Knife Vs Gun

[JeffK]

I'm not sure if JeffK is still unclear about that or not.

I'm clear on everything I need to be clear about, the rest is just noise.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JeffK: I'm clear on everything I need to be clear about, the rest is just noise.

You may think so.

And you may have learned something in the last six hours or so.

Or not.

Look, we all start out with ideas that may or may not be supported by the evidence, or by logic. Some of our misconceptions may be, and probably are, just plain wrong. If we keep an open mind, we may learn something and be better for it.

I think it is crystal clear that he or she who believes that a surprise attack by an assailant with a contact with a contact weapon "is not going to happen", or who believes that should it happen, the victim is "going to get killed" does indeed have some learning to do.

[hoss1969]

People who dont give a person with a knife in his hand enough attention are going to get hurt at best. The 7yard rule is not some number just made up to scare you, its a fact that was learned and paid for by both local and federal officers. The fact is with your hand on you holstered gun a guy can charge you and you can be smelling his breath in the time it takes you to draw and fire two rounds center of mass. If you side step while shooting you can draw the attacker off his line of attack and actually not get cut most of the time. Thats from the FBI's own training.

Also its best to treat anyone with a knife as a probable experienced knife fighter. There are many hours of prison security video that show prisoners practicing drawing a concealed" knife" and attacking, and if you dont think they then teach it to all their buddy's back home you could be DEAD wrong. NEVER underestimate a guy with a knife or any edged weapon, be it a beer bottle or screwdriver or anything.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by snyper

"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's, since not all knowledge comes from paid teachers.

That's about the goofiest thing I've seen on the internet.

You really believe that any random airplane passenger's opinion on whether to take off or not in bad weather is just as valid as the trained pilot's? All that training adds no value to his opinion on flight conditions? His qualifications as a pilot mean nothing?

You really believe that my opinion on your health is just as valid as your doctor's? All of the tests and past history on your health that your doctor has access to adds no value to his opinion? His qualifications from all those years in med school and passing the medical boards mean nothing?

If you ever do have to shoot someone, you really believe that the legal opinion's of your barber are just as valid as those of your criminal defense lawyer? Your lawyer's legal qualifications and passing the bar mean nothing?

If your car's transmission is slipping, do you really believe that the local high school cashier's opinion of the problem is just as valid as a transmission mechanic's opinion? The mechanic's experience and training mean nothing?

You must save a TON of money on professional services from trained people!

[Snyper]

You really believe that any random airplane passenger's opinion on whether to take off or not in bad weather is just as valid as the trained pilot's? All that training adds no value to his opinion on flight conditions? His qualifications as a pilot mean nothing?

We aren't talking about flying planes, etc.

We are talking about simple self defense techniques that have been around for decades, and no one here invented any of them

The "experts" are just repeating what someone told them, just like everyone else.

The facts aren't more valid if you paid someone to tell you, no matter what some like to imply

The Tueller "drill" was a simple demonstration of what NOT to do if someone runs at you with a knife

It requires the shooter to stand still and try deploy the gun and not do anything else.

It was never meant to be a training excercise.

Repeating it is pointless, since it teaches you nothing that people haven't already known for decades.

Most every topic in this section of the forum turns into a ******* match because half the people don't READ what anyone says, and so they go off on tangents (like airplane pilots and Drs) that have nothing to do with the actual topic, or even what was stated

You have proven my point quite well, because you didn't read what I said either, even though you quoted it:

Originally Posted by snyper
"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's, since not all knowledge comes from paid teachers.

Some here think if you can't show a "certificate" from one of the "popular "classes, you can't possibly KNOW anything

Those certificates go to those who pay the fee, and don't shoot anyone else, or themselves, before the class is over.

The biggest screwup in the class gets the same certificate as the best

The knowledgeitself (the only important part) is no different than what people can learn through other means, without paying lots of money.

I was practicing fast draw/ rapid fire drills 20 years before Teuller played his little game

[hoss1969]

2 park rangers stabbed multiple times on Boston Common
Published On:*Oct 14 2014 05:21:29 PM EDT
Updated On:*Oct 14 2014 11:42:59 PM EDT
http://m.wcvb.com/news/2-park-ranger...ommon/29127706

At a news conference Tuesday evening, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said officers received a radio call around 4:36 p.m. to the Soldiers and Sailors Monument on Boston Common, and when they arrived they found two Boston park rangers suffering from multiple stab wounds.

