Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu misc.headlines:41577 talk.politics.guns:53322
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.guns
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!caen!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Message-ID: <1993Apr6.013659.28151@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <1993Apr1.061056.13033@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 01:36:59 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)

>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?...
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.

No. The issue is reducing crime, not guns. If gun control doesn't
lower crime overall, then is doesn't address the issue.

>...Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...

Does that matter if assaults with a baseball bat become much
more common? Muggers using a gun rely primarily on the
threat of the gun, and rarely shoot their victim. A mugger
using a knife is much more likely to start by stabbing his victim 
in an effort incapacitate him. So, while a knif may not
be as deadly as a gun, criminals are more likely to actually
_use_ the knife (as opposed to threatening the victim with it.)
It isn't at all clear that replacing the criminal's gun with a
knife would reduce murders. Stabbings might just become more
common. That's why it is important to look at the overall
(not the with-gun) homicide rate. It avoids the issue of
substitution, different criminal techinques of using different
weapons, etc... and measures what we want to prevent: Murders.

>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.  

"Face"? Possibly. However, facing knife-welding attackers isn't
too common: Stabbing without warning and by supprise is the
usual tactic. Very few criminals shoot from cover: It attracts
to much attention and they don't have a chance to go through your
pockets. Overall, I'd much rather be threatened with a gun
than actually stabbed with a knife.

>...Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).

Actually, the exact same statement is true of guns: Training in
unarmed self-defence will let you disarm an untrained gunman 
without much problem.

You also ignore the criminal's reaction: The National Crime
Survey clearly shows that criminals (unarmed, armed with a
knife, gun or whatever) are unwilling to risk their lives
in a confrontation. If faced with a serious threat, almost
all prefer to leave and find an easier target. Therefore,
using (or threatening to use, as is much more commonly the case)
a weapon _is_ the best defence against an attacker, regardless
of how he is armed. Knives, however, are much less effective
than guns: Criminals don't consider knifes as a "serious threat"
nearly as often as they do guns.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

