[Bromikka]

Because the sword was not on the seat it "was lying across the rear floor of the vehicle, police said."

I can think of scenarios where it’s possible for someone to pop in the car, lift the sword off the floor clean, while the driver would just sit there gaping. Of course, the probability of these scenarios occurring is certainly lower than that of a sword stolen from the front seat, but the probability is far higher than that of a sword stolen from the trunk of a car.

In the end – since it comes down to probability (and its mitigation) - I think when you own a weapon, it is your responsibility to keep the weapon as secure as possible.

[VIDEOHITE]

From a friend of mine who lives there "even the little kids carry their machete to school and as a result they're all expert". It's also handy when you lose it and want to hurt someone. If you've got your bolo in your hand and your gun is at home, you're going to cut the guy rather than wait to go home and back again.

It's a bad argument to say that "cars/knives/screwdrivers/iedevices/... can kill too". Of course they can and of course they do, but prevention of easy access to a weapon works in a very simple manner, as proven years ago by studies in the USA on weapons vs damage (just don't ask me to find the damned paper, it was over 10 years ago).

Here's the mechanism. You are in a blind rage and you want to kill someone. You use the weapon you have at hand, be that a knife, a gun, a car, a bottle or a stick. If you have a gun the other person is likely to end up dead, if you have any of the other weapons, or no weapon at all, the other person is very much less likely to end up dead.

So the bottom line is that gun control prevents death much more efficiently than knife control prevents death but any mechanism that keeps lethal weapons, weapons that are specifically designed to kill, out of easy reach will reduce deaths.

Kim.

So...why is it that pretty much all the areas in the US that have extremely strict gun laws also seem to have the highest rates of crimes where firearms are involved?

I'm all for gun control and that stuff, but only if it actually works, and isn't punishing people who already follow the law.

[BundEnhamma]

So...why is it that pretty much all the areas in the US that have extremely strict gun laws also seem to have the highest rates of crimes where firearms are involved?

I'm all for gun control and that stuff, but only if it actually works, and isn't punishing people who already follow the law.

Your question suggests you're not at all "for gun control and stuff". Laws are nothing without the enforcement of them. Furthermore, I fail to see how a man driving around on a suspended licence, with outstanding warrants and a weapon concealed within reach is some sort of victim of The Man.

[enasseneiff]

Your question suggests you're not at all "for gun control and stuff". Laws are nothing without the enforcement of them. Furthermore, I fail to see how a man driving around on a suspended licence, with outstanding warrants and a weapon concealed within reach is some sort of victim of The Man.

Was the weapon even concealed? I don't know the laws regarding what constitutes that over there, but it sounds like it really wasn't. I can definitely see nailing the guy for the license issue, not so much the weapons charges if that part was technically legal.


And as far as gun control goes, I'm fine as long as you're required to register them, and jump through a few hoops in order to get a permit to acquire etc. Not so much with total bans (that I doubt would work in the US.)

[ServiceColas]

It sounds like he might have not been legally allowed to own weapons - period - because he had a warrant out for his arrest and had skipped bail. That would include swords. I would bet that they only busted him for the sword after they ran his license and found out all that other information. Someone with a valid drivers license and a clean record - and no restrictions - probably would have been fine in that situation.

As to the comments about stabbings versus shootings ... I have only seen the results, but I would be interested in seeing a comparison rate between victims of stabbings versus victims of shootings. Both are pretty awful ways to go and I would imagine that the fatality rates are not that distant. Even a simple half inch long puncture can cause the intestines to be pushed out from the body, assuming the abdominal wall is pierced through. Which very quickly leads to hypothermia, increasing the rate at which shock sets in. Now I am curious.

[Mangoman]

As to the comments about stabbings versus shootings ... I have only seen the results, but I would be interested in seeing a comparison rate between victims of stabbings versus victims of shootings. Both are pretty awful ways to go and I would imagine that the fatality rates are not that distant. Even a simple half inch long puncture can cause the intestines to be pushed out from the body, assuming the abdominal wall is pierced through. Which very quickly leads to hypothermia, increasing the rate at which shock sets in. Now I am curious.

