The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 9, 2019, 11:02 PM   #76
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
Quote:
This started off with the concept that most use of weapons by robbers is initially intended to frighten the victim into surrender. Whether or not the robber is an expert in the use of the weapon doesn't enter into the discussion. If the intention of the robber is to encourage the victim to give up his/her watch/wallet/purse/cell phone rather than to just shoot or stab the victim -- then, by definition, the weapon is used for psychological rather than physiological purposes.
Sounds like a preconceived outcome.
The outcome of any robbery attempt is hardly preconceived, because anything can happen. What we are discussing is the motive of a robber in deploying a knife as a weapon. You continue to maintain (as I read your statements) that robbers using knives are not using the knives foir psychological purposes. If that were true, no victim of a knife wielding robber would escape without at least one wound, because if the robber's intent isn't psychological (intimidation), then a physiological intent would necessarily result in every victim being cut or stabbed. Period.

And that just isn't what happens on the mean streets.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:06 AM   #77
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,074
Right, of course knife wielding robbers are using knives for their psychological purposes, just like they do with guns or any other weapons. With knives, it is 'give me your money or I stab you.' With a gun, it is 'give me your money or I will shoot you.' That is 100% psychological. It is a threat, meant to influence the behavior of the victim to comply with demands.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:28 AM   #78
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
Aguila Blanca says:
The outcome of any robbery attempt is hardly preconceived,
YOUR notion is preconceived...not the robbery, LOL.


Quote:
Aguila Blanca says:
You continue to maintain (as I read your statements) that robbers using knives are not using the knives foir psychological purposes.
Way too simplistic and not what I said at all. It is what you wanted to hear.

Quote:
davidsog says:
However with knowledge that impact is greatly diminished, something even criminals recognize.
Quote:
davidsog says:
People recognize that a knife in plain view has lost much of it lethality and is much harder for the wielder to use in terms of both psychologically and physiologically.
Do you guys have any facts to discuss? So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time. It is use has been halved in a single decade. I found that fact to be very interesting. It is contrary to the psychological distance theory set up in Killology. Basically the premise that knives are more psychologically intimidating means they should be more useful for gaining compliance from a robbery victim. Facts show they are not.

We do know that knives are much harder to use and overcome our natural human instinct not to kill than other weapons with more psychological distance.

Please post something besides appeal to emotion to back up your contention that criminals find knives to be so much more useful for their psychological impact. We also know there are some simple and very effective countermeasures to stop a knife wielding attacker.

The facts do not support the theory that knives are more useful in gaining victim compliance. So please deal with them in the discussion and stop attacking the messenger.

Last edited by davidsog; June 10, 2019 at 10:34 AM.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:42 AM   #79
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Reposted the factual evidence:



file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/PTR%2091/uwcc.pdf



file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/PTR%2091/wuvc01.pdf
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 09:49 AM   #80
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,349
It may not be relevant to the argument, but the one time that I was threatened with a knife, the man himself who was holding the knife was not in my perception any more threatening than a stuffed bobcat. I was going to go after him and feed the knife to him. I had a lot of problems with anger back then, and I seriously banged a few people around. I would have hurt him badly. A couple of friends convinced me to not do it. If this same weenie had been holding a gun, I would have hesitated, been a bit more unsure about whether I should beat him down and take his gun and his tongue for trophies.

In this situation with another person who presented as inscrutable, or even an obvious danger this thought would take enormous confidence to take the chance and I would almost certainly comply if I believed that losing my wallet would be the end of it. There's no cash in it and I can stop the cards.

At my age and physical condition, with the insane level of violence in our world today, There's probably not even a small percent of people who I wouldn't consider a potentially dangerous threat. Being armed with a gun only complicates things, I'm not sure that I can use a gun to prevent a potentially dangerous threat unless I am 99% certain that the threat is real. The risks of both action and inaction are pretty serious either way.

