Maybe my math is off but the UK is 4.31 per 1m people (285/66) murdered by a sharp object vs 4.88 per 1m for the US (1630/334).
If somebody wants someone else dead, they’re gonna find a way. People are all sorts of fucked up.
Not exactly. There is different risk vs reward in each weapon used. The risk is failing to kill the person and then likely being caught. The reward would be killing the person and possibly not being caught.
A gun can be used at range, is pretty concealable, and has a fairly high probability of killing someone. Being at range and concealable means it is hard to determine who did the shooting and also prevents the shooter from being attacked by the victim.
A knife has to be used up close, is very concealable, and has a medium chance of killing someone. While a knife being concealable works in a killer’s favor, the other two do not. A person being stabbed only has to look to the person right next to them to see who did it. And the lower likelihood that the victim will die means they can give a very good description of who did the stabbing. The stabber has a lower likelihood of killing the person and a higher probability of being caught.
A baseball bat has to be used up close, is not concealable, and has a medium-low chance of killing someone. Everyone is going to notice a person walking around with a baseball bat. If someone suddenly falls to the ground from a knock to the head, people are going to know exactly who did it.
A sock full of nickels is worse still.
Yes, people are all sorts of fucked up but people looking to commit premeditated murder are generally a bit rational in how they go about it. So when picking a weapon, they will go for one they can use at range, is concealable, and has the highest likelihood of killing their victim. That is a gun. Remove guns from the equation and the risk becomes much higher and the reward much lower.
Maybe my math is off but the UK is 4.31 per 1m people (285/66) murdered by a sharp object vs 4.88 per 1m for the US (1630/334).
Not exactly. There is different risk vs reward in each weapon used. The risk is failing to kill the person and then likely being caught. The reward would be killing the person and possibly not being caught.
A gun can be used at range, is pretty concealable, and has a fairly high probability of killing someone. Being at range and concealable means it is hard to determine who did the shooting and also prevents the shooter from being attacked by the victim.
A knife has to be used up close, is very concealable, and has a medium chance of killing someone. While a knife being concealable works in a killer’s favor, the other two do not. A person being stabbed only has to look to the person right next to them to see who did it. And the lower likelihood that the victim will die means they can give a very good description of who did the stabbing. The stabber has a lower likelihood of killing the person and a higher probability of being caught.
A baseball bat has to be used up close, is not concealable, and has a medium-low chance of killing someone. Everyone is going to notice a person walking around with a baseball bat. If someone suddenly falls to the ground from a knock to the head, people are going to know exactly who did it.
A sock full of nickels is worse still.
Yes, people are all sorts of fucked up but people looking to commit premeditated murder are generally a bit rational in how they go about it. So when picking a weapon, they will go for one they can use at range, is concealable, and has the highest likelihood of killing their victim. That is a gun. Remove guns from the equation and the risk becomes much higher and the reward much lower.