You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Psychological vs. Physiological
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Gun owners like to say that guns don't kill, people do. Well, criminals willing to use violence without hesitation or compunction are well aware of that fact, and probably believe it on a more visceral level than the average law-abiding person or cop.
A problem with engaging in an intellectual discussion regarding how criminals may consider the "psychological v. physiological" distinctions involved in the use of a knife or a gun is that law-abiding people often have a hard time thinking like criminals. Habitual criminals don't seem to use the same reasoning in their actions as law-abiding persons.
You talk to enough criminals, you may get the feeling that they're more concerned about the person they're confronting than the specific type of weapon they may be facing. Meaning they're more concerned whether they're facing another criminal, than a law-abiding person (victim) or a cop.
Habitual criminals know other criminals aren't concerned about breaking the law and will use violence without warning or compunction, while regular people are afraid of going to jail (losing their jobs, etc) and cops have to act within the rules (laws and policies) or lose their jobs.
This was one of the things mentioned in the LEOKA class I attended (a federally sponsored training program of tracking Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted), and which was developed after a lot of interviews with convicted suspects of violent crimes. It was unsurprising and was similar to what I'd come to learn after a career's worth of facing, arresting, talking and interacting with folks who spent a lot of time being arrested and convicted of crimes.
The people who accept that they may live or die by violence on any given day (criminals) seem more concerned by the people they may face. Guns and knives don't possess the will to be used, but the people who wield them may ... or may not.
Knives (or other cutting instruments) of any sort of pretty ubiquitous and easy to come by in our society. Just visit the nearest hardware store, flea market, etc. Guns are a little more difficult for criminals to find, but theft keeps them pretty available.
Just some thoughts.
A problem with engaging in an intellectual discussion regarding how criminals may consider the "psychological v. physiological" distinctions involved in the use of a knife or a gun is that law-abiding people often have a hard time thinking like criminals. Habitual criminals don't seem to use the same reasoning in their actions as law-abiding persons.
You talk to enough criminals, you may get the feeling that they're more concerned about the person they're confronting than the specific type of weapon they may be facing. Meaning they're more concerned whether they're facing another criminal, than a law-abiding person (victim) or a cop.
Habitual criminals know other criminals aren't concerned about breaking the law and will use violence without warning or compunction, while regular people are afraid of going to jail (losing their jobs, etc) and cops have to act within the rules (laws and policies) or lose their jobs.
This was one of the things mentioned in the LEOKA class I attended (a federally sponsored training program of tracking Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted), and which was developed after a lot of interviews with convicted suspects of violent crimes. It was unsurprising and was similar to what I'd come to learn after a career's worth of facing, arresting, talking and interacting with folks who spent a lot of time being arrested and convicted of crimes.
The people who accept that they may live or die by violence on any given day (criminals) seem more concerned by the people they may face. Guns and knives don't possess the will to be used, but the people who wield them may ... or may not.
Knives (or other cutting instruments) of any sort of pretty ubiquitous and easy to come by in our society. Just visit the nearest hardware store, flea market, etc. Guns are a little more difficult for criminals to find, but theft keeps them pretty available.
Just some thoughts.
2damnold4this
New member
There are scholarly articles on why criminals carry knives link and interviews with criminals that carry knives in the UK. link2 Most are carrying for protection and deterrence (psychological intimidation) is one of the top reasons given for carrying the knife.
Knife use rates in robberies have dropped but not in other crimes such as aggravated assault.
You posted data earlier showing gun use going from 20% to 27% of all robberies. That is a 35% increase in gun use in robberies. During the same time, knife use in robberies fell 34%.
What does a 35% increase in gun use rates in robberies with a corresponding 34% decrease in knife use rates in robberies indicate? A preference for butter on popcorn?
Since criminals use no weapon more often than they use guns in robbery, does that mean that hands and feet are more intimidating than guns?
I can't wait for your next round of explanations. It will be hard to top your claim that a knife that is presented loses it's psychological intimidation effect.
There is no strawman and I do not dispute the fact knife use has dropped.
Knife use rates in robberies have dropped but not in other crimes such as aggravated assault.
It is simply a fact that proportionally, Firearm robbery and Strong Arm robbery have remained relatively steady over the decades from the 1970's to present.
You posted data earlier showing gun use going from 20% to 27% of all robberies. That is a 35% increase in gun use in robberies. During the same time, knife use in robberies fell 34%.
It is also a fact that the use of knives to gain victim compliance has fallen dramatically. That does not demonstrate a "preference" for a gun. That is simply not correct.
What does a 35% increase in gun use rates in robberies with a corresponding 34% decrease in knife use rates in robberies indicate? A preference for butter on popcorn?
Since criminals use no weapon more often than they use guns in robbery, does that mean that hands and feet are more intimidating than guns?
I can't wait for your next round of explanations. It will be hard to top your claim that a knife that is presented loses it's psychological intimidation effect.
Considering the UKs gun laws would it be safe to argue that the availability of guns is MUCH lower than in the US and the deterrence effect of such gun laws, if there is one, is much higher. Brandishment of a firearm in the US, at least in many places, is a fairly minor thing. In the UK its a tremendously serious crime with serious underlying crimes (possession) present.
2damnold4this
New member
I agree, Lohman, that guns are not as common in the UK. A replica gun, bb gun, toy gun, non-functional gun, or Airsoft gun might be used by a criminal here in the US or in the UK to commit a robbery but knives seem to be much more popular in the UK.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
This thread has really gone off the rails. What Bartholomew Roberts originally asked was:
Since the discussion with respect to knives has pretty much run its course, with one group noting that when used in robberies knives are used mostly for intimidation/coercion (in other words, psychological effect) while another faction maintains that a decrease in the percentage of armed robberies involving knives somehow proves that knives are not used for psychological purposes. Since neither side has convinced the other, and since the entire discussion of knives is off the original topic anyway, I think it's time to shut this one down. I would encourage Bartholomew Roberts to repost the original question, but without the preamble that dragged edged weapons into a discussion that should have been about firearms.
So, while he was asking about psychological vs. physiological, he asked about firearms, not knives. We appear to have lost sight of the actual question entirely.Bartholomew Roberts said: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.
Since the discussion with respect to knives has pretty much run its course, with one group noting that when used in robberies knives are used mostly for intimidation/coercion (in other words, psychological effect) while another faction maintains that a decrease in the percentage of armed robberies involving knives somehow proves that knives are not used for psychological purposes. Since neither side has convinced the other, and since the entire discussion of knives is off the original topic anyway, I think it's time to shut this one down. I would encourage Bartholomew Roberts to repost the original question, but without the preamble that dragged edged weapons into a discussion that should have been about firearms.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.