Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

[calvinhobbes]

That's not necessarily true and very dependent on the kinfe/gun in question.

I'm sorry, but which kind of knife can kill other people from across a room? Unless it's in the hand of a professional, the answer is "hardly any knife".

The main reason that is the case is because bullets are pretty small so unless you hit a major artery/vein or a vital organ like the heart or head you are essentially making a small hole* that you could bleed out of.

Again, beside the point. A knife can hardly ever be used to kill people from a distance. Any murderer who wants to kill with a knife must come into physical contact with his would-be victim. As for the "small hole", there are more than enough scenarios where the hole is not at all small... and you're also forgetting about the kinetic energy of a bullet travelling at several times the speed of sound.

A knife generally makes a much bigger hole and being a short range weapon can be used for a lot more "hits on target" than a gun.

How on earth can a gun not hit a target many times over? Have I missed the invention of semi-automatic kitchen knives that can turn a man's head into a colander in ten seconds?

P.S. your chances of survival if shot are 6/7, guns are not quite as deadly as movies (and some people) would have you believe.

They are as deadly as wars, mass shootings, gun rampages and so on would have me believe. As for 6/7: source, please, and I'd like to see one for knives, too. I have so far survived all injuries inflicted on me by kitchen knives, but that doesn't make it a valid statistic.

No, a gun is also a tool.

So many don't seem to understand this. An object is a weapon when it is used as such, not until.

Excluding blanks that you may have fired: when was the last time either of you used a gun for anything but delivering potentially lethal bullets to a target?

This is so incredible. Instead of agreeing to a reasonable approach to gun control (tracking them and banning the most dangerous one), people actually believe this *** about guns not being dangerous.

 

[Spectre]

I'm sorry, but which kind of knife can kill other people from across a room? Unless it's in the hand of a professional, the answer is "hardly any knife".

I can think of at least six off hand, and that's with novice users.

Again, beside the point. A knife can hardly ever be used to kill people from a distance. Any murderer who wants to kill with a knife must come into physical contact with his would-be victim. As for the "small hole", there are more than enough scenarios where the hole is not at all small... and you're also forgetting about the kinetic energy of a bullet travelling at several times the speed of sound.

And you're forgetting that more people die from knives in the US than were killed by so-called 'assault rifles' (or indeed, any rifle) from 1976 running.

And you're forgetting that unless it actually hits a bone or other conditions are met, a bullet usually makes a nice, neat relatively small permanent wound channel. Hydrostatic shock being what it is in human flesh, what you see in Hollywood is nowhere near accurate.

How on earth can a gun not hit a target many times over? Have I missed the invention of semi-automatic kitchen knives that can turn a man's head into a colander in ten seconds?

When the person operating it is injured, stupid or lacks skill. When I was a teenager in LA, I witnessed numerous driveby shootings. Most of the time they emptied the magazine in whatever they were using. Most of the time they also hit absolutely nobody in their target area.

They are as deadly as wars, mass shootings, gun rampages and so on would have me believe. As for 6/7: source, please, and I'd like to see one for knives, too. I have so far survived all injuries inflicted on me by kitchen knives, but that doesn't make it a valid statistic.

The knives vs rifles stats have already been posted upthread. The numbers on surviving a gunshot wound vary, but some sources estimate as much as 95% chance if you get to a doctor quickly: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0

Guns are not nearly as lethal in their actual employment as the media would have you believe. Especially when you realize that in recent wars, literally thousands of rounds have to be fired to get just one kill. Again, stat is posted upthread.

Excluding blanks that you may have fired: when was the last time either of you used a gun for anything but delivering potentially lethal bullets to a target?

Three weeks ago for me. Shotguns are versatile things. In addition to shot, they can throw slugs, line launching projectiles, rubber rounds, tear gas, tazers (yes, tazers), flares, gel rounds... list goes on and on.

This is so incredible. Instead of agreeing to a reasonable approach to gun control (tracking them and banning the most dangerous one), people actually believe this *** about guns not being dangerous.

No, that's not what they're saying. What they are saying is that guns are no more or less dangerous than a host of other tools that are readily available. Note the enormous mass murders using machetes in the Southern Hemisphere, for example.

The most 'dangerous' in terms of firearm that kills the most people in the US is not any rifle or shotgun class. It's handguns - and not the rifles and shotguns these people want to ban.

