A few days ago, in New York City, there was a killing spree. Some guy killed four people (with some wounded too, if I remember correctly). Not with a gun, but with a knife. Then several days later another stabbing took place, I think it was two people, or three, again in New York City.
When I heard these stories I was surprised to know that none of them generated the same attention as the recent shooting. Why is that that when there was a killing spree with a knife that killed close to the same number of people as the recent shooting that it does not get as much attention?
It does not make sense to me. Also, where are the knife control advocates? I never heard of them. Knives need to be abolished because they are so dangerous, and what about the children, the children can be hurt! How many stabbing happen every year as a result of knives? How many children accidently hurt or kill themselves with knives every year? Where are these knife control advocates who want to ban all knives.
Nowhere. Well maybe a few exist. If scientology has a place in this world then I am sure knife control advocates have a place in this world too. But I never heard of such a group.
Somehow people understand that if knives are avaliable everywhere, and anyone can carry one at anytime with them with no license whatsoever, then a few stabbings will take place. Maybe even a few killing sprees once in a while. Any reasonable person is capable of understanding that. And most of us understand that if knives are everywhere avaliable then we can expect some murders happening.
But here is the interesting thing. We learn to live with it. We are fine with this idea. It does not bother us really, it does not scare us much. This is the world we are used to. We are used to living in a world with knives. So we are comfortable with such a world.
But guns for some reason just scare the very same people who are perfectly comfortable around knives. Why is that? People often tell me, "if there are gun then you got to admit some shooting will take place". Sure, but what about knives? If there are knives then you got to admit some stabbings will take place also. Is that an argument to attempt to get rid of knives. (I do not believe for a moment that knives or guns can be get rid of by just passing a magical law, just like drugs, but that is a different discussion).
So the next time you hear about a shooting that took place. Just keep in mind that a lot of people die from knives also. But we are just so comfortable living in a world with knives.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Spurious reasoning, Baruch. It takes real commitment to harm a person with a knife - very confronting and tangible. Conversely, any schmuck can use a firearm and remain completely disconnected from the victim. Both can be used as offensive weapons, but a firearm makes it so easy to do a lot more damage in a hell of a lot less time.
ReplyDelete"Spurious reasoning, Baruch. It takes real commitment to harm a person with a knife - very confronting and tangible. Conversely, any schmuck can use a firearm and remain completely disconnected from the victim. Both can be used as offensive weapons, but a firearm makes it so easy to do a lot more damage in a hell of a lot less time.":
ReplyDeleteYou missed the entire point of the post. Everyone knows that it is easier to kill with a gun than with a knife, why even bring it up, it is an obvious statement.
The point was that people still get killed. Sprees still take place. Why is it that people do not go crazy over knifes? People still die, sprees still happen. Crime still happens. I would imagine that these same gun controllers would also be into knife controlling. But they propose nothing to do anything about knife murders.
They would just say, "sometimes bad things like this happen and nothing can be done to eliminate them". And that is considered to be an acceptable statement with regard to knife murders. But somehow it is no longer acceptable with regard to gun murders. There is a lack of consistency here.
I didn't miss the point of the post. My point is that the only purpose of a firearm is to kill - they have no other use. Therefore, the control of such weapons via registration is sensible.
ReplyDeleteA knife, on the other hand, was invented as a preparation tool for food - the basest of all needs. To propose knife control or question why nobody proposes knife control is asinine.
"My point is that the only purpose of a firearm is to kill - they have no other use.":
ReplyDeleteThis is not true.
What happens if I said that the purpose of a security guard is to kill? You would disagree with such a statement. You should say that a security guard can kill but his main function is to defend.
This is true with guns. The main purpose of firearms is to defend. I used this thought experiment before on this blog, but consider the fact that 50 million gun owners last night never killed anyone.
If the overwhelming vast majority of gun owners never kill anyone and a few people do then to conclude from that guns are made for killing is unfair. It would be like saying that security guard are for killing just because a few of them did end up killing people.
When people buy themselves a gun they buy it for defense, not offense. They do not want to ever be in a point in their lives where they would have to kill someone for self-defense. A gun can easily kill someone, but its entire purpose is self-defense. People who buy guns buy them, usually, for the reasons of self-defense not for murder.
