Gun vs. Knife Follow Up with Video

[CobrayCommando]

BTW if you see Chip, ask him if he remembers the time at the nationals when this chick ran up, jumped on my lap and pulled her shirt over my head.

Did you draw your gun to assess the threat or were you caught unawares? She could have had guns built into her tits.

Lurper you should be the one man POTUS security team. You seem very confident that when in aware mode you could detect a threat before it got within 21 feet, much less baby kissing distance, and apparently confident enough to draw your gun on that person in public?

If you are ambushed by a knife or a gun, you s**t is weak.

In a big city, if someone really wants to kill your ass and they've got half a brain, you're dead. You can't be in condition fuschia every time you go to Trader Joes, where literally dozens of weird looking people are brushing past you.

I just don't believe that you draw on every person that walks towards you with a hand behind their back, or in the pocket of their coat.

Because if you don't then you cannot really criticise someone for being ambushed, all it takes is for them to brush past you, and at the second they pass you stab you in the kidney or liver. It's probably the easiest way to kill someone with a contact weapon.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

[Lurper]

Lurper you should be the one man POTUS security team. You seem very confident that when in aware mode you could detect a threat before it got within 21 feet, much less baby kissing distance, and apparently confident enough to draw your gun on that person in public?

I don't recall saying that in any of the posts. In the video, the officers are aware of the threat. They begin their actions at the same time the assailant does. That is the rhetorical setting for my comments. It is exactly Tueller's point. You need to be aware of how fast the situation can get bad. If a person approaches to contact distance unnoticed and launches their attack, they have a distinct advantage. However, the setting in this video and in Tueller's drill assumes that time starts when the officer is aware of the threat. Tueller sets 2 hits in 1.5 seconds as the standard to achieve to survive an encounter of that type. I was simply pointing out that more than 2 hits in that time frame is possible and that if you were that proficient then the odds are that you would prevail. Again, many people have posted that a knife is more lethal than a gun at as far as 21 feet. That is absurd. I'll be the first to admit that if someone walked up behind me on a crowded street and attacked me without warning, chances are good that I am gonna die. As far as I know, awareness was not the issue I was addressing. It was the abilty to draw and hit an assailant several times before he could close 21 feet (or as in the video, 12 and 6).

Because if you don't then you cannot really criticise someone for being ambushed, all it takes is for them to brush past you, and at the second they pass you stab you in the kidney or liver. It's probably the easiest way to kill someone with a contact weapon.

Never said I did. Never criticized anyone for gettin ambushed. What I said was that the internet ninjas say that if someone with a knife gets within 21 feet of you, you are dead. You can't draw fast enough to hit them, they can kill you with one strike, blah,blah, blah. My reply to that is that it is easy to draw and hit someone before they can close the distance.

FWIW, if she did, I would be dead. If I could be killed twice, Chip would have made that happen.

[tonerguy]

I've been reading the thread with interest. I competed in the USPSA Nationals 4 times in the mid-1980's and placed in the top 50 twice. I could do all the fast stuff like El Presidente's under 5 seconds, draw and fire 2 good hits at 10 yards in 1.2 seconds. I was competent but not the "ace of the base."

I was anticipating a start signal. I knew it was coming. I suspect my reaction time on the street would be much slower. If I were in condition white I might die with a puzzled look on my face before reacting. I do get complacent or distracted sometimes. Even in a situation where I was aware of my surroundings I'd still have to assess and react.

If I figure an average reaction time into all the numbers being discussed I wouldn't place any bets on any of the outcomes discussed. There are too many variables and unexpected circumstances for me to have much certainty.
Somedays you're the bug on the windshield despite the skills and knowledge.

[Ronny]

Starting within reach of each other, the playing field is more level, I won't dispute that. You also seem to assume that it is easier for a person skilled with a knife to strike certain points than it is for a pistol. Again it is not. A hand, forearm, jacket will all stop or deflect the blade much more effectively than a bullet.

Again, here is the mentality that the gunman will be the winner by default because he's an expert IPSC shooter, he carries an STI in a Safariland holster etc etc, and the knifer is complete imbecile.

