Don’t rule it out, see nordstroms looting.
I don’t share your opinion that America is capable of a “revolution,” race war, or civil war. Even with a thousand twitters.
But I’d never guarantee I’m right about that. I consider myself self-aware enough to know that a lot of folks, throughout history, have said that very thing, before it happens. Usually, you don’t know you’re catastrophically wrong about something until it hits you in the mouth. At least that’s been my experience. But I got to go with my gut on this one.
Not trying to hijack this thread, so I’ll just say this: A great thread topic might be predictions on how, and when, the United States will cease to exist. I hate to type that out loud. Feel like I’m violating some sort of lese majeste of American patriotism by thinking about it in tangential terms, but it’s a mighty interesting topic.
In both instances, someone probably would have died if the guns had been replaced with knives. In the first instance it probably would have been the man who killed the man who attacked him and threatened to kill him with his own gun. (Because that guy probably would have succeeded in taking the knife away.) And in the second it still probably would have been the woman. So why do you think it would have been better?
More than half.
Murderers must perceive that guns are more effective at killing people because that is by far their weapon of choice.
Terrible people do not need to be given parity for them to have parity.
Well then be very careful if you think you are safe if you encounter a man 20 ft away from you holding a knife.
Someone might have still died if knives were in place instead of guns, but the probability of that is lower.
You cannot apply that general statistic to incidents such as these. A knife is just as lethal as a gun when there is enraged intent to kill.
I disagree. Knife can certainly be lethal but the probability is lower. Guns are way more efficient when it comes to killing, especially when there’s physical distance between the attacker and the victim. At close range, maybe just as lethal but if there’s distance, I’m taking the gun if i want to neutralize someone.
When a gun gets factored into the life of a dumb ass, bad things can happen. A gun is not a toy, requires a lot of practice and must be handled with the highest level of responsible care. You may have the right to a weapon but that doesn’t make you responsible with one.
You’re not listening. Yes, statistically, knives are less lethal than guns, but not when wielded by someone intent on killing. Knives are used most often to intimidate, not kill, so then assailant only has to cut or stab once to get the desired effect. If they intend to kill (and are not trained to kill with a knife,) they usually stab numerous times resulting in fatal blood loss.
I’m left to wonder then why the expression “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight” even exists.
Because of the very thing you said. The gun is effective at a greater distance than a knife. But that does not make the gun more lethal.
Doesn’t it though ? It’s a huge advantage to be able to strike someone from a distance. F.e. how high would the death toll in Las Vegas massacre been had that gentleman only had a knife ?
More effective does not mean more lethal.
Bullets are also designed to do a lot of damage relative to their size, and can oenetrste deeper into the body than a knife can.
There is also the psychological aspect of a knife killing: it is much more up close (obviously) and intimate.
What? That is exactly what it means.
No it’s not. If the goal is to stop the person in front of you from doing what they were doing, a knife can be just as effective as a gun. As you just said, there is also the psychological aspect of a knife. For some odd reason, people are more scared of knives … particularly big ones … than guns.