Geohashing Meets an Angry Rancher With Firearms

katicli writes "Geohashing, an obscure xkcd pastime which involves going to random coordinates generated by md5 hashing, the date, and the opening status of the stock market, appears to have just gotten far more interesting. The official wiki reports a warning for other geohashers intending to go to the spot designated for June 14th in the San Francisco area, as several avid fans of xkcd were met by an angry rancher and firearms."

As it says on the Wiki...

[Maxo-Texas]

http://wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/Known_Issues [xkcd.com]

"If someone says you are trespassing, it is probably best to heed them and turn back. Shotguns are a good indicator of trouble. See Template:Disclaimer."

Sounds like that other thing where you use GPS and leave a bowl with stuff in it.

Re:Culture --weird

[Alain Williams]

it's pretty normal for American ranchers to have guns around.

On the other side of the pond we would regard anyone waving a gun around as very scary and wonder if he was a lunatic. In the UK we keep guns under strict control and at places like licensed competitive rifle ranges. Yes: farmers do have them, but they keep them out of sight. We also have fewer gun related incidents, although an illegal gun culture is unfortunately growing.

Re:Culture

[couchslug]

Indeed. Guns are tools, and ranchers have ample use for them such as killing critters (feral dogs, etc) that threaten their livestock. Fuel and equipment thieves are another good reason for ranchers to be armed. Diesel theft from irrigation pumps can threaten their ability to make a living, and thieves may be armed. In isolated areas the police can't be there on the spot to help.

Remember kids:
If it isn't your land and you don't have permission to be there, stay the hell off. There is plenty of public land to play silly games on.

Country folk are often very good at looking out for their neighbors. If you don't belong there, expect to be checked out. I'd be delighted to have a neighbor who would observe and photograph any questionable visitors. Being visibly armed deters violence, and cameras preserve potential evidence.

Re:Overreactions

[timholman]

I agree. If I were a property owner (particularly with livestock) and suddenly a bunch of folks with GPS units showed up on my land and headed for a specific spot without so much as a 'by your leave' or 'Hi, we're here to do X. We'll do X quickly and be gone,' I'd be suspicious as well and likely to reach for the biggest gun I own. The geohashers could just as easily have been livestock rustlers.

Or they could have intended to make a drug deal out in the boonies. Or they could have been out there to steal gasoline or diesel fuel from a remote storage tank (a huge problem for many farmers and ranchers nowadays). How is the property owner supposed to know?

Seriously, what is it with the XKCD guys? If their hashed coordinates led them to the inside of someone's house, would they kick down the door and walk in? Of course not! But somehow, because it's a remote area, they think it's perfectly okay to trespass. They're being idiots, and eventually someone is going to get hurt.

Re:Overreactions

[pipatron]

Pff, n00bs.

In Sweden you're allowed to camp for two days on random property, and pick mushroom and berries in the forests. The government can even forcibly remove fences if some land owner have put them up, if the fences prevents people from exercising their right to roam.

Re:The Real World

[exabrial]

This is exactly what happens in Kansas during hunting season. If you hunt on someone's land without permission, the will come meet you with a gun. People don't want their land littered with trash, rutted with prints from four wheelers, illegal activity (meth labs, stealing of Anhydrous Ammonia) happening. And what people forget on the east and west coasts is that YOU are the own sheriff of your property. The USA provides protection for the rancher in this case against intruders, not the other way around. Of course, in Kansas, this is also completely normal. Guns are not a big deal, it's usually turns into a conversation piece. Usually beer is exchanged and some words about the harvest that year and the weather patterns. Then everyone goes their merry way and remembers to call the next year.

Re:Overreactions

[Hansu]

For anyone that works with livestock, having long guns mounted in vehicles and handguns on one's person is absolutely normal, routine, and safe.

Um.. I do occasional tech stuff on a farm and not ever have I seen any of the staff carry any kind of firearm.

Just saying, since you make it sound like every one working with animals is armed to the teeth.

Re:Culture --weird

[Belial6]

That is absolutely made up. Most firearm incidents are not unintended. You simply don't here about 99.99% of the gun incidents because they don't get reported. Why? Because someone picked up their gun, and showed it to an aggressor, thus ending the conflict before it ever becomes violent.

