A gun in every house is a must

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Terrorism in the West is an insignificant threat to life, compared to common murder. Gang violence is significant, at about a third of murders in the US. But neither of them is a good example of violence that could be prevented by law-abiding citizens owning guns.

The average person has a 50% chance of being able to run away from a knife attack. That right there makes knives less of a threat than guns.

I'm not sure that's a real statistic.

It's just like "50% of people have below average IQ". It follows directly from assuming one person wielding a knife is average, and the person being attacked is average.

Maybe you'd rather assume knife assailants tend to be young men? Given that implies that MORE people would fancy their chances of attacking with a gun, if they had a gun rather than a knife?

[Jedi Council]

How about no.

I wouldn't trust most of the people I know with a butter knife much less a firearm

[Greater Cesnica]

But neither of them is a good example of violence that could be prevented by law-abiding citizens owning guns.

The average person has a 50% chance of being able to run away from a knife attack.

Give your source. Stop pulling statistics out of thin air like you've been doing in several of your posts. Also, mass shootings, violent robberies, attempted kidnappings, and attempted rapes have all been prevented by civilians owned with firearm numerous times.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

The average person has a 50% chance of being able to run away from a knife attack.

Give your source. Stop pulling statistics out of thin air like you've been doing in several of your posts.

Without a source I can tell you this. You cannot run away AT ALL unless the person with a knife is slow, however, it is possible to disarm if you have been taught some basic disarming and throwing art. Something a yellow belt can perform, even if need be you can literally disarm someone by breaking their elbow. Running, no you cant

[Greater Cesnica]

Give your source. Stop pulling statistics out of thin air like you've been doing in several of your posts.

Without a source I can tell you this. You cannot run away AT ALL unless the person with a knife is slow, however, it is possible to disarm if you have been taught some basic disarming and throwing art. Something a yellow belt can perform, even if need be you can literally disarm someone by breaking their elbow. Running, no you cant

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

Without a source I can tell you this. You cannot run away AT ALL unless the person with a knife is slow, however, it is possible to disarm if you have been taught some basic disarming and throwing art. Something a yellow belt can perform, even if need be you can literally disarm someone by breaking their elbow. Running, no you cant

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

If they grab, you are fucked. My preferred method is grab, move behind, choke and trip. After you twist their hand and arm to disarm completely, knee on the back to keep them down whilst you call the police

[Miku the Based]

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

If they grab, you are fucked. My preferred method is grab, move behind, choke and trip. After you twist their hand and arm to disarm completely, knee on the back to keep them down whilst you call the police

from slovenian clothing manufacture. Run away if you can, the mugger won't perdue you outside the alley unless he wants to get in more trouble than he is in a public space. A mad man can chase you, just run faster and get help asap. If you can't then put your hands between you and your attacker preferably with plams toward you. You are going to get stabbed, the difference is if you live until you get to the hospital or you die on the spot.
Get close and control the arm, who cares if you break his elbow, he's trying to stab you. Fancy Martial arts won't save you unless it's something like krav maga or street martial art that focus on quick blunt force eye gouging and nut kicking.

[Ifreann]

seeing as how countries which enforce tight gun laws (UK, Japan) aren't Somalia, I think you're fibbing.

In the UK you still have mass stabbings and terror attacks. In Japan you have the yakuza, most recent shooting in japan was 2 years with some really weird AR pistol

Everyone knows that mass stabbings are a routine feature of British life, just like mass shootings are routine in the US. This is a well known fact and no one should look into it any further.

[Great Pacific Switzerland]

If they grab, you are fucked. My preferred method is grab, move behind, choke and trip. After you twist their hand and arm to disarm completely, knee on the back to keep them down whilst you call the police

from slovenian clothing manufacture. Run away if you can, the mugger won't perdue you outside the alley unless he wants to get in more trouble than he is in a public space. A mad man can chase you, just run faster and get help asap. If you can't then put your hands between you and your attacker preferably with plams toward you. You are going to get stabbed, the difference is if you live until you get to the hospital or you die on the spot.
Get close and control the arm, who cares if you break his elbow, he's trying to stab you. Fancy Martial arts won't save you unless it's something like krav maga or street martial art that focus on quick blunt force eye gouging and nut kicking.

