OldMarksman
Staff
Absolutely!
Not in my mind, but there have been a couple of posts along that line.
Yep!
.Yes, and it occurs to me that a cane already in hand could be put to use, also.
Certainly not if I don't have to!
Knife Vs Gun
- Thread starter stonewall50
- Start date
- Status
I dont either, and I dont think anyone really would. Although, as with anything else, Im sure we can all come up with scenarios where you might.
With that said, I do carry a "smallish" fixed blade knife along with my gun, which I believe compliments it. Options are a great thing, and any one tool, isnt a magical weapon.
I think the whole point here, and one thats some seem to be missing, is just because you have a gun, doesnt mean youre going to prevail against a knife (or anything else), especially if you have the mentality that you are invincible simply because you have the gun. To me, thats a very dangerous presumption.
Another thing I see on most of the different gun boards, and I think needs addressing for a dose of reality is, the gun isnt always the answer or solution, your choice or not. I know we all are here primarily for the "gun", but once you get beyond what you choose, there are a number of other factors that help "round out" your portfolio. Being just a gun guy, and betting the bank on it is pretty silly if you think about it. What happens when your idea of the "gun" fight falls apart, and you have to start dealing with things outside of your preconceived scenarios, and you are unprepared?
I hope for your sake, youre putting as much effort into your fitness, and other options, like grappling/close in hand to hand, etc, and alternative and/or improvised weapons, as you are worrying about your gun. Not to mention the mental awareness issues.
I know (especially as we get older), staying physical and in somewhat decent shape, can be a challenge, but you should at least already have a fairly strong base and understanding in what is likely to work, if you should lose, lose the use of, or flat out just dont have your gun for some reason. Can you go a few minutes of intense close in hand to hand (with or without alternative weapons), and do you know what to go for, rather than just throwing punches? Are you in good enough shape to just run away and get away? Are you mentally prepared for any of he above?
Also, one other thing Ill bring up "again", that I dont see discussed enough, is the misconception, that "self defense", means you "defend". You do, "sort of", but that is simply the catalyst at the start. Once initiated, there should be nothing at all defensive about your response.
OldMarksman
Staff
Lest there by any confusion on this, a defender may use force that may reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury only if there is reason to believe that such force is required at the time to prevent his own death or serious injury.
Once that has been accomplished, the defender may not use additional force.
An attacker with a knife may slash or stab. A trained defender using a blade would be much better served to slash the tendons that enable the attacker to attack.
I am not trained to do that.
Some times and in many cases an impossibility.
There is no cure for COPD. There are those who can't walk to the truck and climb in without popping a nitro pill.
There are those who cant lay in bed because of joint pain and stiffness from too many years of jumping out of airplanes.
There are those too small and frail to defend against an 250 lb attacker regardless of how good of shape they're in.
That is why courts have adopted the "Egg Shell" defense.
There is something to the old saying. "I'm too young to die-but-I'm too old to take an A$$ whooping".
Not all of us, do to age, disabilities, or health problems can be Ninja's, but there are few disabilities that would prevent one from becoming proficient with a hand gun.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Add to the list spinal stenosis, atrial fibrillation, arthritis, and tendonitis.
The second of those robs one of stamina, results in swollen lower extremities, and requires mediation that makes both external and internal bleeding very serious.
It's one reason why I do not carry a knife.
...or climb ladders, or chop onions.
The second of those robs one of stamina, results in swollen lower extremities, and requires mediation that makes both external and internal bleeding very serious.
It's one reason why I do not carry a knife.
...or climb ladders, or chop onions.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
True, and one more reason to take the trouble to learn to use your gun effectively.AK103K said:
A dangerous perspective, and really not helpful. OldMarksman addressed this, but it bears repeating.AK103K said:
You may be legally justified in using lethal force to defend yourself from an imminent, lethal threat. If the threat ends and you take the offensive, you will have lost your legal protection. Jerome Ersland is an example of someone who didn't understand that and is now serving a life sentence for murder.
oopsies. You are so wrong. The average arm is about 3feet long so in a blink of an eye you jyst lost almost a third of that 10 foot distance and the guy hasn't even taken a step yet. Now add in a two running steps and the guys in your face and your brain has processed the fact hes coming at you and have moved your shirt/outter wear back and grabbed your gun. If your really a fast draw you might of cleared leather. 10 feet is nothing. Why do you think the police have people stand in front of the raido car while thay stand off to the side and back? It allows them to enter that bubble but adds a barrier between eack other.
