Knife versus gun - lethality

[strambo]

If there's any confusion, strambo is talking about defending against multiple lethal threats. If facing a single opponent, the obligation is to stop applying force when the attack is over or the threat is perceived to have stopped.

Yes, or perhaps a situation like a lone home invader making his way towards your kids room even though he is no longer posing a threat to you personally, or in the seconds during a lethal encounter, you knock down an armed attacker and follow with the stomp immediately to save your life.
If you know they are no longer a threat and can escape w/ any and all innocent 3rd parties then you can no longer use deadly force outside of some "Castle Doctrine" situations in your home (in States where that applies).

I was mostly referring to deadly multiple situations though...in recent threads there have been some responses where posters wondered why such measures would ever be needed by a citizen or that they were far-fetched. You don't need to be in Iraq (or Afghanistan eh JShirley) for such measures to be needed...perhaps you are just in San Fran. and some MS13 gang bangers are trying to make a left turn and you are in their way?

 

[fineredmist]

An attacker who is well versed it the combat use of a knife, has the proper tool and is within a resonable strike zone will get the best of a shooter most of the time. A cut above the eyes, one across the throat and a upper thrust into the abdomen (into the heart) and the game is over. An accomplished fighter can do this in less time than it takes to read the how to.
A trained fighter will thrust a blade into the abdomen and give it a twist and then pull it out. This creates a large "V" shaped wound which bleeds profusely and weakens the victem very rapidly.
A knife fighter is a very dangerous opponent and a street thug just might get lucky with a jab or two. Either way you will get cut.

 

[Zoogster]

the obligation is to stop applying force when the attack is over or the threat is perceived to have stopped.

Much easier said than done in some real life scenarios.
It is not a sport with good sportsmanship, but in court it is judged that way.

If you put someone down twice your size who attacked you, they seemed quite competent, and they are in a position to get back up and probably will do so...
Do you have an obligation to wait until you once again are possibly at a disadvantage, they are in a position to do damage and you may not get so lucky again, or do you go further and do something you know will keep them down?
Do you have an obligation to let any attacker get back into a nuetral position before continuing with the momentum and advantage you have and may not get again?

I know the law. But if you succeed a couple times, but they get right back up, they may eventualy succeed and not be so sportsmanlike when they have you in a compromised position.

Unlike the movies many serious fights have moments where one or the other gains an upperhand, with that upper hand they can do something that puts them in control of the outcome.
If when you are in control and you then back off, the guy recovers and then resumes attacking and gets in that position themself they may not be so nice. It can cost you your life.

Now in a court of law finishing someone you downed will get you sent to prison. In real life not doing so can in some situations get you sent to the morgue or with permanent life altering injuries.
You don't get to ask to do it all over later if they incapacitate you afterwards and proceed to hit you with something, stomp on you while you're down, or otherwise continue thier own attack resulting in your disability, disfigurement, or death.

With a firearm it is different because the result can be decisive. If you shoot someone, you can stop, and if they pose a danger again you can shoot them immediately again, without being in much additional danger.
In an unarmed fight something that puts someone down is not always decisive, and advantages not taken advantage of may be opportunities lost that you regret when later at the disadvantage yourself.
You don't just get to pull a trigger again if they resume the attack after you stopped the attack, you get to resume trading attacks. Resulting in a much less certain outcome.

That is one reason a firearm is so much better, public opinion understands thier use. You can defend yourself, stop, and if put in danger again defend yourself with the pull of a trigger.
You can do only what is necessary to stop the attack if you do have to fire and then evaluate the situation.
You have clear lines when to attack and when to stop attacking without posing significantly more risk to you.
You do not have that luxury in an unarmed or knife fight with a determined attacker, or multiple attackers that want to do serious damage. Yet you will be judged the same in a court of law, expected to put yourself in danger to let them resume the attack if you manage to stop the attack briefly.

 

[strambo]

Good thoughts Zoogster. There is no "answer." In court you need to illustrate why you were in fear for your life. If a reasonable person would still be in fear for their life or serious bodily harm at the point you did that action, then it was justified.

I like to think in terms of injuring the opponent until they are no longer functional. What does "non-functional" mean? Well, it means they cannot carry on an attack (i.e pose a threat) at least in the time it takes you to do what you need to do (leave, arrest, capture, get your family to safety etc...)

