wound will not even be shown, since everyone knows that being hit by a bullet is supposed to mean 'death' in the narrative of the movie (unless the hero is hit, then it's just flesh-wound). So the suggestion is that guns can be completely lethal and mostly harmless at the same time, depending on whether 'bad' or 'good' guys are the target.
Knifes are almost exclusively used by sadists in movies and books, or heroes fighting pure evil under constraints. Their use either suggests great training and murderous intend or almost comical desperation (house wife grabbing kitchen knife) .
They are therefore avoided by scriptwriters, both for moral reasons and because it's hard to believe that a knife wound that does not excessively bleed could be lethal.
The result is that knifes are perceived more lethal than they are, and guns less lethal than is warranted. Guns are also portrayed as 'more human' than knifes.

But this is all fiction: if you ask any ER doctor, they'd much rather operate a knife wound than a bullet wound.
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
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:23 pm

JO 753 wrote:About Vermont.

I commented in the 2nd Amendment topic -
Herez the big secret with your gun packing crime free example: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm Colum 1 sez it all.

About gunz being way more effectiv than nives.

Its just silly to deny it. Sure, a running man can slit 1,000 throats in a nite, but he coud get the job dun (theoreticly) in less than a minit with a machine gun without breaking a swet. (altho not spesifikly slitting throats. The assumtion being that the throat slitting wuz intended to kill)


Ah Vermont - smaller than a small city...

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 Jan 06, 2016 6:53 pm

To Jo

The knife used to slit a throat is mostly a Hollywood myth.
We have all seen the movie, in wich the soldier hero sneaks up behind a Nazi guard and despatches him with one cut across the throat.

REality is different. To kill someone reasonably quickly by cutting his throat requires the knife penetrates deep and severs the arteries. Above the arteries is a mass of muscle, and a windpipe with strong cartilage rings. It is possible, but takes a very strong man with a razor sharp knife with a long blade. Cutting a throat is not something that can be done normally without the victim at least having the chance to fight back.

Xouper thinks I am changing my tune by talking of the distinction between hand guns and long guns. However, my emphasis has always been on hand guns. There are 8,000 hand gun murders each year in the USA (plus or minus annual variation), and less than 1,000 long gun murders. Hand guns are the big problem. Even mass murders shrinks into relative insignificance against the sheer numers of those murdered with hand guns. Not only that, but almost all gun suicides (12,000 per year) are done with hand guns. So hand guns take 20,000 lives each year in the USA.

If a person walks down the street carrying a long gun, everyone would see and be wary, and the police would probably have a squad following him. But a hand gun can be hidden out of sight. That is a recipe for murder.

FBI figures show 4,000 murders each year where two people get into a hot argument, and one whips out a hand gun and shoots the other dead. Those murders would be a lot less than 4,000 if hand guns were not available, since a knife is so relatively less lethal.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12220
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:32 pm

You are mistaken about the difficulty. People can even accidentally kill themselvez with a slash to the throat. Actor slashez own throat on staje. He didnt die in this case, but it wuz very close.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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 Jan 06, 2016 8:34 pm

Which is the whole point, Jo.
Two issues, survival and time.
To kill quickly by a throat slash is not easy. Certainly, without medical care, a more minor slash might eventually result in death. But it takes time, and the victim can raise a ruckus in the mean time.

Also, today we have medical care. It takes a major slash to prevent medical care saving the life.

When I said only 1 stab wound in 400 is lethal, that takes into account the fact that there will be heroic measures taken to save life. But 1 bullet wound in 8 will kill, in spite of those heroic measures.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12220
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby JO 753 » Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:51 pm

Read the article.

I remember a story about an old guy who aksidentally cut hiz throat with a chain saw out in the wilderness. He drove himself to the hospital and survived, but it wuz a miracle according to the doctorz. He'd cut sevral arteryz & vienz & lost 3/4 uv hiz blud.

The instant & silent slash murder like in the moviez iz probably not very realistic, but its also not rare for sumwun to die from a small cut or stab in the rite artery or vein.
Last edited by JO 753 on Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

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 Jan 06, 2016 9:22 pm

Jo

You are a smart guy. You know that argument by anecdote is not a strong argument.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Stabbing

Postby TJrandom » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:...Also, today we have medical care. It takes a major slash to prevent medical care saving the life.

