Gun v knife (is 21 feet adequate?)

This is a discussion on Gun v knife (is 21 feet adequate?) within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by rfurtkamp And despite our best efforts, nobody is 100% aware 100% of the time. It just doesn't happen unless you're on GlockTalk. ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Gun v knife (is 21 feet adequate?)

  1. #16
    Member Array SSKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    357

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by rfurtkamp
    And despite our best efforts, nobody is 100% aware 100% of the time. It just doesn't happen unless you're on GlockTalk.
    LOL!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Quote Originally Posted by rfurtkamp
    And despite our best efforts, nobody is 100% aware 100% of the time. It just doesn't happen unless you're on GlockTalk.
    LOL, geez I hope I never see people posting stuff like that about us ....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,724
    Folks, have any of you ever seen a video called SURVIVING EDGED WEAPONS? It's no longer available (IIRC), but it was a certified police training video shot by some PD in Minnesota I think. Anyway, it was subpoenable in case you had to shoot in a knife situation because of it's status as being used to train LEOs. I learned from that and from many other examples that I myself am not capable of making the draw even out to thirty feet or more. Not when I'm the target and the perp is on the move at a solid run. Therefore I train to go into hand to hand with the full knowledge that I'm probably going to get "cut" but also that I'll be able to control the situation. In Aikido, the closer the opponent is, the better it is for the defender. Much better if he's moving fast. I'm no black belt and have no desire to be. Only competent.
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array KC135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    742
    Calibre press did the video I think. Been using it in training for many years. It is pretty well done and has been used in court several times.
    Keep the shotgun handy!!

  6. #20
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    We trained on a knife scenario just the other day at the S.O. The scenario was this...

    You pull over a vehicle for an equipment violation. As you walk up to the vehicle to request the DL,registration and proof of insurance the door on the vehicle opens and the driver advances upon you with a knife.

    Average range is 1 and a half car lengths...the minimum distance that you need to stop when pulling over a vehicle.

    In each and every case the officer got "cut". This was proved with a rubber knife that was chalked upon the edges. Officers were using a modified Glock, modified with a "Simuniton" barrel and shooting Simuntion paintballs.

    Several officers with enlarged egos were humbled that night.It was good training and much was learned. Every scenario was replayed several times, and just to keep it interesting, and somewhat realistic, at random times the driver of the vehicle would advance with nothing more than a cell phone or set of keys or in a few situations a small maglight.

    Now here is the kicker...

    Every officer was AWARE that SOMETHING was gonna happen. We didnt know exactly what, but our senses were somewhat alert, more so than average.
    Even so, it seemed to matter little. In most cases, guns never cleared leather and for those that did, most shots were hits in the legs and feet. One rather comical looking but somewhat effective tactic occured when one of the officers backed up and fell on his back. He put his feet up while drawing from his holster and shot the "perp" several times. He also shot his right foot once and both legs took multiple cuts but it was felt that these would have been survivable. When he argued that the "perp" never cut his legs, he only had to look down to see the chalk marking all over his Levi's.

    We've had several "man with a knife" calls lately, and this had sparked a bit of training in this area. You automaticly draw your gun if you see someone with a knife as you may not have time otherwise. Anybody stupid enough to continue holding a knife when told by armed officers pointing guns at them to drop the knife, is stupid enough to try to use it.

    And in the car scenario with the knife...
    If somebody wants your ass, it aint gonna matter how good you are or how good you think you are, they are goin to have it and there aint much you can do about it...

  7. #21
    Member Array Moondoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    101
    I agree with Exsoldier.....

    It's better to fight a close/unexpected knife attack hand-to-hand than to stand there fixated upon employing a handgun while getting stabbed. You must deflect the knife and counterattack decisively with maximum violence. This is life & death, and you'd better fight like it! No Marques du Queensbury stuff.

    Or deflect the knife/attacker and run. (Gain separation/time to employ firearm.)
    If you ain't the lead dog, the view never changes.

