Printable View
Question- what do you think is a more likely scenario-
You will be attacked and have to defend open handed, later to find out there was an edged weapon involved.
or
You will be attacked with an edged weapon you can see and be able able to deploy your own edged weapon and defend yourself?
I think if "attacked" you would most likely be cut before you knew there was a knife involved. I think the situation where I would have to defend against a knife would be a robbery attempt and then I would know a knife was involved. Since I think that more folks are likely to be involved in a robbery attempt than an unforeseen attack, and the knife would be brandished as means to get compliance. I would think that I would most likely see the knife before I was injured. If I deployed an edged weapon it would be in conjunction with a firearm.
a knife attack will more likely be close and quick, leaving you no time to deploy your own weapon. go hand to hand, try and control the arm with the knife and position your body in such a way to MINIMIZE damage. you will most likely get stabbed or sliced, but you can survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by mercop
Assuming you have any situational awareness turned on... I would guess that the likelyhood of an unanticipated knife "attack" would be low. I agree with the above statement that robbery with a knife would be more likely and the knife presented before any physical attack...
I would not answer with a bladed weapon... I would answer with a handgun.
If the logic is that a handgun's purpose is to get you back to your long gun; then the purpose of any lesser weapon like a knife, must be to get you back to your handgun.
I will meet deadly force with the deadliest force I have at my disposal. I don't intend to fight fair when my life is at stake, I intend to win.
The question doesn't make sense. The variables here are all far too complicated to allow a choice of A or B. It all depends.
For example, if a person wants to kill or injure you with a knife, and they know what they're doing, you'll never see it and you probably won't have a chance.
If a person wants to frighten you and displays a knife, they'll probably be so close that any attempt you make to deploy a knife or firearm will be utterly futile. You'll be DRT.
The more realistic case was described by our own limatunes, who recounts a FoF training scenario involving a violent struggle for control of the firearm. There, a moment's chance for the defender to bring a knife into play is the winning gambit. And this is where many questions about folders vs fixed-blades get very interesting, very quickly.
In my training, we always start with the attacker armed with a knife and the defender unarmed. To my thinking, this is the best preparation you can make - learn knife defense; study defense against the stab, the thrust, the lunge, the swipe, the slash and the swing, and practice defense against knife held at throat or pressed to sternum. If you can gain control of the weapon or execute a takedown, you'll have enough time to get to your firearm and end the encounter.
Not as easy a question as it first appears. Staying rigidly within the parameters of the question I would postulate the following.
Based on lifestyle, age and a propensity to avoid altercations I would say that the latter is more likely for me than the former.
If I see anyone approaching me in an aggressive manner, I'll take necessary action regardless if they have a knife, club or a gun. I may give them a stern talking too or I may put a bullet in their mouth, situation will dictate. Now, in addition to my gun, I carry a knife (usually a Benchmade 710, Emerson Commander, RAT Izula or Strider SNGcc) and some spray on my keychain, I also have some training and a little in Krav Maga as well, though not that much. I'm very intimidated by knives. I don't like the idea of being cut and you are sure to get cut. I met a guy during a class that was stabbed over a dozen times during an attack and he kept talking about how terrifying the entire event was and how the blood was just everywhere.
I don't see any need to go to the knife. I carry one for normal daily use, but I guess in a fight I would use it if my handgun was not accessible for whatever reason. So, anyone getting to close is already a major problem. If his hands are not visible (or are with a weapon) my hand will be on my gun as I attempt to move, block, fight, etc. Regardless of one's training, the voluntary sacrifice of a limb is most often the first step, it's the ones that aren't armed or able to defend themselves now involuntarily sacrifice more than just their arms...
Why then do you think their is such a fascination with all the knife of knife stuff by people who claim to be proponents of realistic training? I find this especially true when the individuals are not required to have other skill sets like H2H, grappling, or firearms.
I got so irritated by all the pretty **** people were trying to pull off in class that we started using the stun guns a lot. Pretty went out the door and it came down to-
Get to the outside
Control the weapon hand above and below the elbow
Use your elbow or a wall to smash their head until they let go
Those are the principles that I see work over and over against people of different skill levels and aggression levels.
Maybe it is that people want to take "knife fighting" on as a hobby. Teaching high threat driving a lot this year has taught me that it all comes down to-
Processing information
Driver input including steering, braking, and speed
Seems to be true with all training, working at processing information that flies in the face of flies in the face of what is most likely to be the reality, leads to slamming on your mental brakes when you are faced with something totally different. And when you slam on your brakes you crash.
Example- Training in a lighted room against a big knife you can see, starting the attack on verbal command. In reality we know it will likely be an attack at low light, against a small almost invisible blade, with an attack beginning with a a visual cue. Could the things be any farther apart?
I guess it depends on personality and mindset. I would rather run hard for 30 mins than jog for two hours. I prefer to use the time I save working on another skill set or spending time with my family.- George
#1...Quote:
Originally Posted by mercop
Why would you bring a knife to a gun fight? If he has a knife, I am pulling my gun. As Sean Connery's character in the untouchables says, "That's the Chicago way!"Quote:
Originally Posted by mercop
#2 is the answer to the question (as it was posed) for me... But again, I won't be defending with a knife.
At close quarters, it may not be a gun problem. It may legitimately be a hand to hand or knife problem, not a gun problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedBeau
A fight will be what it wants to be. You can be as screwed bringing a gun to a knife fight, as you can be with a knife in gunfight.
Very original, I have never seen that on a gun forum before. Have you personally tested this using force on force? I have, hundreds and hundreds a time with every imaginable scenario. Here is the gist of what we have found.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedBeau
As soon as someone gets both hands on the gun they tend to only move straight back and even with the knife coming at them they fail to use the weak hand to fend off the attack. They just keep pulling the trigger and get cut to shreds, at least until they fall backwards and bust their.... This is against a visible weapon.
An unskilled but motivated person will cut your throat or put a screwdriver into your gun before you can activate your ballistic talisman. The reason is that unless you see it, you are not likely to perceive as a deadly force situation, and at contact distance chances are you will not see it.
Can we avoid anymore witty movie quotes.- George
George,
I have done some experimenting along the lines you describe, I'm sure not nearly the amount you have and generally I agree with what you said.
I have a question in relation to your second paragraph. Whether the off hand is used to fend off the attack or not, do you incorporate and end factor for the person with the gun. In other words, is there a point that the knife wielder loses, say three good com hits? The reason I ask is that as I see it, if such a factor is not included, there is no way for the gun person to win, unless they use the gun as an impact weapon. I realize that determining such an end factor is inconclusive, but without it a loss for the gun person seems virtually guaranteed.
Do you see my point?
Gloves
#1 I assume that almost any encounter in civilian life is going to happen by stealth and surprise, and it will require an initial empty hand defense. Knife, gun, mace, whatever is available, rock, brick, cane, belt, will be next.
Frankly, this is the reason I drag my tired and rather old body to MA classes. I want to be able to thwart, evade, break off, create distance, and preferable run if at all possible.
Knife laws are so goofy here I don't carry one.