Are gun crimes safer crimes?


PDA

Topgun
May 2, 2003, 01:33 PM
I just thought of this last night while reading one of my ....knife... magazines. Knife companies are bringing out new blade designs and a new trend is developing toward mini .... hatchets.

Made me think. If criminals were deprived of guns, they would then use knives and hatchets and baseball bats.

I would bet that over 90% of gun crimes end with no shooting or injury. I've been robbed at gunpoint and lost a couple grand but am still here typing.

Gun crook comes in, points gun, makes demands, and if victim is surprised or in some cases, wise, he complies and the crook runs off.

But a crook with a hatchet or contact weapon can't come in a store and just.... SHOW... the weapon and say "stick em up." He would have to USE the weapon to get the victim to comply. Any other action and he would be running a much higher risk of a fight which he doesn't really want.

So it seems to me that a "stick-up" is a far better thing to have happen to you than a whack with a club or a blade.

not....that....it's......good.

What think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are gun crimes safer crimes?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
May 2, 2003, 02:47 PM
He would have to USE the weapon to get the victim to comply. Any other action and he would be running a much higher risk of a fight which he doesn't really want.

I'd have to see crime statistics to believe that. I've known several people who were robbed at knife point without being touched.

It may well be easier for an unskilled criminal to do serious damage with a knife than a firearm; if I were fighting back, however, I believe I'd rather take on a knife wielder than a gunman: lower risk of actually dying in the confrontation.

Hkmp5sd
May 2, 2003, 04:48 PM
As Richard Marcinko has stated, "The first rule of a knife fight is, you WILL be cut."

I think the perception is that people are more likely to resist against an attacker using a knife or hatchet than they would against a BG with a firearm.

A lot of this comes from the TV mentality. The good guys always disarm the knife wielders or scare them off ala Crocodile Dundee. It looks easy. On the other hand, the TV shootings always result in a one-shot kill from a POS Lorcin .25 ACP hitting someone in the arm.

There are just too many variables to give a blanket statement that being robbed by a gun wielding BG is actually safer than one using a knife.

zahc
May 2, 2003, 06:41 PM
"If criminals were deprived of guns, they would then use knives and hatchets and baseball bats."

Just how are you plannig to deprive criminals of guns?
:scrutiny:

Monkeyleg
May 2, 2003, 06:48 PM
IIRC, just 25% of violent crimes are committed with guns. That leaves the other 75% to other devices, including knives.

Knife wounds tend to be more fatal more quickly than do gunshot wounds. Someone who's been shot, even in a vital area, may hang on for hours or even days. On the other hand, someone whose carotid artery or jugular vein is cut will bleed to death in less than three minutes.

Of course, the anti's never sue Chicago Cutlery.

.45Ruger
May 2, 2003, 08:45 PM
In New York City many criminals have been denied guns and now they have resorted to using painted toy guns and so now the commies in the city council want to ban all toy guns.

Topgun
May 3, 2003, 04:41 PM
The thread is an OBSERVATION and OPINION.

Let me simplify.

You are a crook with a knife. You want to rob a store. Do you go in and hold out your KNIFE and demand stuff or do you go STAB the clerk and take what you want?

I can't make it any simpler.

:rolleyes:

Hkmp5sd
May 3, 2003, 06:02 PM
In my opinion, the firearm would be more of an intimidation to the victim, possibly enough to convince him not to resist. So from that viewpoint, being robbed by a firearm wielder could be perceived as safer for the victim since he is less likely to resist. In the event the victim does resist, I think he'd stand a better chance to go against the gun than the knife. I also think a knife wielder would threaten instead of just stabbing outright at the start of the robbery. If he gets close enough to stab, there would be a higher probability of the victim trying to disarm him.

benEzra
May 3, 2003, 10:47 PM
Initiating a mugging/robbery by firing a gun announces the robbery to a several-block area. Initiating a mugging/robbery by stabbing/throat-slashing/eviscerating the victim is practically silent and also prevents the victim from running away or shouting for help.

For this reason, I feel a violent criminal is more likely to "open" with an actual attack if he is using a knife rather than a gun.

Personally, criminals with knives worry me somewhat more than those with guns, for this reason.

Feanaro
May 3, 2003, 11:46 PM
I would agree with the perception thing. A gun has longer reach and a bigger intimidation factor. However, I would much rather fight someone with a knife than a gun. You will get cut, yes. But in general knife wounds not fatal unless the other person knows what he is doing. That's why you need to know what you are doing.

I'm a big guy. I'm also fairly fast. And I always have a knife(damned handgun laws.). I also know a few tricks at close range. Not bragging, just saying that even unarmed I would rather have to fight a man with a knife than a gun. At close range anything can be a weapon. But a man with a gun doesn't have to be close to me.

Now a sword is another story. A strong man, even if he's untrained, can cut off a limb. Something you rarely survive. But I can't think of a criminal that carries a sword around. ;)

BTR
May 4, 2003, 02:00 PM
I have read that non-gun robberies have higher rates of injury to the victims, but that, when injury occurs, it is more likely to be fatal when inflicted by a gun. Unarmed robberies have the highest rate of injury to the victim...

If you enjoyed reading about "Are gun crimes safer crimes?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!