Tuscon incident and gun control discussion

[Rob Wilson]

It's also ignoring the possiblity that criminals are using guns because they are the better weapon. If knifes were better, professional criminals would use them instead.

So you ignored the evidence I linked to before. Way to go, it just makes you look daft rather than proving any point you may have. Here's the link again.

You made the argument that guns are somehow more dangerous or more useful to criminals, you have the burden of proof. The proposal that knives are just as dangerous and useful to criminals is the null hypothesis, especially in light of Rob Wilson's information on the subject and the assessments of people who actually know how combat works.

So you ARE making the argument that knifes are just as efficient as weapons as guns?
Yes, for a lot of crimes, like mugging or rape, there is little to no difference between knifes and guns (and knifes might actually be more useful).
But could you commit a robbery with a knife? A bank robbery? I hardly think you can blame the fact that guns are used for those solely on the media.
Is it as easy to commit murder with a knife as it is with a gun?

Incidentially, you completely ignored part of the posts you quoted:
Rob said that criminals purchase guns (in the UK) for large-scale crimes. I don't think they could commit such large-scale crimes nearly as successfully without guns. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

So you're ignoring the part of my post which described 4 large Stores being held up by people with knives.. That's one hell of a selective memory problem you have there. One could almost accuse you of deliberatelt ignoring any evidence that counters your argument. But surely you wouldn't do that would you??

Frankly, i think it's ludicrous to look at the fact that guns are used widely by criminals if they have access to them and conclude "oh, they are just doing it because of the media". It's equally ludicrous to propose that guns are not better at killing or not more usefull for certain crimes than a knife.

Of course they are, the only one you actively need a gun for is robbing a bank, because of the screens in the way. Though with a little thought you could just give the teller a picture of their loved one with a knife to their throat and rob the bank that way. Or he could just do it the old-fashioned way with the knife anyway.

[Rob Wilson]

So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

Exactly what metric are you using to define "dangerous" anyway?

Causes a danger to yourself or others perhaps.

What one would you suggest?

[General Zod]

So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

Exactly what metric are you using to define "dangerous" anyway?

Causes a danger to yourself or others perhaps. :P

What one would you suggest?

I assume you had an actual specific metric in mind since you're the ones claiming that knives can be just as dangerous. Rather than "I know it when I see it.", which can be easily handwaved away. Since you don't accept the number of deaths caused per weapon type I don't know what else you'd go by.

[SCRawl]

I've seen enough. There's some good stuff in this thread, but there's also a bunch of spittle-flecked screaming, and the signal to noise ratio is no longer at a level I deem to be acceptable.

[Broomstick]

I personally think it comes down to the perception. People think that guns are worse and deadlier. There's also the intimidation factor, idiots are far more intimidated by guns than knives so tend to use them more themselves. Both are dangerous, but one has that extra feeling of danger about it.

Hmm... I have anecdotal evidence from both emergency room personnel and police that I know here that there are people in the inner city, at least, who have expressed that they are more afraid of being cut up with a knife than shot with a gun. Granted, it IS anecdotal but I've heard it from numerous people who come into contact with “gangbangers” as part of their daily work.

In which case it's probably a matter of such people being much more familiar with guns, many of them having been shot before but not knifed before, and thus guns are a known quantity whereas being stabbed is much more rare for them and fear of the unknown kicks in. Of course, that would be very much a cultural idea, and not necessarily based in any rational or factual knowledge of the damage the two types of weapons can cause. These guys use guns because that's what they're familiar with and they are accessible, not because they've analyzed the benefits of various weapons.

Oh and for those of you that still think they would fight back against an assailant with a knife. My wife is a Cash Office supervisor for a large discount chain in the UK, they have to watch video's of stores getting robbed so they know what to expect. 1 gang of 6 men hit 4 stores in rapid succession armed only with knives and machete's. Hazel says she'd never want to have that happen to her as the looks on the staff's faces during the robberies was pure terror.

