If you/they wanna play that game, then if any of the victims had a gun, they could have stopped it in 2 seconds.

You are absolutely right but thats not the question I was addressing. The question is gun vs knife and acting as if the gun is not more effective than the knife.

Are you assuming everyone else is unarmed -- i.e. not carrying a firearm?  Because in that case, knife or gun won't matter.  They'll be stopped at approximately the same body count if enough people are prepared.

You are trying to switch the question here. It isn't about if the crowd had guns, it is that having a knife instead of a gun likely meant there was a lower body count.

You are absolutely right but thats not the question I was addressing. The question is gun vs knife and acting as if the gun is not more effective than the knife.

Unknown unless you have a time machine.  Guns jam, knives don't. There's plenty of vids where a gun jams in illegal activity and in self defense. #nuance #objective

Unknown unless you have a time machine.  Guns jam, knives don't. There's plenty of vids where a gun jams in illegal activity and in self defense. #nuance #objective

What he's arguing is that a mass casualty event can be more effectively executed with a firearm than a knife.  Since mass casualty events usually involve panic, people running away from the threat and nobody trying to stop the threat, the effectiveness of the firearm is more a function proper application of the right tool for the circumstances.

But to kill 4 college kids asleep in the same house, a quiet knife used on a stationary/sleeping victim is a much better choice.

He's comparing different tools with one being better suited for one application versus a different application.  Had the killer used a firearm on those sleeping students, the sound would have caused some to flee or hide and call for help.  Others hearing the sound could also come to their aid.

The only way his statement is true is if we ignore reality and the choices people make when planning a mass killing.

The worst mass murder events in recent US history used no guns at all:  9-11 and the OKC bombing.

What he's arguing is that a mass casualty event can be more effectively executed with a firearm than a knife.  Since mass casualty events usually involve panic, people running away from the threat and nobody trying to stop the threat, the effectiveness of the firearm is more a function proper application of the right tool for the circumstances.

But to kill 4 college kids asleep in the same house, a quiet knife used on a stationary/sleeping victim is a much better choice.

He's comparing different tools with one being better suited for one application versus a different application.  Had the killer used a firearm on those sleeping students, the sound would have caused some to flee or hide and call for help.  Others hearing the sound could also come to their aid.

The only way his statement is true is if we ignore reality and the choices people make when planning a mass killing.

The worst mass murder events in recent US history used no guns at all:  9-11 and the OKC bombing.

Yeah, I know this. I was just messing with him.

Do you think it would not have been worse if he had a gun?

A smart person with a knife could kill a lot more people than a gun.  A knife is silent and you go for the inattentive ones alone.  No one would know people are getting killed.  But there would be no reason to do it.in a mall, it'd just be done one at a time.  Which are the serial murders

But in mass stabbings it's done to invoke fear so it has to be done visibly and they like the screams.  For the victims, they don't know who's doing it or where to run away unlike when there are gunshots.  Victims are probably running into him in the chaos.  If he hid the knife between victims and pretended to be a victim, he probably could've got more people.

Stopping him on the escalator was a good strategy.  He's confined and has an unstable position. 

Unknown unless you have a time machine.  Guns jam, knives don't. There's plenty of vids where a gun jams in illegal activity and in self defense. #nuance #objective

We aren't talking hypotheticals here. Are you going to tell me you would choose a knife over a gun if you had to kill a bunch of people?

A smart person with a knife could kill a lot more people than a gun.  A knife is silent and you go for the inattentive ones alone.  No one would know people are getting killed.  But there would be no reason to do it.in a mall, it'd just be done one at a time.  Which are the serial murders

But in mass stabbings it's done to invoke fear so it has to be done visibly and they like the screams.  For the victims, they don't know who's doing it or where to run away unlike when there are gunshots.  Victims are probably running into him in the chaos.  If he hid the knife between victims and pretended to be a victim, he probably could've got more people.

Stopping him on the escalator was a good strategy.  He's confined and has an unstable position.

A well trained person in the right scenario could kill a lot of people with a knife but I am talking about if all things are equal. If I decided to go on a killing spree in a public place I would never choose a knife over a gun.

My point in all of this is to say that I don't have a problem conceding an accurate argument that an anti gun person makes because a correct point is a correct point and I do more to have an open dialogue where I may change their mind if I am honest and recognize their valid points.

A well trained person in the right scenario could kill a lot of people with a knife but I am talking about if all things are equal. If I decided to go on a killing spree in a public place I would never choose a knife over a gun.

My point in all of this is to say that I don't have a problem conceding an accurate argument that an anti gun person makes because a correct point is a correct point and I do more to have an open dialogue where I may change their mind if I am honest and recognize their valid points.

That's the entire issue.  You have no idea what those "things" are.  A man with a gun will attract attention a helluva lot faster than someone with a knife unless he's purposely drawing attention.  That's just one example of the "things" you claim should remain equal between your scenarios, but haven't bothered to list.

