A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Mountain Man]

Combat knives have sharpened points and are usually at least partly double-edged. They are designed to use for stabbing, where pressure is applied towards the tip. They frequently have hilts or cross-guards that protect the wielder's hand while parrying. While some combat knives have serrated edges, the serrations are usually small and only on a fraction of the blade that can be used outside of combat for e.g. cutting ropes.

Kitchen knives are always single-edged, and many (e.g. breadknives) are blunt-ended. They are designed for cutting downwards, where pressure is applied to the side away from the blade, and often have a thickened back so that the user can press on the blade as well as the handle. They don't have hilts. Many are fully serrated, with serrations being wide and shallow.

So let's play a game, which of the following are "combat knives" and which are "kitchen knives"...

1
Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 10.13.01 AM.jpg

2
Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 10.13.39 AM.jpg

3
Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 10.20.27 AM.jpg

4
Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 10.14.25 AM.jpg

5
Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 10.22.17 AM.jpg

6
Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 10.14.35 AM.jpg

[Sparko]

And they're all single-edged with no hilt...

The only reason you would need a hilt is if the other guy has a knife too. And a single edge is just as deadly as a double edge. And look, nearly all of the knives in that photo have points too.

[Cow Poke]

The only reason you would need a hilt is if the other guy has a knife too...

The hilt is just the handle. And a 'guard' on the hilt mostly just protects your hand from slipping up the hilt onto the blade.

[Sparko]

The hilt is just the handle. And a 'guard' on the hilt mostly just protects your hand from slipping up the hilt onto the blade.

yeah I knew that.

[Jedidiah]

When there are enough guns in the U.S. to give every man, woman, and achild their own gun, it is a simple matter of statistics that "most guns" have not been used in a crime. When 79% of gun-related crimes are committed by people who do not own the gun they are using, it suggests we might be able to shift that number by securing those guns a little better. Again, that is what the numbers suggest. We won't know a blessed thing until we can study the matter and see if the correlation translates into a causation. That would require knowing exactly who owned those guns and how they came to be in the hands of the criminals. That is why I am not advocating for gun lockers - nor am I advocating for "no gun lockers."

Non the less if the vast majority of guns are never involved in a crime, I see no reason to go hunting for reasons to make it harder for law abiding folks to have guns. I have never seen any evidence that the "not legally owned" guns involved in gun crimes have been obtained because of inadequate gun security. And you know my opinion on these ubiquitous studies.

No - projecting it across everyone is "based on a feeling." What I see you doing is taking the actions of the few and projecting it across the many - and I suspect it is because that affirms your existing POV about "gun grabbers." I don't know that, of course - only you can know that. But I do know that taking the actions of the few and assuming all, most, or even many others feel the same way is simply not justified. And who is "they?"

There is some truth here, but it seems to me to be a valid generalization. Liberal gun control supporters (they) never seem to jump all over Pelosi (for example) states that she wants to see all guns gone. And no, I will not go look up that event it was in the news.

I am not speaking about psychobabble, Jedidiah, I am talking established human physiology. The frontal cortex, the seat of higher decision-making, is not fully developed in the human male until as late as 25 years old. Ergo, young people tend to be more impulsive, and less able to reason to down-the-road consequences. Every parent I know of who has had to deal with having a son with the body of a man (capable of making babies and raging in hormones) but the mind of a child knows this, and has learned to respect/fear it. I also think that society at large (i.e., your fellow citizens) have the right to say, "I don't want a 10 year old driving a car just because their parents feel they are up to it," or "I don't want a 13 year old buying alcohol just because their parents feel they are up to it," or "I don't want a 19 year old buying a gun just because their parents feel they are up to it." Some parents make good decisions. Society has a right to protect itself, and children in general, from the ones that don't.