Unless you go around wearing your IPSC gear waiting for a buzzer to go off, then you're like the rest of us; with a concealed firearm tucked into one or more layers of clothing. In colder climates maybe even three or four. Drawing and firing from such concealment in under a second when a knife is coming at your throat is a fantasy, not reality. Sorry, but dream on. It isn't going to happen. Stuff will go wrong, something will catch, you'll choke, you'll push your wife and child out of the way, and it isn't going to happen the way you trained. IPSC is an "ideal environment" where the cardboard men don't shoot back, nor do they retaliate in any way. They just sit there waiting to get shot.

Also, I don't agree with the statement that:

A hand, forearm, jacket will all stop or deflect the blade much more effectively than a bullet.

It's easy to say that, "oh yeah, i'll just block with my arm and shoot the guy". What's that supposed to mean? -- you're being attacked by a one-armed knifer and you're immune to the physical respone to pain? What do you think he's going to be doing with his free hand? Wave at you?

Forget the incompetent bad guy bliss in which many of you surround yourselves . A skilled knifer will close distance to arms reach, then he will restrain your shooting arm while he stabs you to death. Even if you grab his knife hand, you're at the losing end.

Think on this. If he grabs your shooting hand, all he has to do is keep it pointed elsewhere. If it's a semi-auto and he has it by the slide and you fire it, it will jam. Now you need your other hand to clear the pistol. Oh but wait, your other hand is busy stopping the knife. If you grab his knife hand, all he has to do is twist his wrist to cut yours. Try this at home, grab a kitchen knife and give it someone you trust; then grab them by the arm and say "try and cut me". You will see that there is always a way for them to slice your wrist enough for you to let go no matter how hard you grab their arms, especially if it is held in stabbing form - blade downwards.

I believe that is important to appreciate all aspects of this scenario. Giving the gunman a highly decorated IPSC background and making the knifer a complete idiot accomplishes nothing. Keep an open mind. The way I see it:

A poor shooter vs a good knifer = shooter loses.
A poor knifer vs a good shooter = knifer loses.
A good knifer vs a good shoter = the one who trained to fight against an incompetent oppenent loses.

It's not a matter of pride, but I value force on force training more than a well rehearsed IPSC course of fire... You really can't expect anything unexpected from the latter.

[Lurper]

I obviously have too much time on my hands tonight.

Again, here is the mentality that the gunman will be the winner by default because he's an expert IPSC shooter, he carries an STI in a Safariland holster etc etc, and the knifer is complete imbecile.

You said that, I didn't. In fact IPSC never came up in reference to defending against a knife. It was mentioned as a reference to my ability and experience.

I can do it from concealment with and IWB holster under a sport coat. I chose my carry equipment for that reason. I can do it with my Mod. 13, Officer's ACP, S&W 22A and any other gun. More importantly, I practice everyday.

It's easy to say that, "oh yeah, i'll just block with my arm and shoot the guy". What's that supposed to mean? -- you're being attacked by a one-armed knifer and you're immune to the physical respone to pain? What do you think he's going to be doing with his free hand? Wave at you?

No more so than to say what if he grabs your gun hand. Read what I wrote and the context I wrote it in. It is the exact same argument you present except I am arguing it from the other perspective. I don't believe in the what about my free hand, free leg or the Aikido I studied for a decade. That wasn't the point. The point was in the video, the "officers" just stood there.

I believe that is important to appreciate all aspects of this scenario. Giving the gunman a highly decorated IPSC background and making the knifer a complete idiot accomplishes nothing. Keep an open mind.

So, you're saying it's different than making the person with the gun an incompetent boob as in the video. If you read my posts, I said that an experienced person with a knife against an inexperienced shooter will win.
I also advocated an open mind.

I mean, can you really argue the point that this video is not an accurate representation of a gun -v- knife encounter and that the producer has an agenda? If you can then I would say "dream on."

I really mean no offense by asking this, but what is the real issue here? Since we seem to agree on the major points of this argument, I can only guess that you have something against IPSC shooters.

[CobrayCommando]

I don't recall saying that in any of the posts. In the video, the officers are aware of the threat. They begin their actions at the same time the assailant does. That is the rhetorical setting for my comments. It is exactly Tueller's point. You need to be aware of how fast the situation can get bad. If a person approaches to contact distance unnoticed and launches their attack, they have a distinct advantage. However, the setting in this video and in Tueller's drill assumes that time starts when the officer is aware of the threat. Tueller sets 2 hits in 1.5 seconds as the standard to achieve to survive an encounter of that type. I was simply pointing out that more than 2 hits in that time frame is possible and that if you were that proficient then the odds are that you would prevail. Again, many people have posted that a knife is more lethal than a gun at as far as 21 feet. That is absurd. I'll be the first to admit that if someone walked up behind me on a crowded street and attacked me without warning, chances are good that I am gonna die. As far as I know, awareness was not the issue I was addressing. It was the abilty to draw and hit an assailant several times before he could close 21 feet (or as in the video, 12 and 6).

Hmm... I guess I was confused because in the video the knifer keeps the knife concealed, yet the pretend officer is clearly aware of whats going to happen. But as you said the drill assumes knowledge of a threat.

As to the issue of knife versus holstered gun at 7 yards, I would have to say I agree with you, that a well trained person with an accessible concealed handgun could do that, and indeed I've seen it simulated (on video).

However all this theoretical crap gets confusing, because what person with a knife in their right mind stands 21 feet away from the person they are assaulting or robbing?! LOL "Hey over there, throw me your wallet!" In reality 50 percent of all law enforcement shootings take place at 5 feet or under (I assume measured from the end of the gun), according to the latest study I saw. In which case the odds really seem to even out more realistically.

Honestly there are so many different complex possible scenarios that it feels futile to discuss these sorts of things. I think the real reason to practice with these drills is to improve reaction time, alertness, dexterity, and familiarity with the weapon of choice. I suppose if the time ever comes when a robber takes out his knife 21 feet away, yells out that he is about to commence an attack, you spin to face him, then wait until he starts sprinting towards you to draw, then this drill will help in a more literal way.

[Art Eatman]

Next time I'm over to Austintatious...

Art

[Samurai]

The shooter in the video behaves as a person who is not in absolute "red alert" at the start of the encounter. The knife is concealed because the shooter isn't supposed to know it's there, hence the lack of "red alert." And, if you are walking around thinking, "well, I've got my gun, and if a guy with a knife comes walking up, I'll just shoot him," then this video is a rude awakening about reaction times.

Lurper, you're really talking out of both sides of your mouth, here. You've made two conflicting statements:

Your first statement is as follows:
"it is foolish to believe that a knife is more lethal than a gun at close range."

Your second statement is:
"I'll be the first to admit that if someone walked up behind me on a crowded street and attacked me without warning, chances are good that I am gonna die."

These statements stand in DIRECT conflict to one another!

To back up your statement that a gun MUST ALWAYS be more lethal than a knife, you say, "it is easy to draw and hit someone before they can close the distance." But, this statement (assuming it IS true, which several of the experienced shooters on this site have called into question), it STILL proves NOTHING.

Criminal statistics indicate that close to 90% of all people who get shot live through it. So, your ability to simply dismiss the lethality of a knife by saying "it is easy to draw and hit someone before they can close the distance" is a fallacy. To shoot a man once does NOT necessarily mean to kill him. (Here's a bomb to the IPSC and IDPA rulemakers: It does not necessarily mean to "stop" him, either!) (Side note: Not a slam on either organization. I shoot IDPA, and I think it's a wonderful organization.)

Noone is arguing with you that it is perfectly possible to shoot a charging assailant, from ANY distance. Also, noone is arguing with you that a gun can hurt people, and in some cases, kill people. But, you make a very condescending statement: "What I said was that the internet ninjas say that if someone with a knife gets within 21 feet of you, you are dead. You can't draw fast enough to hit them, they can kill you with one strike, blah,blah, blah." And yet, AT THE SAME TIME, you make an equally sweeping statement that the lethality of a knife can be dismissed because, "it is easy to draw and hit someone before they can close the distance." So, you hit them! Does that mean that you're gonna be OK?

In fact, the statement that the "internet ninjas" make, "if someone with a knife gets within 21 feet of you, you are dead," is actually quite a valid statement. It's HARD to get away from a charging knife. I've tried it in simulated training, and it's TOUGH. You dismiss it with a flippant attitude, and I think you should lend more credence to the statement behind the video.

I think the video really does say alot. I have NO DOUBT that it was created in an effort to promote SOMEONE'S martial arts training course. HOWEVER, just because it's an advertisement DOES NOT mean that it does not show a VERY VALID point.

Oh, and incidentally, with whom do you train?

[Lurper]

Your first statement is as follows:
"it is foolish to believe that a knife is more lethal than a gun at close range."

Your second statement is:
"I'll be the first to admit that if someone walked up behind me on a crowded street and attacked me without warning, chances are good that I am gonna die."

These statements stand in DIRECT conflict to one another!

There is no conflict in these statements. The difference is distance. I pointed out several times that at contact distance the playing field is more level.

To back up your statement that a gun MUST ALWAYS be more lethal than a knife, you say, "it is easy to draw and hit someone before they can close the distance." But, this statement (assuming it IS true, which several of the experienced shooters on this site have called into question), it STILL proves NOTHING

Hmmm, don't remember ever saying the gun is ALWAYS more lethal, but okay. You are free to believe what you want, but the fact is there are tons of people who have the ability to hit the assailant before they can close the 21 (12 or 6) feet. What I did point out was that many people post like the knife is going to be instantly fatal and chances are it is not. As a sample of the whole population, there are very few people who are highly skilled with firearms. Of them even fewer skilled enough to meet Tueller's standard. However, that is still an exponentially larger group than those skilled with blades at that level. I have already pointed out that if you pit an expert with a knife against a lesser skilled person with a gun, chances are the knife wins.The big point I was making is that you need to train 'til you reach a certain level of proficiency, train and train some more. I'm sorry if you don't get it or I didn't make myself clear.

To shoot a man once does NOT necessarily mean to kill him.

Didn't say that either. I never said once. In fact I said fire until he stops. Contrary to what you might think, there is a good chance that a couple of hits to the breadbasket will take your attacker's mind off of his intent regardless of lethality. Again, the point was exactly the same as Tueller's, awareness and skill will help you survive. I don't see how you can even argue against it.

Noone is arguing with you that it is perfectly possible to shoot a charging assailant, from ANY distance. Also, noone is arguing with you that a gun can hurt people, and in some cases, kill people. But, you make a very condescending statement: "What I said was that the internet ninjas say that if someone with a knife gets within 21 feet of you, you are dead. You can't draw fast enough to hit them, they can kill you with one strike, blah,blah, blah." And yet, AT THE SAME TIME, you make an equally sweeping statement that the lethality of a knife can be dismissed because, "it is easy to draw and hit someone before they can close the distance." So, you hit them! Does that mean that you're gonna be OK?

You seem to be arguing that point and I really don't believe I said you can dismiss the lethality of a knife. I understand how you may arrive at that conclusion, but that isn't what I meant. Maybe this will help: in order to be lethal, a knife has to touch you. This entails the person with the knife getting close enough to stick it in you. That is where the nuts and bolts are. My point was that you need to identify the threat and neutralize it before they close the distance. That was much more condescending don't you think?
I am really amazed at how you seem to want to attack me personally rather than try to attack my message. Kinda reminds me of the Democrats: can't attack the message, so attack the messenger. I never questioned your ability with a blade, never called you one of the internet ninjas, so I can't understand why feel compelled to attack me personally. That's okay though, I'm a big boy and can handle it.

I think the video really does say alot. I have NO DOUBT that it was created in an effort to promote SOMEONE'S martial arts training course. HOWEVER, just because it's an advertisement DOES NOT mean that it does not show a VERY VALID point.

The video doesn't show a valid point. If it did, it would transpire something like this:
Man with knife walks up to "officer", "officer" minds his/her own damn business, man with knife guts 'officer" like a bluegill and has his way with the dying corpse. The officer's are obviously aware of the threat, otherwise, why would they draw their weapon? It is about as valid as a hollywood production.

Oh, and incidentally, with whom do you train?

To clarify, by train I mean either attended their schools or practiced with on a regular basis. Starting from the beginning:
John Pepper (pepper popper), Ray Chapman, J. Michael Plaxco, John Shaw, Roger Burgess, when I lived in VA Todd Jarret used to come to my house and practice because I had a range in my backyard, after I moved to AZ: Brian Enos, Lyle Wing, Matt Burkett, Rob Leatham. Most of them are friends still.

As I pointed out Samurai, I have btdt on more than one occasion although against guns (and once a hammer), not knives. So unlike other people who post based on what other people tell them, I post based on my experience. Doesn't mean it's gospel, hell, sometimes it my not even be correct! But at least I have the ability to prove my point (with videos, anecdote and fact) and the sense to admit when I am wrong.

[Samurai]

I'm not trying to attack you personally, Lurper. I've limited all comments to specific quotes you've posted. And, I disagree with alot of them, and I don't think they are logically supported. I enjoy a spirited debate, and that's all this is. Doesn't mean you're not a perfectly nice person...

In addition to the not-so-good points that I've already responded to, you've also made some good points.

1. Yes. You can improve your chances of surviving an attack like this by training and becoming proficient. Training and proficiency are both very important.

2. When you're using a weapon, DISTANCE IS EVERYTHING. Distance, in this scenario, means the difference between life and death (for EITHER attacker).

These are good points. And, I'm sorry if I've stepped on your feelings. But, I simply have less faith in my gun to stop an attack, I guess. And, I've seen what a knife can do, and it's awe-inspiring to see the large amount of destruction in such a short amount of time. Knives are quick, deadly little buggers, and it's folley for a person to have too much faith in their weapon, trusting it to be able to stop an attack.

This "gun vs. knife" debate has gone on WAY before you and I started this rant, and it will continue to go on WAY after we stop. The REAL issue here is, different people think about this scenario different ways, and NOBODY knows for sure who is right about it.

I'm gonna stop now. Both our positions have been belabored for long enough...

[Lurper]

Good, I am glad. I also second everything in your last post.

[Ian2005]

When I saw the video, I thought it wa an ad for Krav Maga... maybe I missed something.

[Ronny]

I really mean no offense by asking this, but what is the real issue here? Since we seem to agree on the major points of this argument, I can only guess that you have something against IPSC shooters.

No offense taken, and we do agree on the major points to an extent. One area in which we differ is that I'm trying to look at this situation from an ordinary person carrying concealed who is hampered by clothing, family, grocery bags and the like.

The issue hasn't changed; it's still gun vs knife. My take on it, however, is from a day to day perspective, with the wife and kids on one arm and shopping bags in the other. How I respond to a sudden knife attack in this situation is more important than how fast I can draw and fire at a cardboard target from an open carry rig. Looking at it this way, to me, is more wholesome, and more representative of what you will encounter in life.

Contrary to what you're guessing, I have deep respect for IPSC/IDPA shooters. But I do not subscribe to the notion that what you learn from competition shooting is purely representative of how you will react in real life. I guess that's because I haven't gotten to the point where instead of people walking around me, I see white and brown, shoot and no-shoot, cardboard cut-outs

[garryc]

No offense taken, and we do agree on the major points to an extent. One area in which we differ is that I'm trying to look at this situation from an ordinary person carrying concealed who is hampered by clothing, family, grocery bags and the like.

I think it's reasonable to believe that if the average Joe hasn't mastered his gun then he is even less experianced with a knife. So for that guy, which constitutes at least 95% of the CCW holders, a knife is useless. Time spend in other than firearm training should first be USD consentrating on blocks and evasions. Knife training is an extenuation of USD, kind of like advanced training.

[AKhunter]

I noticed that there was a source that wasn't mentioned here: http://www.dogbrothers.com There is a preview of a video done with Gabe Suarez, the firearms instructor, that shows some scenario training of gun v. knife. It's pretty compelling stuff, imo. The video is called "Die less often." I've only seen the promo, but it's on my xmas list already. The promo is about 7 minutes long and is pretty graphic in places.

AK

[AKhunter]

My bad, I noticed through further reading that the video I mentioned is also mentioned in the knife fighting thread, however, as it didn't generate any discussion, I still put it out there for you. The promo is very worth watching, regardless.

AK

[threegun]

Samurai, The bottom line is if your Grand Master attempted the same maneuver as in the video against an equally trained pistol grand master (like say LURPER) the outcome would be different. I think that is what Lurper is saying. We all understand that the edged weapon is deadly as is the firearm. The difference is that with one system you must be at contact distances. One system can't easily cause an instant stop the other can. One system can be blocked or defensed, empty handed, by an equally trained foe the other cannot. Clearly for offense or defense the knife is inferior to the gun. The Samurai became extinct with the advent of gun powder for a reason. The American Indians can attest to the inferiority of knives and bows, besides the fact that they lost, every time they could get a gun they did.

BTW, If your GM is telling you that you should bring a knife to a gun fight he is a fool. If he is making you deadly with the knife but knowledgeable about its limitations great.