Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Shogun_SC2 t1_j3y5kjp wrote

The answer is there is no acceptable body count for any violence you stupid dick, but I guess I’ll actually engage with you and say the answer is 0. Knives make the number closer to 0 than guns do. Show me data otherwise or you’re just another one of these stupid idiots who don’t think before they post and think they are dunking on people when you actually just appear like an unintelligent asshole.

8

Anonymous7056 t1_j3ykt50 wrote

Thank God it wasn't a gun. Be a lot more than six wounded and zero deaths.

1

pakattak t1_j3ynodk wrote

If we’re talking hypothetically then the knife. Preferably one that I can pull quickly like a switch blade. Guns are too hard to pull on someone rapidly closing distance on you in the case of a completely random attack and while a knife is chaotic, at least I’ll be able to use it at close range.

1

pakattak t1_j3yo3k4 wrote

This is a completely useless statistic unless you pair it with effectiveness or ratio of victim vs perpetrator.

The argument is knives are harder to commit mass murders with vs a gun. Of course knives will be more popular globally because other countries control access to guns.

6

zebtacular t1_j3z6jk8 wrote

Why am I the type of person who reads this title first as “man with knife wounds…” as if he has multiple wounds from being stabbed/slashed with a knife? Are titles getting worse or am screwed?

1

pakattak t1_j416kvt wrote

Oh man and further, knives are just way more accessible than guns are in general. Every kitchen in a household has a knife. Not everyone owns a gun and yet the fact that it accounts for 41 percent of global violence is not the defense you think it is

3