Of course. I'm just going with what I've been taught and taught myself

In the UK you still have mass stabbings and terror attacks. In Japan you have the yakuza, most recent shooting in japan was 2 years with some really weird AR pistol

Everyone knows that mass stabbings are a routine feature of British life, just like mass shootings are routine in the US. This is a well known fact and no one should look into it any further.

You made me spit out my tea in laughter

[UniversalCommons]

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

If they grab, you are fucked. My preferred method is grab, move behind, choke and trip. After you twist their hand and arm to disarm completely, knee on the back to keep them down whilst you call the police

Disarming someone is complicated. If you don't do something about the knife arm or disable someone immediately, you will get stabbed. Usually the front arms is forward and the knife hand is back, meaning that they will use the front arm to prevent you from doing anything to protect yourself like grabbing you making it really hard to block the knife attack. Also, it is very likely they may ambush you giving you little time to prepare.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Without a source I can tell you this. You cannot run away AT ALL unless the person with a knife is slow, however, it is possible to disarm if you have been taught some basic disarming and throwing art. Something a yellow belt can perform, even if need be you can literally disarm someone by breaking their elbow. Running, no you cant

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

Seriously, you ask me for a source, then you bring that?

If one scenario which looks staged anyway is enough for you, then I have personally run away and survived from two people who pulled a knife on me. One was a mugger who I saw fumbling under his clothes, and looking back I saw the knife out when I was already well ahead of him. The other guy was outside a pub, probably just looking to fight anyone but maybe a mugger, he already had the knife out so I ran and he didn't chase me. So much for anecdotal evidence.

It's like you see the 50% number and go "oh, I recognize that, it's a statistic" and overlook that exactly 50% is really unlikely to be a real-world statistic.

Making no assumptions about you, making no assumptions about the knife assailant, but assuming only one of each and that you know they're pulling a knife, it comes down to who can run faster. Which is 50/50. If they surpised you, attacking from behind, you'd be stabbed before running became an option. But even then, you have a better chance (wrestling for the knife) than if they'd shot you without warning.

Even if you don't accept that running away is EVER an option (maybe you're obese and have a prosthetic leg), one stab to the torso is less likely to be lethal than one shot.

[Greater Cesnica]

Even if you don't accept that running away is EVER an option (maybe you're obese and have a prosthetic leg), one stab to the torso is less likely to be lethal than one shot.

Wrong. Stab wounds create a much larger wound channel than most common small arms calibers.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

But neither of them is a good example of violence that could be prevented by law-abiding citizens owning guns.

The average person has a 50% chance of being able to run away from a knife attack.

Give your source. Stop pulling statistics out of thin air like you've been doing in several of your posts. Also, mass shootings, violent robberies, attempted kidnappings, and attempted rapes have all been prevented by civilians owned with firearm numerous times.

"Numerous times" doesn't impress me that much, considering ten thousand gun murders a year.

I'm not going to ask you for a source, because it will be an NRA survey of members, probably scaled up by some arbitrary amount to represent the whole number. If you have FBI or some such, I'll read it.

No video please. I've been stooged into watching a violent scene once already.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

it comes down to who can run faster. Which is 50/50.

That's not how that works lol.

Two average persons. Chance A can run faster than B is 50%. Explain what is wrong with this reasoning.

[Grinning Dragon]

Give your source. Stop pulling statistics out of thin air like you've been doing in several of your posts. Also, mass shootings, violent robberies, attempted kidnappings, and attempted rapes have all been prevented by civilians owned with firearm numerous times.

"Numerous times" doesn't impress me that much, considering ten thousand gun murders a year.

I'm not going to ask you for a source, because it will be an NRA survey of members, probably scaled up by some arbitrary amount to represent the whole number. If you have FBI or some such, I'll read it.

No video please. I've been stooged into watching a violent scene once already.

No such thing as gun murders, guns are incapable of murdering anyone.
Of those 10K deaths a great portion of those are justifiable homicides, either by self defense/police action.

[Iwassoclose]

How about no.

I wouldn't trust most of the people I know with a butter knife much less a firearm

thats more of a you problem

most of society already has access to things that would be considered dangerous if used incorrectly, guns are just one of many.

[The Two Jerseys]

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

Seriously, you ask me for a source, then you bring that?

