OK, I'll play: if you can't get to your gun, what would you prefer to have?
It isn't about "playing", why do we have to do this everytime?? PREFERENCE means that you PREFER it over the gun or that you choose it INSTEAD of the gun. NOT that the gun isn't available and its the choice you are left with. That isn't what preference means. The statement you are making is that in the
absence of a gunyou would prefer a knife to nothing or something other weapon. That doesn't do anything to prove a point in a knife vs gun argument. Its an immature tactic to make a second argument prove your first argument when it does no such thing.
I'll try to break this down simply. Two people are arguing whether the sky is blue or yellow. The guys who thinks the sky is yellow say, "grass is green right?". He is trying to get you to agree the point that grass is green so you will agree with his point that the sky is yellow even though the color of the grass has nothing to do with the color of the sky. Similarly, guys who are arguing for the knife over a gun are arguing that since you would prefer a knife to bare hands or nothing, you must prefer a knife over a gun. Another example is the statement that a knife cuts seatbelts better. No kidding, a knife is better for cutting that a gun? The argument that a knife is better for cutting seatbelts or anything else is another attempt to prove A or B by proving C. If you try a set of shears and it cuts seatbelts even better than the knife is it a better defensive weapon? No, it doesn't prove anything. If you are comparing a knife to a gun then the cutting ability of the two isn't really a very good method of comparison. I understand it was meant to show the versatility of the knife versus the gun which is exactly why a large number of us carry both. Knives are handy for cutting and I carry mine on my off side so if I wasn't able to reach my weapon I could use my knife. That doesn't mean I PREFER it as the gun would still be my first choice and the knife is a backup.
I will address one valid argument I read.
3) Using the gun is not practical. You could be in the grappling range, there may be no way to get a shot off that will go in a safe direction. Maybe your not defending yourself from a person - perhaps a dog is latched onto your arm. If a dog bit me, and did not let go, I'd probably shoot, but I don't think its too far outside the realm of possibility to consider that the only shot you could get would go through the dog and hit you or a loved one. In that scenario, I'm going to be looking for more of a Jim Bowie solution, and less of a Bill Hickock one.
At least the argument is on topic but I still have to disagree with it. At close range is the only time you can absolutely choose a shot in a safe direction. If I was within arms length of my attacker I can hold the weapon low and shoot upwards into my target or pointed downwards into my target. Your choices are much more limited outside of arms length. If attacked by a dog I would likely be shooting downward into the dog and the ground the only way I would hit a loved one is if they were
under the dog which should be apparent. If the threat is away from you your chances of hitting something unintended should be higher, not lesser. It may be valid that the attacker has your right arm pinned and you are unable to draw. In that case a knife on the off hand side may be a life saver but I can't imagine having a gun available and able to use it but I CHOOSE to use the knife instead to defend myself. Train more with your weapon and learn its limits and you might not be so quick to give up on it. At close range a firearm can pulverize a brain, sever a brain stem or spinal chord, puncture the heart and/or lungs, smash a pelvis or a femur. It is much more capable of causing severe traumatic injury than a small knife. Small knives in the hands of a trained person can cause some pretty nasty wounds but excluding a few arteries near the skin's surface it just isn't as capable of immediate incapacitation as a firearm. I have extensive martial arts and firearms training and I've worked in prisons for the last 15 years. I have seen many victims of knife attacks some of which were from multiple attackers. There is just no way a small knife has the immediate lethality of a firearm.
Another argument involves the whole idea of a "trained knife fighter". While a trained knife fighter is much more capable with his weapon it only sways the argument if you are comparing him against an untrained person with a firearm. Once again, that is a faulty argument because it introduces the abilities of the USER in a discussion about the ability of the tool. The only way that argument would be valid is if you assume it is easier to train to a high level of proficiency with the knife than it is the firearm. It takes much more strength, coordination, and dexterity to utilize the knife than the firearm in my experience. I fyou compare the trained knife fighter vs an equally proficient shooter, the argument would still be a matter of which tool is better so the matter of training is moot.
Know I've "played" enough and I've said my piece. This is NOT an attempt at further play. I believe a good knife is part of your defensive package and if you can carry both you should do so. I believe that you should train to be proficient with what you carry. No one here is going to convince me to carry two knives instead of a knife and a firearm so...............