Quote:
The gun is just a tool, I'm the weapon that is going to kill you.
Don't worry about the gun, I don't need a gun to kill you. I'm just trying to be get your attention.
It's not the weapon that's going to kill you. It's that monster that's holding it.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 10:09 AM   #81
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,949
Assume your opponent doesn't know what he is doing because you see the knife at your own peril. Not all criminals are murderers bent on going out and killing someone. Many have determined intimidation is a step in the process of achieving their goals of compliance. If I draw my pistol it is because I have perceived a threat and situation that would put me in a position of needing to shoot in order to escape the threat of severe bodily harm, kidnapping, or rape (the three general justifications in Michigan). If that threat is ended by the display of a firearm all the better. It would be a mistake to assume that anyone displaying a knife may not have a similar escalation in mind or perhaps he or shoe has no escalation in mind and is hoping for compliance.

I had a knife drawn on me once. Normally the person who did it would have presented a severe problem to me. I know this because we used to practice together. To my favor at the moment he was VERY drunk, we were in a close space, and I realized what he was doing even as he attempted to draw. I managed to not get cut. I assume he was attempting intimidation though I did not test the theory. He was not, nor is he, some psychopathic killer. Had he wanted to kill me for the fun of killing me without warning he would have done it while I slept as we were college roommates. We have not seen each other in awhile but I consider him a good friend.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 11:02 AM   #82
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
I see a chart that shows knife use has gone down in robberies (and not by numbers that appear to be half, unless my cursory glance failed me). I don't see a definitive conclusion as to why that is the case.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 01:37 PM   #83
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,236
I respectfully submit that it doesn't matter IF the use of knives in robberies has gone down or, if so, why. The issue I think we are discussing is IF knives are used in robberies, is the intent of the robber to use the knife for a psychological effect or for a pysiological effect.

And I respectfully submit that in any such robbery wherein the robber does not immediately stab or cut the victim (a physiological) effect but, instead, displays the knife ("I've got a knife -- gimme your watch and your wallet or I'll cut ya!") -- the robber's intent is psychological: intimidation.

I just don't see any other way to view it.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 01:47 PM   #84
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
Before on this forum we've discussed how the percentage of the population that has additional training, whether firearms or edged weapons, is relatively low. If the argument is displaying the knife before you plan to use it is a tactical misstep, I don't disagree. My point would be not every criminal is tactically sound. There are videos of criminals trying to rob people with contact weapons behind counters where they can't even reach. Not every criminal is particularly intelligent. While there is certainly a danger in underestimating your opponent, there is also a danger in overestimating your opponent.

Knife usage in robberies has gone down from the charts displayed. Why? Idk. If the argument is because in the past decade criminals as a whole have come to the conclusion that displaying a knife is unwise then while possible I don't see the evidence showing that the tactical skills of criminals have increased. It's possible, but there are other possibilities. These two charts don't have the exact same breakdowns for weapon type. If we combine the firearms categories in one against the one that only has firearms in it, it would appear usage of firearms in robberies has gone up. Maybe criminals have more access to firearms and are using them more in place of knives? Seems as likely.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 01:51 PM   #85
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
I see a chart that shows knife use has gone down in robberies
Why? Because knives are so much more effective at gaining victim compliance???

I do not think so....

Quote:
and not by numbers that appear to be half, )
In the 1970's:

20.0% Firearms - 18.2% Knives = 1.8% difference

In other words, just as many robberies committed using knives to gain victim compliance as firearms being used to gain victim compliance.

In the 1990's:

27% Firearms - 13% Knives = 14% difference

In other words, 13/27 * 100 = 48% less knives being used compared to firearms....

Quote:
unless my cursory glance failed me
It did.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 01:52 PM   #86
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
How is 18.2 vs 12.8 half?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 01:59 PM   #87
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
I respectfully submit that it doesn't matter IF the use of knives in robberies has gone down or, if so, why. The issue I think we are discussing is IF knives are used in robberies, is the intent of the robber to use the knife for a psychological effect or for a pysiological effect.
The intent of the robbery is to use psychological intimidation to gain compliance.