That's the entire issue.  You have no idea what those "things" are.  A man with a gun will attract attention a helluva lot faster than someone with a knife unless he's purposely drawing attention.  That's just one example of the "things" you claim should remain equal between your scenarios, but haven't bothered to list.

Then why do we not see mass stabbers ever come close to the death tolls that mass shooters achieve?

You are trying very hard with your what if scenarios to avoid conceding a point to me. Tell me, in your time in the military, did they ever suggest you take a knife instead of a gun to combat?

Then why do we not see mass stabbers ever come close to the death tolls that mass shooters achieve?

You are trying very hard with your what if scenarios to avoid conceding a point to me. Tell me, in your time in the military, did they ever suggest you take a knife instead of a gun to combat?

Why are you ignoring all the shooters stopped before they killed more than the knife attackers?

A gunshot will alert a good guy with a gun.  A guy with a knife?  Probably take a little longer giving him more time.

Do you think you could kill more people with a knife than a gun?

Again you present no data or facts just a question. You really are here to argue.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/man-who-took-out-church-gunman-to-receive-states-highest-civilian-honor/2290236/

Good guy heard the shots and came running, killing the fleeing shooter before he could kill more. 

All things being equal, a gun attracts more attention and probably people with guns.

Oh, look!

Firearms instructor took out gunman at Texas church service

Wilson’s single shot quickly ended the attack that killed Wallace, 64,
and White, 67, at the West Freeway Church of Christ in the Fort Worth-
area town of White Settlement. He said the entire confrontation was
over in no more than six seconds. More than 240 congregants were
in the church at the time.

https://apnews.com/article/de8a2aebc6d95b9131a08975a5d881f9

Six seconds from start to finish.  240 in attendance, and only 2 victims.

Your assumption that a knife is less effective than a gun is only true if you create a test scenario that favors the shooter.

A knife can be more effective in a scenario that favors a knife carrying attacker -- such as a sensitive place with no armed attendees and inadequate security.

if you want to make your point, you need to list all of the assumptions you want to be "equal" for both methods.  Without it, you can't win just making a blanket statement.

Then why do we not see mass stabbers ever come close to the death tolls that mass shooters achieve?

You are trying very hard with your what if scenarios to avoid conceding a point to me. Tell me, in your time in the military, did they ever suggest you take a knife instead of a gun to combat?

Lul, bruh.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Then why do we not see mass stabbers ever come close to the death tolls that mass shooters achieve?

You are trying very hard with your what if scenarios to avoid conceding a point to me. Tell me, in your time in the military, did they ever suggest you take a knife instead of a gun to combat?

I didn't need a knife or a gun for "combat".  My side arm was for personal defense if I ever needed it.

The weapon they had me using was a modified Boeing 707 designated AWACS E-3.  Surveillance, jammer detection, OTH radar, fighter jet control, and used as a force multiplier.  A flight of 5 fighters could be as effective as a flight of 10 - 20 depending on the targets.

Some of us don't pontificate about "combat" even though WE were actually in the military.

Lul, bruh.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Great retort.

Again you present no data or facts just a question. You really are here to argue.

I figured it was common knowledge, but perhaps not, your request is fair.

This link has a chart you can look through, it lists mass killings by method, most were about 4, the highest was 7. Compare that to shootings which easily got into the double digits.
https://projects.apnews.com/features/2023/mass-killings/index.html

I did some looking and the worst mass stabbing incident I could find was the Osaka school massacre in which 8 children were killed.

I didn't need a knife or a gun for "combat".  My side arm was for personal defense if I ever needed it.

The weapon they had me using was a modified Boeing 707 designated AWACS E-3.  Surveillance, jammer detection, OTH radar, fighter jet control, and used as a force multiplier.  A flight of 5 fighters could be as effective as a flight of 10 - 20 depending on the targets.

Some of us don't pontificate about "combat" even though WE were actually in the military.

I just figured it should go without explaining that a firearm is more effective at killing larger numbers of people than a pistol. One doesn't have to be in the military to know that militaries take firearms into battle, not just knives, for a reason. If by pontificate you mean point out the obvious then I apologize for pontificating. Still not sure why you are trying to defend the indefensible.

I just figured it should go without explaining that a firearm is more effective at killing larger numbers of people than a pistol. One doesn't have to be in the military to know that militaries take firearms into battle, not just knives, for a reason. If by pontificate you mean point out the obvious then I apologize for pontificating. Still not sure why you are trying to defend the indefensible.

They also take explosives, which are illegal.  Imagine if the stabber set up explosives all over the place instead.  Way more casualties than if he had a firearm or knife.  What the US doesn't use on a regular basis is a flame thrower.  What if he had one of those?

#objective.