Psychological vs. Physiological

[davidsog]

If criminals thought there was a reduced chance of compliance by showing the knife, they wouldn't show it.

Or they would not use it because there is a reduced chance of compliance simply by having a knife.

Which is factually what happened.

more robbers have found easy access to guns so the number of guns

But that is factually false. Gun ownership has declined steadily and there is no corresponding increase in criminals acquiring guns.



http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Repor..._1972-2014.pdf

The use of firearms in violent crime has steadily declined.



https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun...s/welcome.aspx

So, there is no "increase in guns due to easy access". Crime has declined as has the overall use of guns to commit crimes.

[2damnold4this]

Or they would not use it because there is a reduced chance of compliance simply by having a knife.

Which is factually what happened.

What? Are you claiming that criminals no longer use knives?

[davidsog]

What? Are you claiming that criminals no longer use knives?

I think you are late to the party and in need of catching up. Please read the thread.

[K_Mac]

I'm not sure the number of violent crimes committed using a knife is much lower than it once was means criminals have concluded knives are ineffective either physiologically or psychologically. I think it means guns offer more options and are readily available due to lack of enforcement of the many laws prohibiting criminals from possessing firearms. That is another conversation though.

Anyone who dismisses the serious threat of a bladed weapon is either a very skilled man or woman with ninja-like powers, or doesn't understand the threat in my opinion. Even superbly trained martial artists understand that a knife in the hand of someone who knows how to use one is a dangerous thing.

[2damnold4this]

Just a simple question for davidsog:

Are you claiming that criminals no longer use knives in armed robberies?

[TunnelRat]

While the percentage of the populace that owns guns has declined, the number of guns owned by those that do own them has increased. The number of guns being produced and purchased in this country has been increasing for some time.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/news...outputType=amp
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-133m-firearms
As for the percentage of those used in crimes, that I am not commenting on with this. My point is simply the supply of firearms in the US has certainly increased.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[K_Mac]

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide
Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

Davidsog the above is from the same .Gov site you use to make the case that guns use in violent crimes is down.

[davidsog]

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

Which is the topic of that section. It is discussing Homicide percentages and not the rate in which guns were used to intimidate a robber victim into submission.

That statistic would be found in the table I posed as:

As a percentage of all violent incidents (i.e., rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault), between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crime has ranged from a high of 8 percent to a low of 5 percent. In 2011, firearm crimes comprised 8 percent of all violent crimes.[7]

Percentage has remained constant so there is no "increase in ability to get guns" and the rate has dropped significantly.

[davidsog]

Here is some of the base data used to compile that table.

This compares 2009 to 2010. What is interesting is the number of robberies involving knives is the lowest of all weapons used to commit robbery. 26,707 knives used by criminals to intimidate their victims into compliance compared to 147,510 firearms!

Interestingly enough, strong arm robbery equals firearm robbery for all practical purposes. 147,510 firearms compared to 142,628 criminals using the threat of unarmed combat to gain compliance.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...es/10tbl15.xls

Certainly does not look like some trend to use the great psychological power of the knife.

[Nanuk]

What I like about surveys...... Who tells the truth?

[K_Mac]

Davidsog I don't think your numbers really address the intimidation quotient of a blade. Guns are easily available, and the weapon of choice for most of us. That includes the gang banger, the career violent offender, the punk looking to take something that doesn't belong to him, and the armed citizen looking to defend himself from all of the above.

I don't think knives are popular with thugs because they require that one get in close to be either intimidating or effective. That does not mean the aren't both. I almost always carry a folding knife in addition to a handgun. I don't know if an old fat guy with a knife would intimidate a determined attacker. If it comes to that, the time for intimidation and posturing is over.

[davidsog]

I don't think knives are popular with thugs because they require that one get in close to be either intimidating or effective.

And Strong Arm does not require you get in close to be intimidating or effective?

Interestingly enough, strong arm robbery equals firearm robbery for all practical purposes. 147,510 firearms compared to 142,628 criminals using the threat of unarmed combat to gain compliance.

