EDHS Contemporary World Affairs

Kayli Perry · Veteran Member

Alpha Squad: Brazilian woman held hostage at knifepoint

Amy Nguyen · Veteran Member

I don't think that being held at knife-point is certainly safer, but i guess if being held hostage by a knife, the person would have to be within close range compared to being held at gunpoint. Honestly, i would rather be held at gunpoint because if the criminal does intend to kill me, a gun wound would have a greater change of killing me faster and less painfully than a knife wound. As for giving the police more time to respond, i don't think that is necessarily true because either way the hostage's life is in danger and the police still must deal with the situation delicately. A person can still use a knife just as easily as a gun. It shouldn't matter about less people owning guns since the police would need to use actual bullets if a situation that requires it arises. If they carried blanks most of the time, i think that many criminals wouldn't be threatened by the police.

Amber Kennedy · Veteran Member

I have to agree with Amy; I do not think that being held at knife-point is any safer than being held at gunpoint. I think it can actually be more dangerous. Being stabbed has to hurt a lot more than being shot. Knives are bigger than bullets and can do more damage when penetrating the skin, depending on the situation. As for giving the police more time, I think that it could, but it's less likely. If someone is serious about hurting a hostage, then I do not think that police have more time to help a hostage at gunpoint or knife-point. If someone is afraid and not sure what to do with their hostage, then the police might have a little more time, especially if a hostage is being held at knife-point. In addition, I think that police should carry bullets rather than blanks because then criminals would perhaps be less tempted to do something illegal and harmful.

-- Edited by Amber Kennedy on Friday 7th of November 2014 06:50:31 PM

Banddude · Senior Member

This is a very interesting way of looking at this situation. Gun laws, or gun restrictions, would help defuse mass shootings. Those are situations we are fully capable of preventing. I don't believe further gun laws/ restrictions would help muggings or smaller, more intimate crimes where it is one person versus another. Personally, I see knives being safer over guns. If a situation were to escalate to a criminal killing his/ her hostage, authorities would not have to worry too much on being hurt themselves. If less people owned guns, we would have less objects in the world to kill each other with. Guns are guns. They are meant to kill living things. For sport or not, I believe they pose a dangerous threat to everyone around them. Regardless of whether the gun is yours or not, there is always the potential of your own weapon being turned against you. I believe that chance far out weighs the chance of you being able to do something with your weapon that defuses the situation.

Zachary Francine · Veteran Member

Here's the thing...if someone is intent on committing a crime with a firearm, it seems illogical to assume that he will follow the law for the process of acquiring one. Following this logic, disarming law more law-abiding citizens would leave them vulnerable. And if police only carried blank rounds, the only thing that would happen to the suspect or whoever is that his ears might be ringing from the blank round. Unfortunately, blanks are also really bad for the firearms themselves. It results in more residue being left in the barrel and that can lead to jamming. Since police spend their time on patrol usually rather than at the station, they should be equipped for most circumstances. One idea is to have extra clips on their belts containing rubber bullets (Beanbag rounds are only for shotguns). Kayli has good point. Both knives and firearms can be used by humans as tools for killing, whether it be self-defense or for criminal use. Plus a knife is silent (gruesome to think, but true). I remember that the same week of the Sandy Hook shooting took place, there was a man who went on a similar killing spree in China, STABBING over 20 children, but it got almost no media coverage. That begs another question: should we debate/argue over what a person used to kill another person, or should we try to figure out what led them to do such a thing so that we can learn, and we can try to prevent it properly and not throw the baby out with the bath water.

kristiestoermer · Veteran Member

Being held at knife-point does not necessarily mean the woman was any safer than if the guy had a gun, other then the fact that he would have to be closer to the woman to cause any harm versus a gun being able to shoot from farther away. The knife would cause a slower more painful death, but might give the police more time to help the woman. I also think the police should always have real bullets and just be advised to only shoot when necessary.

Foley · Veteran Member

The similarity between being held at knife point and gunpoint is that they are both being used in a dangerous manner. They would both being used to keep someone hostage and used to potentially kill someone if they found that was the only option they had.

Jamina · Veteran Member

I don't think that a knifepoint is safer, but I do think that it gives the police more time to handle the situation. A gun is shot quickly and it can happen unintentionally. On the other side, if the woman would try to escape it's more dangerous because she'd be more likely to have a scratch or something worse.