There are also other reasons to have a gun. Some people might like how they look and collect them. They own them without any ammunition stored. Never fire them nor do they use have them armed for self-defense, just colllect them. So in this case there is no killing involve whatsover.
Now about knifes. Some knifes are made for the intent to self-defense. The specialized pocket knives that you can buy. Again it would be unfair to say they are made for killing but murders do use these kinds of knives to kill people.
People do go crazy about knives. I love them myself but there are stupid laws about them everywhere. You can't fly with them, of course, but you can't even carry one that's more than 3-4 inches long in many states.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted, though, that knives are used as tools most of the time, while guns are primarily used as weapons. That is a significant difference, although I think both should be legal.
Baruch, you are now splitting hairs. The point of your original post was to sarcastically deride gun control supporters by suggesting knives are just as dangerous, when they very clearly are not as efficient as an offensive weapon. Yes, they can be used to kill, and some are fashioned entirely for that purpose - but their original and primary purpose was as a working tool. This is still the case.
ReplyDeleteGuns were invented to kill. It's as simple as that. They are used as a defensive weapon because of the threat to kill. Yes, people collect guns not to use them, but to admire them. Some people collect stamps for the same reason. I don't disagree with some of your subsequent statements, but I do believe that your original post was just plain silly.
"People do go crazy about knives.":
ReplyDeleteWhere are they? Were are the Rossie O'Donnel's who preach against knives and would love to see severe control over them? I am sure a few people do feel that way but it is insignificant when compared to the anti-gun people.
"Baruch, you are now splitting hairs. The point of your original post was to sarcastically deride gun control supporters by suggesting knives are just as dangerous, when they very clearly are not as efficient as an offensive weapon.":
If you read what I wrote in my post carefully you would realize that I do not say that anywhere. Obviously, it is easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. Where do I suggest otherwise? Rather I ask a question why people are so scared by guns but not so scared by knives.
Almost every single one of us is not scared or worried when we hear that there was a killing spree with a knife on the news. We simply say, "these bad things do happen, but they are very rare, we do not hear about them much, let us just move on". So why not take the same attitude with gun deaths? There is no gun crysis, not even close to being one. So why not take a similar position and say that even though they are more dangerous and more (I am guessing here) people die from them than from knives we should just ignore it and move it as there is no gun violence problem.
I've read your post carefully. The fact that you question why people don't react in the same why to knife crime as they do to gun crime suggests you consider them equally as dangerous. You don't state otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't understand why guns are more dangerous and why people are more scared of them than knives, then I'm not sure what else to say.
And to suggest that there is not a gun crisis in the US is either naive or plain ignorant. The firearm-related homicide rate in the US is about 7 per 100,000 people. There are no other developed, modern countries that exceed 0.9 homicides per 100,000. In fact, the vast majority are under 0.5 per 100,000. So the US rate is at least 14 times higher than the vast majority (the average is even worse). Imagine the outcry if the infant death rate was 14 times higher than other developed countries? I'm surprised that people aren't EVEN MORE afraid of guns in the US.
Fear is by definition non-rational.
ReplyDeleteI just heard an analogy, actually. Apparently deer kill more people every year than sharks do, yet people are much more afraid of sharks.
ReplyDelete"I've read your post carefully. The fact that you question why people don't react in the same why to knife crime as they do to gun crime suggests you consider them equally as dangerous.":
ReplyDeleteI have never said that knives are just as dangerous as guns. I never even brought it up, you were the one who had to bring it up. It is such an obvious point that guns are more dangerous than knives that it does not even need to be mentioned, so why mention it?
Let me make it even more explicit for you if you do not understand my point. Once in a while you have knive murders, or even killing sprees that are done with knives. And most people that you come across are not afraid of this, not frightened, just say to get over it and move on. I suggest that people take the same attitude with guns. One in a while you have gun murders, or even gun killing sprees. I am suggesting that people get over it and move on. Just as their very same attitude they take with knives.