If one scenario which looks staged anyway is enough for you, then I have personally run away and survived from two people who pulled a knife on me. One was a mugger who I saw fumbling under his clothes, and looking back I saw the knife out when I was already well ahead of him. The other guy was outside a pub, probably just looking to fight anyone but maybe a mugger, he already had the knife out so I ran and he didn't chase me. So much for anecdotal evidence.

You can't really claim that running away saved you from a knife attack when you were never actually attacked with a knife. So much for anecdotal evidence.

It's like you see the 50% number and go "oh, I recognize that, it's a statistic" and overlook that exactly 50% is really unlikely to be a real-world statistic.

Making no assumptions about you, making no assumptions about the knife assailant, but assuming only one of each and that you know they're pulling a knife, it comes down to who can run faster. Which is 50/50. If they surpised you, attacking from behind, you'd be stabbed before running became an option. But even then, you have a better chance (wrestling for the knife) than if they'd shot you without warning.

You have a 50% chance of disarming a gunman before he shoots you.

Even if you don't accept that running away is EVER an option (maybe you're obese and have a prosthetic leg), one stab to the torso is less likely to be lethal than one shot.

That's objectively false.

Give your source. Stop pulling statistics out of thin air like you've been doing in several of your posts. Also, mass shootings, violent robberies, attempted kidnappings, and attempted rapes have all been prevented by civilians owned with firearm numerous times.

"Numerous times" doesn't impress me that much, considering ten thousand gun murders a year.

I'm not going to ask you for a source, because it will be an NRA survey of members, probably scaled up by some arbitrary amount to represent the whole number. If you have FBI or some such, I'll read it.

No video please. I've been stooged into watching a violent scene once already.

The CDC puts the bottom end of defensive gun uses at 60,000 per year.

60,000>10,000.

[UniversalCommons]

Running away is always an option. It is how you run away that matters. If you turn your back to someone you may be stabbed in the back. It is putting big objects, moving cars, and streets that may keep you alive. Evasion and escape are martial skills just like fighting. If you can knock someone down and escape from a weapon if you are unarmed it is a good thing to do. People who have weapons often have friends with weapons. Survival, evasion, resistance, and escape are martial skills. Most confrontations are avoidable if you are paying attention.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Seriously, you ask me for a source, then you bring that?

If one scenario which looks staged anyway is enough for you, then I have personally run away and survived from two people who pulled a knife on me. One was a mugger who I saw fumbling under his clothes, and looking back I saw the knife out when I was already well ahead of him. The other guy was outside a pub, probably just looking to fight anyone but maybe a mugger, he already had the knife out so I ran and he didn't chase me. So much for anecdotal evidence.

You can't really claim that running away saved you from a knife attack when you were never actually attacked with a knife. So much for anecdotal evidence.

Well that's the thing. If I'd had a gun pulled on me twice with no provocation, I could validly claimed to have been attacked with a gun. But because knives don't work at a distance (except by an accomplished thrower, which luckily I have never met) I can't claim to have been attacked unless I was actually stabbed?

Convenient for your argument. And anyway, my anecdotal evidence was still better than what was offered.

It's like you see the 50% number and go "oh, I recognize that, it's a statistic" and overlook that exactly 50% is really unlikely to be a real-world statistic.

Making no assumptions about you, making no assumptions about the knife assailant, but assuming only one of each and that you know they're pulling a knife, it comes down to who can run faster. Which is 50/50. If they surpised you, attacking from behind, you'd be stabbed before running became an option. But even then, you have a better chance (wrestling for the knife) than if they'd shot you without warning.

You have a 50% chance of disarming a gunman before he shoots you.

Yeah, I don't accept videos as a source (except as primary source for discussing a specific incident). Now you know that, don't pretend to be sourcing your shit, by linking me to a video. You may as well not link at all: following links takes time, and offering them as an argument rather than in illustration of an argument, or when demanded, is a demand of my time which your argument does not deserve.

Even if you don't accept that running away is EVER an option (maybe you're obese and have a prosthetic leg), one stab to the torso is less likely to be lethal than one shot.

That's objectively false.

No, it's true. Being stabbed one time is far less likely to kill than being shot one time. Being stabbed two times, is far less likely to be fatal than being shot two times.

This is the sort of basic knowledge anyone arguing for guns saving lives, should have down pat.

On this particular point, you may offer a text source.

"Numerous times" doesn't impress me that much, considering ten thousand gun murders a year.

