Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
I disagree, first off, that knives take more training to use properly, but then i suppose it's all in your definition of properly. If by properly you mean you can put a bullet somewhere near the X ring on a somewhat reliable basis, then yeah, I suppose you're right. I consider proper use of a gun to be the ability to put steel on target damn near every time, and to also have the discipline and training to avoid shooting someone you shouldn't - which not only includes not aiming at the wrong guy, but also includes knowledge of what the bullet will do once it's hit the proper target. Hell, even veteran cops aren't very good at that - there have been several incidents where a cop's bullet has bounced off and hit someone who was not the target.
|
First off, this is a great discussion.
Now to my retort:
When I say that it takes a lot of skill to use a knife, I mean it in the context of using lethal force against an attacker in a fluid situation. Just about anyone can shoot a person, very few of us can effectively use knives. Granted there are many other factors that make up "proficiency" with a weapon, but you can make a mistake with a firearm and still kill your attacker deader than Kellsey's nuts with no problem. If you messup with a knife you will find it in your gut.
Quote:
Any combat with any weapon or with no weapon requires a lot of training if you're going to do it properly. There are far too many people out there running around with guns who think that because they took a range safety course with their dad when they were 10 they're expert gunslingers, and that's simply not the case. Anyone who tells you guns require minimal training is an idiot.
|
Absolutely, see above. However, a complete rookie could take a pistol, shoot me, and kill me. The same cannot be said of a knife. Anyone with a modicum of athletic ability can defend themselves from a novice with a knife with a good chance of success.
Quote:
As to the legal problem, which sounds better to you:
"I was walking down the street when he tackled me, said he had a gun, and demanded my wallet. I had my pocket knife in my pocket and somehow I managed to slash him across the chest and then I called the police" (by the way, don't stab your attacker, slash him - more immediate pain that way, which will break off the attack faster)
or
"I was walking down the street when looked like he was going to tackle me so I blew his head off" This is in keeping with your statistic that most shootings are done from such a great distance - after all, unless the other guy has a gun, why the hell aren't you running away instead of shooting him? And if the other guy has a gun, presumably it's out already while yours is still in your shoulder holster, so he's already got the drop on you. You're screwed either way.
|
First, remember that both shooting and stabbing are considered lethal force. If you feel that you must defend yourself with either knife or gun you should be killing your assailant. The only way I know to stab someone will result in their (almost) instantaneous death, which is the same way I shoot.
I would not shoot someone who "looked" like they were going to tackle me, I'd have to be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that my
life was in danger before I took someones life.
That being said, most criminals will not brandish a weapon in the commision of a crime, they will simply state that they have one.
You hit the nail on the head. Why not run away rather than shoot. An equally good question is why not run rather than use a knife? If someone attacks me with a knife, and I shoot him, it is obviously self defense (since most people won't pull a knife to defend themselves from a gun). If he attacks me with a knife and I stab him (or slash him), it simply looks like a knife fight. Both situations beg the question, "Why didn't you run?".
The simple fact is a gun is a defense against any type of attack (barring alien abduction or nuclear bombardment), a knife is not.