4 ms·

> [Knife use] ultimately a preferable outcome to guns. Not if you are one of the hundred million people who have guns for defense it’s not. There is no better

> [Knife use] ultimately a preferable outcome to guns. Not if you are one of the hundred million people who have guns for defense it’s not. There is no better equalizer for the physically small or weak or elderly or disabled than a firearm. >There are two causal factors for gun violence -- access to guns, and desire to cause destruction Yes, where tool is available, people use it as intended and not. Firearms are used almost exclusively for legal defense, as frustrating as that may be to people who think the tool is the problem, and just banning the idol will abate the evil spirits. > With knives, your arms quite literally will tire out. This is not written by someone with edged weapons training. An actual fact of knife use from someone does is if you use a knife, you can EXPECT to be cut yourself. > encouraging people's proclivity towards violence. That’s interesting. If we look at the statistics of gun violence, would you be helpful and make more generalizations on who these people who have a “proclivity towards violence” are?

cyberge99 5y ago
> Firearms are used almost exclusively for legal defense I believe they are used far more often in offense rather than defense. I’d be interested to see a valid statistic for your claim.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Estimates range from 60K to 2.5M defensive uses per year. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm...
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  If you could point to some information showing that is true beyond your beliefs, I would be interested in seeing it. If it isn’t true, I wonder why you believe it is?
  - pimterry 5y ago
    Ok, here's a Harvard analysis of peer-reviewed studies: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr.... Some highlights: > We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid. > Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal > Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal > We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. > We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime > most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents > We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.” > little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss Overall, it seems that: * Many publicized statistics about self-defense usage are inaccurate (millions of self-defensive usages appears to be completely impossible, for example). * Even legal guns are used more often illegally than for self-defense, generally for intimidation or during escalating arguments. * When used for legal self-defense, guns do not appear to be any more effective than other defensive alternatives for protecting either you or your property. These are high-profile peer-reviewed studies from a variety of research organizations, backed by varied selection of sources, and they come to consistent conclusions. I'd be interested to see any similar analysis that points towards any other conclusion.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Those studies are pretty old (97-04). Here's a more recent one done in 2013 by the CDC (link to report in article, but costs money). It seems to refute some of the claims in those articles. Also, it would seem that Harvard has some bias (as everyone does) given they choose to hold on to these older studies and they are all one sided. Some of them seem pretty poorly formed from a basic conceptual standpoint (ie that a defensive gun use requires that one shoots the assailant which is inconsistent with the definition that they are trying to verify, or that using a sample size of 300 claim that women never use a gun to defend against sexual assualt even though there are news reports showing it does occur). https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-... The study of the two phone surveys that were reviewed by judges piqued my interest. I was intrigued to see what these judges were reviewing (I thought maybe cases or police reports). Then it got interesting from a design point of view.
macintux 5y ago
> There is no better equalizer for the physically small or weak or elderly or disabled than a firearm. Speaking as someone on the weak spectrum approaching elderly status, I’m convinced having a gun is more likely to end up leading to me being shot. The presence of guns invites escalation. I’ll take my chances without.
- justshowpost 5y ago
  > The presence of guns invites escalation. This is just as inaccurate as the "no training required". Actually, the presence of guns is CALMING factor. Also, come on, gents, both blade and glock are tools, one have to learn to use first.
  - twothamendment 5y ago
    True, without practice, neither tool is likely to lead to the desired outcome. A gun is useless to some, especially those who are afraid to pick it up. A knife is useless to me - unless the attacker is a truckload of Amazon boxes.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  You are welcome to believe (and be statistically incorrect) about whatever you like and decide as appropriate for you. If you don’t feel you can operate a fire extinguisher or motor vehicle either, everyone will respect your choice in tools. The rest of society asks that you not make personal defense decisions for us.
  - macintux 5y ago
    > The rest of society asks that you not make personal defense decisions for us. Thank you for inferring something I didn’t say and reprimanding me for it.
908B64B197 5y ago
> Firearms are used almost exclusively for legal defense, as frustrating as that may be to people who think the tool is the problem I wouldn't be surprised at all, if we only look at legal firearms.

cyberge99 5y ago

> Firearms are used almost exclusively for legal defense I believe they are used far more often in offense rather than defense. I’d be interested to see a valid statistic for your claim.

giantg2 5y ago
Estimates range from 60K to 2.5M defensive uses per year. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm...
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
If you could point to some information showing that is true beyond your beliefs, I would be interested in seeing it. If it isn’t true, I wonder why you believe it is?
- pimterry 5y ago
  Ok, here's a Harvard analysis of peer-reviewed studies: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr.... Some highlights: > We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid. > Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal > Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal > We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. > We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime > most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents > We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.” > little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss Overall, it seems that: * Many publicized statistics about self-defense usage are inaccurate (millions of self-defensive usages appears to be completely impossible, for example). * Even legal guns are used more often illegally than for self-defense, generally for intimidation or during escalating arguments. * When used for legal self-defense, guns do not appear to be any more effective than other defensive alternatives for protecting either you or your property. These are high-profile peer-reviewed studies from a variety of research organizations, backed by varied selection of sources, and they come to consistent conclusions. I'd be interested to see any similar analysis that points towards any other conclusion.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Those studies are pretty old (97-04). Here's a more recent one done in 2013 by the CDC (link to report in article, but costs money). It seems to refute some of the claims in those articles. Also, it would seem that Harvard has some bias (as everyone does) given they choose to hold on to these older studies and they are all one sided. Some of them seem pretty poorly formed from a basic conceptual standpoint (ie that a defensive gun use requires that one shoots the assailant which is inconsistent with the definition that they are trying to verify, or that using a sample size of 300 claim that women never use a gun to defend against sexual assualt even though there are news reports showing it does occur). https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-... The study of the two phone surveys that were reviewed by judges piqued my interest. I was intrigued to see what these judges were reviewing (I thought maybe cases or police reports). Then it got interesting from a design point of view.

macintux 5y ago

> There is no better equalizer for the physically small or weak or elderly or disabled than a firearm. Speaking as someone on the weak spectrum approaching elderly status, I’m convinced having a gun is more likely to end up leading to me being shot. The presence of guns invites escalation. I’ll take my chances without.

justshowpost 5y ago
> The presence of guns invites escalation. This is just as inaccurate as the "no training required". Actually, the presence of guns is CALMING factor. Also, come on, gents, both blade and glock are tools, one have to learn to use first.
- twothamendment 5y ago
  True, without practice, neither tool is likely to lead to the desired outcome. A gun is useless to some, especially those who are afraid to pick it up. A knife is useless to me - unless the attacker is a truckload of Amazon boxes.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
You are welcome to believe (and be statistically incorrect) about whatever you like and decide as appropriate for you. If you don’t feel you can operate a fire extinguisher or motor vehicle either, everyone will respect your choice in tools. The rest of society asks that you not make personal defense decisions for us.
- macintux 5y ago
  > The rest of society asks that you not make personal defense decisions for us. Thank you for inferring something I didn’t say and reprimanding me for it.

908B64B197 5y ago

> Firearms are used almost exclusively for legal defense, as frustrating as that may be to people who think the tool is the problem I wouldn't be surprised at all, if we only look at legal firearms.