Knives Don’t Kill People as Effectively As Guns, And NEVER By Mistake

Let see:
Adam Lanza shot 26 people in five minutes. NOBODY LIVED!
Dylan Quick stabbed 14 people in 15-20 minutes. NOBODY DIED.
Knives Don't Kill People As Well As Guns Kill People

I’m sick and tired of the “guns don’t kill people; people do” mantra. Its too stupid for words.

If it ain’t a hunting rifle, it was designed for a singular purpose, to give a human being the ability to kill another human being. The same cannot be said about spoons, knives, cars, hammers or hamburgers.

I’d like to see a 4-year-old kill a 6-year-old, or the wife of a Tennessee Sheriff’s Deputy or a 3-year-old, his own father, with a knife.

Guns Don't Kill; they just make it easier.

And these people are stupid.
Knives are Not Guns

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. #1 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 12:36 pm

    No body died at Lonestar College; does that mean you are okay with people being cut and injured by mentally ill as long as (s)he doesn’t kill them?

    Why don’t you focus on the aspect of mental illness instead of the tools the attackers used?

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 3:34 pm

    At Least 4 People Have Been Shot by Toddlers Since Last Weekend.

    Life in America, the most heavily-armed nation on Earth.

  3. #3 by Nathan Erkkila on April 11, 2013 - 4:12 pm

    Bob S. While a knife can kill (Trust me it can), a knife has the disadvantage of range and when you are close to your target, the target can fight back. With a gun however, there is no unarmed/hand to hand combat or martial art technique ever invented in history that can disarm a gun outside of grabbing range. In short, a gun is more effective the further away you are from the target. With the knife attack, everyone was able to defend themselves effectively enough to save their lives. In the case of shootings such as Jared Loughner, they were only able to subdue him after he ran out of ammo and lost his advantage of range.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on April 11, 2013 - 6:29 pm

    No doubt about it: bullets are much faster then any other projectile that you can carry around or drive.

    Once I accidentally stabbed myself in the hand with a screwdriver when I was in a big hurry to fix a piece of equipment at work, but I didn’t die.

    Time for the gun people to start a campaign, questioning whether anybody died at the stabbings.

  5. #5 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 8:43 pm

    Nathan,

    a knife has the disadvantage of range and when you are close to your target, the target can fight back

    You say that like it is a bad thing. Many criminals also use knives; are you saying that their victims should be forced to either use knives or hand to hand combat?

    I’m in decent shape for nearly 50 with slightly arthritic knees and chronic asthma. I don’t want to fight hand to hand with a criminal. Much less have someone like my wife or my 77 year old mother in law be.

    In short, a gun is more effective the further away you are from the target.

    Not necessarily, there is an effective range for any firearm. Most people just aren’t accurate out passed 25 yards or so.
    But again, this is not a draw back. Do you think a criminal is going to care if he is up close or far away? He or she is still going to break the law.

    . With the knife attack, everyone was able to defend themselves effectively enough to save their lives.

    And how much more effective could — I’ll freely admit we don’t know in this case –could have their self defense have been if one or more of them were armed with a firearm?

    On Page 26 of the Student Conduct for the college, it prohibits students from assaulting one another. There is also a law about assaulting another person.
    Neither student rule or law stopped him.. people willing to fight back did. Even those that fought were still injured. I personally would prefer people to have a better means of self defense then hand to hand combat with a knife wielding mentally ill person.

    Why do you want to make it harder for people to defend themselves?

    they were only able to subdue him after he ran out of ammo and lost his advantage of range.

    Those people who tackled him didn’t rush in from dozens of yards away, they were standing right next to him.

    Again….the stand off range of a firearm is a benefit. They could have — again note the words — could have engaged him without having to wait for him to bobble reloading his pistol.

    Jean Assam of New Hope Church in Colorado did that and shot the murderer in the church; stopping his attack much sooner. She didn’t have to get in physical contact with him to do it.

