The problem, as I see it, is that by having a knife you'll try to use it.
I'm sure that some people might take that approach, but that's a problem of tactics, not a problem with what weapon they have available. If a person tries to use a weapon just because that's what they have, they're going to find themselves in trouble no matter what weapon they have.
Besides, this thread is about DEFENSE, according to the title and the OP, and if someone
chooses to engage when they could evade, then that is no longer defense.
If you want to talk about offense--about choosing to try to cut someone up or stab them when it's not necessary--then perhaps that would be better addressed in another thread with that title and an appropriate OP. If this is supposed to be about "defensive" knives, then offensive techniques and tactics aren't really relevant.
Aren't you assuming a knife-on-knife fight or something equivalent?
No, I'm assuming only that he's not using gun. Perhaps a knife, a club, or maybe even his bare hands.
That's getting dangerously close to mutual combat, and when the blood is flowing both ways I think you're going to have a tough time proving a case.
Well, in one sense, anytime someone defends himself with a weapon against someone else with a weapon, it's "dangerously close to mutual combat".
Of course that's not the end of the story by a long shot because we all understand (as does the legal system) that there's a HUGE difference between being forced to defend yourself with deadly force and engaging in mutual combat. If he attacks and you can't get away then it's not mutual combat, it's self defense.
And if it is a knife-on-knife fight, how do you keep from getting cut up just as much as him, without constant training and luck?
If he has a knife and you don't, how does that make you better off than if you DO have a knife?
Because if you train to use the knife, as you must, you will fight as you've trained.
This assumes:
1. That the person has trained with a knife. Obviously most people do not train with knives.
2. That the person has never considered the possibility that evasion, when reasonably possible, is superior to engagement. Since that's a basic concept in self-defense and in the legality surrounding the use of deadly force, it's a stretch to assume that this hypothetical person can't think of anything to do other than to engage with a knife because that's what he has in his pocket.
If we're ruling out guns...
Well, I thought we were, but you just brought up the idea of an "attacker" running backwards and shooting at the same time. Can we agree to dispense with the idea that ANYONE is arguing that a knife is superior to a gun and leave them out of this thread from now on?
...I would absolutely prefer the walking stick to a knife.
I'd prefer just about ANYTHING to a knife, but I do not agree with your premise that it's better to be weaponless than to be armed with a knife. Having a knife doesn't mean you have to use it.
If you are forced to defend yourself (and that is really the only circumstance that can be legally defined as truly being self-defense), it's hard to imagine a scenario where having the option to resort to a knife is going to be worse than not having the option.
Because my own wrist has actually been cut open...
Are you saying that any cut in a given location causes equal damage regardless of its depth?
Clearly not every cut does damage to the underlying structure of the body, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. It just means that not all cuts are administered with the same amount of force, with the same technique, or with identical cutting instruments.
Historical knife fighting--back when this stuff was very real--focused on killing blows. Yet the modern techniques seem to be all about peripheral cutting with no martial intent. I see that as a monumental weakness to the system as a means of self defense.
I think that there are two reasons that historical knife fighting was more focused on lethality.
1. Mutual combat was legal and acceptable if you go back far enough and the goals of mutual combat are different from those of legal self-defense.
2. Historical knife fighting was also more focused on the offensive than the defensive and the goals of offensive knife use are different from those of legal self-defense.
As far as modern knife techniques being not sufficently "martial" for your tastes, that's probably more a commentary on you than on the appropriateness of modern knife techniques. The fact is that "martial" and "effective for self-defense" are not at all synonymous. The idea that a defender must be focused on killing his attacker to be effective is not only fallacious but it is also legally problematic.