I am saying this because it was not like this when I was younger, yes there were fights but it was one on one and it was fists and very seldom with knives. The last time I went to a pub/nightclub was around 6 months ago. And we left because some crowd of idiots decided to glass another guy, anyway the bouncers took care of it. I am not talking soley about London here either. Have you ever lived on a council estate ?..yeah there is loads for the teenagers to do that is why they hang around the streets... and on top of that a lot of teenagers havent got the money to spend on "attractions" in London. Yeah I am an idiot and I have no Idea I only lived on a council estate for around 15 years.....
-
-
Comment
-
On a serious note the youths these days need to find a viable use for their knives and shit.
Give 'em a tub of butter and they will keep themselves occupied for hours ....Comment
-
Comment
-
Council estates are shit holes full of drug addicts and teenage mothers. Cheap and nasty homes where either the government puts you their or you are to poor to afford to live anywhere else.
Why would anyone but an idiot to stupid to make money to live elsewhere live on a council estate?☻Comment
-
You really dont have any idea do you?
When we lived on a council estate it gave us the opertuinty to buy our own house. Do you think that every one is born in well to do familys that can afford their own houses. Do you think that everyone that lives on a council estate are drug users or teenage mothers? Some council estates are worse than others but not all of the people that live on them are bad people. You should get out and see the real UK and not just assume you know everythingComment
-
Are you on crack? You think you can disarm someone with a gun pointed at you?
Play this game, get someone with a spray bottle, and stand 6 feet away from them. Try and disarm them before they "Shoot" you.
Please, it's this type of McDojo thinking that gets people killed. Feed them their gun, bullshit.
Comment
-
The real uk is not council estates sorry to tell you, i guess it makes you feel better about your own failings thinking everyone lives in slums though.☻Comment
-
Comment
-
Outside of ASM's points, you confuse police forces and armies wich are trained forces with street violence. Not commesurate.
A solid point, but the people who proudly know nothing at all will gladly add history to the list of their unconquests.Comment
-
Let's look at African militias instead, then. Somehow, those untrained idiots also prefer guns over kitchen knives.
Seriously, why are you trying to argue this point? The idea you are defending is plainly, obviously, palpably false. Guns are, generally speaking, more effective weapons than knives. Denying that requires willful stupidity./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Your statement is so untrue its not even funny. Council Estates in England are much worse than that in Scotland yes but I'm pretty sure not all the people living in them are scum. Sure a lot of them are but not all of them. Most are people trying to make a life for themselves but get caught up in all this violence and drug dealing. It only takes a few bad people to make a neighbourhood look very bad.
Where I live theres a huge private estate with houses ranging from £150K to £700K and its a great place. Now the councils are doing part ownership in a part of it and will be putting council residents into this big fancy estate. All it takes is for a couple of bad people to get into that area and it brings down the whole estate. The current people living in the private houses are protesting about it but there is nothing that can be done. I'm sure it won't be scum that will be put into these houses but ya never know.Comment
-
The fucking drug dealers so out gun the cops and military here that its amazing.PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic
AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online!
TChicks.com | Angeles Cid | Mariana Cordoba | MAILERS WELCOME!Comment
-
Comment
-
No weapon is superior to any othe weapon in the general sense.
Your argument is akin to claiming hammers are better tools than vices, just like that.
It depends where you are, and what you're trying to do.
If you're aiming to take down a plane, some sort of missile seems reasonable. If you're trying to win a bar brawl, the same missile would be most unadvisable.
So, is a missile a superior weapon to a gun, which in turn is a superior weapon to a knife ? Why aren't policemen carrying missiles ?
Wait. Wouldn't a nuclear warhead be the bestest coolest weapon evar and evar ? Seeing how most armies that get the option, get nukes ? Hmm ?
Why aren't Guggenheim guards carrying nukes ?Comment
-
PlayVisionContent.com - Your NEXT GENERATION high-quality content provider.
www.playvisioncontent.com
www.sexsense.com
For more free content samples please contact Andreas under ab (at) playvisionmedia dot comComment
-
Part of my point in starting this thread and being a little less then serious is that with knife crimes in the UK and gun crimes in the US is we often worry about things like banning guns and knives without examining the cause of the violence in the first place.
A gun or knife sitting there by itself doesn't harm anyone, but put it in the hands of someone with no regard for human life, safety, in some cases common sense and it's a problem.
In the US, we already have tons of gun laws but little regard is paid to them by someone who is determined they are going to commit a crime or go after someone. Same with something as ridiculous as a knife law.
I know it's a peacenik hippy thing to say, but if people started giving a shit about each other a little more, these things wouldn't be an issue. However, in the real world, there is a lot of human scum and filth that necessitates the need for people to arm and protect themselves.Comment
-
Note how I said "more effective". Obviously, this implies "more effective at aiding in killing people".
As for missiles and nukes, those are more effective at killing large amounts of people. Simultaneously, they fail at other desirable things, such as portability, control and lack of collateral damage.
A knife, as a weapon, certainly has some qualities which might be desirable to some people in some situations (e.g. the lack of sound produced). However, in terms of effectiveness in sheer killing power, guns beat knives.