 

[prizrak]

This is so incredible. Instead of agreeing to a reasonable approach to gun control (tracking them and banning the most dangerous one), people actually believe this *** about guns not being dangerous.

Explosives are more dangerous than guns yet they can be legally purchased with relative ease, no one is talking about that. Also the worst mass murder in NY history was done without using any guns, it was arson...

How on earth can a gun not hit a target many times over? Have I missed the invention of semi-automatic kitchen knives that can turn a man's head into a colander in ten seconds?

It's not that easy to hit a target with a gun, especially if its outside, especially if its moving there are a lot of factors. If you are close enough to use a knife and you feel like stabbing repeatedly you pretty much going to have a 100% accuracy.

They are as deadly as wars, mass shootings, gun rampages and so on would have me believe.

Don't forget that wars use quite a bit more hardware than simple guns, there are really big guns, there are missiles, there are bombs, there is insane mass of fire, etc...

As for 6/7: source, please,

[video=youtube;tku8YI68-JA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tku8YI68-JA[/video]

 

[LeVeL]

I'm sorry, but which kind of knife can kill other people from across a room? Unless it's in the hand of a professional, the answer is "hardly any knife".

What does being across a room have to do with anything? Aside from the fact that knives can be thrown.

... and you're also forgetting about the kinetic energy of a bullet travelling at several times the speed of sound.

Alluding to what, that you might fall and hit your head?

How on earth can a gun not hit a target many times over? Have I missed the invention of semi-automatic kitchen knives that can turn a man's head into a colander in ten seconds?

A gun has a limited number of rounds. A knife can be used a theoretically infinite number of times.

They are as deadly as wars, mass shootings, gun rampages and so on would have me believe. As for 6/7: source, please, and I'd like to see one for knives, too. I have so far survived all injuries inflicted on me by kitchen knives, but that doesn't make it a valid statistic.

In 2009, number of homicides using a knife: 1,825. Number of homicides using a rifle (including evil assault weapons): 348.

Excluding blanks that you may have fired: when was the last time either of you used a gun for anything but delivering potentially lethal bullets to a target?

I've never used a gun in an attempt to deliver a "lethal bullet" and I hope I never do. I prefer to shoot at paper.

This is so incredible. Instead of agreeing to a reasonable approach to gun control (tracking them and banning the most dangerous one), people actually believe this *** about guns not being dangerous.

Define "the most dangerous" gun. Because more people get beaten to death with fists every year than shot with assault weapons. As for tracking them... do you really want me to address that ignorant comment? What's truly incredible is that this has all been discussed numerous times in this thread and the gun control advocates typically neither refute these points with any factual data nor admit to being wrong; they tend to simply change the topic and try a different angle.

 

[MadCat360]

No, that's not what they're saying. What they are saying is that guns are no more or less dangerous than a host of other tools that are readily available. Note the enormous mass murders using machetes in the Southern Hemisphere, for example.

So would you be okay with throwing away all the long rifles in our military in favor of replacing them with machetes, because they are just as lethal?

 

[Spectre]

So would you be okay with throwing away all the long rifles in our military in favor of replacing them with machetes, because they are just as lethal?

In an absolute sense, they are just as dangerous - dead is dead, after all, and both can kill a person - but it's the details that differ. Inside 21 feet, a machete *is* more dangerous than a rifle. But outside that, not so much. If you can solidly guarantee me that no trooper would be forced to engage an enemy outside 21 feet in the infinite and endless future, yes, I would support that.

But then, you don't use a screwdriver when a wrench would be a better choice and you don't use a hammer when scalpels are called for. All are tools, all are dangerous if used with such intent. Oh, and by the way? All of the implements I have mentioned above have been used to murder people.

 

[MadCat360]

In an absolute sense, they are just as dangerous - dead is dead, after all, and both can kill a person - but it's the details that differ. Inside 21 feet, a machete *is* more dangerous than a rifle. But outside that, not so much. If you can solidly guarantee me that no trooper would be forced to engage an enemy outside 21 feet in the infinite and endless future, yes, I would support that.

Then why do these men use their carbines? Why don't they use their knives, or at least a firearm that is more maneuverable, like the M9?

 

[Spectre]

Then why do these men use their carbines? Why don't they use their knives, or at least a firearm that is more maneuverable, like the M9?