So, "non-functional" in combat probably means dead, in a bar fight probably means knocked out or disengaging, with armed gang bangers, probably dead or curled up fetal and vomiting. When you are no longer in fear for your life...it is time to stop.

 

[The Tourist]

For there to actually be a fair comparison, you'd need to restrict it to cases where people were shot or stabbed to a certain minimum depht, in the same general area, and where they were treated within the same amount of time from the time of injury.

That's better, but it's still an apples to oranges kind of logic.

Let's suppose that four guys on Gold Wings go to Sturgis. As they pull into town they turn onto a stretch of pea gravel and three of them go down.

Statistically, 75% of the Honda riders at Sturgis were involved in accidents, while only 1% of the Harley riders went down.

In reality, that means 3 Hondas and over 200 Harleys. But all of them are on heavy cruiser bikes.

That logic is at work here. About the only way we could gather any realistic data would be to compile a list of statistics involving twins, in which one was shot, the other stabbed and both went to same ER.

And what about data involving a guy who get slashed/stabbed in his femoral artery and dies in minutes, and a guy shot with a Raven who dies three days later.

There are so many variables that the study is simply worthless.

 

[Hoplophile]

<11> Authors Mock C.Pilcher S.Maier R. Title Comparison of the costs of acute treatment for gunshot and stab wounds: further evidence of the need for firearms control [see comments]. Source Journal of Trauma.36(4):516-21; discussion 521-2, 1994 Apr. Abstract Gun control is proposed primarily to decrease the incidence of injury and death from gunshot wounds (GSWs). We hypothesize that decreasing the number of GSWs will also produce significant economic savings, even if personal violence were to continue at the same rate, maintaining the same overall incidence of penetrating trauma. We analyzed charges and reimbursements for the treatment for all patients with GSWs (n = 1116) and stab wounds (SWs) (n = 1529) admitted to a level I trauma center from 1986 through 1992. Mean and median charges were higher for GSWs ($14,541; $7,541) than for SWs ($6,446; $4,249) (p < 0.05). There was a 12% per year increase in the annual number of GSWs (p = 0.001), leading to a disproportionate increase in the annual total charges for GSWs (p = 0.013), compared with SWs. Public expenditures, including bad debt and government reimbursement, increased for GSWs (p = 0.019) but not SWs. Thus, if all patients with GSWs instead suffered SWs, there would be an annual savings of $1,290,000 overall and of $981,000 of public funds from this institution alone. Treatment costs for GSWs are higher than those for SWs and are rising more rapidly, with an increasing amount of public funds going to meet these costs. Considerable savings to society would accrue from any effort that decreased firearm injuries, even if the same level of violence persisted using other weapons.



Save money and ammo. Use a knife

 

[snow]

I vote gun more lethal

I have personally used a knife in self defense a few years back and it did cut gave the perp 27 staples in his neck. The perp was on drugs, cut did not stop him but the sight of his blood covering his shirt did. His focus was changed to stopping the leak after he saw the blood. I have no doubt in my mind that if we were not in a lighted area and he did not see the blood he would have continued his attack and I would have had to inflict more cuts and possibly stab wound to ensure my safety. With that said I have shot deer in the neck with my .223 and they drop instantly. So from personal experience I have to say that a gun is more lethal than a knife

 

[The Tourist]

So from personal experience I have to say that a gun is more lethal than a knife

Would you offer that same rebuttal if I had been the fighting the perp with one of my knives?

In other words, would the variables change the equation?

Would a bigger guy, hitting harder, cutting more times leaving deeper wounds with a better knife truly tip the scales of your attack?

Lots of variables, I understand that. But if your answer changes to "yes" than I would argue it's not the device or the conditions of the crime.

That's the problem with this debate. We are looking solely at the postulates of the discussion as "gun vs. knife." I have a tendency to consider the argument really is "which is more important, the man or the metal?"

To simplify, let's suppose six of my riding buddies happened to see the perp start to attack you. Before the perp could hurt you, the guys just start beating him with things they found on the ground--sticks, rocks, garbage can covers.

Most people would surmise the guy is going to get beaten to death, I agree.

I further argue the outcome would be the same with three guys, even two.

If you buy the premise of that argument, then it is very possible even one man could turn the tide. Let's suppose it was Vancook or Keating.

Now in a very real sense the gun or the knife mean nothing. Now we start that old "statistical debate." And those things drive me crazy.

If your perp did the attack at a NRA exhibition, my guess would be a gun would be used for defense. If the perp did the same crime at a "hammer in" seminar, he'd be sliced to ribbons.

I don't know how to properly document "reality" on a bell shaped curve. And I would bet the number crunchers don't really know how to do it, either.

 

[strambo]

All tools and bare hands are equally "lethal". The reason people want to say a gun is more lethal is because it is easier to be lethal with. Just point it toward a vital area (easier said then done under stress) and press a tiny lever.

As snow found out, it is harder to be lethal with a knife...but that isn't the knive's fault. He used the tool improperly. I'd be more surprised if a standing slash to someone's neck was lethal than all the times it isn't. Sure, it's a mainstay of "knife fighting" arts, but it just isn't effective.

If you want to, umm "stop" someone by attacking their neck w/ an edged implement it is much more effective to set it up so their body weight does all the work. If the blade is against their neck and they are dropping to the ground then gravity will force the blade to hack its way completely through the neck to the spine. Similarly, if you want to cut the femoral you could a) slash at it or b) use the weight of his leg plus your other arm pushing down plus your knife arm pulling up.

Using their body weight and gravity to cut deep into them is an almost surefire way to get what you want, it just requires a couple seconds setup 1st. They need to be injured (thus unable to resist) and falling.

I realize the internet sucks for conveying such material and everyone will probably picture something different, but here is an illustration as only one possible example of what I'm taking about (how a knife can be 100% "lethal"):

Kick his right knee with your left foot (step in all the way).
Stab through his solar plexus (into the aorta) with the knife in your right hand.
Right knee him in the groin rupturing his testicles and doubling him over (the right leg was back and "cocked").
Before he collapses reach around his neck to the other side and put the blade against his neck, left hand against the back of his head pushing down. Step through his legs (to his rear) shifting his bodyweight back so he is falling back on his rear, pull up with the blade as he falls down.

(Or to make it an easier "picture", get him a guillotine choke position only with your blade against his neck, then make him fall down on his rear end)

The above would take about 4 seconds. It isn't a "technique" in some system...I just made it up. You wouldn't memorize it as your situation wouldn't likely fit anything you memorized. It is only to illustrate a way to set up the mechanics I was describing. Or, in other words, injure them via any means and double them over, place the knife on their neck and shift their CG so they fall and the blade travels through their flesh using bodyweight and gravity to do all the work.

If that sounds brutal and disgusting, (hacking completely through someone's neck) it is. Guns seem more removed and sanitary than the effective use of a knife, mainly because there isn't a lot of visible damage to a torso shot. My advice, don't carry a knife for defense if you aren't prepared to do that to someone. A knife is lethal force (according to the legal system) no matter how you use it, might as well use it effectively or not at all.

 

[brownie0486]

If you buy the premise of that argument, then it is very possible even one man could turn the tide. Let's suppose it was Vancook or Keating.

I've trained extensively with Jim K and several times with Jerry VanCook. Either of the two would be good to have in your corner, whether they had blades or not [ and they would ]

A mans gotta know his limitations, and many who think they understand how to use a knife proficiently really don't.

Brownie

 

[JShirley]

It isn't a "technique" in some system...I just made it up.

Haven't seen that exact tech, but I've seen traditional Japanese techniques that knock your adversary down and drop him on your blade.

Personally, I'd like to keep things simple. If he has a gun, and I have a knife, and I can get inside, I can hold his gun hand with my blade. If it feels right, I can slide downward on his wrist, and then cut across his lower abdomen...and run after I ran out of gut to cut.

OR, I could cut across abd, and then stab straight up under armpit.
I could even stab under armpit, and then circle his arm with my free hand...slide down to wrist...and use my fulcrum point of knife blade and control on his arm- while moving- to take him down.

Point is, learn what you can do, how to move, and how the human body folds and is leveraged, you have lots of freedom. You have to train how to move and then let your training kick in when needed.

Years ago, I had a fight. The guy grabbed me, and I automatically gave him an elbow, then a knee, slammed a forearm into his throat, circled around his neck and took him back to drop him on his head. Technique I'd studied? Not a chance.

John

 

[The Tourist]

I automatically gave him an elbow, then a knee, slammed a forearm into his throat, circled around his neck and took him back to drop him on his head. Technique I'd studied? Not a chance.

Oh no, not the ol' autopilot-throat-neck-head-gambit. Yikes, I think Millard Filmore was President when that ancient canard was popular.

You have to get with the times, John. Buy my new DVD aptly entitled, "Saturday Night Furn-Fu." It teaches you how to use barroom furniture in life and death self-defense.

Works good, except on 'Ladies Night.' Some drunken townie challenges you, the stools are all taken by the fem fatales. You have to tell the townie to count his toes up to eleven, walk the young woman to a table, take her barstool as a weapon and then get back to the bubba before he forgets who you are and why he has his shoes off.

That blank stare, followed by that blank stare when you hit him is priceless.

If you live anywhere in the Schenk's Corners area of Madison, check out the old Joey's Anchor Inn. None of the barstools have straight legs. I went through this angry-young-man-townie phase...

 

[BlackJackal]

why not just get the best of both worlds and get one of those cz pistols with the beyonet on the end

 

[JShirley]

how to use barroom furniture in life and death self-defense

Chico, a few times, when asked what I've learned from my years of training, I've answered, If you have to hit them, hit them with something other than you.

 

[Old Grump]

"why not just get the best of both worlds and get one of those cz pistols with the beyonet on the end"

BlackJackal
He can't do that because he is in Madison Wisconsin, also known as Berkeley West. The fine liberal folks in Milwaukee and Madison do not believe in self defense so we are not allowed guns except at home, on the range or in the woods.

New member here and I don't mean to bump into your thread but its a subject near and dear to my heart. My sister was an ER nurse on the blood and gut shift in South Miami. I am a vet and have some experience in marksmanship and the friendly sport of self defense. Its always the same whether you are armed with a club, knife, gun of some sort or your bare hands. The thing about self defense is attitude, if you have it its hard to become a victim, ask the punk kid who just got kneed in the crotch by an 81 year old marine, (note I didn't say ex-marine, I have been told there is no such thing). A man or woman who pulls a gun and fires a warning shot or fails to shoot at all is not armed. I am old, to old to play games and if you attack me with a knife you had better kill me fast because if you don't I will do my best to make sure you won't walk away. I don't want a blade in me anymore than I want a bullet in me. It hurts and I am not really into pain.

Wisconsin has me unarmed on the streets which is funny considering how many policemen I have trained to shoot but if you come on my land or in my house you will be greeted as a guest or treated badly. I will defend my family with force, I will not be a victim.

I like JShirley's comment too. Don't use 'you' to hit an opponent. I always add if you have to don't use a fist, if you have to don't hit something hard. When them little bitty bones in the back of your hand get broke it really messes up your bowling.

Personally I would rather weed my flowers, go fishing or go target shooting than fight but being willing to fight has gotten me out of a few fights. Being built like a gorilla and having a reputation might have helped.

 

[The Tourist]

If you have to hit them, hit them with something other than you.

Ahhh, that's Chapter Four, "Chip 'Em With Chippendale," the art of combat with antique furniture.

Actually I've learned the value of the "staying off of the railroad tracks." I haven't been to a tavern in almost thirty years. When I mentioned my dislike for cigarette smoke, a friend mentioned to me that Madison bars were now smoke-free. You get out of the habit, you lose touch.

I got tired of idiots and over-priced, under-liquored drinks and hearing the same stories.

In the autumn of 1970, some grungy outlaw rolled up in front of the Ideal Bar and the entire front end of his bike fell off. Naturally, he and I developed an instant dislike for each other. After years of drinking, fighting and having the enforcers rip off his colors, he became the best man at my wedding.

I often mentioned the strange circumstances.

If history repeats itself as it does in saloons, I'll be sitting under a hot tree with a cold beer in Sturgis and some idiot will tell me that same story, except he will make himself the hero of my life.

 

[mr.trooper]

Lethality != stopping power.

 

[Timthinker]

As I read this thread, one word echoed in my mind's ear: ripcut. What is it? Well, I define a ripcut as thrusting a blade into an bad guy's midsection and immediately pulling it down or across his body. The idea behind this technique-if one may call it that-is to increase the size of the wound channel. This tactic always comes to my mind whenever someone mentions the topic of knife fighting. Hopefully, the grusome nature of the ripcut and other knifing techniques makes everyone consider how dangerous edged weapons are. Sadly, some people fail to realize this fact.


Timthinker

 

[sacp81170a]

Well, I define a ripcut as thrusting a blade into an bad guy's midsection and immediately pulling it down or across his body.

Sounds like soete tsuki, the 9th kata in seitei iai.

If you want to, umm "stop" someone by attacking their neck w/ an edged implement it is much more effective to set it up so their body weight does all the work. If the blade is against their neck and they are dropping to the ground then gravity will force the blade to hack its way completely through the neck to the spine. Similarly, if you want to cut the femoral you could a) slash at it or b) use the weight of his leg plus your other arm pushing down plus your knife arm pulling up.

True. Another use for a slashing attack is to hinder your opponent's mobility and ability to use their limbs to attack you. The Filipino philosophy of "defanging the snake" is a good one. Slashing the tendons on the inside of the forearm takes that hand out of the fight. Slashing the hamstrings takes the legs away. It's easier to slash at the limbs, but it gives away the fact that you have a knife. In my opinion, your opponent not knowing that you have a knife is your greatest advantage.

 

[The Tourist]

As with any choices we make, we do so voluntarily, as adults.

For example, if you live in a northern state and you think, "I'll replace that car battery when I'm good and ready," then don't be too surprised when you become stranded in a snow drift with a dead automobile.

Call me what you like, but I don't care for drunken townies, in your area you might call them bar flies. This is a guy who warehaouses his wife and kids in a trailor park, drinks up his paycheck and decides to pick a fight with me because I'm conveniently near him.

Here's how I crunched the numbers.

First off, I haven't smacked a townie in over three decades. I found out that if I stopped going to honky-tonks, I stopped having problems.

I moderated my alcohol consumption. No wild drinking, no wild behavior.

I started to then realize that taking every challenge, answering every gaunlet slap, and thinking with the little head over the matters of machismo was not the mark of a real man. Where is the honor in clubbing a derelict so besotted by alcohol that he doesn't even recognize you on the next meeting?

However, I have the need for safety and security as do you.

My answer is that if I'm to be attacked when I have "only a knife," then I'm going to make that one hell of a knife.

Consider that issue. You have looked at the data and believe that gunshot wounds are the superior form of defense. One night while my wife and I are dining, you decide to pick a fight.

Do you say to yourself, "It's the Tourist, if I challenge him all he can do is slash me with a mirror finished Razel held in the hand and arm of a guy who's lifted weights for 32 years..."

On paper, your lethality index might only be 40%. But in the reality index, a random skinny little guy with acne might be a kendo master and one of my clients.

While I do not agree with the overall postulates here, I think untilizing the data to govern your actions might cause your own death.

 

[IllHunter]

Just a moment there

That is one reason a firearm is so much better, public opinion understands thier use. You can defend yourself, stop, and if put in danger again defend yourself with the pull of a trigger.

Is that why leo's are taught to fire till slide lock?

 

[JShirley]

I'm not sure how to interpret that. No LEO of which I'm aware are trained this way.

John

 

[strambo]

...automatically gave him an elbow, then a knee, slammed a forearm into his throat, circled around his neck and took him back to drop him on his head. Technique I'd studied? Not a chance.

Since John brought this up, I figured I'd expand on this. A violent situation is gonna be a confused mess of movement and you will act according to your training on largely a subconscious level. What you do will be along the lines of your training, but the exact strikes and sequence will likely be unique (not a pre-memorized "technique").

It will be chaos until somebody gets injured, then once they sustain an injury you can follow through with more injuries until they are no longer a threat. Until they are injured, it is a fully resisting human vs. fully resisting human doin' the man-dance thing. After someone is injured it is a fully resisting human vs an injured person, a lot easier problem to deal with.

With that in mind, my overarching goal is to injure them ASAP so I can seize the opportunity to finish it...break some part of their anatomy so it doesn't work. Strike 'em with my hands, feet, the planet, furniture, a rock, a knife, bullets, whatever is gonna break something inside them.

 

[JShirley]

Well, the funny part is, the first two strikes were pretty much out of a response-to-grab kata. I've never practiced the last two moves (the very last which would have been a real "finisher" if I hadn't deliberately changed the angle before he hit! ) in the dojo, and nothing like them is in the systems I've studied.

 

[starboard]

Bill Drill the perp.

"Am I to understand that you shot your assailant six times in the torso before he ceased his attack?"

"That is correct, Your Honor."

"This strikes me as rather improbable."

"Well, Your Honor, that occurred in the space of about two seconds while the attacker was closing with his uplifted knife."

"I see..."