Ever heard the expression "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? What do you think it's based on?
Ever taken a look at the % of murders involving guns in the US, taking into account the fact that knives are much more readily available than guns?
Ever look at statistics involving the % of fatalities in both shootings and stabbings?
You are wrong. Simply wrong. Just give it up already. You're making yourself look like a complete and utter idiot./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Well that is the general idea, although I'd rather have one for myself mate
www.privateislandsonline.com - give me a couple of years...ICQ 1454 81 522 |
Comment
-
It's nice you have data handy, be it wikipedia or, upon admonition, better sources. That is commendable.
To go with your manifest desire to improve your reasoning, alongside better data sources you should consider aquiring better data treatment.
For instance the fact that 90% of people killed by guns and knives together are killed by guns alone doesn't make your case necessarily.
We would need to see what percent of total confrontations is here represented, because if out of 10,000 situations involving firearms, there were 200ish wounded and 50ish killed, whereas out of 1000 situations involving knives, there were 200 ish wounded and 4 killed, your data would actually support my argument not yours.
Further we need to consider whether there's sample bias, namely, are people who have aforethought decided to kill someone more likely to carry a gun than a knife ? For instance, if 99% of all people intending to kill someone are persuaded the way you are, that guns are mystically superior weapons, a result of 90% homicides by gunshot wound would also serve my case not yours.
But I much appreciate your effort to better yourself, and so let me help clarify some points :
A knife has a few advantages a gun does not, but the silence is not the most important one. A knife is more easily concealed, faster to ready, easier to maneuver correctly, faster to use once ready, more difficult to fend against in close quarters.
I am not disputing that a gun has some advantages, namely, range, and stopping power, making it an excellent defensive weapon (and so a natural fit for police units everywhere). But a gun is also useless in unsteady hands, untrained wrists, cloudy eyes, it takes a while to ready, and is much more directional than a knife is.
To sum it up, in the average urban environment, knives are more dangerous than guns are. Luckily, not as widely used.Comment
-
very sad men!I'm just a newbie.Comment
-
Before responding to the rest of your inane drivel, let me repeat something:
These are hard figures that strongly indicate that guns are, in fact, deadlier than knives.
This might not be conclusive proof (something which, by the way, is something that is logically impossible), but it comes pretty damn close. Without actual figures indicating the opposite and explaining why the conclusion these figures seemingly support, all of the non-empirical statements you make are essentially worthless.
It's comparable to the following situation:
My house, right now, is clean.
My hypothesis on why it is clean is that the cleaning guy, whom I called yesterday, came to my house today, was let in by me, and cleaned the house while I went shopping.
Your hypothesis is that the cleaning guy, whom I called yesterday, came to my house today, was let in by me, called a construction crew and ordered new furniture as soon as I left the house, and had every single thing in the house replaced.
Sure, both are possible. However, the former is rather more likely than the latter.
You are arguing a position which is not supported by any data when taken at face value. You are providing zero evidence for that position. The sole things you have are some weak assumptions, combined in a flawed theoretical framework, leading up to a conclusion which holds no weight whatsoever.
By sticking to your position without providing evidence to corroborate it, you are priving yourself to be a stubborn fool. And a pretentious one, at that./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Of course, that argument can be brought against anyone not impressed with some shoddy "empirical data" that doesn't actually connect.
For instance, why have elections at all, we could just nielsen poll 50 homes, and then, in the absence of any better "data" at the disposition of anyone else, reasonable people will be confronted with the choice of agreeing with you or being "stubborn fools".
As a side point, conclusive proof is not logically impossible. You may find it difficult in this particular case, because you're disputing my own preference against me, but hey.Comment
-
I think if you insert a screw in a fleshlight you're pretty much screwed.Comment
-
At the risk of repeating myself...
How exactly does that "not connect"?
You yourself made the following point in a previous post:
Now, the conclusion you draw from your weak mathematical skills is flawed (50/10000 = 5/1000, which is higher than 4/1000, meaning that in your scenario, guns would still be deadlier).We would need to see what percent of total confrontations is here represented, because if out of 10,000 situations involving firearms, there were 200ish wounded and 50ish killed, whereas out of 1000 situations involving knives, there were 200 ish wounded and 4 killed, your data would actually support my argument not yours.
However, it also makes clear is that it would require confrontations involving knives to be about 10 times as likely to cause bodily injury as confrontations involving guns for your argument to be right. Now, that's pretty fucking unlikely - especially without any stats to back it up.
This is a discussion on a message board, not an election. I'm not going to do several months of extensive research just to further point out that you are an idiot. Deal with it.
Conclusive proof on anything outside of comprehensive theoretical systems (as far as those are possible, anyway) actually is impossible. Read some Popper, as well as a bit of Quine and Goodman. Maybe google the "induction problem", the "underdetermination of theories" and the "duhem-quine thesis".
Short version: single observations cannot prove general rules, it is always possible to explain phenomena with alternative theories, auxiliary hypotheses can always be altered to accommodate theories which do not seem to fit the empirical evidence.
Long version: stay in school./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Discussion never was purely "deadlier", it was dangerous.