Because like everything else, machetes (and indeed, any tool) has strong points and weak points. You need enough room to swing or thrust a machete, which you might not get inside a building. Your opponents can't be armed with distance weapons (and be at a distance) if you have a machete and you can't guarantee that in the current era. Using that carbine is a compromise to get the job done while trying to cover as many bases and potentialities as possible. Then there's the matter of training and logistics.

That said, Philippine Marines train with the bolo, a cousin of the machete, as an active combat art. (And you can ask the US Marines who've trained against them as to how effective that is - many Marines who thought their rifle reigned supreme in close quarters have had their eyes opened by that.) So do other nations - and our own Marines are taught knife fighting as well as some duty stations maintaining M1917/M1941 cutlasses as potential duty gear. Further, US SEALs have been known to carry swords and other variants on the idea of a 'long knife' along *on missions* because they were the best tool for the job.

As for the M9, that's because most current training does not really emphasize the pistol very much other than as a last ditch backup. And because the M9 isn't actually very effective. There are reports of soldiers emptying their entire M9 magazine into an attacker to no apparent effect - which is why many commands are screaming for the .45 ACP to be brought back. The Marines in the form of MARSOC and MEUSOC have actually done that with the M45 CQBP, but Army command was uninterested in the idea - so the known-ineffective and problematic M9 soldiers on despite the fact that the soldiers hate it. The good news is that the Army has fiiiiinally decided to replace it and is currently holding a competition for its successor.

 

[Spectre]

And before I forget, remember the US special ops forces who were first-in in Afghanistan and Iraq? They carried rifles... and swords. Per some reports, the swords were more effective than the rifles in a number of cases.

In Afghanistan, a country we think of in somewhat medieval terms, our special forces have taken a page from the past, from the history of the horse cavalry with our soldiers armed with swords and rifles, maneuvering on horseback.

It's all about the best tool for the job at hand.

 

[MadCat360]

Carrying anything as a backup or for a very specific situation does not make that item more effective than your primary. If the primary (in this case, a carbine) is used for and handles the majority of situations encountered, this automatically makes it more useful than any of the secondary items (grenades, knives, pistols, etc).

Cars are equipped with a parking brake which is very good for holding a car stationary, or can be used in the event of total primary brake failure, or as a supplement to the 4-wheel system. This does not make the parking brake an equally effective brake as the 4-wheel discs - the discs are quantifiably better at pulling energy out of the car, just like a carbine is quantifiably more effective at putting people out of action in more situations than a knife.

 

[Spectre]

Tell that to the Rwandans. 800,000 deaths by machete in 1994 alone. The Rwandan AK rifles didn't kill even a tenth as many people.

And that's no typo. Eight. Hundred. Thousand. People. Killed by machete.

Which is more than all our casualties from the last four wars the US was in. What was that about machetes not being as dangerous again?

 

[prizrak]

Then why do these men use their carbines? Why don't they use their knives, or at least a firearm that is more maneuverable, like the M9?

Why don't they use grenade launchers? After all a grenade launcher produces way more destruction than a rifle. Why do they use a shotgun for opening doors? After all a pack of C4 would blow up the door much harder. Why don't they just drive a tank through the building? Why don't they just fly a drone armed with a smart bomb and destroy the building from within?

- - - Updated - - -

Cars are equipped with a parking brake which is very good for holding a car stationary, or can be used in the event of total primary brake failure, or as a supplement to the 4-wheel system. This does not make the parking brake an equally effective brake as the 4-wheel discs - the discs are quantifiably better at pulling energy out of the car, just like a carbine is quantifiably more effective at putting people out of action in more situations than a knife.

Except that if you ever watch rally videos they use the e-brake a whole lot to get the back end to kick out and go through a corner, same for drifters. So there are situations where an e-brake is MORE effective than standard brake. Again, right tool for the right job...

EDIT: Also keep in mind the tactics of modern warfare one of the reasons why fully automatic weapons are a requirement in the modern military is cover fire. You want the enemies to keep their heads down so you can get up close and eliminate them.

@Spectre
You also forgot that every single combat unit is trained in hand to hand unarmed combat, in fact special forces units get more advanced instructions in how to use their body as a weapon than their guns.

 

[MadCat360]

Why don't they use grenade launchers? After all a grenade launcher produces way more destruction than a rifle. Why do they use a shotgun for opening doors? After all a pack of C4 would blow up the door much harder. Why don't they just drive a tank through the building? Why don't they just fly a drone armed with a smart bomb and destroy the building from within?

Because there is a hostage and he needs to be alive. You're probably not familiar with that particular incident in Panama.

