Technically, there is a reason why combat knives tend to be for stabbing. When you stab a person, you can hit a organ, killing quickly. When slashing, the person has to bleed to death, which is a major problem when your opponent is also armed.
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
Technically, there is a reason why combat knives tend to be for stabbing. When you stab a person, you can hit a organ, killing quickly. When slashing, the person has to bleed to death, which is a major problem when your opponent is also armed.
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
Yes, but that's also a really bad idea because it leaves your torso (and, to a lesser extent, neck) wide open.
Technically, there is a reason why combat knives tend to be for stabbing. When you stab a person, you can hit a organ, killing quickly. When slashing, the person has to bleed to death, which is a major problem when your opponent is also armed.
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
Yes, but that's also a really bad idea because it leaves your torso (and, to a lesser extent, neck) wide open.
So is your argument based on it being easier to defend against slashing weapons with your own slashing weapon?
Technically, there is a reason why combat knives tend to be for stabbing. When you stab a person, you can hit a organ, killing quickly. When slashing, the person has to bleed to death, which is a major problem when your opponent is also armed.
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
Yes, but that's also a really bad idea because it leaves your torso (and, to a lesser extent, neck) wide open.
So is your argument based on it being easier to defend against slashing weapons with your own slashing weapon?
Technically, there is a reason why combat knives tend to be for stabbing. When you stab a person, you can hit a organ, killing quickly. When slashing, the person has to bleed to death, which is a major problem when your opponent is also armed.
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
Yes, but that's also a really bad idea because it leaves your torso (and, to a lesser extent, neck) wide open.
So is your argument based on it being easier to defend against slashing weapons with your own slashing weapon?
or your own stabbing weapon.
Or any weapon really, especially if it gives you greater reach than your opponent.
Its really starting to get to me how the media acknowleged that UK Knife crime has fallen, but then continues to whip up a frenzy. What do you think is going to happen if you tell all the kids that they are in danger?
I accept its an issue that needs addressing, but for gods sake this isn't the US - cant the BBC take a slightly less alarmist view of things?
Fallingman on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
It'd be appreciated if the media wasn't alarmist in the US either. Or anywhere.
Its really starting to get to me how the media acknowleged that UK Knife crime has fallen, but then continues to whip up a frenzy. What do you think is going to happen if you tell all the kids that they are in danger?
I accept its an issue that needs addressing, but for gods sake this isn't the US - cant the BBC take a slightly less alarmist view of things?
Isn't it because that although overall figures might be falling, they're being heavily concentrated in a few areas/age groups. That and no-one really knows how reliable the statistics are because of the changes made to how crimes are recorded.
A chef's knife might be the best multi-utility knife, but it a well-equipped kitchen that really shouldn't come into play.
But, I don't want to dirty a bunch of knives when I know I can do it all with just one. I'm some dude making a salad and some roasted chicken, not Emeril Lagasse.
And the smaller knives are much more concealable and just as deadly.
Actually, no. You have to penetrate a certain amount of flesh to get to a vital organ and make enough of a hole to cause bleeding/rupture, otherwise you gotta stab several times or open up a major artery. A little pocket knife or table knife isn't easy to kill with. You can still do it... it's just a lot harder.
A chef's knife might be the best multi-utility knife, but it a well-equipped kitchen that really shouldn't come into play.
But, I don't want to dirty a bunch of knives when I know I can do it all with just one. I'm some dude making a salad and some roasted chicken, not Emeril Lagasse.
And the smaller knives are much more concealable and just as deadly.
Actually, no. You have to penetrate a certain amount of flesh to get to a vital organ and make enough of a hole to cause bleeding/rupture, otherwise you gotta stab several times or open up a major artery. A little pocket knife or table knife isn't easy to kill with. You can still do it... it's just a lot harder.
I don't know how short a knife were talking about here. Every household kitchen I've been in has at least a 6 inch carving knife to slicing roasts and turkey. That knife could easily deliver fatal stabs.
With smaller knives it really depends on the strength and knowledge of the knife wielder. That being said, your average 16 year old dumbass teenage boy could easily kill you by stabbing you once in the chest with even a 3 inch knife. A punctured lung is no joke.
That means you have to either crack a rib/sternum or slip between, which is harder than it sounds. Of course, they could just aim lower and rupture a bowel; that tends to be even nastier. Or clip a major artery- besides the neck, there's several big ones close to the surface of the legs.
That means you have to either crack a rib/sternum or slip between, which is harder than it sounds. Of course, they could just aim lower and rupture a bowel; that tends to be even nastier. Or clip a major artery- besides the neck, there's several big ones close to the surface of the legs.
You could aim just below the sternum/rib cage and go in&up. There would not be much resistance, and you could even push a blade past the hilt. And as you point out, a little knowledge goes a long way.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's a Katana, combat knife, kitchen knife, or a shiv. There is no point in banning a knife. They are too many practical applications for a total ban, and a partial ban is not likely to be effective as it will be a pain in the ass to enforce.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's a Katana, combat knife, kitchen knife, or a shiv. There is no point in banning a knife. They are too many practical applications for a total ban, and a partial ban is not likely to be effective as it will be a pain in the ass to enforce.
Absolutely. That was what I as trying to point out. All those items could be hit by a sub 3 inch knife as well. Or a pen, if you shove hard enough. And anything that doesn't have a point can easily be made to have a point.
No, because axe fights are too awesome! I call Dibs on predicting increased axe fatalities following the knife ban and the release of diablo 3 (or a similar game which will take all the blame)!
Hmm, on second though it might be hard to swing a good excuse for carrying an axe, isn't most of Britain a little scarce on tree's you allowed to cut down? (sorry I couldn't resist!)
I think the BBC feels it has to follow along with the rest of the media because if the Mail et al. turn on them and accuse them of being biased towards the government they're in deep shit. Same as how they've been going along with treating Brown and Darling far more harshly than they actually deserve.
There is no hope for the UK. Might as well just sink the thing and let get it over with.
EDIT: Okay, maybe there is hope. But when I see stories like this I just instinctively assume that someone over at the Home Office has finally lost their head for good.
I wonder how long before people start stabbing people with forks in the UK. Or screwdrivers. Or indeed any vaguely sharp pointed instrument. Are people not familiar that shaving blades were used to take over the 9/11 flights?
electricitylikesme on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I wonder how long before people start stabbing people with forks in the UK. Or screwdrivers. Or indeed any vaguely sharp pointed instrument. Are people not familiar that shaving blades were used to take over the 9/11 flights?
Box cutters, too. Soon they'll band box cutters, and then next thing you know there'll be an epidemic of unopened boxes in the UK, all piling up everywhere, taking up space. Madness.
I wonder how long before people start stabbing people with forks in the UK. Or screwdrivers. Or indeed any vaguely sharp pointed instrument. Are people not familiar that shaving blades were used to take over the 9/11 flights?
You mean boxcutters... but yeah you can do a lot more damage to a person with a screw driver.
I think this is all utterly stupid. I have to cut through things serveral times a day. So I keep a kabar knife I had in the military at my desk, cuts things just fine. I also keep a pocket knife on me because you might need one of the tools on it.
With smaller knives it really depends on the strength and knowledge of the knife wielder. That being said, your average 16 year old dumbass teenage boy could easily kill you by stabbing you once in the chest with even a 3 inch knife. A punctured lung is no joke.
No it does not. A stabbing tool is pretty simple, stick it in the other person. With a knife you can slash, not going to do much though. Either way it matters not.
I can kill you just as fast with "random heavy object sitting on the road" as fast as I can with a knife.
Que Crocidile D "that's not a knife, now that's a knife"
There is no hope for the UK. Might as well just sink the thing and let get it over with.
EDIT: Okay, maybe there is hope. But when I see stories like this I just instinctively assume that someone over at the Home Office has finally lost their head for good.
And here we see why I resist most anti-gun measures, and call anybody suggesting a ban an absolute idiot. It's not a slippery slope argument...we have a concrete example of where that road actually leads. Which is to say, into no real change in crime (given year-to-year stats within Britain) and even more absurd policies.
Only police need guns, only chefs need pointy knives*, only licensed professional contractors need claw hammers**, and so on, and so forth. And oh no! Videos and movie posters with guns scare people! Those gotta go too.
Seriously, Britain, grow a pair.
* - Actual argument heard from Brits
** - Not so much, just referring to incident on Philly subway.
There is no hope for the UK. Might as well just sink the thing and let get it over with.
EDIT: Okay, maybe there is hope. But when I see stories like this I just instinctively assume that someone over at the Home Office has finally lost their head for good.
And here we see why I resist most anti-gun measures, and call anybody suggesting a ban an absolute idiot. It's not a slippery slope argument...we have a concrete example of where that road actually leads. Which is to say, into no real change in crime (given year-to-year stats within Britain) and even more absurd policies.
Only police need guns, only chefs need pointy knives*, only licensed professional contractors need claw hammers**, and so on, and so forth. And oh no! Videos and movie posters with guns scare people! Those gotta go too.
Seriously, Britain, grow a pair.
* - Actual argument heard from Brits
** - Not so much, just referring to incident on Philly subway.
But if we allow guns, they'll eventually be made mandatory, and then shooting people will be made mandatory in honor of Dick Cheney!
Uhh. The YouTube ban is on videos showing real people being threatened with real weapons. Who thinks those videos should be allowed to stay up?
Actually, direct threats were apparently already banned. I'm not finding a lot of details as to what constitutes "displaying weapons with the aim of intimidation" in this context...can you help out with this? Like, maybe another story or a more detailed description of the policy?
EDIT: I guess the impression I get from this is that it's about restricting videos of actions that aren't directly against the law but which might upset people who are more scared of guns on average. But yes, my view is going to be biased by the fact that this is coming from the country where "olol only chefs need pointy knives" is taken seriously as an argument.
News reports are displeasingly vague. I know that what the government is/was trying to clamp down on are for example, videos of gangs of youths brandishing guns; videos of 'minor' assaults (like slapping etc; obviously YouTube would already remove videos of serious crimes); videos of people driving around with knives and leering/waving them at people. Things of that ilk.
edit: This is literally the only quote on the matter:
We recognise that there has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing. We have just established a new policy in the UK to prohibit this kind of material, and with the help of our community we'll continue to work to keep YouTube as a platform for safe and lawful expression.
If you want, then you can interpret the bolded as banning film scenes, but you'd have to be blind to the context this amendment to YouTube's policies comes in.
And here we see why I resist most anti-gun measures, and call anybody suggesting a ban an absolute idiot. It's not a slippery slope argument...we have a concrete example of where that road actually leads. Which is to say, into no real change in crime (given year-to-year stats within Britain) and even more absurd policies.
There's a good article by Eugene Volokh called Beyond the Slippery Slope which discusses specific real-world situations in which a slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but a legitimate concern, which examples taken directly from the gun control debate. An excerpt with citations removed:
Let’s begin with the slippery slope question mentioned in the Introduction: Does it make sense for someone to oppose gun registration (A) because registration might make it likelier that others will enact eventual gun confiscation (B)? A and B are logically distinguishable; but can A help lead to B despite that?
Today, when the government doesn’t know where the guns are, gun confiscation would require searching all homes, which would be very expensive; relying heavily on informers, which may be unpopular; or accepting a probably low compliance rate, which may make the law not worth its potential costs. And searching all homes is expensive both financially and politically, since the searches will annoy many people, including some of the non-gun-owners who might otherwise support a total gun ban.
On the other hand, if guns are registered, a search of all registrants would be both financially and politically cheaper, especially if the law bans one type of gun, covers only a region where they are already fairly uncommon, and perhaps covers only a subset of the population (e.g., public housing residents. Gun registration has been eventually followed by confiscation in England, New York City, and Australia; while it’s impossible to be sure that the registration helped cause confiscation, it seems likely that people’s compliance with the registration requirement made the confiscation easier to implement, and therefore likelier to be enacted. And Handgun Control, Inc. founder Pete Shields openly described registration as a preliminary step to confiscation, though he didn’t describe exactly how the slippery slope mechanism would operate.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Who carries a knife for 'cred'? I carried a knife back in the day cause I was a pussy scared shitless of getting robbed (but at the same time, not wanting to just wimp out let people take shit from me). It never happened, and the knife never left my back pocket.
Who carries a knife for 'cred'? I carried a knife back in the day cause I was a pussy scared shitless of getting robbed (but at the same time, not wanting to just wimp out let people take shit from me). It never happened, and the knife never left my back pocket.
I carried a knife back in the day because, well, everyone carried knife in their pocket. No one really considered stabbing anyone with it. It was just a tool.
Posts
You could easily get an artery if you slash at the neck, which is probably where someone would aim if they couldn't stab (exposed skin etc.)
Yes, but that's also a really bad idea because it leaves your torso (and, to a lesser extent, neck) wide open.
So is your argument based on it being easier to defend against slashing weapons with your own slashing weapon?
or your own stabbing weapon.
Or any weapon really, especially if it gives you greater reach than your opponent.
I accept its an issue that needs addressing, but for gods sake this isn't the US - cant the BBC take a slightly less alarmist view of things?
Isn't it because that although overall figures might be falling, they're being heavily concentrated in a few areas/age groups. That and no-one really knows how reliable the statistics are because of the changes made to how crimes are recorded.
Actually, no. You have to penetrate a certain amount of flesh to get to a vital organ and make enough of a hole to cause bleeding/rupture, otherwise you gotta stab several times or open up a major artery. A little pocket knife or table knife isn't easy to kill with. You can still do it... it's just a lot harder.
I don't know how short a knife were talking about here. Every household kitchen I've been in has at least a 6 inch carving knife to slicing roasts and turkey. That knife could easily deliver fatal stabs.
With smaller knives it really depends on the strength and knowledge of the knife wielder. That being said, your average 16 year old dumbass teenage boy could easily kill you by stabbing you once in the chest with even a 3 inch knife. A punctured lung is no joke.
You could aim just below the sternum/rib cage and go in&up. There would not be much resistance, and you could even push a blade past the hilt. And as you point out, a little knowledge goes a long way.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's a Katana, combat knife, kitchen knife, or a shiv. There is no point in banning a knife. They are too many practical applications for a total ban, and a partial ban is not likely to be effective as it will be a pain in the ass to enforce.
Absolutely. That was what I as trying to point out. All those items could be hit by a sub 3 inch knife as well. Or a pen, if you shove hard enough. And anything that doesn't have a point can easily be made to have a point.
No, because axe fights are too awesome! I call Dibs on predicting increased axe fatalities following the knife ban and the release of diablo 3 (or a similar game which will take all the blame)!
Hmm, on second though it might be hard to swing a good excuse for carrying an axe, isn't most of Britain a little scarce on tree's you allowed to cut down? (sorry I couldn't resist!)
Apparently Teddy Boys were big fat racists.
I think the BBC feels it has to follow along with the rest of the media because if the Mail et al. turn on them and accuse them of being biased towards the government they're in deep shit. Same as how they've been going along with treating Brown and Darling far more harshly than they actually deserve.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm
EDIT: Okay, maybe there is hope. But when I see stories like this I just instinctively assume that someone over at the Home Office has finally lost their head for good.
You mean boxcutters... but yeah you can do a lot more damage to a person with a screw driver.
I think this is all utterly stupid. I have to cut through things serveral times a day. So I keep a kabar knife I had in the military at my desk, cuts things just fine. I also keep a pocket knife on me because you might need one of the tools on it.
No it does not. A stabbing tool is pretty simple, stick it in the other person. With a knife you can slash, not going to do much though. Either way it matters not.
I can kill you just as fast with "random heavy object sitting on the road" as fast as I can with a knife.
Que Crocidile D "that's not a knife, now that's a knife"
And here we see why I resist most anti-gun measures, and call anybody suggesting a ban an absolute idiot. It's not a slippery slope argument...we have a concrete example of where that road actually leads. Which is to say, into no real change in crime (given year-to-year stats within Britain) and even more absurd policies.
Only police need guns, only chefs need pointy knives*, only licensed professional contractors need claw hammers**, and so on, and so forth. And oh no! Videos and movie posters with guns scare people! Those gotta go too.
Seriously, Britain, grow a pair.
* - Actual argument heard from Brits
** - Not so much, just referring to incident on Philly subway.
But if we allow guns, they'll eventually be made mandatory, and then shooting people will be made mandatory in honor of Dick Cheney!
Actually, direct threats were apparently already banned. I'm not finding a lot of details as to what constitutes "displaying weapons with the aim of intimidation" in this context...can you help out with this? Like, maybe another story or a more detailed description of the policy?
EDIT: I guess the impression I get from this is that it's about restricting videos of actions that aren't directly against the law but which might upset people who are more scared of guns on average. But yes, my view is going to be biased by the fact that this is coming from the country where "olol only chefs need pointy knives" is taken seriously as an argument.
edit: This is literally the only quote on the matter:
If you want, then you can interpret the bolded as banning film scenes, but you'd have to be blind to the context this amendment to YouTube's policies comes in.
There's a good article by Eugene Volokh called Beyond the Slippery Slope which discusses specific real-world situations in which a slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but a legitimate concern, which examples taken directly from the gun control debate. An excerpt with citations removed:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Who carries a knife for 'cred'? I carried a knife back in the day cause I was a pussy scared shitless of getting robbed (but at the same time, not wanting to just wimp out let people take shit from me). It never happened, and the knife never left my back pocket.