    So why do you want to make it harder for people to stop criminals?

  6. #6 by Larry Bergan on April 11, 2013 - 10:04 pm

    Bob S.:

    Wouldn’t background checks on criminals trying to buy guns make it easier to stop criminals?

    Let me answer for you: (criminals will always be able to get guns). Where, at the “sportsman’s” gun exhibition?

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on April 11, 2013 - 10:38 pm

    Breaking:

    Pastor Rick Warren falls all over himself forgiving a person who sold his now dead son an unregistered gun.

    Details.

    Will he forgive NPR for reporting it?

  8. #8 by Nathan Erkkila on April 11, 2013 - 10:50 pm

    Bob S. I take it you are a little slow so let me explain. A knife requires the attacker to get up close and personal with the victim. 99.999999% of the time, this victim has usable arms within reach of the weapon and the attacker. It’s this thing called self-defense, but the moment you are out of range of an attacker and he has a gun centered on you, then there is nothing you can do. You can’t even draw a weapon because if it takes 21 feet for a trained officer. to draw a gun an fire at someone charging him, then you are not going to draw a gun before he has time to pull a trigger. These are measurements, not opinions and while we are at it, if you are being attacked by a knife-weilder, a gun is not going to be of very much use unless you can get some distance off of him. This is why arts such as Krav Maga have been invented. Out of all things the CCW crowd never understands is that a gun is only useful if the barrel is pointed at the enemy. If it isn, then you have to draw the weapon and aim. Something you cannot do when an attacker is right on top of you.

  9. #9 by Bob S. on April 12, 2013 - 6:55 am

    Nathan,

    A knife requires the attacker to get up close and personal with the victim. 99.999999% of the time, this victim has usable arms within reach of the weapon and the attacker.

    Cite your source of information and define your terms.
    “Useable arms”? Such as what?

    And if that is the case; why is there a problem with people carrying firearms?
    And again — are you suggesting that my wife, or an 120 slight build male has to go up against a larger, stronger criminal hand to hand?

    It’s this thing called self-defense, but the moment you are out of range of an attacker and he has a gun centered on you, then there is nothing you can do.

    Except draw your own firearm and shoot back if needed!
    Or run away, Or Call the police Or take a picture of the criminal Or Yell for Help.

    Oh…guess you don’t want people doing that do you?

    You can’t even draw a weapon because if it takes 21 feet for a trained officer. to draw a gun an fire at someone charging him, then you are not going to draw a gun before he has time to pull a trigger.

    Seems that you don’t know what you are talking about because it happens all the time. Look around at the news, read “The Armed Citizen” reports the NRA puts out. People have and can draw their weapon and defend themselves even when the criminal has a gun on them.
    At least if nothing else, why not give them the chance to try?
    You may be familiar with the “Tueller Drill” but the reality is most crimes occur within just a few feet of the victim.

    These are measurements, not opinions and while we are at it, if you are being attacked by a knife-weilder, a gun is not going to be of very much use unless you can get some distance off of him.

    So let me understand this. You claim a firearm that I can draw and fire one handed won’t be ‘of very much use’ but you recommend that I use other ‘useable arms’?

    That makes no sense. I can — and many people can – fend off an attack with one arm or hand while drawing. Or I can back away while defending with one hand.

    This is why arts such as Krav Maga have been invented. Out of all things the CCW crowd never understands is that a gun is only useful if the barrel is pointed at the enemy.

    And Krav Maga is only useful if you have the physical ability to use it. Are you suggesting that all the elderly, the disabled take years of training in Krav Maga instead of spending a couple of weeks learning to use a firearm effectively?

    Yes a firearm has to be pointed at the criminal — or maybe not. Look at the statistics and see how often a firearm being presented stops a crime. Many times the sight of the firearm is enough to get the criminal to leave. Not always does it have to be pointed at the criminal.

    If it isn, then you have to draw the weapon and aim. Something you cannot do when an attacker is right on top of you.