Here is a little hint for you. Most humans are far more likely to enter a physical conflict that they believe they are sure to win. As soon as someone sees a gun, they are no longer sure they are going to win, and thus are far less likely to continue the aggression.

Re:Overreactions

[geniusj]

^D? Wrong control code..

I live close by

[rossz]

That's real damn close to where I live. I've been up in that area on numerous occasions. In fact, I took some riding lessons at a ranch up there. My guess, the rancher has had some problems with teenagers harassing his herd. Teenagers do stupid things, like chase the steer around for the fun of it. There has also been the rare occasion of steer and horse thefts. Just a little information. A rancher with a shotgun is as common as a rancher with a nose on his face. Nothing to get excited about.

Re:Overreactions

[dryeo]

Generally the right to roam does not include developed/built up property. It is more for things like forests, grazing land etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam [wikipedia.org]

Re:Overreactions

[Deltaspectre]

I think that's your problem right there ;)

Farms don't have staff, they have workers.
(I grew up on a farm/ranch, where my dad always made sure to have a shotgun or rifle handy )

Re:The Real World

[Anonymous Coward]

Read. The. Frigging. Article.

They were on public park lands, the -neighbor- came out. People who were present talked to the park ranger and were told the neighbor was "a bit excitable."

The XKCD folks who do geohashing respect private property and try to meet on the nearest publicly accessible land/point to the geohashing alg.

End of line.

Not quite "the real world"

[PCM2]

It took a few moments to sink in. "In the San Francisco area" ... with guns mounted on trucks? Why, unless people are using one of those really broad definitions of San Francisco, that could be nowhere else but ... yup. Upon checking the address on Google Maps, it turns out to be none other than San Ramon, California -- about 15 minutes from where I grew up.

I know what you guys are thinking. "A bunch of uptight yuppies from San Francisco got in their cars and drove out to the wild wilderness and got a taste of the real world..." Yeah, right -- if by that you mean "took a pleasant drive out among the trees along the curves of Crow Canyon Road," just off the 580 Freeway kinda wilderness. Maybe they took the long way back and stopped off at Stoneridge Mall on their way home.

News flash for ya, folks. The exact location where these folks went is out a long, undeveloped road, sure. But San Ramon is a suburb, people. Yeah, if you're out there you'll find that 80 percent of the people are white. But that's not "white trash missin teeth an' drinkin moonshine" white, that's "53 percent of the people in this town are college educated and 17 percent have graduate degrees" white. It's "48 percent of the families in this town have median incomes higher than $100,000" white. Look it up. [san-ramon.ca.us]

Clearly, these "geohashers" must be even bigger peckerwoods than the people I grew up with (in neighboring Castro Valley) if that environment makes them uncomfortable. If white guys with guns mounted to pickup trucks makes them uncomfortable, I hope they had a speedy return to wherever they came from, completely bypassing Oakland, California, whose demographics are markedly different. And whatever they do, they should not wait for the bus on the streetcorner out in front of my local bar. It's gotten pretty hairy over there a couple times over the last few years.

Re:Overreactions

[bugnuts]

Here in the old west, it's extremely common for ranchers to have a "range rifle" stashed in the back of the truck. I had to lend my dad a shotgun because he was having a bear problem and he's on a small farm. Guns are just a tool... I would've been more alarmed if the rancher showed up with a machete.

What I want to know is how they recognized the guns so well (so clearly they are exposed to them) yet sounded so alarmed that a rancher would have one in his truck. That's bizarre to me.

Hell, I have a mini-14 in arms' reach and I'm in the city (barely).

Re:Overreactions

[thomasw_lrd]

Most ranchers carry weapons with them to shoot at predators,especially out west. They have major problems with reintroduced wolves. Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

Re:Why Is This News?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently because they actually went to a little-used public park and the person who's public property was *nearby* brought some guns to say hello. They didn't use them or even wave them around, but why the hell do you take a rifle and a shotgun to a public park because a couple people decided to meet there?

Hello internet

[Council]

Hey, Randall here (hey, my account still exists!)

Sometimes the coordinates fall on military bases. Sometimes they're in the ocean. Sometimes they're in the middle of Bill Gates's house (when that one happens, maybe we can work something out). So even if it weren't for the legality issues, there's a big common sense element.

The idea is that you get as close as you can to the point without going onto private property without permission. Most of the time, this means meeting on a road or cul-de-sac or whatnot. The point is just to get people close enough that they can all exchange high fives and then go to a nearby park or bar together.

I've met unfriendly people while out hiking (both for geohashing and for fun). I've also met some astonishingly friendly people, more than you'd expect. People on the whole are decent. But if you're wandering around in strange places in the real world, there are risks inherent to that, and you do have to use your judgment. If you treat the coordinates like commands and try to get at them no matter what, you're doing it wrong.

Ranchers, guns and good manners.

[Mi5ke561]

There are indeed reasons for that Rancher to be armed. First off, if you get into trouble, it can take 911 longer than the rest of your life to get there. Pretty much you're on your own. Secondly, I don't know if anybody's noticed or not, but it's spring and cows drop calves and sheep drop lambs this time of year, and Coyotes are everywhere. Worse still, coyotes have something in common with man-- they frequently kill for the hell of it. And the margins on running a ranch are close enough that you can't afford to lose livestock to random predation unless you want to go broke, so this time of year, if you see a coyote, out comes the SKS or whatever, (very popular as a ranch rifle) and the coyotes in question become fodder for vultures, magpies, ect. There are places where there is a tradition of free range. Most of Nevada outside of Clark or Washoe Counties for example, still let you roam around as long as you're not damaging anything. A lot of ranchers are looking at keep out signs though, because of idiots who do things like cut locks, cut fences and shoot at water troughs. (And in a desert, shooting a water trough is actually a crime that merits hanging, even though nobody does) and sometimes livestock. In order to prevent such things, if you're working a ranch, you pack a rifle. And it is considered good manners to ask, and if you're hunting and get lucky, a couple of cleaned birds on the way out is usually appreaciated. And I usually carry some stuff to take a few minutes to fix a downed section of fence if I find one. One makes friends that way. The bottom line is that those young idiots who seem to have gotten a case of the vapors over a rancher with a camera and guns that happen to be his working tools in the gun rack, were handled far more gently than they probably deserved and they should be thankful rather than complaining. And they do owe him an apology, so that little suggestion that was on their website is one that they should take to heart.

Re:Overreactions

[Stanislav_J]

I was looking at the geohashing map for my area of NJ a while ago. That particular day, the site happened to fall in someone's back yard in suburbia, with no apparent way to get there using public property. I wondered how the geohashers, if they went, would handle that. I assumed they'd just meet up on the street instead of actually going onto someone's private property. Now, I'm not so sure. Do these guys make a practice of meeting on private property? If so, they're probably lucky they haven't been challenged before this.

From random pokings around their wiki, it looks like proper protocol is to ask permission of the property owner, if available. If not, some of them seem to just hang in the area, perhaps maneuvering to where they can get a visual/photo on the hash.

In any "hobby" like this, there are always a few nogoodniks who fail to use common courtesy (or sense). Like the folks who want to hit the highest point in every state. A few of the lower "high points" in eastern states are actually on private property, and I recall reading about one where the land owner fenced in the area to keep people from just traipsing up to the spot and taking pictures with no permission.

What a crock

[WindBourne]

Wolves and mountain lions are responsible for very few deaths. We have far more to fear from rustlers, than from a lion or a wolf pack. But 100 years that was the problem. Now, they are far and few in between. During calving, yeah, have to pay attention esp. for coyotes.

And as to the re-introduction, yeah, the folks outside of Yellowstone report issues, but few losses. They problem is that they HAVE come up to the houses AND have gone after a couple of pets.

Re:Overreactions

[julesh]

These geohashers (and anyone else who shows up unannounced on private property) are pretty much looking to become s statistic.

Geohashers do not go onto private property. From the original description [xkcd.com]: "When any coordinates generated by the Geohashing algorithm fall within a dangerous area, are inaccessible, or would require illegal trespass, DO NOT attempt to reach them." (emphasis mine). The usual procedure (as was followed in this case, if you read the description) is to meet on the closest public road to the coordinates generated.

This land-owner was overreacting to the presence of a large group of people on the public road close to their property, not to trespassers.

Re:Overreactions

[julesh]

I don't know why the xkcd folks think they can just get away with this.. you can't just drive out to a random spot; that's called trespassing unless it just happens to be on public land.

From the description of how to perform geohashing: "When any coordinates generated by the Geohashing algorithm fall within a dangerous area, are inaccessible, or would require illegal trespass, DO NOT attempt to reach them." The general rule is to meet on the closest public road to the point generated.

Re:Overreactions

[bugnuts]

They have major problems with reintroduced wolves.

Wrong.

Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

Mountain lions are protected in virtually every state. If you shoot one, you are committing a felony, even if it's killing your dogs or livestock.

Wolves are also protected, and they only needed reintroduction because of asshats like you spreading lies about them. There have been issues with them killing livestock, but not major problems as you state. In addition, welfare ranchers are raising their cattle on PUBLIC LAND which everyone pays for, then they have the GALL to act like they should have exclusive rights to it, even over what used to be a natural predator that lived there.

There are a few things about the old west that I really hate... one of them is the disrespect for the land. And wolves and mountain lions are part of the land here, just like the pines and rattlers.

..and meth cookers

[swb]

Rural areas have, in the recent past, had serious problems with meth cookers. Either stealing anhydrous ammonia or using abandoned or unused houses and buildings to cook meth. Since meth cookers are usually tweakers and tweakers are usually paranoid and borderline psychotic, they have a tendency to be dangerous. And then there's just thieves stealing cattle or farm equipment, who are also generally armed and dangerous.

I've heard this from BLM rangers in Arizona and landowners in North Dakota.

Even if geohashers aren't doing anything "wrong" and are trespassing in error, at a minimum ranchers/farmers know that a sheriff may be 30 minutes or more away and that confronting an unknown quantity in a rural location and unarmed is inherently dangerous. So you grab your rifle from the truck.

While this might get you in hot water in the city when the police show up, in the country it means when your wife's cousin's husband (ie, the sheriff or deputy) shows up he usually will ask the landowner what time the barbecue on Saturday is and does he want those people arrested or just escorted out of the county.

And getting arrested in a rural area sucks. They'll treat you nice, but the "punishment" means spending 2-3 days in jail until bail is set and someone can drive down to bail you out (they won't let you out to go to the bank to get money wired to you) and if you choose to fight it or have to go to trial, making several trips at inconvenient times, hiring a local attorney (whose rates tend to go up for outsiders) and then paying some fine.

Predation of livestock

[sjbe]

They have major problems with reintroduced wolves. Also, mountain lions and coyotes are responsible for a lot of livestock deaths.

"Major problems"? Please. The number of livestock killed by reintroduced wolves is miniscule. There are less than 2000 [wikipedia.org] reintroduced wolves in the lower 48 states. Even including Alaska the entire US has only about 9000 wolves. Ranchers fear wolves but they are not a serious problem in any way, shape or form. There simply are not enough of them to be a significant problem except for the occasional unlucky rancher.

Coyotes were responsible for significantly more [wikipedia.org] sheep deaths but even then it is a small portion of the population. A bit over 100,000 deaths were due to coyotes out of a population of 4.6 million. Coyotes often experience dramatic population restructuring in areas where wolves (which are bigger and stronger) are reintroduced. Coyotes however are also much better at living close to humans. I saw one in my backyard twice this year and I live 5 miles from one of the ten largest cities in the US.

Mountain lions have a total breeding population of around 50,000 spread across both of the americas. They are a threatened species and there are estimated to only be several thousand of them in the US most of them in and around the Rocky mountains with a few in south Florida. Like wolves, in most places their numbers simply aren't large enough to constitute a serious threat to most ranchers.

Re:Overreactions

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I can't walk into people's garden and put up a tent. But I sure love the freedom to roam :)

From wikipedia:
In Sweden, the Allemansrätten (lit. every man's right) has existed for many centuries only as a customary law. But since 1994 it is part of the Swedish constitution. As in other Nordic countries, the Swedish right to roam comes with an equal emphasis being placed upon the responsibility to look after the countryside; the maxim is "Do not disturb, do not destroy". br The Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land - with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation, and with restrictions for nature reserves and other protected areas. It also gives the right to pick wildflowers, mushrooms and berries provided one knows they are not legally protected, as well as the right to swim in any lake and put an unpowered boat on any water. Fishing remains essentially private - apart from on the biggest five lakes and the coast of the Baltic Sea, the Sound, Kattegat and Skagerrak - and access to land by means of motor vehicles can be limited or restricted. At certain times of the year, and with certain restrictions, both fires and dogs are also permitted.

Re:Overreactions

[Grishnakh]

Um.. There's generally a distinction between a farm and a ranch too.

No, there's not. If it's on the east coast, it's usually a farm. If it's in Texas or farther west, it's usually a ranch.

Re:Overreactions

[Grishnakh]

I live in a metro area of 4 million (Phoenix), and I carry unconcealed just about every day, switching to concealed at times. Every once in a while, someone asks if I'm a cop (no), and I do get a fair number of glances and double-takes, and the occassional direct question from someone who doesn't realize that open carry is legal in AZ. I'm told by a friend who's on the Sheriff's Posse that the 911 system gets a lot of calls from morons calling to report someone walking around with a gun, who then have to be educated by the 911 operator that there's nothing wrong with this.

People moving here from out-of-state should be required to attend an orientation class to learn these things. There's way too many people from out-of-state coming here from places like California and then freaking out when they see people with guns.

Re:Overreactions

[bigbigbison]

in the USA we may have fairly strict laws against going on private property but we also have something like 600 million acres (aprox 2million square km) [washingtonpost.com] of public land of one sort or another so it isn't as if there aren't lots of other places for people to go without being on private property.

Re:Overreactions

[mabhatter654]

in the west of the US we had similar rules because of grazing rights. Joining ranches would pool their land next to public land and it was perfectly legal for their cattle to roam onto other's land, people were a given. In fact when the west changed from ranchers to farmers and crops it was a big problem because farmers put fences around their fields to keep the cattle from trampling them. Even for farms and farmland certain "trespass" is considered legal in most of the US as long as you are not stealing, and "no trespassing" is not posted.

Re:Overreactions

[ya really]

My family lives on a farm in rural Ohio and I was stuck waking up at the buttcrack of dawn for many years to feed the animals (gotta drive some cool equipment though along the way). Anyways, a farm to any farmer includes the raising of crops (soybeans, corn, wheat, alfalfa, etc). A ranch only has livestock. One that has both would be considered a farm, not a ranch. Texas has farms and it has ranches, since they do grow things such as wheat and cotton down there.

Some might go farther to say that there are also orchards and plantations (not to be confused with those of the Antebellum era in the United States). However, a "spade is a spade" and I tend go with farm=crops/crops+animals, ranch=only animals.

Re:Overreactions

[plasmacutter]

yes, and what's their rate of assault with a deadly weapon?

i'm not hearing youuu..

Re:Oh boy

[RubberDogBone]

OMG he has a GUN! Panic! Panic!

That's still the response from many police agencies in my area, where it is legal to concealed carry with the right permit. You can go to Walmart minding your own business just shopping along and still get hell when some other customer or a store clerk spots the concealed weapon.

Of course it gets called in as a "man with gun" (not "man minding his own business shopping") and out come the local police who invariably act like you're robbing the store and refuse to believe that anyone could need to protect themselves when there are police a phone call away.

Re:Predation of livestock

[sjbe]

First, the mountain lion numbers are a lie. Have you ever tried to find a mountain lion that did not want to be found. It's impossible.

You're right that finding the animal itself would be a challenge. But they do leave evidence of their existence. Scat, carcasses, tracks, etc. It's hard to find a mountain lion but it's only impossible to find one that doesn't exist.

I live in Arkansas, and technically they don't exist, but ask some of my hunting buddies around here. We have a very large breeding population.

With all due respect to your hunting buddies I'm not impressed by extrapolations from anecdotal stories. Mountain lions have been known to appear in much of the US in small numbers. By your own arguments if there was a large breeding population the impact would be seen.

Also, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions pose a serious threat to a ranchers livelihood.

There aren't enough wolves in the US to pose a serious threat to ranchers finances here. Coyotes are an issue but they also are not even close to endangered and ranchers are free to hunt them as needed.

Also, coyotes, wolves, and mountain lions pose a serious threat to a ranchers livelihood. Mountain lions kill at least one large herd animal a week. So that's 50,000 * 52= 2.6 million animals a year.

First off, mountain lions are generalist predators that will eat a wide variety of prey [wikipedia.org] ranging from deer to insects (yes insects) depending on what is locally available. Second the number is 50,000 SPREAD ACROSS TWO CONTINENTS. Your numbers sound impressive but the number of prey animals are FAR greater. For example the number of domestic sheep in the US alone at any given time is more than double that number and NO predator is even close to causing a decline. Once in a while a rancher has some bad luck but that's the way it goes with farming. Furthermore you are presuming that every animal a predator takes is a domestic animal which is clearly not even close to being the case.

The Supremes Will Disagree

[sycodon]

It doesn't matter what your stats say or whether they are legit or made up.

The Supremes will likely rule that the Second Amendment means what it says and gun "bans" will go the way of the Dodo bird.

Reasonable regulation, such as that applied to speech, will be available though.

And regarding the knife...it is widely recognized that a knife can be deadly if the perp is less than 20 or so feet from you (assuming your weapon is holstered, maybe even not).

So the rule is shoot early, shoot often!

Re:Overreactions

[The Grim Reefer2]

"because all gun control in this country is half-assed.

compare violent crime rates in nations with full bans on firearms to those in the US.

i'll give you a day or so to find your jaw under the sofa."

OK. Let's look at Brazil. They have strict gun control laws, and four times the murder rate / capita of the US.

How about England? Their murder rate has been rising steadily for the last fifteen years or so, and is getting frighteningly close to that of the US since it's has been dropping.

Or Australia. They had almost double the violent assault rate /capita of the US in 2000. Armed robbery rose by 45% after their ban in 1996.

Re:Overreactions

[elhedran]

Searched for "homicide rates per capita per country"

got

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita [nationmaster.com]

Of note, U.S. is listed at four times the number of homicides per capita than Australia. The U.K is even lower. Brazil isn't listed, which I assume to mean it wasn't included in the study. And this is homicides, by knife, gun or otherwise. There is a whole separate graph for 'killed by guns'.

Note the source of the study as well. 1998 to 2000. The same time period you seem to claim you got your data from.

Feel free to link to your own study, be sure it lists definitions and sources for the data it uses.

Re:Overreactions

[NormalVisual]

I can shoot someone 3 times or more with a handgun at point blank range before they even reach me. The force necessary to pull the trigger is minimal.

I seriously doubt you can, and I've got quite a few hours and thousands of rounds of close quarters tactical handgun training to give me that impression. "Point blank" when talking about handguns is about arm's length. At that range, someone with a knife can have you bleeding fatally before you get the second shot off if they have any degree of skill. At 7 yards, you should be able to do it fairly easily if you're practiced, but at one yard? No, there's not much you're going to be able to do to avoid getting cut at that range.

Re:Overreactions

[bladesjester]

it only takes a few grams of pressure to pull a trigger, my point stands.

For the heck of it, to prove that you don't know what you're talking about, a standard glock out of the box has a trigger pull of around 5-5.5lbs from the various sources I dug up. That's just one example.

A few grams of pressure is below what would even be considered a hair trigger.

Learn what you're talking about next time.

Re:Overreactions

[NormalVisual]

it only takes a few grams of pressure to pull a trigger, my point stands.

Your point is still not valid. The lightest trigger pull on any gun I own is about 4 pounds, or roughly 2000 grams. The lightest that I've ever fired was about half that, which still in no way could be construed as being "a few" grams, and in my opinion is way too light to be safe for a self-defense gun. The heaviest pull on one of my guns is just shy of 10 pounds. Three pounds of force applied with a sharp knife will produce a rather nasty wound, and won't do anything at all when applied to the trigger of any of my guns. Hell, I've had blood drawn by a falling piece of paper.

let me know when a blade produces a fist sized exit wound and has the concussive force of a bullet.

Concussive force doesn't mean jack in the context of firearm injuries (it's less than being punched even when talking about something like a .50 BMG), and there aren't many handgun rounds that are designed to produce exit wounds at all - an exit wound means some of the bullet's energy has been wasted. It's also quite easy to hit a non-vital area with a bullet and thus not produce a lot of bleeding. The same is true when stabbing someone, but a good slash with a knife is going to result in a substantial loss of blood *wherever* it's applied.

You're trying to argue a generalization that being shot is always worse than being slashed or stabbed, and that's just not true. Either can be fatal, both suck quite a lot for the recipient, and both would be best avoided where possible. However, if the fight has gotten to arm's reach, there's simply no guarantee whatsoever that the guy with the gun will come out on top, nor any reason to think he has more of a chance than the other guy.