Frontal cortex development may not be complete, but younger adults usually seem to be able to function just fine. That is taking a small maturity step and taking it as a major one. Seems dishonest to me. That is what the psycho-babble comment refers to. Not completely developed does not mean non functional. The human female reproductive system shows more pregnancy related problems in young girls than in older ones - system not fully matured. They still manage, usually, to produce live offspring.

[Jedidiah]

Mostly it's about raising flags:

1) when an individual is legally accumulating a stockpile of weapons.

2) when someone who previously acquired a weapon is convicted of a crime or diagnosed with a relevant mental illness.

3) when someone who previously acquired a weapon is added to the no fly or a terrorist watch list.

4) when there is an obvious concentration of weapons developing in a specific community

And, if we ever have laws that hold the owner accountable (at least in part) for crimes committed with their weapons, track ownership.

1) If someone is legally accumulating a stockpile of weapons it is legal, gun collectors collect guns. No on a national register.

2) If someone is convicted of a crime they are not legally allowed to own guns. I don't trust the mental illness diagnosis for the most part, and most mentally ill folks don't go on shooting sprees. No national on a registry.

3) We all know how efficient is the no fly and terrorist watch list. No on a national registry.

4) Like the inner city? No on a national registry.

All this plus the increasing nosing of the nanny state into private live of law abiding citizens leads me to say no to a national registry.

[carpedm9587]

That's all well and good, but the "no fly" list itself has been a disaster. The "underwear bomber" was on it, and slipped through unnoticed, yet thousands of innocent citizens - even including some US Senators - get stopped from boarding flights because they somehow managed to get on the list. Getting off the list is a nightmare.

I have heard stories of problems. I have not seen any data to tell me if the problem is widespread and chronic, or if a comparatively few stories are simply being siezed on to make hay. Do you know of any place where such data is available?

[carpedm9587]

Who said anything about registration?

I thought you did - but your word was "regulation." I'm posting between jobs and, again, read too quickly. My clarification stands, however. And I am not talking about regulating either - I am talking about liability laws.

It seems that in your game of "avoid the question hopscotch", you forgot what you had previously claimed. Here's a little memory refresher...
So I ask again, on what basis should a combat knife be given "special consideration" and not kitchen knives when they are identical for intents and purposes?

Seems like the only problem here is the "scary" name.

"Assault-style rifles and combat knives and bears! Oh my!"

I vote that from now on, we refer to them as "target practice rifles" and "deer-skinning knives" so they sound less threatening.

This part I have now answered several times - so I point you to my previous answers.

[carpedm9587]

The thread has sidetracked into a discussion of knives and other such tools. The intent was a discussion about gun law. Can we return to that please and start a different thread if folks want to discuss knives? Thanks!

[carpedm9587]

Non the less if the vast majority of guns are never involved in a crime, I see no reason to go hunting for reasons to make it harder for law abiding folks to have guns. I have never seen any evidence that the "not legally owned" guns involved in gun crimes have been obtained because of inadequate gun security. And you know my opinion on these ubiquitous studies.

At no point did I say it should be harder to get them. I said it seems at least opossible that requiring safe storage is indicated, on the basis of the available data. But there remain unanswered questions - so until we have verified, impartial information...

There is some truth here, but it seems to me to be a valid generalization. Liberal gun control supporters (they) never seem to jump all over Pelosi (for example) states that she wants to see all guns gone. And no, I will not go look up that event it was in the news.

That you recognize some truth is progress. I do not require that you link to and justify every POV, Jedidiah. If you saw it in the news, your word is adequate for me. I just suggest that the claim that it is a valid generalization should be examined a bit more closely. I don't think it is the case. I know a LOT of hunters and gun advocates who also want tighter gun controls to keep them out of the hands of those who should not have them.

Frontal cortex development may not be complete, but younger adults usually seem to be able to function just fine. That is taking a small maturity step and taking it as a major one. Seems dishonest to me. That is what the psycho-babble comment refers to. Not completely developed does not mean non functional. The human female reproductive system shows more pregnancy related problems in young girls than in older ones - system not fully matured. They still manage, usually, to produce live offspring.

