School Shooting

[Benko]

Also long implements like a baseball bat are pretty effective against knives.

Knives e.g. switchblades can be concealed.  Baseball bats are not practical to carry around with you on a routine basis (guns can be).

[doodle]

If someone pulls a switchblade and shanks me out of the blue, a gun would be useless anyways. If someone pulls a knife on me at any considerable distance I would run like hell and shriek like a banshee.

If someone breaks into my house with a knife, I would run, call the police, or take him on with the baseball bat next to my bed.

Our homicide rate is 400% higher on a percapita basis than a society like the UK where guns are more difficult to come by. How do you explain this other than the fact that guns are more effective killing weapons.

[KevinW]

Yeah in my jiu jitsu training knives were considered a lot more dangerous than clubs like baseball bats. With training it's possible (but not easy) to block a club strike without getting hurt. The only way to "block" a knife is to downgrade a lethal laceration to nonlethal defensive wounds, but you'd still be bleeding quickly and need immediate medical attention.

[Xan]

Our homicide rate is 400% higher on a percapita basis than a society like the UK where guns are more difficult to come by. How do you explain this other than the fact that guns are more effective killing weapons.

That argument is naive in the extreme.  Are you seriously suggesting that the only difference between the US and the UK is gun ownership?  What about a culture of street violence and gangs in inner cities?  What about being right on the border with a failing state in the throes of a drug war (Mexico)?  What about being a nation of immigrants, involving different groups not always getting along, as opposed to a (relatively) homogeneous society?

[doodle]

Unless I was cornered, why would I fight someone with a knife? I'm not a jiu jitsu expert but between two average people in a fight I would rather be the person with the baseball bat than the 6 inch butterfly knife.

I am not against guns...I am for a more sensible process of licensing, training and background checks. That puts me with odds with a lot of people on this forum, but that is my position based on the evidence as I interpret it.

Our homicide rate is 400% higher on a percapita basis than a society like the UK where guns are more difficult to come by. How do you explain this other than the fact that guns are more effective killing weapons.

That argument is naive in the extreme.  Are you seriously suggesting that the only difference between the US and the UK is gun ownership?  What about a culture of street violence and gangs in inner cities?  What about being right on the border with a failing state in the throes of a drug war (Mexico)?  What about being a nation of immigrants, involving different groups not always getting along, as opposed to a (relatively) homogeneous society?

The most egregious example of gun violence just occurred in the culturally homogenous country of Norway.

Lets take the Colorado shooting for a second. What would the outcome have been if all male adults in that dark smoke filled theater had been carrying handguns? I'm going to say the death count would have been a hell of a lot higher.

[Benko]

Lets take the Colorado shooting for a second. What would the outcome have been if all male adults in that dark smoke filled theater had been carrying handguns? I'm going to say the death count would have been a hell of a lot higher.

The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just they know
so much that isn't true. - Ronald Reagan.

[RuralEngineer]

Look at the overall violent crime rates. Britain smokes the U.S.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

Guns are a superior weapon, no doubt about it. However it is exactly its equalizing properties that make it essential for self defense. No other weapon enables a 90 lb teacher and 230 lb rapist to come even close to equal footing.

I find the bat vs knife argument amusing. Anyone who's seen a knife defense demonstration would immediately realize that the only chance a bat wielder would have is a lucky strike to the head. There's no other way to cause an immediate fatality. If you've grappled with a knife wielder, there's no hope for you short of outside assistance.

[doodle]

Lets take the Colorado shooting for a second. What would the outcome have been if all male adults in that dark smoke filled theater had been carrying handguns? I'm going to say the death count would have been a hell of a lot higher.

The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just they know
so much that isn't true. - Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan's deinstitutionalization of mental patients is why a lot of this mess is happening. By the way why do conservatives idolize a tax raising (Greenspan commission), cut and running (Lebanon), negotiate with terrorists (Iran), deficit spending president so much?

[Xan]

Ronald Reagan's deinstitutionalization of mental patients is why a lot of this mess is happening.