Except that if you ever watch rally videos they use the e-brake a whole lot to get the back end to kick out and go through a corner, same for drifters. So there are situations where an e-brake is MORE effective than standard brake. Again, right tool for the right job...

Using the hand brake as a supplement to the 4-wheel discs does not make it a better braking system. I think you need to take a basic logic course, and maybe reading comprehension.

Tell that to the Rwandans. 800,000 deaths by machete in 1994 alone. The Rwandan AK rifles didn't kill even a tenth as many people.

And that's no typo. Eight. Hundred. Thousand. People. Killed by machete.

Which is more than all our casualties from the last four wars the US was in. What was that about machetes not being as dangerous again?

That is shy of the mark. The prevalence of a weapon within a given country has a massive impact on the number of people they are used to kill as a collective. That prevalence is not only affected by it's ability to do so.

 

[prizrak]

Because there is a hostage and he needs to be alive. You're probably not familiar with that particular incident in Panama.

Using the hand brake as a supplement to the 4-wheel discs does not make it a better braking system. I think you need to take a basic logic course, and maybe reading comprehension.

I think you might want to take a course in basic reading comprehension as you missed the point entirely, both of those points are exactly the same right tool for the right job. A grenade launcher is not the right tool for the former and 4-wheel braking is not the right tool for the latter.

 

[MadCat360]

I think you might want to take a course in basic reading comprehension as you missed the point entirely, both of those points are exactly the same right tool for the right job. A grenade launcher is not the right tool for the former and 4-wheel braking is not the right tool for the latter.

I consistently scored in the top 1% in the country in a variety of reading comprehension tests. I think I can handle it.

The basic lack of logic to both of your arguments is like arguing with religious zealots. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The effectiveness of a tool in a specific situation has little to do with it's overall capability. If tool A is effective in situation A, and tool B is effective in situation B, and tool C is effective in situations A, B, and C, then tool C is the most effective. The overlap also does not matter, because again, as long as one tool is effective at doing more things, then it is more effective. Even if tool C was effective in situations X, Y, and Z, it would still be quantifiably more effective than either tool A or B, just not at doing task A or B. If you found enough metrics to quantify, a train could be directly compared to a firearm as to it's effectiveness, and you would be able to say which was more effective at doing it's job. Luckily there is more overlap in the current subjects, since we are talking about weapons.

Again, because a soldier trains with his hands and feet and carries a knife, that does not mean his rifle is an equally effective weapon. The rifle is there to perform in the most situations possible, as Spectre said in the quoted below. The fists and knives are there for the specific situations that can arise where a rifle is not a very good choice or not available.

Using that carbine is a compromise to get the job done while trying to cover as many bases and potentialities as possible.

However, a rifle capable of engaging from 2 to 800 meters is quantifiably able to put down more people in a fight than a knife with a range of (according to Spectre) 21 feet. If the knife is able to engage combatants A, B, and C; the pistol able to engage B, C, D and E; and the rifle able to engage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, then the rifle is the most effective.

Naturally, the best idea is to carry all of them. But the rifle is the most adaptable and the most dangerous to the enemy.

 

[prizrak]

I consistently scored in the top 1% in the country in a variety of reading comprehension tests. I think I can handle it.

The basic lack of logic to both of your arguments is like arguing with religious zealots. There's a bit of cognitive dissonance.

The effectiveness of a tool in a specific situation has little to do with it's overall capability. If tool A is effective in situation A, and tool B is effective in situation B, and tool C is effective in situations A, B, and C, then tool C is the most effective. The overlap also does not matter, because again, as long as one tool is effective at doing more things, then it is more effective. Even if tool C was effective in situations X, Y, and Z, it would still be quantifiably more effective than either tool A or B, just not at doing task A or B. If you found enough metrics to quantify, a train could be directly compared to a firearm as to it's effectiveness, and you would be able to say which was more effective at doing it's job. Luckily there is more overlap in the current subjects, since we are talking about weapons.

Again, because a soldier trains with his hands and feet and carries a knife, that does not mean his rifle is an equally effective weapon. The rifle is there to perform in the most situations possible, as Spectre said in the quoted below. The fists and knives are there for the specific situations that can arise where a rifle is not a very good choice or not available.




However, a rifle capable of engaging from 2 to 800 meters is quantifiably able to put down more people in a fight than a knife with a range of (according to Spectre) 21 feet. If the knife is able to engage combatants A, B, and C; the pistol able to engage B, C, D and E; and the rifle able to engage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, then the rifle is the most effective.