At no point did I say it was "non-functional." But when we know it is not functioning to it's capacity, just how much do we want to burden it? As a society, I think we have a right to make that decision. From what I have been able to learn about adolescent development, waiting until 25 does not seem warranted. But waiting until at least 21 does. You cross a line where MOST young people have adequate frontal cortex function. It's not an exact science. But the goal is to find the balance between achieving a reasonable amount of safeguarding of the general public while reducing the impact on individual freedoms. Setting the age at 12 minimizes the former and maximizes the latter. Setting the age at 25 maximizes the former and minimizes the latter. Somewhere between lies a place that strikes a reasonable balance. Unless it is your position that this is not a limit that is EVER appropriate to set?

[carpedm9587]

1) If someone is legally accumulating a stockpile of weapons it is legal, gun collectors collect guns. No on a national register.

2) If someone is convicted of a crime they are not legally allowed to own guns. I don't trust the mental illness diagnosis for the most part, and most mentally ill folks don't go on shooting sprees. No national on a registry.

3) We all know how efficient is the no fly and terrorist watch list. No on a national registry.

4) Like the inner city? No on a national registry.

All this plus the increasing nosing of the nanny state into private live of law abiding citizens leads me to say no to a national registry.

Raising a flag does not mean "arresting." Yes - collectors collect a lot of guns. So too does someone looking to do what our friend in Vegas did. You cannot raise a flag on the latter without raising a flag on the former. A "flag" does not mean someone is stopped, or impeded. It means "we have just seen a sign that could be a possible concern and needs to be checked." Once someone is identified as a collector, with no other flags present, the issue is moot. But if we don't look, we will never find the people like the Vegas shooter - sho are stockpiling specifically to do harm.

As for the rest, as far as I know, someone who has committed a crime cannot pass a background check, and the same is true for many mental illnesses. But if they pass the background check and LATER commit the crime - that is untrapped, because we lack the central registration of firearms. It's a hole in the process.

I realize you dislike the registry, Jedidiah, but I see it as a toll that can be used to help prevent many of the things we have seen, with little/no impact on individuals. It simply requires the sellers to register each sale. It does not impede anyone, and it could prevent many things.

[Mountain Man]

This part I have now answered several times - so I point you to my previous answers.

Funny how nobody else seems to be able to find these previous answers.

[carpedm9587]

Funny how nobody else seems to be able to find these previous answers.

They are in the thread. I leave it to you. I'm looking to discuss the guns issue. Start a new thread and we can discuss knives.

[Cow Poke]

I have heard stories of problems. I have not seen any data to tell me if the problem is widespread and chronic, or if a comparatively few stories are simply being siezed on to make hay. Do you know of any place where such data is available?

The government controls the list - you really think they're going to share data about its inefficiency? It's legend that, once your name is on that list, you A) Can't get an explanation of how you got on it, and 2) it's nearly impossible to get off. There appears to be no due process in getting on the list, as the government uses "predictive judgments".


The U.S. Government Is Putting Americans on Its No-Fly List on a Hunch

[Jedidiah]

The government controls the list - you really think they're going to share data about its inefficiency? It's legend that, once your name is on that list, you A) Can't get an explanation of how you got on it, and 2) it's nearly impossible to get off. There appears to be no due process in getting on the list, as the government uses "predictive judgments".


The U.S. Government Is Putting Americans on Its No-Fly List on a Hunch

Several years ago my wife and I were flying south to visit our parents. I was on some kind of a list. We waited for a long, long time until they demonstrated that the list was in error and let us fly. A year or so later I was still on the list and went through the same hoopla. I finally submitted some sort of request to be permanently approved. I still use that as a way to avoid delay (though who knows if I would still be run through that nonsense today).

One plus, when you are over 75 you do not have to take your shoes off. At least until another fiasco occurs in that regard.