Ah, that explains it...  Just when did they let you out?  :-)

[Benko]

Lets take the Colorado shooting for a second. What would the outcome have been if all male adults in that dark smoke filled theater had been carrying handguns? I'm going to say the death count would have been a hell of a lot higher.

The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just they know
so much that isn't true. - Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan's deinstitutionalization of mental patients is why a lot of this mess is happening. By the way why do conservatives idolize a tax raising (Greenspan commission), cut and running (Lebanon), negotiate with terrorists (Iran), deficit spending president so much?

Your ignorance of what really would have happened had a number of people had guns, reminded me of that comment.  The fact that you changed the subject speaks for itself.

What blaming bush got tiring?

[doodle]

Baseball bat wrecking crew. The guy with the knife takes off. Obviously he didn't think he had the superior weapon in this fight: http://youtu.be/1NUOeXV5Kyg

Could a trained knife fighter take on an angry guy with a baseball bat? Probably, yeah. But 99.9% of people would back off.

[RuralEngineer]

Unless I was cornered, why would I fight someone with a knife? I'm not a jiu jitsu expert but between two average people in a fight I would rather be the person with the baseball bat than the 6 inch butterfly knife.

i would take the knife any day, one swing and a miss or bruising non fatal blow with a bat and the guy with the knife has closed the distance and can inflict real damage, fight over....

Amazing. Your argument is that a knife wielding thief isn't willing to risk injury for $53, therefor a bat is a superior weapon? Apparently mace is a superior weapon too because not many people are willing to take a blast of mace to the face over a few dollars.

I'd love to see Doodle with a wiffle bat covered in fresh paint fight a guy with a sharpie. Both wear white tee shirts and see what the damage would be. Hint, Doodle gets a single non-lethal hit in and then suffers dozens of "stab" wounds to the back.

[doodle]

Amazing. Your argument is that a knife wielding thief isn't willing to risk injury for $53, therefor a bat is a superior weapon? Apparently mace is a superior weapon too because not many people are willing to take a blast of mace to the face over a few dollars.

I'd love to see Doodle with a wiffle bat covered in fresh paint fight a guy with a sharpie. Both wear white tee shirts and see what the damage would be. Hint, Doodle gets a single non-lethal hit in and then suffers dozens of "stab" wounds to the back.

That would be a fun exercise. Im gonna challenge my friend and let you know how it turns out. Of course, it wouldn't represent reality because he would be much more willing to charge me knowing he is getting hit with a wiffle bat than he would be if I had a louisville slugger.


Why do I only get one hit? I can sustain a stabbing and still keep swinging.

If I hit you in the shoulder with a baseball bat, Im pretty sure that arm is out of comission.

[Pointedstick]

Doodle, it appears you don't have much experience with fighting, or else hollywood has informed your impressions. Consensual fighting (you referred to a "street fight" earlier) is totally different from self-defense, most of which involves avoiding dangerous people rather than fighting them off. But if you need to fight them off, you need to respond with overwhelming and disabling violence.

None of this looks good for the notion of defending yourself with a baseball bat, unless you're a huge muscleman who trains with baseball bats for self-defense and carries one with him wherever he goes. It's not realistic. I really hope you realize this for your own safety, because if someone busts into your house and you grab your baseball bat, something truly tragic could happen.

Please be safe. The best way to start down the road of safety is to be realistic.

[doodle]

So that knife wielding robber that busted into the store got pretty pummeled by the very un-muscle man like cashier.

This argument once again is totally off base. People are saying that guns are necessary to have a safe society. I don't think so. A gun enables someone intent on harming to do a lot more damage.

The evidence from Britain and other countries is that violence happens, but with different weapons. Im making the argument that in the case of weapons other than guns, that violence can be more easily avoided by running or other people getting involved. If someone pulls a gun, bystanders scatter. If a guy pulls a knife in a bar and attacks someone, I and a couple other guys might clobber him over the head with a pool cue.

[Benko]

Doodle,

Because banning things works so well to prevent determined people from getting them?  Like prohibition?  Oh wait....