    That is the most ridiculous thing you’ve said yet. Seriously look around, Most people train to present firearm in a close up situation. It isn’t a case of the gun owner taking a classic dueling stance with pistol raised with one hand and the other on their hip. Get Real!

    I can draw and fire with the firearm mere inches out of the holster or from my body.

    And again — what is your solution instead of a firearm that just about any victim could yield?
    Krav Maga training for a grandmother.

    I prefer this outcome:
    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/video-grandma-ernestine-aldana-pulls-gun-robber

  10. #10 by brewski on April 12, 2013 - 9:21 am

    I disagree. Hamburgers do kill people.

    • #11 by Bob S. on April 12, 2013 - 9:26 am

      Brewski,

      I’ve told you that the Hamburglar isn’t a real person or a real hamburger.
      That was just a bad dream you had. :)

  11. #12 by brewski on April 12, 2013 - 9:34 am

  12. #13 by cav on April 12, 2013 - 11:19 am

    Guns don’t kill people, hamburgers with guns kill people.

    Keeping guns out of the hands of hamburgers should be priority number one.

  13. #14 by Nathan Erkkila on April 12, 2013 - 9:06 pm

    Dear Christ on a pogostick.

    Bob S. I really want to know what is shorting out in your mind that makes you think that you reaching for a weapon, drawing it and pulling the trigger is somehow going to be faster than someone pulling a trigger with his sights already aiming down on you.

    The point I want to make about martial arts is that it will take about the same amount of time if not less to strike someone with your fist or foot. Before you accuse me of being against CC, I’m not, at least not as much as Cliff, but what I am getting at is that a gun isn’t always available. There are certain places like airplanes and bars that you cannot take it with you and it needs to first be drawn to be effective which takes time. My argument is time. Something you don’t have when an attacker is on top of you. Don’t know a martial art or have difficulty fighting? Well that’s what your generation gets for forcing people my age to die in 2 bullshit wars.

    • #15 by Bob S. on April 13, 2013 - 4:17 am

      Nathan,

      I’m not arguing that a gun isn’t always available.
      And while I agree with your premise that ‘it will take about the same amount of time if not less to strike someone with your fist or foot – it is you that is missing the point.

      There is simply no way someone like my 120 pound slightly built daughter will be able to strike sufficiently to stop a 250 pound pumped up on drugs attacker.
      Or that my 76 year old mother in law will be able to incapacitate a mugger with just her hands and feet.

      Your argument may be time — which I debate. Look around at the news and you’ll see time and time again people doing just what you say can’t be done — Drawing a weapon in the face of someone holding another weapon and winning.
      Heck the video I linked to showed that and it was just one of many like it.

      Don’t know a martial art or have difficulty fighting? Well that’s what your generation gets for forcing people my age to die in 2 bullshit wars.

      What a complete and utter piece of unrelated BS !
      Thanks for showing your true colors

  14. #16 by cav on April 12, 2013 - 9:27 pm

    Nathan.

    By all means, let’s blame ‘Bob S’ generation’ for forcing people…’ Blah, blah, what nonsense. And I’m not even suggesting they weren’t bullshit wars.

    There are always choices to be made in the face of aggression – and one must be careful to properly discern just who the aggressor is. That’s the difference between a BS war and protecting yourself or someone else in need.

    Please remove that bee from your bonnet – you can do better than this.

  15. #17 by Nathan Erkkila on April 12, 2013 - 10:36 pm

    Either way, cav, someone over 50 unless fit will usually be less tough than someone younger. If you want to say a gun can equalize that, then you won’t hear me disagreeing. I stopped having sympathy for the Baby boomer a long time ago.

  16. #18 by cav on April 12, 2013 - 11:25 pm

    Nathan, I just wince each time I notice the generation divide brought up. Probably because it’s my belief the real conflicts are more of the class struggle sort.