Park rangers expected to survive after being stabbed

"He was stabbed right in the central stomach," Emerson student Jackson Marchant said. "He was bleeding. His whole torso was just covered in red, and he was holding himself and praying. It was pretty gruesome."

Evans said police responded quickly and through their effort and with the help of witnesses, they were able to arrest Bodio Hutchinson, the man they believe to be responsible for the attacks, on the Arlington Street side of Boston Public Garden.

"The guy runs and the cops tell him to stop," witness Nicholas Rusk said. "He stops, turns at them and tells them to 'Shoot me.' Just to irk them. They tackled him to the ground and they arrested him."

Evans said several witnesses followed Hutchinson until police arrived. The witnesses also told police that they saw Hutchinson throw the knife into the lagoon at Boston Public Garden, and investigators were able to recover a knife that they believe was used in the attacks.

A 46-year-old ranger sergeant was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, and sources said he was listed in critical but stable condition. Shortly after the attacks officials said he was suffering from life-threatening injuries.

Sources said he is expected to survive.

The father of the second park ranger identified him as 24-year-old James Lunnin. He said his son, who is being treated at Tufts Medical Center, became a ranger seven months ago after serving in Afghanistan.

Lunnin is suffering from five stab wounds, his father said, but is doing well.

He said his son is more concerned about the other park ranger who was more seriously injured.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Snyper

...The facts aren't more valid if you paid someone to tell you, no matter what some like to imply...

Nor does it mean that we have any reason to accept your claims.

Originally Posted by Snyper

...The Tueller "drill" was a simple demonstration of what NOT to do if someone runs at you with a knife

It requires the shooter to stand still and try deploy the gun and not do anything else...

It was never about what to do or not to do. Perhaps you'd have known that if you had read Tueller's article. It was a demonstration that someone 21 feet away with a contact weapon could be on top of you before you could draw your gun and shoot him.

That is information to help one decide what to do or what not to do. Teuller provided information. You need to decide how to use it to your benefit.

Originally Posted by Snyper

...Those certificates go to those who pay the fee, and don't shoot anyone else, or themselves, before the class is over...

How would you know?

Originally Posted by Snyper

....The knowledgeitself (the only important part) is no different than what people can learn through other means, without paying lots of money....

There are many ways to acquire knowledge. The question is whether or not, however you tried to acquire your knowledge, you actually do know anything.

Originally Posted by Snyper

...I was practicing fast draw/ rapid fire drills 20 years before Teuller played his little game...

A lot of people have practiced a lot of things for a long time. Not everyone who has done so actually knows anything or is any good.

So 45_auto's post was really absolutely on point:

Originally Posted by 45_auto

...You really believe that any random airplane passenger's opinion on whether to take off or not in bad weather is just as valid as the trained pilot's? All that training adds no value to his opinion on flight conditions? His qualifications as a pilot mean nothing?

You really believe that my opinion on your health is just as valid as your doctor's? All of the tests and past history on your health that your doctor has access to adds no value to his opinion? His qualifications from all those years in med school and passing the medical boards mean nothing?

If you ever do have to shoot someone, you really believe that the legal opinion's of your barber are just as valid as those of your criminal defense lawyer? Your lawyer's legal qualifications and passing the bar mean nothing?

If your car's transmission is slipping, do you really believe that the local high school cashier's opinion of the problem is just as valid as a transmission mechanic's opinion? The mechanic's experience and training mean nothing?...

It's about how we know things, what we really do know, or can know or can't know, and how well we know things. This is whole area study in itself, and it's called "epistemology."

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.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Snyper: The "experts" are just repeating what someone told them, just like everyone else.

In the case of Tueller's findings, they are relating facts that were determined via rigorous testing conducted using the scientific method, and properly documented.

The Tueller "drill" was a simple demonstration of what NOT to do if someone runs at you with a knife.

No. It was a determination of distances at which a person with a knife would be reasonably believed to present an imminent threat. It has to do with the legal concepts of ability and opportunity.

Repeating it is pointless, since it teaches you nothing that people haven't already known for decades.

You know it and I know it, but if investigators, a charging authority, a prosecutor, and/or members of a grand jury don't know it or choose to ignore it, and if it is crucial to a defense of justification of use of force, someone is going to have to explain it to a trial jury, and at that point, repeating it will most certainly not be "pointless".

"Qualifications" don't make anyone's OPINION any more valid than anyone else's,...

Oh yes they do!