[2damnold4this]

From Davidsog's link to the UCR tables we can see some interesting trends.

Robberies with guns spiked up from the 1980s to the early 1990s. It's certainly true that violent crime in general has dropped since the 1990s and that knife robberies have dropped more than gun robberies. It's interesting to see that knife assaults seem to be on par with gun assaults while guns are about six times more likely than a knife to be used in a robbery.

While violent crime, including gun robberies seem to be dropping, criminals are showing more of a preference for guns than they are knives. when it comes to robbery This could be for several reasons.
1) Criminals could be more concerned that they will encounter armed resistance than they were in the past. They don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight.

2) With crime in general dropping, it could be that the hard core criminals who are disposed to rob people are better armed than criminals were in the past.

3) Criminals could be less concerned about being caught with a gun than they were in the past.


In any case, it's clear that criminals prefer a gun over a knife for a robbery tool in most circumstances. That doesn't mean that a knife isn't psychologically intimidating or that the intimidation goes away when it is presented.

[davidsog]

In any case, it's clear that criminals prefer a gun over a knife for a robbery tool in most circumstances.

You cannot say they prefer a gun as a robbery tool. In fact, in 2010, unarmed strong arm robbery outnumbered firearm robbery.

That certainly does not bode well for any case that knives are highly thought of as a tool of gaining victim compliance.




https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...es/10tbl15.xls

[JohnKSa]

So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time.

Which, as already stated, has nothing to do with HOW they are used in robberies.

The discussion is about HOW they are used, not about how OFTEN they are used.

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.

1. I'm not sure that's the premise being defended. I was responding to your claim that displaying a knife demonstrated that the wielder didn't know what he was doing and that it made it harder to use for psychological purposes.

2. The facts quoted do not show anything about how useful knives are for gaining compliance. You can assume that because they are being used less that they are less useful for gaining compliance, but it's just an assumption. There have been no facts presented indicating WHY knife use as declined or what the compliance level in armed robberies involving knives is as compared to the compliance level in armed robberies when other weapons are used.

The intent of the robbery is to use psychological intimidation to gain compliance.

EXACTLY. Which is why it makes no sense to say that using a knife for intimidation in a situation where the INTENT is intimidation makes it harder to use effectively.

Or they would not use it because there is a reduced chance of compliance simply by having a knife.

Which is factually what happened.

Perhaps, but that's just speculation.

We can say factually that knife use in armed robberies has declined. We can not say factually WHY it has declined.

And even if we could, we would still be arguing about a red herring, because your initial claim was that: "2. If an attacker wielding a knife shows you the knife for "psychological" effect........

He does not know how to use a knife. "

Then you followed it up with comments about how best to perpetrate lethal attacks with a knife in spite of the fact that most armed robberies are not about perpetrating lethal attacks.

When that position became essentially indefensible, rather than admitting you had made an incorrect claim, you morphed your argument and began introducing statistical red herrings and then began arguing about minutia related to the red herrings you introduced.

At this point it's starting to look like your goal is primarily to keep the discussion going long enough that your initial claims are obscured and forgotten.

So, there is no "increase in guns due to easy access". Crime has declined as has the overall use of guns to commit crimes.

You just showed that gun use, RELATIVE to knife use has increased. So while over all gun use may have decreased, it does appear that, based on the statistics you quoted and your own analysis that the use of guns RELATIVE to knives has gone up.

Again, it seems like your goal is less about getting to the bottom of this issue and more about grasping at any straws that might deflect from previous incorrect claims you can't defend.

You cannot say they prefer a gun as a robbery tool. In fact, in 2010, unarmed strong arm robbery outnumbered firearm robbery.

You have demonstrated impressive attention to detail when it suits you to do so, and yet, somehow you "missed" that the very simple quote you responded to did not say what you said it did.

You created a strawman when you (intentionally?) ignored the "over a knife" portion of the quote and then responded with a comment comparing gun use to strong arm robberies.

Do you expect us to believe that a person who can find all those stats and then analyze them carefully really can't manage to read a simple sentence without missing the crux of it?