I have the dubious honor of having fought back against two knife attacks. I've also been shot at. While both situations are scary, they're scary in different ways. The guy with the gun was shooting a handgun at a distance. His odds of hitting me were already low, and it was relatively easy to duck behind other things to get out of his line of sight and concentrate on getting away. The knife attacks were both close quarters and running away wasn't much of an option as I could not have gotten out of line of sight quick enough, and there was no obstacle to my attacker pursuing me. To be fair, if the gunman had been as close to me as the knife attackers it would have been much worse in many ways, as the chance of getting actually shot would have been close to 100%. But then, that's close quarters.

I was able to disarm my knife attacker both times, HOWEVER – I was in a self-defense training program at the time that concentrated on such self-defense situations and what to do. Most people do not have that, most who have that don't remain current (I certainly haven't in the intervening three decades). I would have MUCH preferred to simply run away but that wasn't an option. It also helped that my knife attackers didn't know what the fuck they were doing, which made it possible for me to disarm them. You can't count on that. Bottom line, unless you have some sort of training in how to defend yourself/disarm your knife wielding opponent you'll be in a world of shit, and maybe even then as size/weight/strength starts to become much more important than when dealing with guns.

If I had been facing multiple opponents – such as described above – or someone who actually knew how to use a knife as a weapon I would have been completely fucked and most likely not here to talk with you folks.

I just want them to know how to use them, keep them locked away (no need for them in the house really)

Really? Because one of the reasons people here give for having a gun is home defense. If armed bad guys are ramming down your door in an area where police response times are 15-20 minutes (or more) a gun in the home starts to make some sense. It still may not be your best option, but here in the US it is an option.

Although what I most often hear recommended for home defense is not handgun but a pump-action shotgun. Most people recognized that distinctive sound as “I have a loaded gun and I'm ready to use it”. In fact, the local gun shops here sell devices that will mimic that sound on the theory that, if someone is breaking in and they hear that, they may decide to go elsewhere. And certainly a properly loaded and used shotgun has great stopping power

But that's getting into the difference between home defense and personal defense.

... and not wander around with them, thinking they'll magically turn into Clint Eastwood the first time someone tries to rob them.

A weapon is no good unless you're willing and able to use it. You don't draw a gun to threaten with it (unless you're a bad guy), you pull it out to use it. Nothing is more ridiculous than some people I've run into who declare they couldn't bring themselves to actually shoot someone. Then why the fuck own a gun? If you pull it out and don't use it what's going to happen is the bad guy is either going to use his, or take yours away from you in which case you are now really fucked.

Well, really, there's more than one way to defend yourself. A gun is a really good one in many circumstances, but mishandled guns are also fucking dangerous. They're very effective at causing damage, that is both their strength and weakness.

[Alyeska]

For Aleyska and HDS -

Actually I was talking about gun clubs, as that's how it's mainly done over here (that cultural bias creeping in I'm afraid). That said I hadn't really considered the whole 'wide open spaces' problem. But I have no problem with them being properly and securely stored.

My main problem is with people carrying them and wanting to use them in public. I just can't see a need or concieve of them doing so safely - even police officers can be killed with their own weapons. What on earth makes people think they'll fare better with no training or experience?

Again I blame the perception that people have. 'Guns are dangerous, therefore I will be too dangerous to tackle if I have one.' It's wrong and very provably so.

Sounds like an entirely reasonable set of expectations on your part. Different cultures, different experiences. What works for one country doesn't necessarily work for another. But you have to be willing to consider alternative ideas. And some times its a compromise that makes no one happy.

As a classic example. Gun control laws that do good in a heavily urban environment might have very little affect on an extremely rural environment. Population density can have its own affect on crime as a whole. Urban areas have an incentive to consider more restrictive laws on any possible dangerous item while rural areas would be far less concerned about them. More urban countries will have different attitudes than more rural ones.

[Formless]

Which would be a good thing, since knifes are less efficient weapons than guns.