Should someone charged with a crime for shooting an attacker with a knife ever need to use the Tueller findings (i.e., prove that a person with a knife can present an imminent danger of death), that information will never be admitted into evidence (that is, made known to the jury in any way) unless both the prosecuting attorney (or the attorney for the plaintiff) and the defense attorney stipulate that the witness presenting the information is in fact an expert in the field. They will only do that on the basis of qualifications.

I was practicing fast draw/ rapid fire drills 20 years before Teuller played his little game

Good. Let's hope you never have to use them.

[kraigwy]

Bickering aside, there is something we aren't addressing here.

We are assuming that the bandit is going to attack with a knife without warning, for no apparent reason.

It happens no doubt.

The thing is you can act faster then you can re-act. Meaning if you encounter a supposed attacker, you're at a disadvantage.

It seems like the topic is geared toward the idea you're better off with a knife for self defense then a revolve/pistol.

Knife or Gun, you're still at a disadvantage from the surprise attack.

With a gun you can side-step, move away from, or retreat and gain some sort of distance giving you a chance to respond, where as if your defense option is a knife, you have to close the distance to be able to deal with the threat.

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...Knife or Gun, you're still at a disadvantage from the surprise attack.

With a gun you can side-step, move away from, or retreat and gain some sort of distance giving you a chance to respond, where as if your defense option is a knife, you have to close the distance to be able to deal with the threat.

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

And I think that pretty much sums it up.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by kraigwy: The thing is you can act faster then you can re-act. Meaning if you encounter a supposed attacker, you're at a disadvantage.

Absolutely!

It seems like the topic is geared toward the idea you're better off with a knife for self defense then a revolve/pistol.

Not in my mind, but there have been a couple of posts along that line.

Knife or Gun, you're still at a disadvantage from the surprise attack.

Yep!

With a gun you can side-step, move away from, or retreat and gain some sort of distance giving you a chance to respond, where as if your defense option is a knife, you have to close the distance to be able to deal with the threat

.Yes, and it occurs to me that a cane already in hand could be put to use, also.

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

Certainly not if I don't have to!

[AK103K]

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

I dont either, and I dont think anyone really would. Although, as with anything else, Im sure we can all come up with scenarios where you might.

With that said, I do carry a "smallish" fixed blade knife along with my gun, which I believe compliments it. Options are a great thing, and any one tool, isnt a magical weapon.

I think the whole point here, and one thats some seem to be missing, is just because you have a gun, doesnt mean youre going to prevail against a knife (or anything else), especially if you have the mentality that you are invincible simply because you have the gun. To me, thats a very dangerous presumption.

Another thing I see on most of the different gun boards, and I think needs addressing for a dose of reality is, the gun isnt always the answer or solution, your choice or not. I know we all are here primarily for the "gun", but once you get beyond what you choose, there are a number of other factors that help "round out" your portfolio. Being just a gun guy, and betting the bank on it is pretty silly if you think about it. What happens when your idea of the "gun" fight falls apart, and you have to start dealing with things outside of your preconceived scenarios, and you are unprepared?

I hope for your sake, youre putting as much effort into your fitness, and other options, like grappling/close in hand to hand, etc, and alternative and/or improvised weapons, as you are worrying about your gun. Not to mention the mental awareness issues.

I know (especially as we get older), staying physical and in somewhat decent shape, can be a challenge, but you should at least already have a fairly strong base and understanding in what is likely to work, if you should lose, lose the use of, or flat out just dont have your gun for some reason. Can you go a few minutes of intense close in hand to hand (with or without alternative weapons), and do you know what to go for, rather than just throwing punches? Are you in good enough shape to just run away and get away? Are you mentally prepared for any of he above?

Also, one other thing Ill bring up "again", that I dont see discussed enough, is the misconception, that "self defense", means you "defend". You do, "sort of", but that is simply the catalyst at the start. Once initiated, there should be nothing at all defensive about your response.

[skoro]

I'll take the gun.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AK103K: Also, one other thing Ill bring up "again", that I dont see discussed enough, is the misconception, that "self defense", means you "defend". You do, "sort of", but that is simply the catalyst at the start. Once initiated, there should be nothing at all defensive about your response.

Lest there by any confusion on this, a defender may use force that may reasonably be expected to cause death or serious injury only if there is reason to believe that such force is required at the time to prevent his own death or serious injury.

Once that has been accomplished, the defender may not use additional force.