Imho 10:1 is a gross understatement. My money is in 1:50 or thereabouts. So since you like Popper, here's your falsification criteria : Cough up some data about bodily injury in knife/gun confrontations and if it comes under 1:10 I'll concede Internet Defeat on the point. I'm too lazy to go look it up, and so in fairness I can't take you for an Internet Win.However, it also makes clear is that it would require confrontations involving knives to be about 10 times as likely to cause bodily injury as confrontations involving guns for your argument to be right. Now, that's pretty fucking unlikely - especially without any stats to back it up.
Hey, you're the guy with the live powerwire up your ass. I just made a statement of preference, in passing. But don;t worry, I'm aware Internet citizenship requires everyone to argue everything with no regard whatever to its relative importance. So I'm not about to drop it.This is a discussion on a message board, not an election. I'm not going to do several months of extensive research just to further point out that you are an idiot. Deal with it.
No argument. Actually now I kinda like you.Conclusive proof on anything outside of comprehensive theoretical systems (as far as those are possible, anyway) actually is impossible. Read some Popper, as well as a bit of Quine and Goodman. Maybe google the "induction problem", the "underdetermination of theories" and the "duhem-quine thesis".
Short version: single observations cannot prove general rules, it is always possible to explain phenomena with alternative theories, auxiliary hypotheses can always be altered to accommodate theories which do not seem to fit the empirical evidence.
No argument. Provided they for instance know what a safety is. Guns take some skill that many people do not in fact posess.Comment
-
Actually I'm an expert on the subject. I walk around with a $200 knife in my pocket at all times, for the sole purpose of maiming someone. So does every person i know (here in the u.s.) What did you think only the British carried knives?
Its much easier to sneak a knife past a metal detector in a club/bar/concert. You just put it near your belt buckle/snap.Comment
-
Comment
-
-
No, that's an idiots view on life.
Don't put yourself in a compromising position, and the chances drop greatly that you won't have someone pointing a gun in your face.
I've trained with LEO's, DEA, and years of Aikido, all doing the "Gun Disarms", and it just doesn't work. Betting someone doesn't know how to use a safety on a GLOCK is just plain fucking stupid.
Real simple test how well your gun disarms work. Squirt gun, have them shoot you before you "disarm" them.
Comment
-
Comment
-
I'd say "most likely to cause death" would be a good indication of how dangerous something is, wouldn't you?
We already have some data, actually: the San Francisco General Hospital totals for both gunshot and stabbing admissions over the years 2003-2007. (I won't post the image again, you'll have to scroll up)Imho 10:1 is a gross understatement. My money is in 1:50 or thereabouts. So since you like Popper, here's your falsification criteria : Cough up some data about bodily injury in knife/gun confrontations and if it comes under 1:10 I'll concede Internet Defeat on the point. I'm too lazy to go look it up, and so in fairness I can't take you for an Internet Win.
Interestingly, the numbers for both are fairly similar. If, as you would bet, confrontations involving knives were 50 times as likely to result in bodily injury as confrontations involving guns, that would suggest that in that particular area, confrontations involving guns were about 50 times as common as confrontations involving knives.
That hardly seems likely, now does it? Especially considering how knives are generally more readily available in situations such as domestic disputes.
But, for the heck of it:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txtThe overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an
estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for
knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies
with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for
robberies by unarmed offenders.10 For assaults, a
crime which includes threats, the most widely
cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived
from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides
committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention
of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2
percent of their intended victims. This is about 5
times as often as in attacks with knives, the
second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.11
With one exception, more recent studies have
generally concluded that death was at least twice
as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults.12/(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
Not at all. Maybe my experience is not at all relevant, but people as a rule show off guns and use knives.
What, chicago in 1968 is your data ? Partizan law control "findings" ? Come on.
Get a report of total felony assaults recorded in one year, sorted by weapon used if any.Comment
-
WE ARE BUYING PAY SITES! CONTACT ME
ClubSweethearts | ManUpFilms | SinfulXXX | HOT * AdultPrime * HOT
Paying webmasters since 1996! Contact: r.riepen @ sansylgroup.com | telegram: roaldr
Comment
-
You think that in Chicago in 1968, the knives were somehow of a lesser quality than they are today, resulting in many more botched assaults with knives than is standard? Also, the '68 report isn't the only study referenced in that paragraph.
But, I'm going to leave it at this. I'm fairly certain that short of a brick to the head, there is little that would make you see reason./(bb|[^b]{2})/Comment
-
What's the matter, are you trying to find the end of the internets ?
I have no idea, off the forum. It depends on many factors - are you in shape ? You've mentioned years of martial training, so I'd guess you're trained, would you know we're fighting ?
Heads on, in a ring like, probably not. Otherwise, you never know, do you.Comment
-
I've never heard of some nut going into a psot office and killing 16 people with a knife. If the columbine kids on had knifes would they have killed and hurt as many peole? Nope. guns are in fact deadlier. Why do we use guns in war today instead of swords? Hmmmmmm.
as far as the UK the obvious solution is for them to have guns. I'm 100% positive the murder rate would drop if everyone was armed with a gun</sarcasm>Comment
-
Comment
Comment