Knife Vs Gun

[Frank Ettin]

My background and qualifications are well known and outlined in my profile. So who are you?

Classic internet blowhard. And you did not address my point, which is that if you are using a drill like this to train muscle memory (everyone else understands memory is in the brain, it's a common saying) and react by pulling out your gun, you're a hazard to everyone around you as well as yourself. Ergo, the drill has no real-world value.

Thank you for confirming that you don't know what you're talking about and that there is no reason why any of us should take your opinions seriously.

 

[Snyper]

Thank you for confirming that you don't know what you're talking about and that there is no reason why any of us should take your opinions seriously.

"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's, since not all knowledge comes from paid teachers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's, since not all knowledge comes from paid teachers.

"Qualifications" can include training and experience. But not all opinions are equal, and the opinion of someone who can back it up, including by demonstrating appropriate training and experience to support it, is more worthy of consideration than someone just pulling an opinion out of the air.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JeffK: And you did not address my point, which is that if you are using a drill like this to train ... and react by pulling out your gun, you're a hazard to everyone around you as well as yourself.

You had not yet made that point at all, nor had you tried.

You have said, without any substantiation, that a surpise attack by an assailant with a knife is something that is not going to happen.

You have asked rhetorically whether one would draw, and perhaps fire, if someone "dares to make footstep sounds behind you", which of course is not what anyone should properly do.

You also went on to suggest that anyone who did so react should not carry. Alrighty then.

You have also said "if an assassin wants to knife you out of nowhere without warning, well, you're going to get knifed".

Ergo, the drill has no real-world value.

That one has been addressed a couple of times.

Let me ask you this: if that statement were true, why do trainers put so much stock in Tueller's findings, why do expert witnesses bring them up so often with important effect, and why do law enforcement cadets have the findings drilled into their minds so much?

Now, regarding training per se, the "Tueller drill" is not really commonly employed. That was not and is not the primary purpose. As Frank said, "...Tueller developed the exercise to test at what distances an assailant with a contact weapon could be a credible threat", and I implied the same thing.

Students train to effect a rapid draw while moving and to fire multiple shots with combat accuracy very quickly, at various ranges. They are also made to understand how quickly a fit assailant can cover 21 feet. The latter is the only real application of any part of the Tueller drill in most training

If they can draw fast, move, and shoot effectively with the proper balance of speed and precision, consistently under pressure, and if they have been able to recognize and react to danger signals timely, they have a chance.

Oh I most certainly do [understand the history or purpose of the "drill"], and saying it twice does not make it true.

I hate to put it quite this way, and I do not mean this personally, but your comments are making it increasingly clear that you have little such understanding at all.

 

[Snyper]

Qualifications" can include training and experience. But not all opinions are equal, and the opinion of someone who can back it up, including by demonstrating appropriate training and experience to support it, is more worthy of consideration than someone just pulling an opinion out of the air.

LOL
Exactly the answer I expected.

The Tueller "drill" isn't really a drill at all.

It's a demonstration, only done to prove a simple point, and there is no need for anyone to "train" by using the "drill", since it teaches you nothing new

 

[AK103K]

It's a demonstration, only done to prove a simple point, and there is no need for anyone to "train" by using the "drill", since it teaches you nothing new

Interesting enough though, if it shows only one thing, it shows, that your theory on knives not being a viable weapon/threat, distance or not, is somewhat off.

 

[Snyper]

Interesting enough though, if it shows only one thing, it shows, that your theory on knives not being a viable weapon/threat, distance or not, is somewhat off.

And your posts show you haven't been comprehending what I said at all

Go back to Post #15
You're attempting to reword it to fit your agenda

It's not a "viable weapon" until it's close enough to touch you
Until then it's only a "threat"

 

[AK103K]

OK, Ill humor you. Its a threat (when isnt it?), until its upon you, which is what this is all about, how quickly that will occur, and it is then very much, a viable deadly weapon.


I still strongly suggest you get yourself an airsoft gun that fits your holster, and a wooden "boken" martial arts training knife and give it a whirl a dozen or so times, with someone else, and prove your theory, or dont. The reason Im suggesting the boken is, its wood, and it "hurts" when you get struck with it. Bruises cant be denied, and you still get to live. You may even learn something from an antiquated piece of information.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: [The Tueller "drill" is] a demonstration, only done to prove a simple point, and there is no need for anyone to "train" by using the "drill", since it teaches you nothing new.

I tend to see it about the same way, but I think it worthwhile to point out that while today it is used to prove, and to show, something, it was initially an experiment employed to find out something.

However, while I have received training, I have never been an instructor, nor have I ever designed training curricula for defensive shooting. One important method of training is simulation. Simulation is used in defensive training, engagement level air combat training, and all kinds of other combat training involving advanced weapon systems, unit level tactical training, and from there up--the sky is the limit. Don't forget firefighting, hazmat, CBN training, emergency rescue.... Simulation can be very valuable training tool, among other things.

Those who can do it, and who place enough priority on training, may avail themselves of that kind of training. They may get involved on FoF exercises. Whether they use simunitions or AirSoft does not matter that much.

In the course of all of that , they may include scenarios that involve a rushing attack with a contact weapon. That would be more realistic, I think, than simply striving for a 1.5 second draw in the abstract, and having seen how fast someone can close from seven yards. When you have faced a charging attacker, you will have become a believer.

That does not mean that I disagree with your point.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Tueller "drill" isn't really a drill at all.

It's a demonstration,...

Whatever one chooses to call it, OldMarksman and I outlined the nature and purpose of the Tueller "demonstration" (or drill, or exercise, or experiment). I'm not sure if JeffK is still unclear about that or not.

...there is no need for anyone to "train" by using the "drill", since it teaches you nothing new...

There is still reason to include in some way the Tueller demonstration/drill/exercise in training. It provides useful and important information. And while it wouldn't be anything new to me or Oldmarksman or some others, when putting on a class it will often be new information to at least some of the people in the class.

We also train for speed and accuracy -- being able to present one's gun and fire accurate shots quickly. Often instructors will work against a 1.5 second at seven yards standard. Often movement is incorporated into the exercise. At Gunsite, in Intermediate Handgun, at seven yards we were expected to fire two accurate shots, presenting from the holster and moving to the side at the same time, in 1.5 seconds.

And OldMarksman has mentioned the importance of simulations in training.

So while we might not train by actually performing a Tueller demonstration, Tueller's work helps form the bases of some of the training exercises we do use.

 

[JeffK]

I'm not sure if JeffK is still unclear about that or not.

I'm clear on everything I need to be clear about, the rest is just noise.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JeffK: I'm clear on everything I need to be clear about, the rest is just noise.

You may think so.

And you may have learned something in the last six hours or so.

Or not.

Look, we all start out with ideas that may or may not be supported by the evidence, or by logic. Some of our misconceptions may be, and probably are, just plain wrong. If we keep an open mind, we may learn something and be better for it.

I think it is crystal clear that he or she who believes that a surprise attack by an assailant with a contact with a contact weapon "is not going to happen", or who believes that should it happen, the victim is "going to get killed" does indeed have some learning to do.

 

[hoss1969]

dont get cocky and not worry about a knife

People who dont give a person with a knife in his hand enough attention are going to get hurt at best. The 7yard rule is not some number just made up to scare you, its a fact that was learned and paid for by both local and federal officers. The fact is with your hand on you holstered gun a guy can charge you and you can be smelling his breath in the time it takes you to draw and fire two rounds center of mass. If you side step while shooting you can draw the attacker off his line of attack and actually not get cut most of the time. Thats from the FBI's own training.

Also its best to treat anyone with a knife as a probable experienced knife fighter. There are many hours of prison security video that show prisoners practicing drawing a concealed" knife" and attacking, and if you dont think they then teach it to all their buddy's back home you could be DEAD wrong. NEVER underestimate a guy with a knife or any edged weapon, be it a beer bottle or screwdriver or anything.

 

[45_auto]

"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's, since not all knowledge comes from paid teachers.

That's about the goofiest thing I've seen on the internet.

You really believe that any random airplane passenger's opinion on whether to take off or not in bad weather is just as valid as the trained pilot's? All that training adds no value to his opinion on flight conditions? His qualifications as a pilot mean nothing?

You really believe that my opinion on your health is just as valid as your doctor's? All of the tests and past history on your health that your doctor has access to adds no value to his opinion? His qualifications from all those years in med school and passing the medical boards mean nothing?

If you ever do have to shoot someone, you really believe that the legal opinion's of your barber are just as valid as those of your criminal defense lawyer? Your lawyer's legal qualifications and passing the bar mean nothing?

If your car's transmission is slipping, do you really believe that the local high school cashier's opinion of the problem is just as valid as a transmission mechanic's opinion? The mechanic's experience and training mean nothing?

You must save a TON of money on professional services from trained people!

 

[Snyper]

You really believe that any random airplane passenger's opinion on whether to take off or not in bad weather is just as valid as the trained pilot's? All that training adds no value to his opinion on flight conditions? His qualifications as a pilot mean nothing?

We aren't talking about flying planes, etc.

We are talking about simple self defense techniques that have been around for decades, and no one here invented any of them

The "experts" are just repeating what someone told them, just like everyone else.

The facts aren't more valid if you paid someone to tell you, no matter what some like to imply

The Tueller "drill" was a simple demonstration of what NOT to do if someone runs at you with a knife

It requires the shooter to stand still and try deploy the gun and not do anything else.

It was never meant to be a training excercise.

Repeating it is pointless, since it teaches you nothing that people haven't already known for decades.

Most every topic in this section of the forum turns into a ******* match because half the people don't READ what anyone says, and so they go off on tangents (like airplane pilots and Drs) that have nothing to do with the actual topic, or even what was stated

You have proven my point quite well, because you didn't read what I said either, even though you quoted it:

Originally Posted by snyper
"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's, since not all knowledge comes from paid teachers.

Some here think if you can't show a "certificate" from one of the "popular "classes, you can't possibly KNOW anything

Those certificates go to those who pay the fee, and don't shoot anyone else, or themselves, before the class is over.

The biggest screwup in the class gets the same certificate as the best

The knowledgeitself (the only important part) is no different than what people can learn through other means, without paying lots of money.

I was practicing fast draw/ rapid fire drills 20 years before Teuller played his little game

 

[hoss1969]

NEWS FLASH

2 park rangers stabbed multiple times on Boston Common
Published On:*Oct 14 2014 05:21:29 PM EDT
Updated On:*Oct 14 2014 11:42:59 PM EDT
http://m.wcvb.com/news/2-park-rangers-stabbed-on-boston-common/29127706

At a news conference Tuesday evening, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said officers received a radio call around 4:36 p.m. to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument on Boston Common, and when they arrived they found two Boston park rangers suffering from multiple stab wounds.

Park rangers expected to survive after being stabbed

"He was stabbed right in the central stomach," Emerson student Jackson Marchant said. "He was bleeding. His whole torso was just covered in red, and he was holding himself and praying. It was pretty gruesome."

Evans said police responded quickly and through their effort and with the help of witnesses, they were able to arrest Bodio Hutchinson, the man they believe to be responsible for the attacks, on the Arlington Street side of Boston Public Garden.

"The guy runs and the cops tell him to stop," witness Nicholas Rusk said. "He stops, turns at them and tells them to 'Shoot me.' Just to irk them. They tackled him to the ground and they arrested him."

Evans said several witnesses followed Hutchinson until police arrived. The witnesses also told police that they saw Hutchinson throw the knife into the lagoon at Boston Public Garden, and investigators were able to recover a knife that they believe was used in the attacks.

A 46-year-old ranger sergeant was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, and sources said he was listed in critical but stable condition. Shortly after the attacks officials said he was suffering from life-threatening injuries.

Sources said he is expected to survive.

The father of the second park ranger identified him as 24-year-old James Lunnin. He said his son, who is being treated at Tufts Medical Center, became a ranger seven months ago after serving in Afghanistan.

Lunnin is suffering from five stab wounds, his father said, but is doing well.

He said his son is more concerned about the other park ranger who was more seriously injured.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The facts aren't more valid if you paid someone to tell you, no matter what some like to imply...

Nor does it mean that we have any reason to accept your claims.

...The Tueller "drill" was a simple demonstration of what NOT to do if someone runs at you with a knife

It requires the shooter to stand still and try deploy the gun and not do anything else...

It was never about what to do or not to do. Perhaps you'd have known that if you had read Tueller's article. It was a demonstration that someone 21 feet away with a contact weapon could be on top of you before you could draw your gun and shoot him.

That is information to help one decide what to do or what not to do. Teuller provided information. You need to decide how to use it to your benefit.

...Those certificates go to those who pay the fee, and don't shoot anyone else, or themselves, before the class is over...

How would you know?

....The knowledgeitself (the only important part) is no different than what people can learn through other means, without paying lots of money....

There are many ways to acquire knowledge. The question is whether or not, however you tried to acquire your knowledge, you actually do know anything.

...I was practicing fast draw/ rapid fire drills 20 years before Teuller played his little game...

A lot of people have practiced a lot of things for a long time. Not everyone who has done so actually knows anything or is any good.

So 45_auto's post was really absolutely on point:

...You really believe that any random airplane passenger's opinion on whether to take off or not in bad weather is just as valid as the trained pilot's? All that training adds no value to his opinion on flight conditions? His qualifications as a pilot mean nothing?

You really believe that my opinion on your health is just as valid as your doctor's? All of the tests and past history on your health that your doctor has access to adds no value to his opinion? His qualifications from all those years in med school and passing the medical boards mean nothing?

If you ever do have to shoot someone, you really believe that the legal opinion's of your barber are just as valid as those of your criminal defense lawyer? Your lawyer's legal qualifications and passing the bar mean nothing?

If your car's transmission is slipping, do you really believe that the local high school cashier's opinion of the problem is just as valid as a transmission mechanic's opinion? The mechanic's experience and training mean nothing?...

It's about how we know things, what we really do know, or can know or can't know, and how well we know things. This is whole area study in itself, and it's called "epistemology."

True, this is the Internet, and things here, we tend to think, don't really mean anything. But it's still a bad idea to get in the habit of jumping to conclusions, relying on assumptions based on tenuous data or guessing about things. It might work for the unimportant things in life; but if one gets in the habit, he might deal with something important that way too.

Being critical of information given to you, asking where it's from and what it's based on, expecting evidence, etc., are all good habits. It is entirely reasonable to expect people, even on the Internet, to back up their opinions with evidence and by demonstrating their qualifications. I have no intention of discontinuing doing such things myself.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: The "experts" are just repeating what someone told them, just like everyone else.

In the case of Tueller's findings, they are relating facts that were determined via rigorous testing conducted using the scientific method, and properly documented.

The Tueller "drill" was a simple demonstration of what NOT to do if someone runs at you with a knife.

No. It was a determination of distances at which a person with a knife would be reasonably believed to present an imminent threat. It has to do with the legal concepts of ability and opportunity.

Repeating it is pointless, since it teaches you nothing that people haven't already known for decades.

You know it and I know it, but if investigators, a charging authority, a prosecutor, and/or members of a grand jury don't know it or choose to ignore it, and if it is crucial to a defense of justification of use of force, someone is going to have to explain it to a trial jury, and at that point, repeating it will most certainly not be "pointless".

"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's,...

Oh yes they do!

Should someone charged with a crime for shooting an attacker with a knife ever need to use the Tueller findings (i.e., prove that a person with a knife can present an imminent danger of death), that information will never be admitted into evidence (that is, made known to the jury in any way) unless both the prosecuting attorney (or the attorney for the plaintiff) and the defense attorney stipulate that the witness presenting the information is in fact an expert in the field. They will only do that on the basis of qualifications.

I was practicing fast draw/ rapid fire drills 20 years before Teuller played his little game

Good. Let's hope you never have to use them.

 

[kraigwy]

Bickering aside, there is something we aren't addressing here.

We are assuming that the bandit is going to attack with a knife without warning, for no apparent reason.

It happens no doubt.

The thing is you can act faster then you can re-act. Meaning if you encounter a supposed attacker, you're at a disadvantage.

It seems like the topic is geared toward the idea you're better off with a knife for self defense then a revolve/pistol.

Knife or Gun, you're still at a disadvantage from the surprise attack.

With a gun you can side-step, move away from, or retreat and gain some sort of distance giving you a chance to respond, where as if your defense option is a knife, you have to close the distance to be able to deal with the threat.

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Knife or Gun, you're still at a disadvantage from the surprise attack.

With a gun you can side-step, move away from, or retreat and gain some sort of distance giving you a chance to respond, where as if your defense option is a knife, you have to close the distance to be able to deal with the threat.

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

And I think that pretty much sums it up.