"And to suggest that there is not a gun crisis in the US is either naive or plain ignorant.":
ReplyDeleteNo there is no gun crysis. Are you in any serious danger when you walk outside in the street. No. Not at all. Is there a gun warfare zone taking place in the streets? No. Are there a lot of gun murders. Not when compared to the total population. When you sit into your car and go drive somewhere you probably have a better chance dying in a car accident than being shot to death. Is there a car crash crysis? No. Roads are mostly safe, I would say, not that much accidents. So what exact crysis you are talking about?
Now you mention statistics. Okay let us assume those statistics are correct. Are those numbers big numbers, no? Those numbers are so small that you can be assured to live the rest of your life without being shot to death. What exactly are you so scared of then? How is that a "crysis" as you claim?
So what about European countries that have lower gun deaths? They are just safer. It better to say "Europe is 14 times safer to live in than the US" than to say "US is 14 times is more dangerous". Both places are pretty much safe places to live (well depending where you are, but on the average it is safe to live). As I said there is no murder crysis in the US, just because it is much smaller in Europe only means that Europe is a safer place to live.
Now you jump to the conclusion and think this safety has to do with guns. But how do you know? The entire problem with statistics is that there is no causation to be derived, hence, it is unscientific. To illustrate what I mean specifically do you know that Switerzland has among the lowest crime rates and everyone there is armed with machine guns? Last time I checked FBI statistics Louisiana was among the most dangerous states to live with respect to gun crime. And Louisiana is a gun owning state. But at the same time New Hampshire is also one of the safest states to live with respect to gun crime and they are a gun owning state. In fact, in some places of New Hampshire one can open-carry a gun without a permit. In other words, determining what causes crime is more complex, in this instance, as just focusing on guns. There can be places that have severe gun control and a lot of crime, and there can be places that are gun friendly and have very little crime. Crime is caused by many other factors that these statistics do not show.
But I will play along. Let us say that it is 100% true that Europe is safer than US precisely because Europe hates guns. So what? What kind of an argument is that? There is a right and a wrong beyond just safety. Banning guns for the hope of more security comes at a price. That price is an assault on freedom. So I say that even if it is true that pro-guns is more dangerous than anti-guns so be it. There is no crysis going on, so why go out of the way to make it even more safe by assaulting freedom? Let me ask you this question. If it was true that Europe can make their killing rate to 1/2000000 by banning all knives in place of plastic knives is this an argument for Europe to take such a policy? No, because it is not only about satefy. It is safe enough, why assault freedom then?
"I just heard an analogy, actually. Apparently deer kill more people every year than sharks do, yet people are much more afraid of sharks.":
ReplyDeleteI never knew deer were capable of killing. They look like friendly creatures that would not attack. When I was really close to deer in a forest I never at one moment felt endangered, I just kept on going, and they walked away from me.
According to Penn and Teller it is three times more likely to be hit by lighting than for a kid to be captured by a child predator. But parents are scared beyond belief of strangers, though not of lighting. If they were consistent they would make their children wear lighting rods on top of their heads.
OK, we are both straying from the original topic a little. Although it's a natural progression of attempts to see each other's points of view. Let me address the two main questions you pose in your original post:
ReplyDelete"Why is that that when there was a killing spree with a knife that killed close to the same number of people as the recent shooting that it does not get as much attention? .... Where are the knife control advocates?"
Personally, I understand perfectly why nobody has suggested laws controlling the use of knives. This is due to their multitude of purposes now and throughout history.
"Guns for some reason just scare the very same people who are perfectly comfortable around knives. Why is that?"
Firearms make the task of killing less confronting and so much easier, and therefore understand why many people advocate the control of these weapons - especially in light of US gun homicide statistics. I understand that these statistics can't entirely be explained by the rate of ownership or total number of guns in the country, and may not strictly suggest the overall safety of the US over another country, or state versus state. Also, I'm not saying gun control laws would necessarily work in the US.
What I don't understand is why, as an apparently intelligent fellow, you ask these questions in your original post.
However.... further control of civil liberties would be unnecessary if authorities spent much more time addressing the causes of crime, one of the most prevalent being the disparity between rich and poor. But as you've also stated, that's another discussion entirely.