This is starting to look like keeping an argument going as long as possible simply for the sake of arguing. Moving from one premise to another as one becomes indefensible. Introducing red herrings as necessary to keep things confusing and to deflect from earlier unsupportable claims, and creating blatant strawman arguments when all else fails.

[Lohman446]

Anyone who dismisses the serious threat of a bladed weapon is either a very skilled man or woman with ninja-like powers, or doesn't understand the threat in my opinion. Even superbly trained martial artists understand that a knife in the hand of someone who knows how to use one is a dangerous thing.

From a Kenpo instructor and separately an experienced Kenpo practitioner who had intervened in an altercation between a young woman and an assailant with a knife and then spent several days in the hospital and months in recovery even though he "won" the fight and the assailant was stopped and shortly after arrested: once you accept that you are going to get cut in the process dealing with a knife wielding assailant becomes more practical.

In practice, and in that case experience, once you deviated from the standard self defense feel good training where every move is telegraphed and readily dealt with into more aggressive movements you would normally be hit by the knife more than once in the process.

[davidsog]

I was responding to your claim that displaying a knife demonstrated that the wielder didn't know what he was doing and that it made it harder to use for psychological purposes.

That is not a premise but a fact of hand to hand combat. If the defender knows the attacker wields a knife then their job as defender just got much much easier.

In practice, and in that case experience, once you deviated from the standard self defense feel good training where every move is telegraphed and readily dealt with into more aggressive movements you would normally be hit by the knife more than once in the process.

Absolutely. Choreographed moves are not effective in the real world. Stick to principles.

once you accept that you are going to get cut in the process dealing with a knife wielding assailant becomes more practical.

LOL, as I am sure you know...is one of first principles of knife fighting.

JohnKa says:
The facts quoted do not show anything about how useful knives are for gaining compliance.

The facts show knives have become less and less prevalent. That speaks for itself. Criminals are not out there looking for ways to make their lives more difficult. They are looking for the path of least resistance.

If knives were so useful for gaining compliance why would criminals discard such a useful tool?? Why would unarmed strong arm gain popularity over a knife?

Especially one that carries far less risk to carry, cheaper, and much easier to acquire.

In the 1970's, some 4 million robberies were committed with equal parts firearms and knives. By 2010, knives are being used 1/5th the amount of firearms and 1/5 the amount of unarmed strong arm. Either having a firearm or simply strong arming a victim into compliance is MUCH more popular among criminals than any perception of "useful to gain compliance" psychological factor of a knife.

I find it a tough pill to swallow that they would give up such a readily available and effective tool as a knife IF it was so effective in favor of increased penalties and risk of using a gun.

[davidsog]

You created a strawman when you (intentionally?) ignored the "over a knife" portion of the quote and then responded with a comment comparing gun use to strong arm robberies.

There is no strawman and I do not dispute the fact knife use has dropped.

It is simply a fact that proportionally, Firearm robbery and Strong Arm robbery have remained relatively steady over the decades from the 1970's to present.

It is also a fact that the use of knives to gain victim compliance has fallen dramatically.

That does not demonstrate a "preference" for a gun. That is simply not correct.

[Lohman446]

I'm going to attempt to articulate this on the fly so I'll have to beg forgiveness and may need to make adjustments as we discuss it.

If confronted by an attacker I care about (and I may have missed some)

1) Determination and commitment
2) The demands said potential attacker has made
3) Competence / general fitness
4) Weapon used

What weapon my attacker is using is pretty low on the list. What is he or she demanding? Even competence can be over stated because we all "know" the stories of the untrained individual who walked out of a situation he or she should not have through seeming will power alone.

Look if you make some demand for $5 and I perceive I am simply going to walk away from the issue I am going to walk away. If I have some actual belief that you are desperate and going to attempt something $5 is pretty cheap and dealing with the aftermath of a successful engagement is not worth it If you make demands I hand over a child I am going to weigh weather you meant it or are simply some lunatic babbling on. If its the former then the rest of the list does not matter I will either win or meet the Valkyries wondering what just happened. If it is the later disengagement and a call to the proper authorities seems reasonable.