It's also ignoring the possiblity that criminals are using guns because they are the better weapon. If knifes were better, professional criminals would use them instead.

Quit acting like a trekkie. You have yet to establish that guns are better weapons for criminals than guns, and we've already supplied several potential * reasons it could be the other way around:

1) Knives are cheaper

2) Knives are more common, to the point where you have dozens in your kitchen right now

3) Knives can be more easily dumped with whatever other evidence of the crime the criminal wants to get rid of

4) Idiots don't feel as threatened by knives, making them more likely to get themselves hurt (in case you want to use that retarded "but guns are designed to hurt people! That's what they do!" crap)

And that's just the few that have already come up. Another few advantages would be that you don't need to reload a knife, that only an idiot would try to tackle a knife wielder (say if you had a crowd situation), they are silent killers, and so on and so forth. Again, give me EVIDENCE of this assertion, or concede it. Regardless of who is right about gun control, the last thing the debate needs is more ignorance surrounding the subject.

So you ARE making the argument that knifes are just as efficient as weapons as guns?

* POTENTIAL. POTENTIAL REASONS. I really shouldn't have to add such a disclaimer. And yet, here we are, you acting like an idiot and me having to explain to you what the burden of proof means.

We have already established that knives are routinely used as weapons by criminals in a culture where guns are a rarity (I.E. Britain), and we know from people who are trained in combat that a knife attack is no laughing matter. Hell, if you want proof of the latter look no farther than No Nonsense Self Defense. Your move. Your turn to make your case, or concede it, and no more of this trekkie style wall of ignorance bullshit.

Yes, for a lot of crimes, like mugging or rape, there is little to no difference between knifes and guns (and knifes might actually be more useful).
But could you commit a robbery with a knife? A bank robbery? I hardly think you can blame the fact that guns are used for those solely on the media.
Is it as easy to commit murder with a knife as it is with a gun?

Yes. In fact, murder laws were drafted in a time before guns, I hear. :rolls eyes:

Incidentially, you completely ignored part of the posts you quoted:
Rob said that criminals purchase guns (in the UK) for large-scale crimes. I don't think they could commit such large-scale crimes nearly as successfully without guns. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

See: the point that was made several times already that a knife wielder in a crowd could do comparable damage as a gun wielder (since, after all, guns =! magic wands of death). Also, every bomb plot or case of arson ever. This thread even went over a case where the bomb maker managed to get one into the motherfucking Pentagon for christsake. You don't need a gun to commit a spectacular crime or killing spree, to say nothing of the rarity of that kind of crime in the first place. You write laws with the most common kinds of offenses in mind, not the least, especially when writing laws as far reaching as gun control laws.

Frankly, i think it's ludicrous to look at the fact that guns are used widely by criminals if they have access to them and conclude "oh, they are just doing it because of the media". It's equally ludicrous to propose that guns are not better at killing or not more usefull for certain crimes than a knife.

Appeal to Incredulity. We already went over this: knives and clubs are more accessible than guns as a simple matter of fact, so there must be another reason criminals prefer guns when committing crimes. Also, I find it funny that you would entertain cultural factors elsewhere in this thread and others, but when they aren't convenient to your argument you start pulling out the fallacies.

[Formless]

So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

Exactly what metric are you using to define "dangerous" anyway?

Lethality and ease of use in crime would be two good was of going about it.

[Broomstick]

But could you commit a robbery with a knife? A bank robbery?

Serafina, it is now no longer required to have a weapon to commit a bank robbery in the US. Bank tellers are instructed to hand over money regardless of whether or not there is a weapon visible. In the US most bank robbers do not display a weapon, then simply hand a note to the teller with some variation of "This is a robbery. Give me all the money". Then the police and FBI rely on detective work to locate the robber, as well as such fun things as exploding dye packs concealed in stolen money that douse both currency and robber with indelible color that is hard to explain away when you are detained by police officers.

These days in the US bank robberies are one of the least violent types of crime around. Probably because the robbers now know no resistance will be offered, and thus there is no need for violence. It's not a good example for discussion in a thread about the US and guns, though I assume you'd have no way of knowing that in advance.

Of course they are, the only one you actively need a gun for is robbing a bank, because of the screens in the way. Though with a little thought you could just give the teller a picture of their loved one with a knife to their throat and rob the bank that way. Or he could just do it the old-fashioned way with the knife anyway.

Again - weapons of any kind are becoming rarer and rarer in US bank robberies. Most bank branches are doing away with screens and bullet proof windows. The system currently in use sounds crazy, but basically anyone who comes up and demands money is assumed to be serious and given money without resistance. So, bank robbers stopped carrying weapons so often, as they no longer needed them to accomplish their goal. In fact, it's not at all unusual to find that bank robbers claiming to have weapons either verbally or in writing are actually completely unarmed.

Bank robberies are, without a doubt, scary, but right now in the US you're less likely to get hurt in a bank robbery than in a lot of other situations.

Also, if caught, if you haven't made any direct threats to people and don't have a gun you're only charged with bank robbery, not gun crime, attempted assault, attempted murder, etc.

[General Zod]

So, lets hear it. What information do you have that doesn't boil down to a conviction that guns are dangerous?

Exactly what metric are you using to define "dangerous" anyway?

Lethality and ease of use in crime would be two good was of going about it.

Which begs the question of how are you defining lethality? If it's the sheer number of deaths, we've already gone over that.

[Alyeska]

I would like to add to what Broomstick has to say about bank robberies. Compliance while inside the building is key. It is absolutely not worth the risk to life and limb. That money is fully insured and the law enforcement investigations are extremely succesful.

The mere statement of a robbery of a bank is all that is required. Tellers that get creative in tricking the robber are actually rare and discouraged simply for the safety of all employees.

[Formless]

Which begs the question of how are you defining lethality? If it's the sheer number of deaths, we've already gone over that.

No, what I mean by lethality is probability of dying in an attack, all other things being equal. The statistics brought up so far only establish the total number of lethal attacks involving which weapons. That's completely different information. Basically, one is a tactical/clinical assessment of the weapon's effectiveness, the other simply tells you which you are more likely to face in a deadly encounter.

[General Zod]

Which begs the question of how are you defining lethality? If it's the sheer number of deaths, we've already gone over that.

No, what I mean by lethality is probability of dying in an attack, all other things being equal. The statistics brought up so far only establish the total number of lethal attacks involving which weapons. That's completely different information. Basically, one is a tactical/clinical assessment of the weapon's effectiveness, the other simply tells you which you are more likely to face in a deadly encounter.

All other things being equal whoever has the greatest range is going to be more deadly. I'm not sure what else you'd think you can use.

[Formless]

Which begs the question of how are you defining lethality? If it's the sheer number of deaths, we've already gone over that.

No, what I mean by lethality is probability of dying in an attack, all other things being equal. The statistics brought up so far only establish the total number of lethal attacks involving which weapons. That's completely different information. Basically, one is a tactical/clinical assessment of the weapon's effectiveness, the other simply tells you which you are more likely to face in a deadly encounter.

All other things being equal whoever has the greatest range is going to be more deadly. I'm not sure what else you'd think you can use.

Not necessarily. An attacker (especially a determined one who wants you dead) is going to prefer his victims be unaware that he is armed or even there until the last minute, and then its too late. Range can make a difference, and certainly its going to be hard to pull off an assassination of a public official like Gliffords with a knife's limitations. But in many situations, the criminals are going to alter their tactics to accommodated the weapon, rather than wishing it was a gun and giving up because its not.

[General Zod]

Not necessarily. An attacker (especially a determined one who wants you dead) is going to prefer his victims be unaware that he is armed or even there until the last minute, and then its too late. Range can make a difference, and certainly its going to be hard to pull off an assassination of a public official like Gliffords with a knife's limitations. But in many situations, the criminals are going to alter their tactics to accommodated the weapon, rather than wishing it was a gun and giving up because its not.

Now you're adding conditions after saying "all other things being equal"? Make up your mind.

[Broomstick]

Actually I was talking about gun clubs, as that's how it's mainly done over here (that cultural bias creeping in I'm afraid). That said I hadn't really considered the whole 'wide open spaces' problem. But I have no problem with them being properly and securely stored.

Yes, sometimes we forget we live in different environments.

Myself, for instance - I'm pretty damn close to the third largest city in the US, definitely in an urban area, and yet we have no city police coverage. I live in "unincorporated" Lake County, Indiana. The lowest level of government is county on my street, as we are not part of a city or town (I'm leaving out some complications here, but essentially that's the case). We get coverage by the county sheriff and his deputies, which are responsible for an area of 1,621 square kilometers and a population of a half million, ranging from the worst sort of decayed inner city (though that's mostly handled by the Gary city police) to rural farmland utilizing 174 patrol and investigation officers (there are other employees, but they are either desk jobs or running the country jail). Now, true, the heavy industrial areas - the steel mills and BP refinery - are considered such dangerous environments the companies do their own policing on those grounds not because of criminal problems but because a misstep in those places can kill you and cause horrific problems (yeah, steel mills and refineries are that dangerous) so that takes away a little area, though they still patrol/deal with problems on the streets and areas around those locations.

If I have a problem and there happens to be a deputy nearby they'll show up within a minute or two... but not always. We have had to wait as long as a half an hour. Again, this is in a fairly urban, built up area bordering rural territory. If the deputies are busy dealing with a gang setting up a meth lab in some farmer's field they may not be available to help me out with some asshole trying to steal my truck out of my driveway who is now threatening to knife me and mine (which did happen once upon a time). My local self defense laws are written with that consideration in mind, that a resident may have to protect him or herself or the family until police can get there, and that may take some time. That doesn't mean if you shoot someone in self defense there are no consequences - the matter WILL be investigated. If it isn't clear you may still wind up in front of a judge in a courtroom. If you overstep your legal limits you could wind up in jail yourself. It's not really a free-for-all.

My main problem is with people carrying them and wanting to use them in public. I just can't see a need or concieve of them doing so safely - even police officers can be killed with their own weapons. What on earth makes people think they'll fare better with no training or experience?

Well, different environments again. I agree, on a certain level the notion of people walking around an inner city while armed doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, the US has a diverse range of enviroments. I favor laws that fit the environment people operate within. As pointed out at length - rural Alaska is very different from Time Square in New York City, which is different again than Montana. And where I live is different than those three.

Again I blame the perception that people have. 'Guns are dangerous, therefore I will be too dangerous to tackle if I have one.' It's wrong and very provably so.

I've said for years that a gun is not a defense against bullets - a kevlar vest is.

[Formless]

Now you're adding conditions after saying "all other things being equal"? Make up your mind.

What do you think I mean by "all other things being equal"? I mean, the weapon is in the hands of an average criminal intent on committing a violent crime. Assassination is a special case, due to the level of security surrounding public officials. Obviously, for those you want whatever firepower and range you can get. But assassination attempts aren't common enough to warrant consideration when writing arms control laws, so they shouldn't be considered for the purposes of "which is more lethal".

[General Zod]

Now you're adding conditions after saying "all other things being equal"? Make up your mind.

What do you think I mean by "all other things being equal"? I mean, the weapon is in the hands of an average criminal intent on committing a violent crime. Assassination is a special case, due to the level of security surrounding public officials. Obviously, for those you want whatever firepower and range you can get. But assassination attempts aren't common enough to warrant consideration when writing arms control laws, so they shouldn't be considered for the purposes of "which is more lethal".

When someone says "all other things being equal" that means everything from the scenario to the respected 'skill' of the person using the weapon in question. I shouldn't have to explain this. The same scenarios with someone equally skilled in either weapon means whoever has the longest reach is going to do more damage.

[SCRawl]

I've left the worst of this in the HoS, after a sober second thought. Let's keep things a little more content-rich, shall we?

[Formless]

What scenario do you have in mind, Zod? A fight? Range matters in a fight because both parties know the other is around, and a threat. Violent criminals don't necessarily want a fight, they want a situation as much in their favor as possible. If the criminal is intent on killing you, they are going to get you in the back with lead or steel, depending on preference. If they just want your cooperation, then they really don't want a fight.

Also, it should be noted that as easy as it is to use a gun its almost impossible to go through life without at some point learning how to use a knife. You may not know how to use it in a fight specifically, but you probably can figure out which edge is sharp and which end is pointy. The rest explains itself pretty easily.

[Serafina]

So you ignored the evidence I linked to before. Way to go, it just makes you look daft rather than proving any point you may have. Here's the link again.

As far as i can see, that link only shows that the number of crimes commited with knifes is far higher than those commited with guns in the UK.
The question is: If he has equal access to both a knife and a gun, which weapon will a criminal chose? If he choses weapon A over weapon B because A is more suited for his purpose, reducing his access to A will hinder his work and therefore has merit.

Access is far more equal in the USA than in the UK, since it is much easier to obtain a gun in the USA. Statistics about the UK do not necessarily show that a criminal would pick a knife over a gun, since it is much harder to obtain a gun there and guns are far less widespread.

So you're ignoring the part of my post which described 4 large Stores being held up by people with knives.. That's one hell of a selective memory problem you have there. One could almost accuse you of deliberatelt ignoring any evidence that counters your argument. But surely you wouldn't do that would you??

Again, that does not show that they used knifes because those were their weapons of choice.
I also never claimed that it was impossibe to rob a store with a gun. I admit that the information given by Broomstick and others is new to me, but given that it is possible to do these robberies without any weapon at all, it does not exactly relate to the debate.


Again, my claim is this:
A criminal with a gun is more dangerous than one with a knife in many situations. Limiting criminal access to guns therefore reduces the danger posed by criminals, at least in regards to people getting killed.
My claim is further that a criminal with a knife has a harder time to kill someone than one with a gun, whether that kill is his main goal or secondary to the intended crime - this is simply because a gun is better at killing people than a knife. That doesn't mean that a knife can't be lethal - but you can nail a nail with a stone as well, it's simply easier with a hammer.

1) Knives are cheaper

This has nothing to do with effectivity once you have it.

2) Knives are more common, to the point where you have dozens in your kitchen right now

Same thing here.

3) Knives can be more easily dumped with whatever other evidence of the crime the criminal wants to get rid of

Again, this has nothing to do with lethality.

4) Idiots don't feel as threatened by knives, making them more likely to get themselves hurt (in case you want to use that retarded "but guns are designed to hurt people! That's what they do!" crap)

How the hell is the claim "guns are more lethal than knifes and make killing easier" crap? Please elaborate?

Your argument seems to be that we should be glad that criminals are using guns, and that criminals using guns somehow reduces the amount of people killed in crimes.

We have already established that knives are routinely used as weapons by criminals in a culture where guns are a rarity (I.E. Britain), and we know from people who are trained in combat that a knife attack is no laughing matter. Hell, if you want proof of the latter look no farther than No Nonsense Self Defense. Your move. Your turn to make your case, or concede it, and no more of this trekkie style wall of ignorance bullshit.

And this relates to the lethality of knifes and guns how exactly?

Yes. In fact, murder laws were drafted in a time before guns, I hear. :rolls eyes:

Again, how does that relate to my claim or this debate at all? I never claimed that you can not murder without a gun, now did i?

See: the point that was made several times already that a knife wielder in a crowd could do comparable damage as a gun wielder (since, after all, guns =! magic wands of death). Also, every bomb plot or case of arson ever. This thread even went over a case where the bomb maker managed to get one into the motherfucking Pentagon for christsake. You don't need a gun to commit a spectacular crime or killing spree, to say nothing of the rarity of that kind of crime in the first place. You write laws with the most common kinds of offenses in mind, not the least, especially when writing laws as far reaching as gun control laws.

Does he need equal skill in order to do so? Would he have been equally capable of killing his actual target (the senator in this case)? And since you love to talk about psychology - is a person equally likely to do something like that with a knife than if he had a gun?

Appeal to Incredulity. We already went over this: knives and clubs are more accessible than guns as a simple matter of fact, so there must be another reason criminals prefer guns when committing crimes. Also, I find it funny that you would entertain cultural factors elsewhere in this thread and others, but when they aren't convenient to your argument you start pulling out the fallacies.

Yes, that's what i have been saying, genius. That reason is simply that guns are more dangerous and lethal with equal skill. You are entirely ignoring this as a factor - apparently you assume that criminals are driven purely by cultural conceptions.

[General Zod]

What scenario do you have in mind, Zod? A fight? Range matters in a fight because both parties know the other is around, and a threat. Violent criminals don't necessarily want a fight, they want a situation as much in their favor as possible. If the criminal is intent on killing you, they are going to get you in the back with lead or steel, depending on preference. If they just want your cooperation, then they really don't want a fight.

Also, it should be noted that as easy as it is to use a gun its almost impossible to go through life without at some point learning how to use a knife. You may not know how to use it in a fight specifically, but you probably can figure out which edge is sharp and which end is pointy. The rest explains itself pretty easily.

If the criminals want it in their favor as much as possible, then why wouldn't they choose the gun over the knife, all things being equal?

[Formless]

Again, this has nothing to do with lethality.
...
Same thing here.
...
Again, this has nothing to do with lethality.

Oh, I get it. You're one of those idiots who thinks "effectiveness" of a weapon boils down to "how much damage does it do to the body, economics be damned". Yeah, by that standard you have to wonder why more criminals don't use hand grenades.

Does he need equal skill in order to do so?

The Columbine shooters managed to whip up their own homemade pipebombs, and while unreliable some of them did in fact detonate. They were teenagers and by all accounts pretty mental themselves. It doesn't take that much skill to create a destructive device, just to make one that's safe to handle.

Yes, that's what i have been saying, genius. That reason is simply that guns are more dangerous and lethal with equal skill. You are entirely ignoring this as a factor - apparently you assume that criminals are driven purely by cultural conceptions.

So I take it that you aren't going to show me that evidence I asked for.

[aerius]

What scenario do you have in mind, Zod? A fight? Range matters in a fight because both parties know the other is around, and a threat. Violent criminals don't necessarily want a fight, they want a situation as much in their favor as possible. If the criminal is intent on killing you, they are going to get you in the back with lead or steel, depending on preference. If they just want your cooperation, then they really don't want a fight.

If the criminals want it in their favor as much as possible, then why wouldn't they choose the gun over the knife, all things being equal?

Because blowing a guy's brains out makes a hell of a lot more noise than stabbing him through the throat. If the mugging gets to the point where the perp decides that the victim has to die, he's going to have a harder time getting away if everyone within a block hears the gunshot(s).

[Formless]

What scenario do you have in mind, Zod? A fight? Range matters in a fight because both parties know the other is around, and a threat. Violent criminals don't necessarily want a fight, they want a situation as much in their favor as possible. If the criminal is intent on killing you, they are going to get you in the back with lead or steel, depending on preference. If they just want your cooperation, then they really don't want a fight.

If the criminals want it in their favor as much as possible, then why wouldn't they choose the gun over the knife, all things being equal?

Because blowing a guy's brains out makes a hell of a lot more noise than stabbing him through the throat. If the mugging gets to the point where the perp decides that the victim has to die, he's going to have a harder time getting away if everyone within a block hears the gunshot(s).

Also because a gun is more expensive; with more effective gun laws this becomes even more pronounced, and so the criminals choose more cost effective means of committing crimes.