|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 9, 2019, 11:02 PM | #76 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
And that just isn't what happens on the mean streets. |
||
June 10, 2019, 09:06 AM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
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 |
June 10, 2019, 09:28 AM | #78 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||
June 10, 2019, 09:42 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Reposted the factual evidence:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/PTR%2091/uwcc.pdf file:///C:/Users/Owner/Documents/PTR%2091/wuvc01.pdf |
June 10, 2019, 09:49 AM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
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:
__________________
None. |
|
June 10, 2019, 10:09 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
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. |
June 10, 2019, 11:02 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
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 |
June 10, 2019, 01:37 PM | #83 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
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. |
June 10, 2019, 01:47 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
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 |
June 10, 2019, 01:51 PM | #85 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Quote:
I do not think so.... Quote:
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:
|
|||
June 10, 2019, 01:52 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
How is 18.2 vs 12.8 half?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk |
June 10, 2019, 01:59 PM | #87 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously it is not knives. |
||||
June 10, 2019, 02:04 PM | #88 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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 |
||
June 10, 2019, 02:08 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 10, 2019, 02:09 PM | #90 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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 |
||
June 10, 2019, 02:13 PM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Quote:
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.... |
|
June 10, 2019, 02:14 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 10, 2019, 02:24 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
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. |
June 10, 2019, 02:25 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
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. |
June 10, 2019, 02:41 PM | #95 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
June 10, 2019, 02:43 PM | #96 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You got it? Last edited by davidsog; June 10, 2019 at 02:49 PM. |
||||
June 10, 2019, 03:01 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
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 |
June 10, 2019, 03:18 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
|
Quote:
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk |
|
June 10, 2019, 03:19 PM | #99 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
June 10, 2019, 03:36 PM | #100 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|