I'm not going to ask you for a source, because it will be an NRA survey of members, probably scaled up by some arbitrary amount to represent the whole number. If you have FBI or some such, I'll read it.

No video please. I've been stooged into watching a violent scene once already.

The CDC puts the bottom end of defensive gun uses at 60,000 per year.

60,000>10,000.

The fact that someone showed a gun, does not establish that they averted a violent crime. Let alone a murder. Anyone who woke up in the night, and took their gun with them to investigate, can honestly report that they used a gun defensively even if there was no perpetrator present. Even the numbers of citizens who claim to have fired defensively is not backed up by gunshot wounds in emergency rooms, it's all just gun-toting fantasy.

If any of them DID fire so badly that they didn't hit a suspect, they're frankly guilty of anything from reckless use to attempted murder.

And the bottom line is that 10,000 legally acknowledged gun murders already puts the US in a very bad place. If it's not the availability of guns, then Americans are just plain homicidal. How many more are you trying to claim would have happened without citizen self-defense? Another 10,000? Maybe 20,000?

Guns make murder much easier. Perhaps every society is just as inclined to murder as the US, but they just don't have the opportunity. Even that's pretty bad, from a gun-rights/gun-control perspective, but it's profoundly insulting to human nature to claim that guns actually reduce the rate of murder.

Americans might be OK with that, but I personally think it's paranoid ideation: Americans fearing each other because of the high chance that someone you've got nothing against, might suddenly murder you, so you have to be armed for that day. A self-perpetuating cycle of fear leading to the ludicrous conclusion that the only defense against a pistol being suddenly pulled on you, is to carry an AR-15 at all times. An armed society is a shit-scared society ... but you do you.

[The Two Jerseys]

You can't really claim that running away saved you from a knife attack when you were never actually attacked with a knife. So much for anecdotal evidence.

Well that's the thing. If I'd had a gun pulled on me twice with no provocation, I could validly claimed to have been attacked with a gun. But because knives don't work at a distance (except by an accomplished thrower, which luckily I have never met) I can't claim to have been attacked unless I was actually stabbed?

Convenient for your argument. And anyway, my anecdotal evidence was still better than what was offered.

It's convenient for your argument when you expand the definition of a "knife attack" to include merely brandishing a knife in your general vicinity. Not to mention running away from a "knife attack" before the guy had even pulled a knife...

You have a 50% chance of disarming a gunman before he shoots you.

Yeah, I don't accept videos as a source (except as primary source for discussing a specific incident). Now you know that, don't pretend to be sourcing your shit, by linking me to a video. You may as well not link at all: following links takes time, and offering them as an argument rather than in illustration of an argument, or when demanded, is a demand of my time which your argument does not deserve.

I accept your admission of defeat.

That's objectively false.

No, it's true. Being stabbed one time is far less likely to kill than being shot one time. Being stabbed two times, is far less likely to be fatal than being shot two times.

This is the sort of basic knowledge anyone arguing for guns saving lives, should have down pat.

On this particular point, you may offer a text source.

The CDC puts the bottom end of defensive gun uses at 60,000 per year.

60,000>10,000.

The fact that someone showed a gun, does not establish that they averted a violent crime. Let alone a murder. Anyone who woke up in the night, and took their gun with them to investigate, can honestly report that they used a gun defensively even if there was no perpetrator present. Even the numbers of citizens who claim to have fired defensively is not backed up by gunshot wounds in emergency rooms, it's all just gun-toting fantasy.

If any of them DID fire so badly that they didn't hit a suspect, they're frankly guilty of anything from reckless use to attempted murder.

And the bottom line is that 10,000 legally acknowledged gun murders already puts the US in a very bad place. If it's not the availability of guns, then Americans are just plain homicidal. How many more are you trying to claim would have happened without citizen self-defense? Another 10,000? Maybe 20,000?

Guns make murder much easier. Perhaps every society is just as inclined to murder as the US, but they just don't have the opportunity. Even that's pretty bad, from a gun-rights/gun-control perspective, but it's profoundly insulting to human nature to claim that guns actually reduce the rate of murder.

Americans might be OK with that, but I personally think it's paranoid ideation: Americans fearing each other because of the high chance that someone you've got nothing against, might suddenly murder you, so you have to be armed for that day. A self-perpetuating cycle of fear leading to the ludicrous conclusion that the only defense against a pistol being suddenly pulled on you, is to carry an AR-15 at all times. An armed society is a shit-scared society ... but you do you.