Sad truth is your unwilling to learn what has been well documented and cost a numbercof police their lives or great injury. The whole point is not to stop the bad guy, the whole point is not to get cut or stabbed while stopping the bad guy.
The drill was based of FBI study on incidents with people with edged and contact weapons were the officer was injured or killed. Say what you will about the FBI but their internal study and review of after action reports is top noch. If something happens it the field they tear it down and work it out from every side, move by move and second to second.
The other thing is the 7 yard bubble is not the safety line, its actually the 50/50 line. Which means the average trained agent word get hurt enough to kill him or remove him fron duty. Addung a minimum of two side steps to draw the attacker off his line of charg ony moves the rato to 25-30% of the time
Sad truth is your unwilling to learn what has been well documented and cost a numbercof police their lives or great injury. The whole point is not to stop the bad guy, the whole point is not to get cut or stabbed while stopping the bad guy.
The drill was based of FBI study on incidents with people with edged and contact weapons were the officer was injured or killed. Say what you will about the FBI but their internal study and review of after action reports is top noch. If something happens it the field they tear it down and work it out from every side, move by move and second to second.
The other thing is the 7 yard bubble is not the safety line, its actually the 50/50 line. Which means the average trained agent word get hurt enough to kill him or remove him fron duty. Addung a minimum of two side steps to draw the attacker off his line of charg ony moves the rato to 25-30% of the time
Last edited:
Im not discounting any of the above issues mentioned, simply pointing out, that for many, "the gun" is the extent of their repertoire, injuries/disabilities aside.
There is that mentality, that many gun people seem to have. Just look at all the arguments over caliber and type. Its as if that "tool" is the solution to all their problems. What happens if you need to initially deal with the situation at hand, by hand, simply to get to your gun?
The proper response to that knife attack, may well be to initially move in "towards" the threat, and control the weapon/deflect the attack, and then back off to go for your gun, than it would be to try and draw against the attack, especially one thats already to close (what happened in Boston last night for example). People who are not, or havent been "combative", tend to shy away and act "defensively", rather than be aggressive, when aggression is in fact the proper response. Then again, you tend to get that from hands on training, or at least, experience.
I know where youre coming from there. Ill hit 60 at the end of this year, and fully understand the logic. If for nothing than to take advantage of the age issue if something were to go wrong.
Ive always lived a pretty active lifestyle, and remained in pretty good shape over the years. Im actually in a lot better shape than many half my age here. Doing so is simply a choice, and many these days, seem to not choose it.
As you mentioned, Im paying for some of the indiscretions of my past, my body has endured, but Im convinced, staying fit, has alleviated a lot of that, and what Ive seen some of my friends who didnt, have, or are now going through. Again, its a lifestyle choice we all have to make, if it wasnt already made for us.
Choosing to stay fit, and in some cases, moderate some things, makes a big difference towards the later part of our lives. I am convinced of that now. That said, I could well drop dead from a heart attack tomorrow, but thats a whole different story, and Ill at least look good on the table at the morgue.
I understand your thoughts on this, I just think my thoughts here are being somewhat misunderstood here.
Once the attack starts, the person being attacked, short of gaining a solid defensive position that can be reasonably defended, gains nothing, by being defensive in nature. They should gather all their aggression and put the attacker on the defensive, to the point its either ended, or they break off the attack. At the later point, youre right, you need to break off as well.
I do think its a mistake, to put the worry of the "law", and any hesitation it might bring into your head, ahead of your life, when it comes to a response though. You need to have resolved that ahead of time, or at least consider it, but once it starts, winning should be your only goal. This "everyone wins" mentality being taught in the schools these days, has no place here. First and foremost, Im going to do my very best, to make sure the other guy loses.
OldMarksman
Staff
In one's imagination, perhaps.
You sound like a very good candidate for some FoF training. Make sure to use safe equipment.