Naturally, the best idea is to carry all of them. But the rifle is the most adaptable and the most dangerous to the enemy.

You are making a logical fallacy here, while a rifle CAN be used for a wide range of situations it doesn't necessarily make it a better or more effective weapon. Again a grenade launcher is a more effective (in terms of damage) than a rifle but it wouldn't work very well in a hostage situation. Additionally there are many types of rifles, the Carbine is a pretty good overall rifle but if you look at weapons most units that have to do closed quarters combat carry they tend to be more of a fast shooting pistol than a rifle (MP5 as an example).

Point we are making here is that all weapons are deadly and many things that aren't generally thought of as weapons can and are often also very deadly. When you talk about banning/regulating a specific type of weapon you have to look at the impact. As posted above rifles result in a tiny fraction of deaths, not just compared to other firearms but also compared to other types of weapons. Even if banning/regulating rifles WOULD stop 100% of rifle killings you are talking about less than 300 people a year?

EDIT: Was running out the door and didn't put down all the thoughts I had. Another thing to consider is that most weapons tend to be standardized among the branches of service outside of special operations teams. So these guys could be using the particular rifle because that is what the branch is using and that is what they are most used to, it is not necessarily the best tool for the job, just good enough.

 

[Spectre]

The effectiveness of a tool also has little to do with whether it is dangerous or not, another logical fallacy.

It should also be noted that many retired SEALs are on record as saying they have killed more people with knives than they have with firearms.

And further, the M4 has an effective range of about 300-400 meters. Not 800. Which means that unless they have a different tool on hand, if they encounter someone firing at them from 800 their M4 is just so much useless junk. Again, right tool for right job - each tool is lethal within its own certain envelope of operation. But that doesn't make the M24 sniping system 'more dangerous' than the M4 or the M4 'more dangerous' than a machete. Each is equally dangerous in that they can kill and they have their own advantages and disadvantages.

 

[MadCat360]

You are making a logical fallacy here, while a rifle CAN be used for a wide range of situations it doesn't necessarily make it a better or more effective weapon.

Hardly a logical fallacy - call it by name. Given a blind situation you would do well to choose the one weapon that would cover the widest range of situations. You would do better to carry many, making you more lethal overall by being able to handle more situations, but there are diminishing rewards there because not all weapons offer the same versatility. Plus, you know, carrying weight and stuff.

That's why combatants carry many weapons - to cover a wide range of situations, making the combatant more effective overall. This idea that all weapons are equally capable is absurd.

The effectiveness of a tool also has little to do with whether it is dangerous or not, another logical fallacy.

If we were talking about a coffee mug, maybe. But we are talking about a weapon, which is primarily used as such. It's usefulness is directly tied to how lethal it is. The nice thing about logic is calling it untrue or fallacious does not make it so.

It should also be noted that many retired SEALs are on record as saying they have killed more people with knives than they have with firearms.

Backing up an accusation of fallacy with an appeal to authority. Nice. Anecdotes aren't evidence.

And further, the M4 has an effective range of about 300-400 meters. Not 800. Which means that unless they have a different tool on hand, if they encounter someone firing at them from 800 their M4 is just so much useless junk. Again, right tool for right job - each tool is lethal within its own certain envelope of operation. But that doesn't make the M24 sniping system 'more dangerous' than the M4 or the M4 'more dangerous' than a machete. Each is equally dangerous in that they can kill and they have their own advantages and disadvantages.

300-400 meters is still a lot more than 21 feet. My point still stands - an M4 is capable of engaging more potential targets than a knife. It is more dangerous as a weapon.

This is turning boring again. I think I've presented enough. The readers can decide.

 

[argatoga]

Backing up an accusation of fallacy with an appeal to authority. Nice. Anecdotes aren't evidence.

Why don't you consider Navy SEALs authorities? An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when the authority has not been proven so.


I would argue that the opinions of Navy Seals can be used as evidence, I wouldn't accept it alone as absolute but I see it as valid. A study would be a stronger piece of evidence however.


I may not have tested in the top 1% in reading comprehension tests, but I do hold a BA in a degree that is founded on critical argument.

 

[MadCat360]

Why don't you consider Navy SEALs authorities? An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when the authority has not been proven so.

The fallacy is that no authority can be correct 100% of the time.