On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:37:39 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:54:42 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:25:11 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 7/22/09 9:11 PM, Gene wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:08:54 -0700, wrote:
p

Oh for ****'s sake Gene, you're assuming whomever is weidling the
knife is an expert.

Flawed logic.

The guy in this case obviously meant to kill both women but left one
alive. Sound like a knife expert to you? Neither of the women were
armed from what I understand.

Any dweeb with two hands and an arse can put a bullet through
someone's skull at close range. What's the chance of survival?

And I suppose merely being in possession of a gun somehow imbues the
wielder with magical powers of perfect aim......

At 10 feet with a target the size of an adult human and some
considerable experience handling and shooting firearms?

You don't need perfect aim, just "decent" aim.

I suppose you haven't seen those police dash camera pictures where
trained police officers fire lots of ammo without hitting anyone.
What you can do on the range may not translate to what you can do in
bad light, when you are not really prepared and under more than a
little stress.

We're talking about knives vs. guns. In the same circumstances, the
knife is going to be just as difficult to handle as a deadly weapon as
a gun.

A shaking knife hand will probably be more dangerous than a shaking gun
hand.

While true in the abstract, somebody who uses a knife is more sure of
the results than a person handling a gun.

While true in the abstract, somebody who uses a knife is more sure of
the results than a person handling a gun.

That is proven by the statistical fact that at a range of three feet, more
people are stabbed than wounded by gunfire. It is truly amazing that at
arm's length, a person can miss with a gun, but have better luck with a
knife.

Another thing that has not been stated: a knife is infinitely more
intimidating than a gun. If you can put some distance between you and the
perp, the dangers from either a knife or a gun drop exponentially. But up
close and personal in a fight where the two combatants are not ever
disengaged, a knife usually wins, exacts more damage, or leads to lethal
consequences.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
While true in the abstract, somebody who uses a knife is more sure of
the results than a person handling a gun.

That is proven by the statistical fact that at a range of three feet, more
people are stabbed than wounded by gunfire. It is truly amazing that at
arm's length, a person can miss with a gun, but have better luck with a
knife.

Another thing that has not been stated: a knife is infinitely more
intimidating than a gun. If you can put some distance between you and the
perp, the dangers from either a knife or a gun drop exponentially. But up
close and personal in a fight where the two combatants are not ever
disengaged, a knife usually wins, exacts more damage, or leads to lethal
consequences.

Steve



Heard a self proclaimed, self defense "expert" talking one day about
crime in three strike states. It was years ago, I don't remember who he
was. He said the old "be nice, co-operate, and give the robber your
wallet" didn't wash anymore. If a guy already had 2 strikes he would be
just as well to get you into an alley and shoot you. Both the robbery or
a murder have the same penalty, but in the murder, he can eliminate the
possibility of you testifying against him.

He broke it down like this. If a guy pulls a gun on you:

Run, straight not back and fourth, and yell while you are running to
attract attention. "There is a 50% chance the perp won't shoot", he said.

"If he does shoot you, there is a 50% chance he will miss".

"If he hits you there is a 50% chance it won't be fatal"...

Leaving you a 87.5% chance of surviving. If you go into the alley with
him, and he is already a two striker, well I forgot the odds, but they
weren't good...

Take it for what it's worth, I don't necessarily agree or subscribe, but
it's what the guy said..

I have been certified now for thirteen years to carry a concealed firearm.
Used to be concealed weapon, but now concealed firearm.

Now, I take the choices in this order for a fight when you can touch the
opponent:

1. Knife
2. Pepper spray
3. Gun

YMMV. For me, I rate my own competency with each of these in the regard
listed. I'm 60, and have been shooting since the age of 8.

Up close and personal, give me a knife. Mostly invisible, which gives you
the element of surprise, and IMHO, more intimidating than a gun.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
I have been certified now for thirteen years to carry a concealed firearm.
Used to be concealed weapon, but now concealed firearm.

Now, I take the choices in this order for a fight when you can touch the
opponent:

1. Knife
2. Pepper spray
3. Gun

YMMV. For me, I rate my own competency with each of these in the regard
listed. I'm 60, and have been shooting since the age of 8.

Up close and personal, give me a knife. Mostly invisible, which gives you
the element of surprise, and IMHO, more intimidating than a gun.

Steve



Not to worry, as usual, Harry is making statements about something he
knows nothing about. In this case, it's in close combat.