Against a fit attacker, that would give you 2/3 of a second to draw, present and fire, and that's just the time he would need to run into you you--when it's too late.
Under those conditions, a defender stands very little chance--if any.
Most loads will come up short, and you should not bet on "well placed hits" on an attacker moving at 15 FPS.
Yes, some fast lateral movement would be well advised.
OldMarksman
Staff
I don't think so. You want to increase the distance, not decrease it.
And you do not want to be seen moving toward someone before using force.
You may be able to slow the attacker with a shopping cart, or a car door, and that could prove helpful. I might be able to deflect the knife arm, and with luck, slow the man considerably, with my cane, already in hand. And one may be forced to use the weak hand while drawing.
You do not want to do anything that could be interpreted as, or described by witnesses as, an aggressive move.
That's fine-- as long as "winning" simply means not getting hurt.
I don't care what he does, as long as I end up unhurt.
Do not confuse lawful self defense with fighting.
zincwarrior
New member
Whats the issue?
They draw knife. You draw gun.
You shoot them 8-19 times depending on pistol.
A knife has no tactical advantage vs. someone with a firearm.
I'd much much rather face someone with a knife than a firearm, even if the BG with the firearm was trained by the NYPD.
They draw knife. You draw gun.
You shoot them 8-19 times depending on pistol.
A knife has no tactical advantage vs. someone with a firearm.
I'd much much rather face someone with a knife than a firearm, even if the BG with the firearm was trained by the NYPD.
Exactly.
Not always. In a perfect world, yea, good choice. We all know how perfect the world is, dont we.
If Im justified in acting, the chips will just have to fall where they may at the end when it comes to who saw what, where and when. If youre so worried about what happens after, then do nothing, and let the other guy worry about it.
Winning means simply that, winning.
I sure hope Im unhurt at the end.
Its all fighting.
If Im justified in defending myself, Im going to do so, and there is going to be a fight. If they stop, Ill stop. If they dont, Im going to do my best to make sure they do.
I understand where youre coming from in regards to the law and deadly force issues. Where we seem to digress, is on where to place it in our minds, once the ball is rolling, and there is a fight for your life underway.
The other guy is controlling the fight, and to a point, the outcome. All they have to do, is "stop". If they remain active, Im not going to act "defensively".
OldMarksman
Staff
That's the idea, but the issue is that they may well have drawn the knife surreptitiously and kept it behind them in hand while walking toward you. "You draw gun" takes time.
Careful.
While you will be shooting very fast, you want to avoid shooting excessively, if you can.
You do not want to assume that there is only one of them.
And you do not want to be left standing there with a empty gun.
For an attacker, it has the advantage of not having a report.
For a defender, there may be circumstances in which the knife would suffice and using a gun would endanger innocents.
I do not carry a knife.
OldMarksman
Staff
The problem is that if a defender may have done things that were not really immediately necessary for self preservation, and those actions will be taken into consideration by others after the fact who have only incomplete evident with which to judge.
And what they will decide is whether you were in fact lawfully justified in acting.
If you move toward the other person before using deadly force, you may well have established yourself as the aggressor. The aggressor is not afforded the right of self defense.
Further, such movement could weaken, if not negate, your claim that your use of force had been immediately necessary--that is, the last resort-- for avoiding harm.
There is a very distinct difference. In martial arts competition, winning means outscoring the opponent. In real fighting, it means hurting or killing him.
In self defense, one is justified only in dissuading or preventing an attacker from inflicting serious harm, and while the defender may be justified by necessity in harming the attacker, if he willfully uses any more force than is necessary in the process, he may not even be entitled to a self defense instruction.
Acting defensively is your only lawful option.
One more time: do not confuse lawful self defense with fighting.
zincwarrior
New member
So? To make an apples to apples comparison both have to be in the same starting condition -either both drawn or both undrawn. Else I can say I quietly drew myself, or that my wife spotted said ninja BG and now has a Mossberg pointed solidly to the back of his head.
Scientifically you have to hold all factors the same for a valid comparison, and in that comparison a BG attacking me with a knife is at a severe disadvantage, vs. if the same BG had a gun instead.
I know right, I could end up with just a hand to hand weapon against someone else with a gun.
