Scale of damage and the ability to inflict mass casualties from a distance.
Without the numbers you are using I can’t tell but be careful.
One of the reasons I use homicide is that it is a very well reported and similarly defined crime.
Compare this to “violent crimes” where the the British Crime Survey uses victim surveys and the US DOJ numbers “BJS” use crimes reported to police. Also both countries count different crimes as “violent” The US does have the National Crime Victimization Survey “NCVS” is a survey but only includes assault, rape, and robbery in “violent crimes”. In the US BJS which uses police reports they include aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. So most comparisons will be wrong without adjustment because they are measuring different things in different ways.
But lets look at assault and rape
Compared to Switzerland, the country with the highest civilian gun ownership rate in Western Europe, You are 180% more likely to be assaulted in England and 50% more likely to be raped. And their homicide rate is about half of England+Wales.
Heck in 1993 there were NO reported armed robberies in Geneva! How does this happen with 45.7 firearms per 100 people (vs. 88 in the US and 6.2 in England+Wales)
So to answer your question I would say you would need to dig in why the people are murdering each other but I do not have a full answer for you, if you have the data please share it.
I debate to learn about my own beliefs more than to push an agenda.
It’s easier and more likely to be successful. Even if the person isn’t even particularly trying to kill you; a mugger who shoots you and runs off is more likely to kill you than one who stabs or punches you and runs off. It’s much easier to accidentally kill people with a gun; you aren’t likely to accidentally stab or beat some friend or relative to death thinking they are a burglar, but that’s easy with a gun.
So just pure potential? Nothing to do with practical rates of crime and death?
You said:
Bans didn’t significantly reduce homicides in England or in Australia, and I don’t even think there is a correlation with an increase in violent crimes but homicides pretty much require “lethal” and if their numbers don’t go down because of the band I would say the ban failed.
But on the topic of “lethality.” Would you also call to ban the sale of gasoline? A gallon of gasoline packs the explosive power of 14 sticks of dynamite.
I also guess this means you want to ban most hunting rifles which far out power and out range these “assault weapons” and have been used successfully in mass killings?
Or Bolt action 22LR rifles and break action shotguns?
Also you will want to ban 22 caliber pistols and 10 round center fire pistols which have the highest body count yet in US school shooting history?
If these “military grade” weapons are so dangerous why are they not used to vastly increase the damage these monsters try to inflict?
Cites please. With numbers if you must because several of your claimed situations there are in the “rare to ever happen” pile IMHO.
It’s absolutely absurd that you require cites for things like this.
What…when I have provided cites that have shown that the correlation doesn’t exist.
Maybe people who want to murder other people make sure they can murder people?
I find it is silly to dismiss a claim when I have given cites that show that rates are have not been greatly changed in other places?
Cite: Will fix with better link in followup post
Or are you arguing that it is such a truism in your mind that the unsubstantiated assumption is too divine to be questioned in a forum that is called the “Great Debates”?
You want a cite that a gunshot is more damaging than a punch? You want a cite that using a gun is easier than using a knife to kill someone? You want a cite that accidental shootings are deadlier than accidental knifings? You want a cite that it’s easier to mistake a target at range as opposed to hand-to-hand distance?
Absurd.
Well the free PDF verision is gone now, here it is on a pay for site.
Obviously, the military should ditch those silly little rifles and use knives instead. Unstoppable engines of destruction, they are!
No, that murders are are reduced or prevented by reducing the number of firearms legally owned by the public.
I have provided cites where massive gun confiscations and bans have failed to reduce the homicide rate by a significant amount.
Although the stabbings may be semi relevant to pistols but I am not claiming so. Pistols are like drills and not some massive talisman of destruction as you claim.
Also.
What is the odds that a pistol being shot at a victim will hit that victim vs. the completion rate of a stabbing.
Same thing for a blunt object. A Pistol may be more deadly if you hit the heart of the CNS but how hard it it to hit those small targets vs hitting a persons head with a baseball bat?
I am not offering these numbers up as typical in the following cite but if they were a handgun is only about twice as deadly with the unlikely chance you are shot in the heart.
[
](http://jtcs.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/1/119)
So if murders were twice as likely to hit the heart in a stabbing vs. a shooting the danger to the victim very well could be at the same risk of death.
So don’t pretend it is all trivial knowledge. If it is the data I ask for should be trivial to provide.
Pro tip: Strawman are best left on the field of corn, they are pretty useless in debates.
Or are you claiming that Murders in the US are held on the field of battle?
I don’t know if you’re using Pyramid Inches or something, but here in the US a yard is 3 feet, and 7 yards is 21 feet, and even Wilt Chamberlain’s arms were only about 3.5 feet long. So no, a knife isn’t very dangerous at that distance.
And surely you weren’t talking about throwing it. Although every knife ever thrown in the movies ends up sticking in something, it’s actually very difficult to get the pointy end first into a moving target, or even a stationary target at an unknown distance any more than a few feet. Other than real pros, any knife thrower sticking a knife into a target consistently has likely practiced at that exact distance for a while.
Perhaps you were thinking of a javelin?
I know they teach police that at some distance, a knife wielding attacker can get to you before he is likely to drop from you shooting him. He probably means that.
It’s still utter nonsense to assume that a knife is anywhere near as dangerous as a gun.
It takes1.5 seconds foran attackerto move 21 feet. Nobody is talking about throwing a knife.
Trying to run away from or block a knife vs. Trying to run away from or block a bullet.
Do the math.
It is still much, much easier to shoot someone. And harder to defend against. And not everyone can move 7 yards in 1.5 seconds. And sometimes there is shit on the ground.
The fact that someone can run to you in 1.5 seconds doesn’t mean it isn’t better to have a gun.
Make sure you experts let the experts in those articles know that they are full of shit. M’kay?
Further, if you want to test that theory of how easy it is to shoot a gun accurately at 21 feet, send me an email and I’ll take you to shoot a round or two of IPSC. I live in Iowa, and I promise it will be safe and fun.
Life or death situation 21 feet away, and you’d rather have a knife than a gun.