The differences between shooting someone and stabbing someone is very large in many ways more then one, the few differences is that shooting someone is easy, you aim and pull the trigger, the person drops, any idiot can do this, the person being shot has little chance to defend himself or do anything to defend himself unless he is lucky enough to find cover in time, through if someone is taking aim at you, it is already too late.

Now, take a guy with a knife, the person has a lot more chance to defend themselves, they also a have higher chance of seeing their attacker to allow them to escape or defend themselves, they can also attack back, how can you attack someone with a gun aimed at you? (other then being armed with a gun as well) it's the old catch phase... move and your dead...

Also, it takes a lot more "guts" to say to stab someone with a knife then it does then to pull the trigger, you also need to be pretty strong or crazy enough to walk up to a person and stab them.

[wmzeto]

The differences between shooting someone and stabbing someone is very large in many ways more then one, the few differences is that shooting someone is easy, you aim and pull the trigger, the person drops, any idiot can do this, the person being shot has little chance to defend himself or do anything to defend himself unless he is lucky enough to find cover in time, through if someone is taking aim at you, it is already too late.

Now, take a guy with a knife, the person has a lot more chance to defend themselves, they also a have higher chance of seeing their attacker to allow them to escape or defend themselves, they can also attack back, how can you attack someone with a gun aimed at you? (other then being armed with a gun as well) it's the old catch phase... move and your dead...

Also, it takes a lot more "guts" to say to stab someone with a knife then it does then to pull the trigger, you also need to be pretty strong or crazy enough to walk up to a person and stab them.

I'd argue that there is still relatively little difference in most cases, because someone who is determined to shank someone else who is unarmed is still at a major advantage (cops are trained to avoid trying to draw their firearm if they're within about 21ft and all that, and they still get stabbed despite having some training to deal with those sorts of threats). That and there are "shootings" where the guy with the firearm misses everything he's aiming at quite often.

[HitAttetlyTek]

I think... I'd argue...

Guys, a few moments on google scholar. Even without reading the full articles I suspect you'll get the idea. Don't assume in a vacuum, just look it up, this stuff has been studied for decades.


http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...iv=8&id=&page=

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1147458

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...iv=6&id=&page=

Especially: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00064-0076.pdf

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=42&id=&page=

In the first two pages of results folks, and like I said, within a minute of searching. It used to take me weeks to find this research back before the entire world was indexed on google. So use it.

Kim.

[traiffhetl]

Interesting reads. It seems as though it is missing information concerning where people were stabbed and shot. Being stabbed in the leg is (not always) less fatal than abdomen, and being stabbed in the chest rather than the abdomen is also (not always) less fatal. As someone who works an emergency rescue position, I would be interested in a comparison between specific areas. Being shot or stabbed in the abdomen are both pretty heinous. Internal compression injuries from bullets can cause organs to explode at times (such as the liver) while knives can easily spill intestines, and both bullets and knives can open up the stomach and spill all that bile and acid into the surrounding unprotected tissues. Being shot in the thigh is probably worse because the compression that the bullet causes could rupture the femoral artery even when the bullet never touches the artery, while being stabbed in the thigh pretty much needs to hit that artery to be lethal. Shot in the chest? Obviously the bullet has a better chance at getting past the ribs, and the large quantity of bones there can cause the bullet to ricochet around inside the victim. But both can puncture the lungs and cause pneumothorax or hemothorax injuries to the victim. Being shot in the shoulder versus stabbed in the shoulder will affect things as well.

Comparing knives to specific calibers would also be good to be super accurate, since a .22 is going to have different expansive compression than a .45, and with knives you are most often looking at how long the blade is more than any other quality it might possess. Apologies for rambling on. I am not trying to discount those articles at all. They are probably correct, but I am a super geek for trauma injuries and love to learn what I can about them. It is like talking shop, but I swear I am not ghoulish about it!