Knife Vs Gun

[zincwarrior]

That's the idea, but the issue is that they may well have drawn the knife surreptitiously and kept it behind them in hand while walking toward you. "You draw gun" takes time.

So? To make an apples to apples comparison both have to be in the same starting condition -either both drawn or both undrawn. Else I can say I quietly drew myself, or that my wife spotted said ninja BG and now has a Mossberg pointed solidly to the back of his head.
Scientifically you have to hold all factors the same for a valid comparison, and in that comparison a BG attacking me with a knife is at a severe disadvantage, vs. if the same BG had a gun instead.

Careful.

While you will be shooting very fast, you want to avoid shooting excessively, if you can.

You do not want to assume that there is only one of them.

And you do not want to be left standing there with a empty gun.

I know right, I could end up with just a hand to hand weapon against someone else with a gun.

For an attacker, it has the advantage of not having a report.

For a defender, there may be circumstances in which the knife would suffice and using a gun would endanger innocents.

I do not carry a knife.

In a civilian context there is no combative effective to an attacker using a knife against you in this scenario. In a shank’em scenario yes, but that’s not the point of discussion here.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zincwarrior: To make an apples to apples comparison neither has to be drawn or both drawn.

Why worry about apples?

For an attacker intends to commit a crime, pulling a knife without lawful justification is not an issue.

The defender, on the other hand, cannot draw without lawful justification, but even more importantly, he will have absolutely no reason to draw a gun on the off chance that the fellow walking toward him with one hand hidden is about to try to stab him.

Scientifically you have to hold all factors the same for a valid comparison,...

We don't have to make a comparison of any kind.

The question was "Whats the issue?" And that was what Dennis Tueller started looking into years ago.

[AK103K]

Acting defensively is your only lawful option.

One more time: do not confuse lawful self defense with fighting.

I think one of us is blurring things here somewhat, or we are both fuzzy.

My idea of "defense" is a strong "offense" once the act is initiated, so how is that any different, than simply being a "defense"? Im acting on a attack, and responding with force. (Im not suggesting preemptive defense either, as I already know what your response will be. )

What I get from your definition is, I would have to wait for every aggressive impulse and then act on it. Do you not "fight", when you defend yourself? Once you begin to defend yourself, do you not continue to do so, until the threat is negated?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by oopsies:...when his arm moved or he took a step, I jumped back 3 ft, evaluating the need to draw by the time I landed. 1-2 more backpedalling steps as I draw, he's still 6+ ft away when the holes in his chest start spurting massive amounts of blood.

Most people cannot run backward anywhere near as fast as a fit person can run forward, and it could prove dangerous.

Most trainers teach lateral movement. That creates distance from the line of the attack, and the defender can see where he is going.

I met Dennis Tuehler in 1978, how about you?

It's Tueller.

[Madcap_Magician]

Hold on boys, I don't have my popcorn.

The Tueller drill is used in training, where its value is high. It is not used as training, insofar as the parameters of the drill are not meant to represent the best course of action for the victim of a violent attack with an edged or blunt weapon, but rather only to demonstrate at what distance a person so armed could effectively strike a person armed with a holstered pistol.

There are two important caveats that need to be taken into account.

1. The Tueller drill traditionally stops the instant the handgun-armed victim shoots or the instant the contact weapon-armed attacker can strike the victim.

Of course, fights do not necessarily stop at that point. Getting cut or bludgeoned does not necessarily mean you are incapacitated... and neither does getting shot.

The caution about edged weapons in particular is that that at the very worst, they are equal to firearms in grappling or shiv range, and I would argue they are better, assuming both are in hand. It is harder to take a knife from someone that it is to take a gun. At grappling range, the gun can only hurt you if it is in battery (or the cylinder is not bound), the muzzle is aligned with your body, and the trigger is pulled. The knife can cut or stab even inadvertently at that range.

That is not an argument that knives should be the preferred method of self defense, just that they are at least as dangerous as guns at bad-breath distances.

2. Both participants in the Tueller drill are aware of what they are doing. An attacker with a knife is probably not going to get your attention, then charge you while screaming and waving a knife. He is just as aware of the disadvantages of his weapon as you are. He will seek to minimize them and maximize his advantage by closing the gap between you without you noticing or suspecting malevolent intent.

[zincwarrior]

Why worry about apples?

Because that’s how you test things scientifically.

For an attacker intends to commit a crime, pulling a knife without lawful justification is not an issue.


The defender, on the other hand, cannot draw without lawful justification, but even more importantly, he will have absolutely no reason to draw a gun on the off chance that the fellow walking toward him with one hand hidden is about to try to stab him.

If a BG has drawn anything that’s an imminent threat and you’re clear to pull leather. If the BG had a gun he would draw and shoot substantially faster than if he were trying to draw and run to you with a knife.

I can guarantee if someone draws a knife on me I am in fear of imminent death and will react without hesitation. Of course I have the advantage of living in Texas…

We don't have to make a comparison of any kind.

We do because that’s what the entire purpose of the thread is. Without an understanding of basic physics and timing then the rest doesn’t really matter.

[zincwarrior]

He will seek to minimize them and maximize his advantage by closing the gap between you without you noticing or suspecting malevolent intent.

indeed awareness and knowledge is our first and best defense.

"Knowldege is power. Guard it jealously."

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AK103K: What I get from your definition is, I would have to wait for every aggressive impulse and then act on it.

No!

You may use force, to the extent that it is necessary, (as indicated by what you know at the time), to defend yourself against an imminent threat. The questions are, (1) did the aggressor have the ability to inflict that harm; (2) did he have the opportunity; (3) were you in jeopardy; and (3) did you have any other safe way of avoiding harm?

Once you begin to defend yourself, do you not continue to do so, until the threat is negated?

Yep, and I hope to high heaven that I will be successful, not harm anyone else, and be adjudged to have been justified.

Understand that the four conditions mentioned above are not just the thresholds for justification for pulling a weapon. They remain applicable throughout the entire incident.

The problem is that how much force is necessary can get murky.

When one uses a firearm, one shoots until the attacker is stopped, but the defender may well be accused of having used excessive force; it happens, and expert witnesses have had to be brought in to explain the dynamics of a defensive shooting incident. One is trained to (and must) shoot fast, one cannot reasonably assess the effects of each shot, and so forth.

Michael Janich demonstrates how to defend with a blade. He explains how to determine when deadly force is justified, and he shows how to negate the threat.

It is to slash the tendons the attacker needs to wield his weapon, or for mobility....and no more.

I haven't asked him, but I do not think he would call it "winning".

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Madcap_Magician: An attacker with a knife is probably not going to get your attention, then charge you while screaming and waving a knife. He is just as aware of the disadvantages of his weapon as you are. He will seek to minimize them and maximize his advantage by closing the gap between you without you noticing or suspecting malevolent intent.

That is a very excellent point, worth repeating, and it is the thing I worry about the most.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zincwarrior: If a BG has drawn anything that’s an imminent threat and you’re clear to pull leather.

Actually, if it is a contact weapon, that will depend an awful lot on the distance. Goes to opportunity.

That is the entire point of the Tueller Drill.

And the problem, as Madcap points out, is that it will most likely not be obvious.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Posted by zincwarrior: If a BG has drawn anything that’s an imminent threat and you’re clear to pull leather.

Actually, if it is a contact weapon, that will depend an awful lot on the distance. Goes to opportunity.

That is the entire point of the Tueller Drill.

And the problem, as Madcap points out, is that it will most likely not be obvious.

In the scenario quoted - 3 yards or less, thats an imminent threat.

[AK103K]

Michael Janich demonstrates how to defend with a blade. He explains how to determine when deadly force is justified, and he shows how to negate the threat.

It is to slash the tendons the attacker needs to wield his weapon, or for mobility....and no more.

I know the very moves youre referring to. I have seen him demonstrate them in video's, and have done them myself in practice with others.

The only issue I can see there is, you usually dont know that certain things have worked, until youre well past the initial move. As in boxing, or martial arts, etc, you generally, dont stop at the first blow, and you continue on fluidly to other targets as part of a practiced series of blows/strikes, or targets of opportunity. Its very much the same with a handgun, knife, whatever, and you dont shoot/stab etc once, stop and evaluate, and then shoot again, you normally quickly shoot multiple times, and continue doing so, until the threat is down. To do otherwise, puts you at risk. Things very often happen, faster than reaction catches up. They may have been dead at the first shot, but who only shoots once, or trains to shoot once? Were those successive shots overkill? No, just accepted practice (within reason, of course).

Other than the movies, or maybe, people who watch a lot of movies, where they fall down dead at the first shot, in reality, people dont stop or even show they were hit, and very often continue to fight, even after they have received deadly blows. In a less than deadly version, I used to see it here and there when sparing with someone who never had the air knocked out of them, and I hit them with an uppercut or kick to the lower ribs. Most continued to fight for a few seconds, until they realized they were no longer breathing, and that look of panic hit their face. I didnt stop with the first blow to wait and see if it landed either, I kept going for any and all targets of opportunity. The difference here too is, those who didnt understand what was happening, stopped (as did I at that point). Those who did, and knew how to get air back into their lungs, usually carried on with the fight. So the fight is never really over, until it is, and that applies to all of them, not just weaponless fighting.

I haven't asked him, but I do not think he would call it "winning".

Its not losing.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AF103K: The only issue I can see there is, you usually dont know that certain things have worked, until youre well past the initial move. As in boxing, or martial arts, etc, you generally, dont stop at the first blow, and you continue on fluidly to other targets as part of a practiced series of blows/strikes, or targets of opportunity. Its very much the same with a handgun, knife, whatever, and you dont shoot/stab etc once, stop and evaluate, and then shoot again, you normally quickly shoot multiple times, and continue doing so, until the threat is down. To do otherwise, puts you at risk. Things very often happen, faster than reaction catches up. They may have been dead at the first shot, but who only shoots once, or trains to shoot once? Were those successive shots overkill? No, just accepted practice (within reason, of course).

Well put!

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zincwarrior: In the scenario quoted - 3 yards or less, thats an imminent threat.

That may be the understatement of the year.

[hoss1969]

oopsies is obviously not going to listen to 25 years of research and study into ACTUAL attacks on law enforcement with edged weapons. Nor will he understand that its not theory, but actual study of events were Offcers were killed or injured and there were after incident reviews to help prevent it from happing again. Its NOT A COURSE OF TRAINING as its a course of why to not dismiss the threat of a knife or contact weapon. Also to teach while you think your in a safe position, how fast you can lose the upper hand.

Just because you can fight off a rubber knife in class doesn't mean thats the best option. As for distances if somone is coming at me with a knife @ 10 yards and I tell him to stop and he doesn't, there is no way in hell I'm letting him continue to come forward. And im not turning my back on a armed attacker to run. You play Chuck Norris, I explain it to the police.

[hoss1969]

fact, he probably can't hurt me even if I don't have a gun, actually. Few people have realistic training with the knife. I have very real ability at hand to hand. 1000's of hours of practice and teaching.

Then why carry a gun? If your so trained at hand to hand you will probably end up with a charge of excessive force. If you are experienced in hand to had the first question id ask is why did you feel threated enough to use a gun when you have claimed you can disarm someone without injury?

You are probably at the wrong fourm. Most people here dont want to go hand to hand, that why we carry a self defence weapon for use to keep people from actually getting to us.

[Mainah]

I love the movie "Dazed and Confused". It started Matthew McConaughey's career. His played a guy in his early 20's who still hung out with high school kids. When asked why he liked high school girls so much he said; "Because I keep getting older and they keep staying the same."

That's what I don't like about bad guys. If you're blessed you'll get old, and believe me you'll lose the desire to roll around with a youngster. Skills beyond hand to hand will become more important.

[kraigwy]

I cant let this Gun vs Knife topic go to waste without telling a war story.

I was working mids, just left fall out (what some departments call roll call) and was going to run by the house to pick up my reading glasses which I forgot when I went to work.

Before I got home I got a call of a knife fight/stabbing at a near by apartment complex. As I pulled up I to see the bandit walking out of the apartment building with a knife in his hand. I drew my Model 28 and told him to loose the knife.

He started to say something but was interrupted when my "voice" pager went off "beep beep beep, (woman's voice) you left your glasses home".

The bandit tosses the knife and says "you can't see to shoot anyway" and took off running.

I was laughing so hard I couldn't even try to stop him. He was caught by my back up.

I decided to turn off my pager when the situation warranted it.

[HiBC]

Good story,Kraig.

Real life,there is history about a weary 1st Special Service Forces taking on the Herrman Goering Division tanks with knives.They stopped them.

I'm old with bad body parts now,but for a few years I fenced,foil,sabre,and eppe.I have an idea how a fleche works.

I understand and agree a knife can be a deadly and effective weapon.

I think I notice a certain amount of ....uh...advocacy of the knife...to the point of passion...or emotion.

Simple fact in my state:A handgun is THE authorized concealed carry weapon.

Even with a CC Permit,carrying a concealed knife "weapon" is a crime.

I can be frisked without a SD incident,get a weapons charge,and become disarmed for life.Seems really stupid to carry a concealed knife rather than a legal handgun.

Now,no doubt,a surprise knife attack is grave danger.

In response,if I get to choose between drawing a Kabar,Gerber Mk1,Randall#1 or 2,Fairbairn,etc...or a S+W M+P Sheild,Glock,or good DA Revolver,I have to make a draw,either way.

Now,if you believe you would rather have some blade in your hand to fight a man with a knife,OK!
You go right ahead.I do not care.

I'll take a pull the trigger and go bang handgun,myself.

Knives won't break a femur or a pelvis or shatter a spine,or blow out a skull.

And a contact GSW is a whole new ball game as the same principal that makes an anti-shark powerhead work cmes into effect...the high pressure gas.

Sure,a knife can be deadly,but on the right day,a good man with a sock full of pennies or a pool cue or a biker ball pein hammer might just kill you for pulling a knife.
And for sure,anyone with a handgun is fully authorized,by virtue of the much discussed Tueller doctrine,to dump a mag or wheel into your torso and head.

And,good chance no charges filed.

I worked as a bouncer in a club late 70's.I'm old and somewhat cripped,but I see what is going on.

Situational awareness.Know when to leave,know when to put your hand in your coat pocket.

That gets response down to about 1/2 second.

Anyway,pointless argument.I'll go my way,you go yours.Who cares?

[Snyper]

True, this is the Internet, and things here, we tend to think, don't really mean anything. But it's still a bad idea to get in the habit of jumping to conclusions, relying on assumptions based on tenuous data or guessing about things. It might work for the unimportant things in life; but if one gets in the habit, he might deal with something important that way too.

Being critical of information given to you, asking where it's from and what it's based on, expecting evidence, etc., are all good habits. It is entirely reasonable to expect people, even on the Internet, to back up their opinions with evidence and by demonstrating their qualifications. I have no intention of discontinuing doing such things myself.

And yet you do exactly that when you assume that just because someone can't show a piece of paper, they must not have ever learned anything at all.

No matter how these discussions start, in the end it becomes another contest to see who has the biggest pile of paper, and not what anyone really knows.

That's easier than actually sticking to the topic

[Snyper]

The Tueller drill is used in training, where its value is high. It is not used as training, insofar as the parameters of the drill are not meant to represent the best course of action for the victim of a violent attack with an edged or blunt weapon

That's pretty much paraphrasing what I said when I stated it only shows what NOT to do.

Being aware of the findings of the original experiment is useful
Actually running the "drill" is not, if you do it the way it was meant to be done

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: ...when you assume that just because someone can't show a piece of paper, they must not have ever learned anything at all.

No one has alluded to such an assumption.

I have pointed out that no one is gong to be accepted in court as an expert witness unless a basis for his or her expertise can be shown.

But since you seem to want to discuss the importance of "a piece of paper", I'll point out another way in which the existence of documentation might prove very important indeed.

Suppose that a citizen finds himself in a situation in which someone who looks downright dangerous appears to stare at him, walk in his direction with increasing speed, and gets within a scary proximity (say, around 20 feet); the citizen realizes that, should this be an attack, he will have to draw now. So the citizen moves and draws.

But as it turns out, he was wrong; the supposed "assailant", unarmed, was just trying to get the attention of someone else, for a legitimate reason.

The citizen is charged in accordance with the state criminal code; in Arizona, to cite one specific, the charge would likely be aggravated assault.

The citizen will have to defend against the charge, and he will mount his defense by presenting evidence that would support a basis for a reasonable belief that his action had been justified, based upon what he knew at the time.

Now, he "knew" that a surprise attacker starting at 21 feet would have the opportunity, and so on and so on.

That he had known that at the time might well be something that he will have to show in the course of his defense; otherwise what he assumed may not be helpful.

If he can show valid documentation proving that he had received instruction from a qualified instructor in the significance of Dennis Tueller's findings before the event, he will be in a better position that if he cannot.

Snyper, I point that out not to argue with you, but for the benefit of others.

[mete]

The Tueller RULE is NOT a rule ,it's only a general guide !! Ask him , he'll tell you.
Knife Vs gun ? Recent CT incident on I 95 .Bus passenger pulled a knife and started cutting .Trooper arrived and permanently shot perp ! As it should happen.

[Snyper]

No one has alluded to such an assumption.

I have pointed out that no one is gong to be accepted in court as an expert witness unless a basis for his or her expertise can be shown.

But since you seem to want to discuss the importance of "a piece of paper", I'll point out another way in which the existence of documentation might prove very important indeed.

Yes, they have, and on more than one occasion
Here's one example:

"Qualifications" can include training and experience. But not all opinions are equal, and the opinion of someone who can back it up, including by demonstrating appropriate training and experience to support it, is more worthy of consideration than someone just pulling an opinion out of the air.

Suppose that a citizen finds himself in a situation in which someone who looks downright dangerous appears to stare at him, walk in his direction with increasing speed, and gets within a scary proximity (say, around 20 feet); the citizen realizes that, should this be an attack, he will have to draw now. So the citizen moves and draws.

Suppose your scenario has nothing to do with reality?
Constructing carefully staged fantiasies is counterproductive, and unrelated to anything I've said

Shooting is not like flying a plane or being a Dr

Those are highly skilled occupations requiring college degrees and years of training.

Shooting is more akin to driving a car, in that anyone can learn to do it well enough to get the job done, and the ones who pay a driving instructor really can't do it any better than those who learned by just doing it on the back roads.

Tueller did what he did to simply prove a single point
Repeating the excercise doesn't prove anything new, and is therefore pointless

If he can show valid documentation proving that he had received instruction from a qualified instructor in the significance of Dennis Tueller's findings before the event, he will be in a better position that if he cannot.

LOL

So now you're saying if I can describe the Tueller drill in detail, and it's results, and explain the reasons for doing it in the first place, but don't have "valid documentation", I'm not in the "better position"

You're doing exactly what you said hadn't been done
You're ignoring the actual knowledge due to the lack of a "document"

The truth is your premise is flawed, because a justified shooting isn't dependent on what the shooter knows or doesn't know, or any training they may have had

It's based totally on the facts of the event itself, and nothing else at all

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: Suppose your scenario has nothing to do with reality?
Constructing carefully staged fantiasies is counterproductive, and unrelated to anything I've said.

It is not an implausible scenario at all. The reason I mentioned it is to explain how, by way of relevant example, the documentation of what knowledge was in fact possessed by the actor at the time of a use of force incident can be important.

Tueller did what he did to simply prove a single point.

He did it for two reasons: to determine the distance, and as you point out, to prove it.

Repeating the excercise doesn't prove anything new, and is therefore pointless.

It may underscore the importance to some people more effectively than simply telling them about it.

And if you go back to the video in the OP, you will note that the demonstration was t show how falling to the ground might be helpful to the defender. Obvious, maybe, but I had not considered that.

So now you're saying if I can describe the Tueller drill in detail, and it's results, and explain the reasons for doing it in the first place, but don't have "valid documentation", I'm not in the "better position".

Yes indeed.

You will have to show that you possessed that knowledge at the time you made the decision to draw, and were not given the information by your attorney afterward to aid in your defense.

You're ignoring the actual knowledge due to the lack of a "document".

A court will ignore it if you cannot prove that you knew it beforehand.

The truth is your premise is flawed, because a justified shooting isn't dependent on what the shooter knows or doesn't know, or any training they may have had.

I'm afraid you do not understand the subject very well at all.. Your training and other proof of any other relevant knowledge that you possessed at the time of the incident will enter into your defense of justification.

Training has come up in numerous defenses involving both police officers and civilians.

It's based totally on the facts of the event itself, and nothing else at all.

I suggest that you make arrangements to attend a course in Use of Force Law. The best I know of is MAG-20. Two long days, nationally renowned, very comprehensive, and worth every nickel.