It does matter that knives appear to be rapidly losing favor with the criminals whose intent is to intimidate a victim to gain compliance.

The conclusion being the knife is not as effective in reality as one would suppose.

Quote:
Knife usage in robberies has gone down from the charts displayed. Why? Idk.
It certainly isn't because knives are the psychological weapon of choice to gain victim compliance....

Quote:
I don't see the evidence showing that the tactical skills of criminals have increased.
Nobody has ever made this claim. What was said is that violence has become more prevalent in society especially in our entertainment which leads to psychological resilience.

Quote:
Maybe criminals have more access to firearms and are using them more in place of knives? Seems as likely.
Sure and it make NO DIFFERENCE as to which is more effective as criminals will use the most effective tool to gain victim compliance.

Obviously it is not knives.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:04 PM   #88
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
Quote:
It does matter that knives appear to be rapidly losing favor with the criminals whose intent is to intimidate a victim to gain compliance.

The conclusion being the knife is not as effective in reality as one would suppose.
That is a conclusion that could be reached. That is not something confirmed simply by looking at crime percentages.

Quote:
Obviously it is not knives.
It seemed to me that the argument was that a knife could be used for psychological intimidation, not that it was the only option.
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:08 PM   #89
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
How is 18.2 vs 12.8 half?
What??? The Chart is "Weapons Used" and compares the use of different weapons as our base for fraction of 100.

In comparing firearms useage to knives in robberies how is examining knife usage in isolation useful over the different data sets?

While the percentage is a dimensionless ratio...in other words a proportion...

Your analogy is like trying to draw a useful conclusion from the fact your body is 98% water and the ocean is 99.9% water.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:09 PM   #90
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
Quote:
In comparing firearms useage to knives in robberies how is examining knife usage in isolation useful over the different data sets?
Maybe because you said this:
Quote:
Do you guys have any facts to discuss? So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time. It is use has been halved in a single decade.
There is no mention in that quote of relativity to firearms.
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:13 PM   #91
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
Maybe because you said this:
Well are you still confused?

In the 1970's:

20.0% Firearms - 18.2% Knives = 1.8% difference

In other words, just as many robberies committed using knives to gain victim compliance as firearms being used to gain victim compliance.

In the 1990's:

27% Firearms - 13% Knives = 14% difference

In other words, 13/27 * 100 = 48% less knives being used compared to firearms....
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:14 PM   #92
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
Quote:
48% less knives being used compared to firearms....
Except that isn't what your quoted text above says.


And hey, if you want to break out the relative differences.
18.2/20.0 * 100 = 91% They weren't exactly equal, and yes 9% matters.
12.8/26.8 * 100 = 48%

So it's a further reduction of 43%, not a full 48%. I know the small differences matter to you Dave.
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness

Last edited by TunnelRat; June 10, 2019 at 02:27 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:24 PM   #93
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Tunnelrat,

So, Is it my fault that the proportion of knives to firearms went from parity to half?

Or is it my fault you did not correctly interpret the proportional data?

Just let me know and we can move on.

Last edited by davidsog; June 10, 2019 at 02:45 PM.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:25 PM   #94
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
No it's your fault that your original text I was responding to doesn't mention anything about relativity to firearms and suggests knife use by itself, for which your percentage was not correct. That was why I made my comment above about not being half, and then clarified how I got that by giving the numbers I used.

Last edited by TunnelRat; June 10, 2019 at 02:35 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:41 PM   #95
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
The issue I think we are discussing is IF knives are used in robberies, is the intent of the robber to use the knife for a psychological effect or for a pysiological effect.
Ok but in reading the OP's post, I understood that discussion was about the value and extent of the psychological effect.

Quote:
OP says:

But I’m reminded of a conversation I had with JohnKSa and Glenn Meyer after a Firearms Law CLE where John made a very observant remark on the psychological value of weapons.

