ChristopherG said:
A difference of opinion has obviously arisen. Let's please discuss it without calling one another dolts, if possible.
I think that, generally, a weapon is better suited to persons without significant combat training and experience the farther it keeps them from their opponent. The unhesitating aggression that the defensive use of a close quarters weapon like a knife requires is trained out of most people pretty thoroughly in this modern world of ours. I think there's a big gap between the willingness to put a knife in the pocket or on the belt and the preparedness to throw the switch into kill mode at a moment's notice.
On hand, yes. On the other hand, long range weapons are often not suited to carrying on a regular basis. Canes are perhaps the only exception to this.
Consider also the fact that a person, armed with, say, a cane, who is unwilling to switch into kill mode, may be no better off. A person with a cane, determined to bash someone's head in, is a formidable opponent. A person with a cane, unwilling to hit hard enough to do what is needed, who flails his cane about, hoping to scare his opponent off, or hits, but not hard enough to put someone down, will see the cane taken away from them, or at least, their opponent will close quickly to a range where the cane is no longer effective.
Self defense is a state of mind. If you can not do what is necessary to defend yourself, if you are unwilling to see someone die at your hands if necessary, then leave the weapons at home, give up your wallet and watch when asked for them, and hope you don't end up faced by someone who really wants to kill you. Either you do what is needed to defend yourself, or you do everything you can to appease your attacker. Anything else is foolish.