So far the Facts show that the knife use in robberies has diminished greatly over time.
Which, as already stated, has nothing to do with HOW they are used in robberies.
The discussion is about HOW they are used, not about how OFTEN they are used.
Basically the premise that knives are more psychologically intimidating means they should be more useful for gaining compliance from a robbery victim. Facts show they are not.
1. I'm not sure that's the premise being defended. I was responding to your claim that displaying a knife demonstrated that the wielder didn't know what he was doing and that it made it harder to use for psychological purposes.
2. The facts quoted do not show anything about how useful knives are for gaining compliance. You can
assume that because they are being used less that they are less useful for gaining compliance, but it's just an assumption. There have been no facts presented indicating WHY knife use as declined or what the compliance level in armed robberies involving knives is as compared to the compliance level in armed robberies when other weapons are used.
The intent of the robbery is to use psychological intimidation to gain compliance.
EXACTLY. Which is why it makes no sense to say that using a knife for intimidation in a situation where the INTENT is intimidation makes it harder to use effectively.
Or they would not use it because there is a reduced chance of compliance simply by having a knife.
Which is factually what happened.
Perhaps, but that's just speculation.
We can say factually that knife use in armed robberies has declined. We can not say factually WHY it has declined.
And even if we could, we would still be arguing about a red herring, because your initial claim was that:
"2. If an attacker wielding a knife shows you the knife for "psychological" effect........
He does not know how to use a knife. "
Then you followed it up with comments about how best to perpetrate lethal attacks with a knife in spite of the fact that most armed robberies are not about perpetrating lethal attacks.
When that position became essentially indefensible, rather than admitting you had made an incorrect claim, you morphed your argument and began introducing statistical red herrings and then began arguing about minutia related to the red herrings you introduced.
At this point it's starting to look like your goal is primarily to keep the discussion going long enough that your initial claims are obscured and forgotten.
So, there is no "increase in guns due to easy access". Crime has declined as has the overall use of guns to commit crimes.
You just showed that gun use, RELATIVE to knife use has increased. So while over all gun use may have decreased, it does appear that, based on the statistics you quoted and your own analysis that the use of guns RELATIVE to knives has gone up.
Again, it seems like your goal is less about getting to the bottom of this issue and more about grasping at any straws that might deflect from previous incorrect claims you can't defend.
In any case, it's clear that criminals prefer a gun over a knife for a robbery tool in most circumstances.
You cannot say they prefer a gun as a robbery tool. In fact, in 2010, unarmed strong arm robbery outnumbered firearm robbery.
You have demonstrated impressive attention to detail when it suits you to do so, and yet, somehow you "missed" that the very simple quote you responded to did not say what you said it did.
You created a strawman when you (intentionally?) ignored the "over a knife" portion of the quote and then responded with a comment comparing gun use to strong arm robberies.
Do you expect us to believe that a person who can find all those stats and then analyze them carefully really can't manage to read a simple sentence without missing the crux of it?
This is starting to look like keeping an argument going as long as possible simply for the sake of arguing. Moving from one premise to another as one becomes indefensible. Introducing red herrings as necessary to keep things confusing and to deflect from earlier unsupportable claims, and creating blatant strawman arguments when all else fails.