So I wanted to start a discussion on the aspects of firearms that have a strong self-defense deterrent but are maybe less practical in their physiological effects.
While the OP was specifically asking about firearms there are some interesting conclusions about psychological vs physiological.

I think we can all agree and conforms to current Psychological theory that knives are more intimidating because they represent a requirement to be "closer" to the act of killing than a firearm.

I think we can all agree that the if our goal is to intimidate a victim into compliance, then the most intimidating weapon would be the best choice.

The facts show us that knive use has drastically been reduced over time. Criminals are not using knives to intimidate a victim into compliance but have moved decisively towards firearms.

Well...

I think the reason for that is two-fold.

1. The psychological intimidation factor has been reduced for knives over time. You just do not see a plethora of fatal stabbings in the media or entertainment, it is easier to effectively counter a knife attack, and it is harder for the criminal to overcome the lack of psychological distance to the act of killing should the knife be required.

2. The psychological intimidation for guns has been increased over time. Every day the media announces fatal shootings and our entertainment is full of gunning down any antagonist, it is easier for the criminal to overcome the larger psychological distance from the act of killing a firearm provides, and the victims instinctively know this fact.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 02:43 PM   #96
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 852
Quote:
No it's your fault
Ok great.

Quote:
No it's your fault that your original text I was responding to doesn't mention anything about relativity to firearms and suggests knife use by itself, for which your percentage was not correct. That was why I made my comment above about not being half, and then clarified how I got that by giving the numbers I used.
Are you now caught up and understand:

Quote:
48% less knives being used compared to firearms....
is the same thing as:

Quote:
So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time. It is use has been halved in a single decade.
The single decade being 1983 to 1992.

You got it?

Last edited by davidsog; June 10, 2019 at 02:49 PM.
davidsog is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 03:01 PM   #97
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
I think proving that attitudes towards knives have changed isn't an easy task. In the past firearms were still used more than knives in robberies, even if the difference was much less. That suggests to me that even back then there was an attitude that firearms were more intimidating, or why wouldn't knives have been at an even higher percentage? I don't know if the changing difference is solely due to changing attitudes. It could be.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 03:18 PM   #98
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog View Post
Ok great.







Are you now caught up and understand:







is the same thing as:







The single decade being 1983 to 1992.



You got it?
I got that the difference you're talking about is relative to firearms and not knife use alone which wasn't clear from the original quote. Which is why I made the comments I did (all of which I already stated). The decade wasn't part of the confusion. I'm all "caught up" and ready to move on as soon as you are Dave, hence the preceding post.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 03:19 PM   #99
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog
So, Is it my fault that the proportion of knives to firearms went from parity to half?
But you don't know why the percentage of knives vs. firearms went down. You appear to be attributing the decline to a recognition by crooks that knives are ineffective as tools of intimidation, and I think that's a conclusion not supported by the facts or the evidence at hand. It could be, for example, that the number of knife wielding robbers has remained constant or even increased, but more robbers have found easy access to guns so the number of guns (and the corresponding percentage) has increased faster. And, even if this is the case, we have no evidence to suggest why. You certainly haven't offered anything to support your contention that crooks don't think knives work as a psychological weapon of intimidation.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 10, 2019, 03:36 PM   #100
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
1. The psychological intimidation factor has been reduced for knives over time.
While it's true that there has been a shift from knife use to gun use in your data, I'm not sure that tells us anything about the psychological intimidation factor of knives. I imagine that criminals might prefer guns over knives but that doesn't mean the intimidation factor has changed.



Quote:
davidsog says:
People recognize that a knife in plain view has lost much of it lethality and is much harder for the wielder to use in terms of both psychologically and physiologically.
I don't think that people recognize that. Most people will be more afraid of a criminal that produces a knife than a criminal that keeps his or her knife hidden. Someone can claim they have a knife or a gun and demand compliance but most criminals produce the weapon instead of just making the claim. If criminals thought there was a reduced chance of compliance by showing the knife, they wouldn't show it.
2damnold4this is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10186 seconds with 8 queries