  8. #22
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    Okay, i was in a knife fighting seminar and the instructor was trying to make an example of how inadiquate a gun was against a knife on some cases, so he picked my friend jeff and gave him an airsoft in a holster. Jeff and I train a lot and he's was definately the wrong person to pick if he wanted a good example of someone getting owned by a knife weilding opponent in a tuller drill. jeff started with his hands casually at his side in a relaxed position. Half way through the drill it was evident that if jeff knew how to operate the crossman airsoft gun (it had this weird ass safety, something not prepared for since he carries a glock), this guy would have been shot 6 times. He was out of the holster and in guarded retention before the guy with the knife had advanced half the distance.

    The moral of the story is: Practice, practice, practice. We do close retention shooting drills all the time on the range.

    Secondly, learn hand to hand. Not everyone has the type of reflexes to get the gun out of the holster in half a second.

    third, situational awareness. The guy is not going to be charging at you from the front. It's gonna be like the pizza shop. You're gonna be distracted by sharonda laqueefa sharika james when her ex con boyfriend comes from the side and prison shanks you.
    Last edited by clubsoda22; March 6th, 2005 at 07:28 AM.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array ExSoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Coral Gables, FL
    Posts
    5,724
    Clubsoda22: I agree with your post 100% I think your friend Jeff might have had other results if somebody had just charged him out of nowhere and he hadn't been previously alerted and had a moment to get "set." Still kudos to you both for all of your training! I also agree with hand to hand. I use Aikido quite a bit in my job as inner city high school educator. Lots of folks on probation and parole for fairly serious offenses. All of 'em think they're "tough" whereas only a very few REALLY are. Know how you can tell the difference? The truly tough never talk or brag. The wannabes are all mouth.
    Last edited by ExSoldier; March 6th, 2005 at 08:55 AM. Reason: spelled school incorrectly. Not good for a teacher!
    Former Army Infantry Captain; 25 yrs as an NRA Certified Instructor; Avid practitioner of the martial art: KLIK-PAO.

  10. #24
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    In my experiance, they all brag. most of them it seems have only been to prison so they can try to intimidate you by yelling "*****, i've been to prison"

    Exactly what i mean by situational awareness. Both Jeff and I know that chances are slim to none that the attacker will be standing exactly 7 yards away right infront of you in a martial arts studio. It is nice to know that you can make that shot, however, if you spot the creepy guy in the parking lot following you before he makes his move. That's where practice and situational awareness come in.

    It''s the rest of the time, most of the time where you have to use your hands to defend yourself before you can go for your gun.

    If anyone has a chance to take a knife fighting seminar with Nick Hughes of F.I.S.T, take it. I learned more about defending from and fighting with blades an sticks in 10 hours than i had picked up in shooting and martial arts classes my entire life. It ranged from simple and effective techniques taught to prison guards to defend from the most common attacks to more advanced techniques derrived from Nicks extensive martial arts and knife fighting background.

  11. #25
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    I did this drill and it taught me a lot.

    I tried using my shoulder holster: SLOW SLOW SLOW.
    Unless I have an opportunity to do a stealthy draw, that can get me killed.

    Even from mex carry, I shot the BG just a split second before I got killed.

    Then tried the technique with movement:

    MOVE, MOVE AT AN ANGLE, DRAW WHILE YOU MOVE,
    SHOOT WHILE YOU MOVE, SHOOT HIM PLENTY, KEEP MOVING


    This proves valuable at 7 yards, and it proves even more critical at
    5 yards and then 3 yards. It proves itself more as the "attacker"
    chases you rather than just running straight line.

    A gunfight is NOT a static event.

    If you are not using movement in your training, you are training to get killed.

    Think it through.

    --Travis--

  12. #26
    Member Array Pylon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by FLM
    Please note the following discussion of pelvic shots by Dr. Fackler in--Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.
    “I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

    -- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and 18 not a target in the pelvis.
    -- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
    -- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (1oops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

    The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

    Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------



    Excellent read. I've always heard people talk about shooting the pelvic area and having the bad guys buckle over. I never did give it much thought because i still perscribe to the COM theory. But this is good stuff nevertheless. Now i have more reason to shoot to COM. Thought the though of getting shot in the pelvic area makes me cringe and make funny faces. Ouch!
    Misc photography I've done, mostly gun related.
    http://pyloncone.deviantart.com/gallery/

  13. #27
    Membership Revoked Array clubsoda22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    177
    the only reason to shoot for the pelvis and legs is if the bad guy has body armor and his head is too small a target due to distance

  14. #28
    Member Array shannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    36
    Here is another article from Blackwater.

    21 Feet Is Way Too Close!!
    By: Frank Borelli


    It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the "average" man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspect's momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway.

    The information contained in the above paragraph has long been accepted in police and court circles. "If a man has a knife and is within twenty-one feet, he presents a deadly threat and the use of deadly force against him is justified." Here is the question then: How far away does that suspect, armed with an edged weapon, have to be before he's not a deadly threat? A gentleman named Magliato shot a "bad guy" who was armed with a baseball bat and standing thirty-two feet away. The courts convicted Magliato claiming that at a distance of thirty-two feet, the suspect with the baseball bat could not present deadly force against Magliato; perhaps they were wrong.

    If it takes a man a mere one-point-five seconds to run across twenty-one feet, how long would it take to go thirty-two feet? The simple answer would be to add half, right? If thirty-two feet is about one-and-one-half times twenty-one, then one-and-one-half times the time of one-point-five seconds should be correct. Wrong. That one-point-five seconds for running twenty-one feet is from a dead stop. To assume that thirty-two feet would take fifty percent longer would be a mistake because you would have to assume that the bad guy started, stopped at twenty-one feet, restarted and then reached thirty-two feet. Reality is quite different. If you accepted that logic, the time would be about two-point-two-five seconds. In reality it would be less than two seconds.

    Even if we worked with that two-point-two-five seconds as a realistic number for covering thirty-two feet, how many feet per second is that? It's an average of fourteen-point-two feet per second. Now accepting that, let's consider the cop with his gun holstered and the bad guy thirty-two feet away with an edged weapon or other form of lethal force. He starts running at the cop. The cop recognizes the danger, draws, brings the weapon on line and fires. The bullet hits the bad guy when the bad guy has traveled about twenty-two feet or is about ten feet away from the officer. In less about two-thirds of a second after the bullet impact to his body, the bad guy will get to the police officer and begin his attack.



    Two-thirds of a second: Even if the officer fires two shots and gets good hits with both of them, the bad guy may have enough oxygen and adrenaline in his system to keep moving, in complete control of his motions, for another six to fourteen seconds! As mathematics just proved, the bad guy could run well over thirty-two feet in far less than six seconds, and we all know that the officer can't run backwards even half as fast as the bad guy can run forwards.

    Sure, someone reading this is saying, "That's why we run in an arc so that as they lose control of their system, their momentum will carry them forward and we'll no longer be there." Ask yourself this: Have you tried running backwards, constantly moving in an arc, trying to keep a weapon tracking on someone who is attacking you with a knife or other deadly weapon for more than fifteen or twenty feet? Give it a shot some time. Have a fellow officer run at you hard for fifteen and a half seconds (did you forget the first one-point-five seconds?) while you try to run at an angle backwards. Do this in a soft area so that you don't hurt yourself when you fall backwards as the "bad guy" plows over you.

    With regard to this issue, there is more thinking and math to do. If you accept that the average man can run more than thirty feet in about two seconds, how far can he run in that fourteen seconds after your bullets have struck him and done serious damage to his vital organs; after he has begun to bleed out? At thirty feet per two seconds, that's about two-hundred-ten feet: seventy yards! More than two thirds of a football field is how far you would have to run backwards in an arc to consider yourself safely away, and even then you're assuming an average man with lethal injuries who has not consumed any substances that would affect his performance.

    Obviously some disparity exists here. A man thirty-two feet away, holding a deadly weapon, didn't present an immediate and deadly threat to Magliato, but a man seventy yards away can present a deadly threat to you, an armed and trained police officer? Think about it for just a moment and consider this: there is certainly no way that a man seventy yards away with a knife, bat or other contact weapon can immediately harm you. However, if that same man starts running at you with the obvious intent of doing you bodily harm, one would think it prudent not to wait for him to reach the twenty-one foot mark before firing your sidearm. It would probably be even more prudent to keep obstacles between yourself and the threat so that the time it takes him to close distance is even greater.



    Finally, we can all foresee the juror who says, "How much damage can an injured man armed with a knife do against an uninjured police officer armed with a gun?" Well, you all know that bullets do not instantly stop anyone unless you achieve the more-than-rare central nervous system hit. As all officers are trained to shoot for "center mass" since it is the largest target and therefore presents the best chance of actually hitting the armed assailant, there is little chance that the rounds, if they hit the assailant, will pass through his body exactly on center to impact his spine and immediately stop his threatening actions. So, excepting that central-nervous-system, you know that the assailant can function as described above, for another six to fourteen seconds or until his system finally runs out of oxygen and adrenaline.

    At contact distance, in a time span of six to fourteen seconds, what can you do as a police officer with a firearm? Shoot him several more times increasing the amount of tissue damage done and reducing the amount of time it will take him to "bleed out". By the way, you have to do that while fending off whatever attack he presents. What can the assailant, armed with a knife, and within contact distance do to you in that same time span? Common sense suggests that he could stab you anywhere from twelve to twenty-eight times, everywhere he can reach, substituting slashes for stabs as he sees fit. That doesn't sound like a good time. Further, no where in any cop's job description does it say you have to fight an assailant with a knife since you are specifically equipped and trained to avoid getting into that situation.

    So, you say to yourself, if there is no specified distance at which you can readily assume an armed assailant is too close and deadly force on your part is justified, how do you know when it's okay to shoot? Just as with the use of deadly force against any threat, four factors must exist prior to your response with deadly force. 1) Opportunity: your assailant must have the opportunity to bring killing or crippling power to bear. This is the factor that is most affected by distance. A man with a knife can't do you harm at fifty feet, but at contact distance he definitely can. How quickly he can close that distance and how quickly you can stop him has a direct affect on his opportunity to do you, or others, harm. 2) Ability: the assailant must have the ability to bring killing or crippling power to bear. Ability can exist in a number of forms such as weapons, overwhelming size, physical strength, force of numbers (in the case of more than one assailant) or special knowledge on either part. If the assailant has a gun or knife, that creates his ability. His size and/or strength can also create his ability to do you, or others, harm. If there is more than one assailant, together they stand a better chance of doing harm than when alone. Special knowledge is a two edged sword. You can have special knowledge of the assailant's proven intent or skill; such as he's a professional heavyweight boxer. That skill in heavyweight boxing is special knowledge that he possesses that makes him a greater threat. 3) Imminent jeopardy is the third factor and must exist prior to your deployment of deadly force. If the assailant does not present imminent jeopardy to you, or others, you cannot justify the use of deadly force. To some extent, "imminent" is controlled by distance. Again, that guy at fifty feet may not be presenting an imminent threat, but when he starts to move toward you, the threat he produces easily becomes imminent.

    The fourth, and final, factor is preclusion. Any prudent person will normally make an attempt to escape or avoid the situation, which may lead to the use of deadly force. Police officers don't have a requirement to retreat, and certainly conditions can exist wherein the police officer has no choice but to stand his ground. The duty to protect others may mandate that you face the threat without the option of running from it. The statement "preclusion is the fourth factor" truly means that avoiding the situation has been considered and is not a viable option. The officer must be able to articulate, along with all three other elements, why he didn't, or couldn't, avoid this deadly force confrontation. In the case of a man with a knife, bat, or other deadly contact weapon, once he (the bad guy) starts charging you (the police officer), his ability to close distance and deliver a killing or crippling injury is far greater than your ability to escape or stop his attack. If he is within the distance we typically train at with our handguns (twenty-five yards or seventy-five feet is usually the maximum distance), then preclusion is removed as soon as he begins his charge. All the mathematics above should have adequately demonstrated that he can close seventy-five feet in less than six seconds and that, even if you score good disabling shots while he closes, he may still have plenty of operational time remaining in which to do you potentially fatal harm. Therefore, it is maintained that, if he is within trained handgun distance, seventy-five feet or less and is armed with any type of killing or crippling contact weapon, imminent jeopardy exists and preclusion, as an option, has been removed. At that point, all four factors exist for your justified use of deadly force in defense of yourself or others under your protection.

    To review: it's takes one-point-five seconds or less for an armed bad guy to close twenty-one feet and do you bodily harm. It takes less than two-point-two-five seconds for that same bad guy to close thirty-two feet and do you bodily harm. After you've shot the bad guy, he has enough oxygen and adrenaline in his system to close another two-hundred-and-ten feet (seventy yards!) and do you bodily harm. The next time you are in an "Edged Weapons Defense" class, bear this in mind. The next time you pull up on the scene of a violent domestic and that guy has a hammer in his hand in his front yard, bear this in mind. The next time you decide to park you cruiser within twenty feet of a vehicle on a traffic stop, and you officers on the street will all have to do exactly that, bear this in mind! You rarely know who the bad guy is, and you never know what the bad guy is bringing to the fight. As an instructor friend of mine is so fond of saying: "You always want to bring a gun to a gun fight. What do you want to bring to a knife fight?" Many of the people in the classes he teach respond with, "A knife." He smiles a knowing smile and says, "No; a gun."
    Take Care,

    Shannon
    www.microholics.org

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array KC135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    742
    Face facts......if you are walking in harms way with your head in the clouds (or elsewhere) daydreaming about? You are a victim looking for a place.

    If you are walking in harms way with your hand on a gun in your jacket pocket..........and your mind on constant alert......sheep or sheepdog?

    Last, Blackwater? I'll pass.
    Keep the shotgun handy!!

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array rfurtkamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pocatello, Idaho
    Posts
    940
    With gun in hand, 30 feet was barely adequate to deter someone trying to close on me in a real-world incident. They tried multiple times, but I had the gun up from ready by the time they started moving closer rapidly and they broke off at about 20 ft each time. There's no way that I could have drawn, let alone a complex draw involving removing the safety, and remained not at risk from even the not-visibly armed perp I was facing.

    I don't want to have to go through that practice as many times in repetition as I did over the weekend any time soon - truthfully, I'm thinking 30-40 ft if you have to draw, the lesser end if you've got situational awareness, the higher end if you get dropped. This also assumes you can get out of the way or they magically fall over like on TV, at which point I'd *like* 50.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic knives with adequate hand protection
    By Uechi in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2009, 03:15 PM
  2. VIDEO of knife attack within 21 feet... NO WAY you can draw fast enough
    By Accord in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 6th, 2006, 12:42 PM
  3. Walther PPK/S adequate for carry?
    By BlackReaper in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: June 5th, 2006, 05:13 PM
  4. What's your std of "adequate" ccw skill?
    By meme in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 31st, 2004, 01:46 AM

Search tags for this page

21 feet knife and gun
,
bad guy holding knife targets
,
best weapon within 23 feet knife are gun
,
gun draw within feet
,

gun vs knife 21 feet

,
guns vs knives 20 ft training
,
knife gun 18 feet
,
knife how many feet away
,
laws about knives 21 feet
,

sweating profusely when defending an assailant

,
theory about gun & knife 21ft
,
which do you shoot guy with knife or gun
Click on a term to search for related topics.