What areas of the country have the strictest gun control laws?  Do they prevent gun related violence?

[Pointedstick]

If a guy pulls a knife in a bar and attacks someone, I and a couple other guys might clobber him over the head with a pool cue.

I will ask again: have you ever been in an actual fight? Is your viewpoint based on personal experience, training, or study, or are you just speculating?

[Tyler]

I love Penn & Teller's knack for making controversial topics entertaining.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs

[RuralEngineer]

Doodle, I think you underestimate how easy it is to immobilize something like a bat. Maybe if your opponent is disabled you'll be able to get repeated swings in, but in reality they're going to take a non-lethal hit, grapple, render your weapon useless and then proceed to perforate your internal organs. All of which can be effectively reached through the back, which is hard to protect. You'd be dead very quickly. Nobody wins a knife fight because unless you're very highly trained or have a firearm, the best case scenario is severe lacerations.

[Pointedstick]

Doodle, I think you underestimate how easy it is to immobilize something like a bat.

Seconded. In the movies, the first hit to the head always knocks someone out. In real life, a pool cue is likely to do nothing at all, assuming you can hit to begin with. Stabbing and slashing wounds are in an entirely different category from bludgeoning wounds.

even in the video doodle posted the guy took countless full force bat hits and shrugged it off, just imagine if instead of heading for the door after being hit he had the "will to do harm" and started slashing and stabbing.... he was still in perfectly good shape to slash and stab fast as he was to exit the building fast ... proves guy with a bat got lucky he wasn't facing a determined attacker nothing more....

[Pointedstick]

It's very true, and I don't think anyone will argue that guns in the wrong hands can be devastating to innocents. Adam Lanza's hands so tragically revealed to be very much the wrong ones, but I have to say I'm truly at a loss to imagine how one could have kept guns out of them. His mother purchased and owned those firearms legally. Background checks are mandated federally, and Connecticut already has laws mandating secure storage and waiting periods, and banning weapons whose cosmetic features classify them as "assault weapons."

I think someone would need to have stopped him before he decided to commit violence, or after he became armed. I just can't think of how another law could have prevented him from becoming armed, outside of banning and confiscating all firearms, which is constitutionally problematic to say the least.

[Gumby]

I just can't think of how another law could have prevented him from becoming armed, outside of banning and confiscating all firearms, which is constitutionally problematic to say the least.

Perhaps look to Australia for guidance...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ide_a.html

[RuralEngineer]

Australian gun laws don't even pass the 2nd amendment smell test. If you want to argue that the 2nd amendment needs to be abolished, we can have that discussion. However, draconian gun bans have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The 2nd amendment guarantees personal ownership, end of story.

Any draconian ban will require confiscation to be effective. That means civil war. The right to effective self defense is too sacred to too many for a peaceful outcome. In fact, such an action represents the very reason the 2nd amendment exists. The involuntary disarmament of its citizenry by a government is tyranny.

[Gumby]

I don't claim to be an expert on guns, so perhaps you can explain it to me. But, aren't Australia's gun control laws mainly focussed on semi-automatic and pump-action firearms? Couldn't we satisfy the 2nd amendment by letting everyone own single-fire muskets and pistols to their heart's content? Certainly that would be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, which is what defined a firearm in 1791 when the amendment was passed.

The problem, as far as I can see, seems to be these high ammunition rapid-fire firearms, which Australia's gun control laws addressed quite well.

[Pointedstick]

I don't claim to be an expert on guns, so perhaps you can explain it to me. But, aren't Australia's gun control laws mainly focussed on semi-automatic and pump-action firearms? Couldn't we satisfy the 2nd amendment by letting everyone own single-fire muskets and pistols to their heart's content? Certainly that would be in the spirit of the 2nd amendment, which is what defined a firearm in 1791 when the amendment was passed.

The supreme court threw out that argument in Heller and re-affirmed it in McDonald. By that logic, the 1st amendment only protects quill pens and 18th century printing presses.