[Kernen]

Indeed. Running away will most likely guarantee your death.

If they grab, you are fucked. My preferred method is grab, move behind, choke and trip. After you twist their hand and arm to disarm completely, knee on the back to keep them down whilst you call the police

Idk man, or just shoot them.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Well that's the thing. If I'd had a gun pulled on me twice with no provocation, I could validly claimed to have been attacked with a gun. But because knives don't work at a distance (except by an accomplished thrower, which luckily I have never met) I can't claim to have been attacked unless I was actually stabbed?

Convenient for your argument. And anyway, my anecdotal evidence was still better than what was offered.

It's convenient for your argument when you expand the definition of a "knife attack" to include merely brandishing a knife in your general vicinity. Not to mention running away from a "knife attack" before the guy had even pulled a knife...

So we're on the same page here, what would constitute a threat with a gun, which would justify you firing in self-defence?

Would it perhaps include a stranger pulling out a gun while looking at you?

That's one of my examples. The guy had a knife out, which no sane person would do except as a threat, so I ran. If it had been a gun ... well according to the armchair martial artists in this thread, I should approach close enough to grab the gun from his hand. Yeah right. I would have run, and I may very well have been shot. What you may not know about running away, is it reserves the option to fight after all, if you're chased and losing ground. But it also has the ideal outcome of nobody getting hurt and the police not getting involved, if (a) you outrun them and they only have a knife, or (b) they don't chase you at all. Running from a knife is a much better option than running from a gun, this has been my point all along.

The other example, the guy didn't pull the knife until he had already begun chasing me. Maybe he was considering throwing it but couldn't get close enough. Or maybe he hoped to intimidate me into stopping (which is dumb). Or maybe he was just really angry that I could run faster than him. In none of these cases would running away have been a good move for me ... IF HE'D HAD A GUN.

Sure, it's anecdotes, but your attempts to render them irrelevant by defining the incidents as "not a knife attack" really misses the point. They were circumstances in which running away worked really well for me, but running away would likely have been just as futile as charging the guy and trying to take his weapon off him ... IF THAT HAD BEEN A GUN.

So if we're going to discuss my anecdotes any further, I'd like you to admit that both circumstances would justify at least drawing a gun if you had one, and the time I was chased by a guy wielding a knife, would justify firing at the pursuer.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Yeah, I don't accept videos as a source (except as primary source for discussing a specific incident). Now you know that, don't pretend to be sourcing your shit, by linking me to a video. You may as well not link at all: following links takes time, and offering them as an argument rather than in illustration of an argument, or when demanded, is a demand of my time which your argument does not deserve.

I accept your admission of defeat.

Very well then. Any time you want an easy kill on the redoubtable Tubes, all you have to do is link to some video. Any video will do, he'll refuse to watch it and that means you win.

I'll let you do that two or three times, then you go on Ignore. OK?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

No, it's true. Being stabbed one time is far less likely to kill than being shot one time. Being stabbed two times, is far less likely to be fatal than being shot two times.

This is the sort of basic knowledge anyone arguing for guns saving lives, should have down pat.

On this particular point, you may offer a text source.

[quote]

Me: "Being stabbed one time is far less likely to kill than being shot one time. Being stabbed two times, is far less likely to be fatal than being shot two times."

If you have nothing but picspam in reply, then let's leave it at Neither Of Us Knows, At All.

You, because you don't want to know and aren't going to google it.

And me, because the supposed expert refused to better inform me.

You used to be good. What's with the picspam?

[Galloism]

Me: "Being stabbed one time is far less likely to kill than being shot one time. Being stabbed two times, is far less likely to be fatal than being shot two times."

If you have nothing but picspam in reply, then let's leave it at Neither Of Us Knows, At All.

I actually don’t think there is any data comparisons that way. First we’d have to have some dividing line of what is a “stab” vs a “slash”, with the former likely being far deadlier than the latter. Similar to how being grazes with a bullet is extremely unlikely to result in death, slashes are similar.

Then we’d have to exclude accidents (like stabbing my hand while trying to open a package).

Then we’d have to determine total number of each incidents, and determine the death rates only of those incidents.

Not only would it be very hard to slice data this way, I don’t think anyone has done it.