In a civilian context there is no combative effective to an attacker using a knife against you in this scenario. In a shank’em scenario yes, but that’s not the point of discussion here.
OldMarksman
Staff
Why worry about apples?
For an attacker intends to commit a crime, pulling a knife without lawful justification is not an issue.
The defender, on the other hand, cannot draw without lawful justification, but even more importantly, he will have absolutely no reason to draw a gun on the off chance that the fellow walking toward him with one hand hidden is about to try to stab him.
We don't have to make a comparison of any kind.
The question was "Whats the issue?" And that was what Dennis Tueller started looking into years ago.
I think one of us is blurring things here somewhat, or we are both fuzzy.
My idea of "defense" is a strong "offense" once the act is initiated, so how is that any different, than simply being a "defense"? Im acting on a attack, and responding with force. (Im not suggesting preemptive defense either, as I already know what your response will be.
)What I get from your definition is, I would have to wait for every aggressive impulse and then act on it. Do you not "fight", when you defend yourself? Once you begin to defend yourself, do you not continue to do so, until the threat is negated?
OldMarksman
Staff
Most people cannot run backward anywhere near as fast as a fit person can run forward, and it could prove dangerous.
Most trainers teach lateral movement. That creates distance from the line of the attack, and the defender can see where he is going.
It's Tueller.
Madcap_Magician
New member
Hold on boys, I don't have my popcorn.
The Tueller drill is used in training, where its value is high. It is not used as training, insofar as the parameters of the drill are not meant to represent the best course of action for the victim of a violent attack with an edged or blunt weapon, but rather only to demonstrate at what distance a person so armed could effectively strike a person armed with a holstered pistol.
There are two important caveats that need to be taken into account.
1. The Tueller drill traditionally stops the instant the handgun-armed victim shoots or the instant the contact weapon-armed attacker can strike the victim.
Of course, fights do not necessarily stop at that point. Getting cut or bludgeoned does not necessarily mean you are incapacitated... and neither does getting shot.
The caution about edged weapons in particular is that that at the very worst, they are equal to firearms in grappling or shiv range, and I would argue they are better, assuming both are in hand. It is harder to take a knife from someone that it is to take a gun. At grappling range, the gun can only hurt you if it is in battery (or the cylinder is not bound), the muzzle is aligned with your body, and the trigger is pulled. The knife can cut or stab even inadvertently at that range.
That is not an argument that knives should be the preferred method of self defense, just that they are at least as dangerous as guns at bad-breath distances.
2. Both participants in the Tueller drill are aware of what they are doing. An attacker with a knife is probably not going to get your attention, then charge you while screaming and waving a knife. He is just as aware of the disadvantages of his weapon as you are. He will seek to minimize them and maximize his advantage by closing the gap between you without you noticing or suspecting malevolent intent.
The Tueller drill is used in training, where its value is high. It is not used as training, insofar as the parameters of the drill are not meant to represent the best course of action for the victim of a violent attack with an edged or blunt weapon, but rather only to demonstrate at what distance a person so armed could effectively strike a person armed with a holstered pistol.
There are two important caveats that need to be taken into account.
1. The Tueller drill traditionally stops the instant the handgun-armed victim shoots or the instant the contact weapon-armed attacker can strike the victim.
Of course, fights do not necessarily stop at that point. Getting cut or bludgeoned does not necessarily mean you are incapacitated... and neither does getting shot.
The caution about edged weapons in particular is that that at the very worst, they are equal to firearms in grappling or shiv range, and I would argue they are better, assuming both are in hand. It is harder to take a knife from someone that it is to take a gun. At grappling range, the gun can only hurt you if it is in battery (or the cylinder is not bound), the muzzle is aligned with your body, and the trigger is pulled. The knife can cut or stab even inadvertently at that range.
That is not an argument that knives should be the preferred method of self defense, just that they are at least as dangerous as guns at bad-breath distances.
2. Both participants in the Tueller drill are aware of what they are doing. An attacker with a knife is probably not going to get your attention, then charge you while screaming and waving a knife. He is just as aware of the disadvantages of his weapon as you are. He will seek to minimize them and maximize his advantage by closing the gap between you without you noticing or suspecting malevolent intent.
- Status