On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:36:30 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:53:47 -0700, jps penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:55:25 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
|
|
|"jps" wrote in message
...
| On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:36:04 -0700 (PDT), Tim
| wrote:
|
|just today. the victim was from St. Louis Mo.
|
|http://www.seattlepi.com/local/40830...ml?source=mypi
|
| Guess what? One of them has survived.
|
| Would that have happened with a gun? Nope.
|
| He thought he had killed them both.
|
| Bullets to the head would have made it for sure.
|
| Glad he had a knife instead. 100% improvement on mortality rate.
|
|Much more likely to die from a knife wound than a gun shot.
|
|Right. Cite please.

It is a debatable point with no clear answers.... and I think the
*real* answer lies in statistics garnered from countries where knives
are more prevalent than guns.

The fact that this study is flawed is found in the assertion "The
distribution of wounds is different for knife assaults and gun
assaults, since victims of knife assaults have more chance to dodge
and block," which is ridiculously untrue.

For those with proper training, inside of about 10 feet, I'll take the
knife and you can have the gun. I'll never lose and you'll never see
the knife.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993...ives-00000.php

Oh for ****'s sake Gene, you're assuming whomever is weidling the
knife is an expert.

Flawed logic.

The guy in this case obviously meant to kill both women but left one
alive. Sound like a knife expert to you? Neither of the women were
armed from what I understand.

Any dweeb with two hands and an arse can put a bullet through
someone's skull at close range. What's the chance of survival?