When I said only 1 stab wound in 400 is lethal, that takes into account the fact that there will be heroic measures taken to save life. But 1 bullet wound in 8 will kill, in spite of those heroic measures.


Wait... is it that medical care can save the life of a person who has been knifed, the real reason that a certain political segment wants to ban universal health care coverage? So that knives become more deadly and thus guns are seen as less deadly? :abd:

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:43 am

xouper wrote:I have already agreed that knives are in general less lethal than guns.

That does not change the fact that a person with a knife can kill just as readily as with a gun..

The above is Xouper in a Nut Shell (sic!) I'm starting to think no comprehension at all for holding contradictory positions and using the one most effective in isolation. No need to resolve the conflict. Strong evidence that some people have no cognitive dissonance at all.

............and they vote.
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:I have already agreed that knives are in general less lethal than guns.

That does not change the fact that a person with a knife can kill just as readily as with a gun..

The above is Xouper in a Nut Shell (sic!) I'm starting to think no comprehension at all for holding contradictory positions and using the one most effective in isolation. No need to resolve the conflict. Strong evidence that some people have no cognitive dissonance at all.

............and they vote.

Tell that to the families of the victims of Elliot Rodger, who killed three people with a knife and three people with a gun. I'm sure they will be comforted that you feel it was contradictory of him to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

My position only seems contradictory to those who failed to comprehend what I meant by my comments above, not because there is anything actually contradictory there.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:10 am

thats what your quote demonstrates. Doubling down? Not necessary. You make the record.

You want to obfuscate the gun issue with your knife BS.

Its clear and simple.
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper thinks I am changing my tune by talking of the distinction between hand guns and long guns. However, my emphasis has always been on hand guns.

No it hasn't.

You have often argued both positions.

When you say "more guns means more murders" and then you cite studies and correlations that are about ALL guns (not just handguns), I can only go by what you actually say, not what you "emphasize" in your head.

Lance Kennedy wrote:... a hand gun can be hidden out of sight. That is a recipe for murder.

The facts contradict your opinion. The number of concealed carry permits has skyrocketed since Obama took office and yet the murder rate has declined. And that doesn't count the states that do not require a permit for concealed carry.

Lance Kennedy wrote:FBI figures show 4,000 murders each year where two people get into a hot argument, and one whips out a hand gun and shoots the other dead. Those murders would be a lot less than 4,000 if hand guns were not available, since a knife is so relatively less lethal.

That is your personal opinion not backed by any empirical evidence whatsoever. In fact where handguns have been banned, the murder rate went up. Britain, for example.

Regardless, even if the number of murders could be reduced by banning handguns, it is still a violation of civil liberties to impose such a ban. I reject your argument that responsible law abiding citizens should be punished merely to keep 4000 stupid people from killing each other every year.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:09 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:thats what your quote demonstrates. Doubling down? Not necessary. You make the record.

You want to obfuscate the gun issue with your knife BS.

Its clear and simple.

Let the record show bobbo has completely misunderstood my position and my motives.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him comprehend it.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:57 pm

Xouper: its semantic and rhetorical context. Once you agree guns are more lethal than knives, what is your purpose in adding that you can still be lethal with a knife?

I won't restate my own conclusion of the obvious so as not to taint your response..... but here it is:

Spoiler:
Restating that you can kill with a knife when the point of importance was that guns are more lethal is an attempt to lessen the sting/consequences of agreeing that guns are more lethal. the fact that you can still kill with a knife is totally accepted by the first statement regarding guns. to restate knives then is to do something else. I say to obfuscate by still trying to equate the two. Now, lets see what you say. given you similarly take both sides of the argument and when demands for clarity arise, you say as here that everyone misunderstands you. For you xouper, on this thread, no one misunderstands you. THAT only works with the other more gullible people you influence.
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
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:37 pm

Xouper

I have already posted a reference to a study that showed aggravatged assaults have increased in states with more concealed carry, since the increase in concealed carry.

On The knife versus gun thing, it appears that you do not have any comprehension of statistics. Not unusual, since most people have little such understanding. Disappointing, though. I have argued before with people who understand anecdotes but fail to appreciate that anecdotes do not conjure generalisations. I guess it is just a very common mental handicap.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:49 pm

Lance: close to statistics is probability theory. Xouper showed great mastery in a thread regarding the Monty Hall Paradox/Mystery/stumper. It may be that he is so steeped in the arcane academics of it all that he has lost his common sense. I think "statistically speaking" that can happen.

Xouper: how would you phrase it? Is probability part of statistics, vice versa, or while dealing with "math" they are unrelated fields? Or what would be the small difference? Statistics: what has happened, while probability is what can or might happen?
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 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:40 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: its semantic and rhetorical context. Once you agree guns are more lethal than knives, what is your purpose in adding that you can still be lethal with a knife?

To refute Lance's claim that if handguns are taken away from the bad guys and they had to use knives instead, there will automatically be fewer murders. Not only is there no empirical evidence for that claim, there is evidence for the opposite. Lance tries to support his claim using an argument instead of actual evidence, and his argument is that it takes an average of 400 stabs to kill a person. That's a specious argument on the face of it and an unfounded interpretation of the statistics of stab wounds.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:44 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: how would you phrase it? Is probability part of statistics, vice versa, or while dealing with "math" they are unrelated fields? Or what would be the small difference? Statistics: what has happened, while probability is what can or might happen?

I will accept the distinction you make here. Statistics deals with past events and probability deals with future events.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:50 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I have already posted a reference to a study that showed aggravatged assaults have increased in states with more concealed carry, since the increase in concealed carry.

We were talking about murders, not assaults. Are you moving the goalposts?

Do you deny that concealed carry has gone up and the murder rate has gone down?

In any case, I do not recall where you cited that study, would you please repost it here?

Lance Kennedy wrote:On The knife versus gun thing, it appears that you do not have any comprehension of statistics.

Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.

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 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:03 pm

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/nove ... 11414.html

The above study from Stanford shows increase in concealed carry are associated with increases in aggravated assaults, rapes and murders. So no. I am not shifting goalposts.

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

Re: Stabbing

Postby xouper » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:20 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html

The above study from Stanford shows increase in concealed carry are associated with increases in aggravated assaults, rapes and murders. So no. I am not shifting goalposts.

Sorry, but that study does not correlate number of guns (or number of owners) with murder, and thus it does not support your argument, nor does it refute mine.

They also cherry pick the datasets to exclude data that contradict the result they want, which as we all know is dishonest, but at least they acknowledge that they exclude certain data, so we can make up our own minds about the relevance of the results.

In any case, since you offered a study about gun laws (not number of gun owners) then here is something that contradicts your cited study:

Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws
By Eugene Volokh, October 6, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/

In the state of Florida, for example (where I happened to live for most of the 1990s), the number of concealed carry has significantly increased over the past 20 years, but according to Florida government data, violent crime has decreased:



Sorry, Lance, you have not made your case. Concealed carry in Florida, as just one example, has not correlated with increased violent crime, in fact just the opposite. I am not claiming that more guns is the cause of the decrease in violent crime. I do not know what the cause is. I merely point out a correlation that contradicts your correlation.

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 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:19 am

Xouper

IHAve already pointed out before, though you seem to have ignored this, that both the increase in murder rates in the 1960's and the drop after the year 1993, correlate perfectly with first an increase in the percentage of young people in the population, and second with a drop. Not only that, but both changes are international, not just in the USA. So you are correct in saying guns are not the cause.

However, that does not explain why the USA has about four times the murder rate of other western developed nations. Since the correlations are so clear, the amount of gun ownership is one part of it, and an important part. The vigilante cu;ture in the USA is probably another important part.

The fact that one state (Florida) seems to have no correlation between changes in concealed carry and murder rate is irrelevant, since that is only 1 out of 50. Indeed, the graph you posted is 100% consistent with the change in the percentage of young people.

Nor do I believe that researchers at Stanford and Harvard 'cherry pick' their data. That sounds like the sort of calumny that comes from the minions of the gun makers.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest