Psychological vs. Physiological

[Lohman446]

Assume your opponent doesn't know what he is doing because you see the knife at your own peril. Not all criminals are murderers bent on going out and killing someone. Many have determined intimidation is a step in the process of achieving their goals of compliance. If I draw my pistol it is because I have perceived a threat and situation that would put me in a position of needing to shoot in order to escape the threat of severe bodily harm, kidnapping, or rape (the three general justifications in Michigan). If that threat is ended by the display of a firearm all the better. It would be a mistake to assume that anyone displaying a knife may not have a similar escalation in mind or perhaps he or shoe has no escalation in mind and is hoping for compliance.

I had a knife drawn on me once. Normally the person who did it would have presented a severe problem to me. I know this because we used to practice together. To my favor at the moment he was VERY drunk, we were in a close space, and I realized what he was doing even as he attempted to draw. I managed to not get cut. I assume he was attempting intimidation though I did not test the theory. He was not, nor is he, some psychopathic killer. Had he wanted to kill me for the fun of killing me without warning he would have done it while I slept as we were college roommates. We have not seen each other in awhile but I consider him a good friend.

 

[TunnelRat]

I see a chart that shows knife use has gone down in robberies (and not by numbers that appear to be half, unless my cursory glance failed me). I don't see a definitive conclusion as to why that is the case.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I respectfully submit that it doesn't matter IF the use of knives in robberies has gone down or, if so, why. The issue I think we are discussing is IF knives are used in robberies, is the intent of the robber to use the knife for a psychological effect or for a pysiological effect.

And I respectfully submit that in any such robbery wherein the robber does not immediately stab or cut the victim (a physiological) effect but, instead, displays the knife ("I've got a knife -- gimme your watch and your wallet or I'll cut ya!") -- the robber's intent is psychological: intimidation.

I just don't see any other way to view it.

 

[TunnelRat]

Before on this forum we've discussed how the percentage of the population that has additional training, whether firearms or edged weapons, is relatively low. If the argument is displaying the knife before you plan to use it is a tactical misstep, I don't disagree. My point would be not every criminal is tactically sound. There are videos of criminals trying to rob people with contact weapons behind counters where they can't even reach. Not every criminal is particularly intelligent. While there is certainly a danger in underestimating your opponent, there is also a danger in overestimating your opponent.

Knife usage in robberies has gone down from the charts displayed. Why? Idk. If the argument is because in the past decade criminals as a whole have come to the conclusion that displaying a knife is unwise then while possible I don't see the evidence showing that the tactical skills of criminals have increased. It's possible, but there are other possibilities. These two charts don't have the exact same breakdowns for weapon type. If we combine the firearms categories in one against the one that only has firearms in it, it would appear usage of firearms in robberies has gone up. Maybe criminals have more access to firearms and are using them more in place of knives? Seems as likely.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[davidsog]

I see a chart that shows knife use has gone down in robberies

Why? Because knives are so much more effective at gaining victim compliance???

I do not think so....

and not by numbers that appear to be half, )

In the 1970's:

20.0% Firearms - 18.2% Knives = 1.8% difference

In other words, just as many robberies committed using knives to gain victim compliance as firearms being used to gain victim compliance.

In the 1990's:

27% Firearms - 13% Knives = 14% difference

In other words, 13/27 * 100 = 48% less knives being used compared to firearms....

unless my cursory glance failed me

It did.

 

[TunnelRat]

How is 18.2 vs 12.8 half?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[davidsog]

I respectfully submit that it doesn't matter IF the use of knives in robberies has gone down or, if so, why. The issue I think we are discussing is IF knives are used in robberies, is the intent of the robber to use the knife for a psychological effect or for a pysiological effect.

The intent of the robbery is to use psychological intimidation to gain compliance.

It does matter that knives appear to be rapidly losing favor with the criminals whose intent is to intimidate a victim to gain compliance.

The conclusion being the knife is not as effective in reality as one would suppose.

Knife usage in robberies has gone down from the charts displayed. Why? Idk.

It certainly isn't because knives are the psychological weapon of choice to gain victim compliance....

I don't see the evidence showing that the tactical skills of criminals have increased.

Nobody has ever made this claim. What was said is that violence has become more prevalent in society especially in our entertainment which leads to psychological resilience.

Maybe criminals have more access to firearms and are using them more in place of knives? Seems as likely.

Sure and it make NO DIFFERENCE as to which is more effective as criminals will use the most effective tool to gain victim compliance.

Obviously it is not knives.

 

[TunnelRat]

It does matter that knives appear to be rapidly losing favor with the criminals whose intent is to intimidate a victim to gain compliance.

The conclusion being the knife is not as effective in reality as one would suppose.

That is a conclusion that could be reached. That is not something confirmed simply by looking at crime percentages.

Obviously it is not knives.

It seemed to me that the argument was that a knife could be used for psychological intimidation, not that it was the only option.

 

[davidsog]

How is 18.2 vs 12.8 half?

What??? The Chart is "Weapons Used" and compares the use of different weapons as our base for fraction of 100.

In comparing firearms useage to knives in robberies how is examining knife usage in isolation useful over the different data sets?

While the percentage is a dimensionless ratio...in other words a proportion...

Your analogy is like trying to draw a useful conclusion from the fact your body is 98% water and the ocean is 99.9% water.

 

[TunnelRat]

In comparing firearms useage to knives in robberies how is examining knife usage in isolation useful over the different data sets?

Maybe because you said this:

Do you guys have any facts to discuss? So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time. It is use has been halved in a single decade.

There is no mention in that quote of relativity to firearms.

 

[davidsog]

Maybe because you said this:

Well are you still confused?

In the 1970's:

20.0% Firearms - 18.2% Knives = 1.8% difference

In other words, just as many robberies committed using knives to gain victim compliance as firearms being used to gain victim compliance.

In the 1990's:

27% Firearms - 13% Knives = 14% difference

In other words, 13/27 * 100 = 48% less knives being used compared to firearms....

 

[TunnelRat]

48% less knives being used compared to firearms....

Except that isn't what your quoted text above says.


And hey, if you want to break out the relative differences.
18.2/20.0 * 100 = 91% They weren't exactly equal, and yes 9% matters.
12.8/26.8 * 100 = 48%

So it's a further reduction of 43%, not a full 48%. I know the small differences matter to you Dave.

 

[davidsog]

Tunnelrat,

So, Is it my fault that the proportion of knives to firearms went from parity to half?

Or is it my fault you did not correctly interpret the proportional data?

Just let me know and we can move on.

 

[TunnelRat]

No it's your fault that your original text I was responding to doesn't mention anything about relativity to firearms and suggests knife use by itself, for which your percentage was not correct. That was why I made my comment above about not being half, and then clarified how I got that by giving the numbers I used.

 

[davidsog]

The issue I think we are discussing is IF knives are used in robberies, is the intent of the robber to use the knife for a psychological effect or for a pysiological effect.

Ok but in reading the OP's post, I understood that discussion was about the value and extent of the psychological effect.

OP says:

But I’m reminded of a conversation I had with JohnKSa and Glenn Meyer after a Firearms Law CLE where John made a very observant remark on the psychological value of weapons.

So I wanted to start a discussion on the aspects of firearms that have a strong self-defense deterrent but are maybe less practical in their physiological effects.

While the OP was specifically asking about firearms there are some interesting conclusions about psychological vs physiological.

I think we can all agree and conforms to current Psychological theory that knives are more intimidating because they represent a requirement to be "closer" to the act of killing than a firearm.

I think we can all agree that the if our goal is to intimidate a victim into compliance, then the most intimidating weapon would be the best choice.

The facts show us that knive use has drastically been reduced over time. Criminals are not using knives to intimidate a victim into compliance but have moved decisively towards firearms.

Well...

I think the reason for that is two-fold.

1. The psychological intimidation factor has been reduced for knives over time. You just do not see a plethora of fatal stabbings in the media or entertainment, it is easier to effectively counter a knife attack, and it is harder for the criminal to overcome the lack of psychological distance to the act of killing should the knife be required.

2. The psychological intimidation for guns has been increased over time. Every day the media announces fatal shootings and our entertainment is full of gunning down any antagonist, it is easier for the criminal to overcome the larger psychological distance from the act of killing a firearm provides, and the victims instinctively know this fact.

 

[davidsog]

No it's your fault

Ok great.

No it's your fault that your original text I was responding to doesn't mention anything about relativity to firearms and suggests knife use by itself, for which your percentage was not correct. That was why I made my comment above about not being half, and then clarified how I got that by giving the numbers I used.

Are you now caught up and understand:

48% less knives being used compared to firearms....

is the same thing as:

So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time. It is use has been halved in a single decade.

The single decade being 1983 to 1992.

You got it?

 

[TunnelRat]

I think proving that attitudes towards knives have changed isn't an easy task. In the past firearms were still used more than knives in robberies, even if the difference was much less. That suggests to me that even back then there was an attitude that firearms were more intimidating, or why wouldn't knives have been at an even higher percentage? I don't know if the changing difference is solely due to changing attitudes. It could be.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

Ok great.







Are you now caught up and understand:







is the same thing as:







The single decade being 1983 to 1992.



You got it?

I got that the difference you're talking about is relative to firearms and not knife use alone which wasn't clear from the original quote. Which is why I made the comments I did (all of which I already stated). The decade wasn't part of the confusion. I'm all "caught up" and ready to move on as soon as you are Dave, hence the preceding post.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So, Is it my fault that the proportion of knives to firearms went from parity to half?

But you don't know why the percentage of knives vs. firearms went down. You appear to be attributing the decline to a recognition by crooks that knives are ineffective as tools of intimidation, and I think that's a conclusion not supported by the facts or the evidence at hand. It could be, for example, that the number of knife wielding robbers has remained constant or even increased, but more robbers have found easy access to guns so the number of guns (and the corresponding percentage) has increased faster. And, even if this is the case, we have no evidence to suggest why. You certainly haven't offered anything to support your contention that crooks don't think knives work as a psychological weapon of intimidation.

 

[2damnold4this]

1. The psychological intimidation factor has been reduced for knives over time.

While it's true that there has been a shift from knife use to gun use in your data, I'm not sure that tells us anything about the psychological intimidation factor of knives. I imagine that criminals might prefer guns over knives but that doesn't mean the intimidation factor has changed.

davidsog says:
People recognize that a knife in plain view has lost much of it lethality and is much harder for the wielder to use in terms of both psychologically and physiologically.

I don't think that people recognize that. Most people will be more afraid of a criminal that produces a knife than a criminal that keeps his or her knife hidden. Someone can claim they have a knife or a gun and demand compliance but most criminals produce the weapon instead of just making the claim. If criminals thought there was a reduced chance of compliance by showing the knife, they wouldn't show it.