Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
I gave you some of the reasons why. Whether those reasons are based in practicality, political correctness, or something else is another matter. You're free to disagree with them. There are laws of land warfare, definitions for war crimes, prosecution of war criminals; yet, there are still people who ask "Why?" They feel that war is war, all's fair in war, and no rationale will ever change that for them.
|
It's not so much that I disagree. I just don't see how lawmakers reached the conclusion that knives (or any other weapon) should be given a solid 'No' while a gun, for the most part, gets at least a 'maybe'. In terms of practicality, for every reason given why someone has no business have a knife on them, there's another reason why he could (and then it's his business, not anyone else's, just as it is when you open carry in and open carry state). If it comes down to what's socially acceptable, then they might as well issue permits for them. Plenty think no one needs to carry a gun but that doesn't stop anyone who wants to carry and there's plenty of (absence of) laws to back them up. If it comes down to lethality or humaneness, then there's a bit of a split. They are two different types of weapons, one close range and one is nearly any range. Yes, to stab someone you will be close enough to look into their eyes as you do it... or is THAT what they don't want people to do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
That could pertain to any bullet if you're comparing a single shot to a single stab or slash; but, in a meaningful comparison of shots to the stabs and slashes in aggregate that it takes to incapacitate an attacker, the reverse may very well be true.
I'm not sure why you singled out hollow point bullets as special. They're designed to expand (mushroom) in diameter at the nose of the bullet so as to achieve the affect a larger caliber bullet. Any larger caliber bullet, from a compatible gun, would be of more concern to me at handgun bullet velocities.
|
I pointed out hollow point because of that... because it will do more damage on the same path through a body than a smooth bullet will, because, instead of a pretty smooth hole, it will rip and tear on either side. A smooth bullet may just miss that important vessel but a hollow point will nick it.
And in terms of incapacitation, if you're talking about the weapon capability alone, the gun will do more with less. You can incapacitate/kill from 50 yards away with a good (or lucky) shot. With a knife you're up close, but then you also have a range of places to stick that knife. Even if you aren't trained in knife combat, you can make a pretty stopping attempt at a neck, which is woefully unprotected for that kind of thing. No one does much fighting while choking on their own blood. No one likes a knife in the face either... you don't even need to stab. A slash across the forehead will get blood in the eyes and you have the advantage if a second attack is necessary. And if you get behind the other person, then it's all you. Granted, if the other person has a gun, then most of the close combat tactics won't mean much, but not all (relative) bad guys attack with a gun and some of those that would are even stupid enough to approach you and get within range of a pointed thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
That's why I said "unnecessarily." A gun typically has the greater potential for a humane defense even though it isn't always possible. It's because a gun gives people of various sizes and physical capabilities a better chance to proficiently (i.e. without "unnecessarily" maiming or mangling) incapacitate an attacker: guns aren't called the great equalizer for nothing. In the same vein, the greater working distance potential of guns typically provides better weapon retention capability than with knives so your weapon isn't taken away from you and used against someone else.
|
I believe guns are considered the great equalizer simply because of the range and relative accuracy of the weapon, not because of how bad it can hurt you. As I mentioned above, at 50 yards someone can still end up dead. That's far less likely to happen with a knife, even if one is a skilled thrower.
Weapon retention is a matter of being aware of your surroundings and the state of your gripping hand/arm. If someone gets a hit in on your weapon hand and causes it to lose grip, forcing you to drop the weapon, the weapon will fall whether it's a gun or a knife. If it's a matter of grabbing and pulling, the gun is easier because it's not covered in sharp edges. Of course, they risk getting a shot in the gut too. If someone tries to grab a knife, unless someone is holding it by the tang or the blade itself, that person is going to end up with an opened hand or possibly missing fingers. You'd have to be tussling with the person to get a good chance at not just disarming but taking the knife from them too and if that's the case, the same can be said for a gun. It's not uncommon to hear of a shooting that resulted from someone wrestling a gun from somebody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
Some knife blade designs (and some arrowheads) can defeat low level soft body armor, like that routinely worn by law enforcement officers, since they can be thrust to penetrate through the weave which is designed to protect against the rapid blunt force of bullets (fibers are only slash resistant).
|
Now this is what I've been looking for, a compelling reason. I can understand the restrictions on blades of certain lengths based on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
Slashing isn't PC regardless of blade length. I remember the case of an older Filipino man who was trained in a self defense discipline in which a short bladed knife is very rapidly and repeatedly worked across an attacker's body, to inflict cuts at multiple points with each slashing stroke, until the attack stops. He used the technique on an attacker who didn't stop aggressing until after the victim had inflicted over 200 cuts on the attacker (took less than a couple minutes). In addition to the attacker being prosecuted, the VICTIM was prosecuted for mangling his attacker. The victim was eventually exonerated; but, went bankrupt establishing the validity of his defense.
|
Proving your validity in a self defense shooting can be just as personally devastating, especially if the circumstances aren't clear to the judge/jury. The recent Treyvon case in FL is a good example. Zimmerman says Trayvon was in the process of attacking him when he shot, claimed self defense and is invoking their Stand Your Ground law. There's evidence that suggests, by the time Treyvon was shot, he was no longer being the aggressor and was being chased, which could mean Stand Your Ground was no longer in effect and then it'd be revenge, not defense. The question will be, if someone is attacking you then leaves, then you follow your attacker THEN attack your attacker can you still call it a self defense attack? And exactly when does Defense end and Revenge begin? It'll be up to judge and jury to determine if that happened and sort everything out but until then Zimmerman is in all kinds of trouble, socially, financially and (so his last representatives claimed) mentally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
I'm not applying it to a gun and don't see an analogy there. Burglar with a knife instead of a pry bar corresponds to someone carrying a gun instead of ______?
|
I meant it's about context. No one knows that guy with the baseball bat is going to break out the window of the house until he does. He could be on his way to a game, going to lend/getting it back from someone or, frankly, going to whollop the guy he saw with his girl the other day. Same with a crowbar, he could be on his way to help a neighbor with a stuck windor or door, bringing it home to pry out the old door jambs to put in new ones, or to get the sewer cover loose so he can reach the puppy that got stuck (or go to whollop the guy he saw with his girl). If you see a man walking around with a gun, the only reason he has it is to serious harm/kill someone if he feels he must.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexobon
(Post 806925)
It is; however, guns that are the great equalizer. How does anything else measure up? What else works across the board rather than just serving a social niche? Where would it all end?
|
Then issue permits for them. If guns are the be-all-end-all, that suggests other weapons aren't as (and this is probably not the right word) dangerous and less in need of oversight. Or perhaps they consider them more so, which is why the laws will be very specific about what is not allowed? Check out VA's no-no weapon list... they take care to describe all kinds of flails, throwing discs/stars and disguised weaponry (like sword canes). But VA doesn't care what kind of gun you have as long as it's not federally banned or a machine gun, and then they just want you to register it.