    Yes, olds are slower, but youthful exuberance can be every bit as prone to costly error. We’re all played by the super-wealthy.

    As I get slower and older, even as I blather ‘knowingly’, I find myself rooting for, and proud of you youngs. No sympathy required or sought.

  17. #19 by Larry Bergan on April 12, 2013 - 11:47 pm

    Nathen E:

    Can you tell us which war you fought in, again?

  18. #20 by Nathan Erkkila on April 14, 2013 - 5:42 pm

    Bob S. That is very false. Weight is only one aspect of force. The other has to do with speed. Given the proper speed, a less dense object can apply more force is massxacceleration. Then the other factor is the durability of the target. A child can break ribs. A jaw, teeth, cheek bone, sternum, all are very brittle and something a 130lb woman can break. Then we have the trachea. If you break that, it’s fatal and that can be achieved with the thumb and index finger. Muscle is not a good type of body armor unless we are talking about the abdomen. There is almost none on the ribs and it is absent on the jaw, throat and knees. Wing Chun, which is Bruce Lee’s art was a woman’s self-defense art. Gender is irrelevant except men can hit harder, weight is only one multiple of force.

    Larry. None, but I can gladly let my cousin tell you about his story of how he’s now fucked up because his best friend died in Iraq all for nothing except personal greed. How about one of my friends who is in the military and doesn’t have medicare?

    Cav

    The wealthy in a good chunk of 20th century history was actually respectful to the middle class. That changed with the Neocons. Granted not all of that was the Baby boomers, but the WWII, the Korean War and the Boomers seem to be the ones responsible for the wealth gap and for the loss of our housing market. It wasn’t until someone from the X-gen decided to fix that.

    • #21 by Bob S. on April 15, 2013 - 6:38 am

      Nathan,

      Speed is a factor but weight (also an indicator often of muscle mass, fitness, etc) is the primary factor.

      Why else would there be ‘weight classes’ in just about every martial art ? Because all things equal, weight matters.

      But you are still missing the big point. You seem to think that the best approach for people seeking to defend themselves is a martial arts training program.
      How long does it take to be proficient? How long does it take to become skilled enough that a 125# person can overcome the experience and weight factors of someone 200#?

      The answer is for most people an incredibly long time.
      Then add in physical infirmities or disabilities and the odds of successfully resisting a violent attacker goes down considerably.

      With a firearm; those methods are still available for a person to use but there is the added level of the firearm.

      Gender is irrelevant except men can hit harder,

      Right….so tell me why men and women don’t compete against each other in most sports?

  19. #22 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2013 - 6:45 pm

    Well Nathan, I had a guy whose brother was fighting in Iraq break out in tears, thanking me for carrying an “impeach Bush support the troops” sign. I carried it for years and made it to Michael Moore’s front page.

    You only help them when you divide the generations. Your generation has the same problem as ours. The media is owned by the people who want to see us die and there’s nothing we can do about it. They are after the internet too, and they’ll get it.

    Have a nice day.

  20. #23 by Nathan Erkkila on April 14, 2013 - 11:35 pm

    Larry. Internet regulation has been tried since its birth. AOL, COPE, SOPA, all have failed because it is political suicide and the internet tends to favor the democrats, so you have one spectrum in full support of net neutrality.

  21. #24 by cav on April 15, 2013 - 9:39 am

    Knives, forks, butter and garlic kill people!

  22. #25 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2013 - 1:13 pm

    Nathan:

    I agree that the internet favors democracy, but so do hand marked, hand counted ballots.

    Not seeing a whole lot of that. Are you?

  23. #26 by fire on April 16, 2013 - 2:04 am

    I luv how Nathan rants about the baby boomers messing up the wealth gap….yes we should go back to pre 1960′s……the medical care was sooo much better, the housing and the education and on and on was so much better. Sounds like a whiny kid to me who needs to learn humility and appreciate the wonderful life we have…not envy to have a Hollywood loser lifestyle

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: