You mean a reference? I did have. I’ll see if I can find them again. However as I have pointed out, all such statistics are inherently unreliable. We quite simply have no way of obtaining reliable data on this subject. You certainly can not justify your claim that knives are less effective when your own reference includes scissors and broken glass as a knife. That’s like including replica handguns and water pistols in the figures for handgun assaults.
No, it definitely doesn’t mean “you are maximizing the number of assaults with firearms while lessening the number of assaults with knives”. It means that people are far less likely to receive treatment at all for gunshot wounds unless they are life threatening. Because people can’t lie about the causes of gunshot wounds many criminals with minor wounds will let it heal by itself. IOW the only gunshot wounds seen by hospitals will be serious. That will of course increase the number that are fatal.
Whether it makes gun lethality more accurate or not is a separate issue because you are trying to compare guns to knives. Gun fatalities can be 99.999% accurate and you still can’t do any comparison because you have good reason to suspect that knife stats are out by an order of magnitude.
It may, or it may not. A strong young man may be more likely to make a lethal attack with a knife, or he may be more intimidating and thus not need to use the weapon at all to conduct a robbery. In contrast a weedy 60yo may be more likely to be confronted by his victim and more likely to be forced to fire. You could make a case for either outcome and there is no evidence either way.
The problem is that you acknowledge these flaws in the statistics exist, but you want to assume they will all result in knives appearing more lethal. Of course you have no evidence for such a conclusion.
No, it wouldn’t. You clearly have not read your own statistics.
They don’t say that knives are 5 times less lethal than guns. They say that all cutting weapons, including scissors, nail-files, broken glass and some knives are 5 times les likely to result in a lethal assault.
No, you have one study that says that 5*CEW=D/A. CEW = Cutting edged weapon. You have no studies at all that suggest that knives are 5 times less lethal. So please stop making that claim until you have some evidence to support it.
The trouble is that once again you haven’t read your own statistics. The one study that gives methodology make sit quite clear that it only deals with aggravated assaults. That is, it only deals with those assaults causing actual bodily harm. It does not deal with assaults where shots were fired and nobody was injured.
Now if you doubt that most handgun ‘assaults’ will resulting shots being fired and nobody being struck then show us your reasoning or evidence for that conclusion.
This proves that you haven’t read or understood the statistics you quoted. Your own reference says quite clearly that they deal with “aggravated assaults known to the police” and that it is at the “discretion in the … to record known assaults ranging from criminal threats of injury with weapons, to assaults producing very minor injuries, to assaults producing potentially lethal trauma”. An attack where shots are fired and nobody is injured is not an aggravated assault if the police feel it is not an assault or if the victim simply flees before the police arrives (gee, would a criminal wait around to lodge a police report?). You quite clearly haven’t even made a cursory attempt to understand the statistics you are quoting. I even highlighted this for you in an earlier thread.
And I think that the authors of the studies themselves have said outright that these possible inaccuracies are of concern and at best the data they use are at best “the best available”. The authors think these effects are of concern. It is you who have insisted on simply ignoring them or claiming they will skew the stats in your favour.
Cite. You have made that clam several times now. Please provide the name of the studies (plural) that show 5 times lethality of gun assaults versus knives. You are simply making that up. You haven’t even got one study that shows such a thing, much les multiple studies.
No, you’d just need someone posting who hadn’t actually read their own references, and instead relied on a single category in a chart. If that poster had read their references they would realise that chart wasn’t referring to knives but instead to all assaults with cutting implements, whether knives, scissors, broken glass or nail files. The major inaccuracy is with that poster understanding.
Cite. Please provide one reference that makes such a claim.
Dude there is little point debating you when you make wild claims like this with absolutely no evidence.
You are simply making shit up. You don’t actually have any evidence that people with bullet wounds are more likely to die than those with knife wounds, do you?
At best you have one study that shows that people reporting to hospital emergency rooms with bullet wounds that are a self-reported as being received from assaults are more likely to die than people reporting to hospital emergency rooms with laceration wounds that are a self-reported as being received from assaults.
Gee, now that’s not quite the same thing as your claim, now is it. SO please provide a reference for your claim.
I never said a knife was a less effective weapon for any reason. I said that a knife is a less preferred weapon. Do you not understand the difference between effectiveness and user preference?
Treis before you respond can you please read my previous post and read your own references so you understand what you are actually talking about. If you claim that “people with bullet wounds are more likely to die than those with knife wounds” one more time without a reference then I am going to declare this debate resolved against you. It will show that you quite clearly haven’t even grasped the information you yourself have provided.