"What I don't understand is why you ask these questions in your original post.":
ReplyDeleteThese are rhetorical questions whose purpose is to illustrate the irrationality of people's fear of guns. We all understand that the world is not made out of foam. We all realize that the moment we leave our house we are in a really small probability of danger, but we still do it. It is not too risky for us. Car deaths do not really scare us. Knifes do not really care us. But the moment we hear about guns many of us get so scared about them. But they are not a real threat to your life when you consider how little in comparison to total population these shootings happen. So why not that the same attitude as with other life risk and get over it? We can be a brave and a strong people by insisting that these things to do scare us.
"One of the most prevalent being the disparity between rich and poor.":
The gap between rich and poor is a non-sense figure. Instead of repeating myself you can just read this( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/11/equality-is-not-virtue.html ). What is important is the standard of living.
If we want to discuss crime as true philosophers we must take the courage to ask questions which are 100% forbidden to ask in public conversations. Perhaps, Europe has must lower crime than US and most other parts of the world because of the white race? Perhaps, crime is largely determined by one's race. If so then it would be expected that mostly white countries will have the lowest crimes. The US is a huge mixture of conflicting races from all over the world. Hence the increase in crime. Recently the immigration of Muslims to Europe has resulted in an increase in crime in Europe. Does this suggest that non-white people are more likely to cause more crime than white people?
This question does need to be seriously considered. I think that being poor is the main reason for crime, and so crime is more among non-white simply because the non-white race is more poor. However, I am curious to hear what other people say about this idea (that really is only discussed in KKK meatings).
So you posed rhetorical questions in a passive aggressive sarcastic post that achieves exactly nothing. I know it's your blog and you're entitled to your opinion, but for the record - I disagree. I don't think we should "get over it". I think whenever there are unnecessary deaths, discussion should be rife. Let's approach all solutions from all angles and try to determine how best to address the problem. Same goes for gun, knife and car deaths. Knife control is never going to be a topic of discussion when there is a stabbing because it's an absurd leap to make.
ReplyDeleteI'll comment on your other article on that page because I agree and disagree with some of your points.
Thanks for taking the time to address my points.
"So you posed rhetorical questions in a passive aggressive sarcastic post that achieves exactly nothing.":
ReplyDeleteIt is a manner of speaking, it is not supposed to achiece anything. Some people like to write only in lower-case. Some people like to use text-word-slang when they post. Those are manners of speaking. They do not make your point immediately true or false.
"I know it's your blog and you're entitled to your opinion.":
So because it is an opinion it means it should not be taken seriously? Because it is an opinion it must be wrong immediately? If so then do I have to remind you that you also have opinions, in which case reminding me that what I say are opinions is a meaningless statement to make. If not then reminding me that I making is opinion a meaningless statement to make as it does nothing to negate my point.
"I don't think we should "get over it". I think whenever there are unnecessary deaths, discussion should be rife.":
And how do you determine that? You accept that with knives uncontrolled there will be deaths resulting from them. But you call for the control of knives to be abusrd. So you do agree that people should get over the death of knives. Because this problem does happen and we just move on as it is not necessary anymore to do anything more to address this problem.
Under freedom there will always be tragedies. Freedom of speech does lead to people being killed. Is that "unnecessary death" then? It speech was controlled by a body that decided if it was too offensive or too violent it make cut back the number of deaths. Does this mean that speech needs to undergo such control? What about all the unnecessary deaths? Whenever people die for reasons like this I rather say that they died for freedom. That is indeed the entire message of "give me liberty or give me death". I accept being free even if it means there are obstacles and dangers that face me in the face.
"Let's approach all solutions from all angles and try to determine how best to address the problem.":
No need to remind that, that is what we are doing. Saying that is the same when people say in a discussion, "let us have a civil conversation". What is the point of saying that if that is what we have been already? Totally unnecessary.
OK, the conversation has derailed completely - so let's leave it there.
ReplyDelete"OK, the conversation has derailed completely - so let's leave it there.":
ReplyDeleteNot completely. I do give another example with offensive speech that leads to "unnecessary deaths".