The weapon in your hand? Pretty low on the priority list. Does it make a difference? Maybe in how I deal with the issue.

[Lohman446]

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.

I think you are onto something here though it is really more about the perception of the general public (or the particular victim) than it is about the reality of the situation. It does not matter if it is factual or not a good share of people look at a knife and believe they can escape the situation without injury. These same people see a gun as some instant death ray. As most criminals are committing crimes with some other goal than murder (there are far less murders than violent property crimes) they are much more concerned about what gains compliance.

[Nanuk]

Knives, guns bla..... Threaten me or mine with a weapon, give me the slightest chance I am gonna shoot them in the face.

[fastbolt]

Gun owners like to say that guns don't kill, people do. Well, criminals willing to use violence without hesitation or compunction are well aware of that fact, and probably believe it on a more visceral level than the average law-abiding person or cop.

A problem with engaging in an intellectual discussion regarding how criminals may consider the "psychological v. physiological" distinctions involved in the use of a knife or a gun is that law-abiding people often have a hard time thinking like criminals. Habitual criminals don't seem to use the same reasoning in their actions as law-abiding persons.

You talk to enough criminals, you may get the feeling that they're more concerned about the person they're confronting than the specific type of weapon they may be facing. Meaning they're more concerned whether they're facing another criminal, than a law-abiding person (victim) or a cop.

Habitual criminals know other criminals aren't concerned about breaking the law and will use violence without warning or compunction, while regular people are afraid of going to jail (losing their jobs, etc) and cops have to act within the rules (laws and policies) or lose their jobs.

This was one of the things mentioned in the LEOKA class I attended (a federally sponsored training program of tracking Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted), and which was developed after a lot of interviews with convicted suspects of violent crimes. It was unsurprising and was similar to what I'd come to learn after a career's worth of facing, arresting, talking and interacting with folks who spent a lot of time being arrested and convicted of crimes.

The people who accept that they may live or die by violence on any given day (criminals) seem more concerned by the people they may face. Guns and knives don't possess the will to be used, but the people who wield them may ... or may not.

Knives (or other cutting instruments) of any sort of pretty ubiquitous and easy to come by in our society. Just visit the nearest hardware store, flea market, etc. Guns are a little more difficult for criminals to find, but theft keeps them pretty available.

Just some thoughts.

[2damnold4this]

There are scholarly articles on why criminals carry knives link and interviews with criminals that carry knives in the UK. link2 Most are carrying for protection and deterrence (psychological intimidation) is one of the top reasons given for carrying the knife.

There is no strawman and I do not dispute the fact knife use has dropped.

Knife use rates in robberies have dropped but not in other crimes such as aggravated assault.

It is simply a fact that proportionally, Firearm robbery and Strong Arm robbery have remained relatively steady over the decades from the 1970's to present.

You posted data earlier showing gun use going from 20% to 27% of all robberies. That is a 35% increase in gun use in robberies. During the same time, knife use in robberies fell 34%.

It is also a fact that the use of knives to gain victim compliance has fallen dramatically. That does not demonstrate a "preference" for a gun. That is simply not correct.

What does a 35% increase in gun use rates in robberies with a corresponding 34% decrease in knife use rates in robberies indicate? A preference for butter on popcorn?

Since criminals use no weapon more often than they use guns in robbery, does that mean that hands and feet are more intimidating than guns?

I can't wait for your next round of explanations. It will be hard to top your claim that a knife that is presented loses it's psychological intimidation effect.

[Lohman446]

Considering the UKs gun laws would it be safe to argue that the availability of guns is MUCH lower than in the US and the deterrence effect of such gun laws, if there is one, is much higher. Brandishment of a firearm in the US, at least in many places, is a fairly minor thing. In the UK its a tremendously serious crime with serious underlying crimes (possession) present.

[2damnold4this]

I agree, Lohman, that guns are not as common in the UK. A replica gun, bb gun, toy gun, non-functional gun, or Airsoft gun might be used by a criminal here in the US or in the UK to commit a robbery but knives seem to be much more popular in the UK.