An attacker with a knife may slash or stab. A trained defender using a blade would be much better served to slash the tendons that enable the attacker to attack.

I am not trained to do that.

[kraigwy]

I know (especially as we get older), staying physical and in somewhat decent shape, can be a challenge

Some times and in many cases an impossibility.

There is no cure for COPD. There are those who can't walk to the truck and climb in without popping a nitro pill.

There are those who cant lay in bed because of joint pain and stiffness from too many years of jumping out of airplanes.

There are those too small and frail to defend against an 250 lb attacker regardless of how good of shape they're in.

That is why courts have adopted the "Egg Shell" defense.

There is something to the old saying. "I'm too young to die-but-I'm too old to take an A$$ whooping".

Not all of us, do to age, disabilities, or health problems can be Ninja's, but there are few disabilities that would prevent one from becoming proficient with a hand gun.

[OldMarksman]

Add to the list spinal stenosis, atrial fibrillation, arthritis, and tendonitis.

The second of those robs one of stamina, results in swollen lower extremities, and requires mediation that makes both external and internal bleeding very serious.

It's one reason why I do not carry a knife.

...or climb ladders, or chop onions.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by AK103K

...I think the whole point here, and one thats some seem to be missing, is just because you have a gun, doesnt mean youre going to prevail against a knife (or anything else), especially if you have the mentality that you are invincible simply because you have the gun. To me, thats a very dangerous presumption....

True, and one more reason to take the trouble to learn to use your gun effectively.

Originally Posted by AK103K

...Also, one other thing Ill bring up "again", that I dont see discussed enough, is the misconception, that "self defense", means you "defend". You do, "sort of", but that is simply the catalyst at the start. Once initiated, there should be nothing at all defensive about your response....

A dangerous perspective, and really not helpful. OldMarksman addressed this, but it bears repeating.

You may be legally justified in using lethal force to defend yourself from an imminent, lethal threat. If the threat ends and you take the offensive, you will have lost your legal protection. Jerome Ersland is an example of someone who didn't understand that and is now serving a life sentence for murder.

[hoss1969]

oopsies. You are so wrong. The average arm is about 3feet long so in a blink of an eye you jyst lost almost a third of that 10 foot distance and the guy hasn't even taken a step yet. Now add in a two running steps and the guys in your face and your brain has processed the fact hes coming at you and have moved your shirt/outter wear back and grabbed your gun. If your really a fast draw you might of cleared leather. 10 feet is nothing. Why do you think the police have people stand in front of the raido car while thay stand off to the side and back? It allows them to enter that bubble but adds a barrier between eack other.

Sad truth is your unwilling to learn what has been well documented and cost a numbercof police their lives or great injury. The whole point is not to stop the bad guy, the whole point is not to get cut or stabbed while stopping the bad guy.

The drill was based of FBI study on incidents with people with edged and contact weapons were the officer was injured or killed. Say what you will about the FBI but their internal study and review of after action reports is top noch. If something happens it the field they tear it down and work it out from every side, move by move and second to second.

The other thing is the 7 yard bubble is not the safety line, its actually the 50/50 line. Which means the average trained agent word get hurt enough to kill him or remove him fron duty. Addung a minimum of two side steps to draw the attacker off his line of charg ony moves the rato to 25-30% of the time

[AK103K]

Add to the list spinal stenosis, atrial fibrillation, arthritis, and tendonitis.

Im not discounting any of the above issues mentioned, simply pointing out, that for many, "the gun" is the extent of their repertoire, injuries/disabilities aside.

There is that mentality, that many gun people seem to have. Just look at all the arguments over caliber and type. Its as if that "tool" is the solution to all their problems. What happens if you need to initially deal with the situation at hand, by hand, simply to get to your gun?

The proper response to that knife attack, may well be to initially move in "towards" the threat, and control the weapon/deflect the attack, and then back off to go for your gun, than it would be to try and draw against the attack, especially one thats already to close (what happened in Boston last night for example). People who are not, or havent been "combative", tend to shy away and act "defensively", rather than be aggressive, when aggression is in fact the proper response. Then again, you tend to get that from hands on training, or at least, experience.

There is something to the old saying. "I'm too young to die-but-I'm too old to take an A$$ whooping".

I know where youre coming from there. Ill hit 60 at the end of this year, and fully understand the logic. If for nothing than to take advantage of the age issue if something were to go wrong.

Ive always lived a pretty active lifestyle, and remained in pretty good shape over the years. Im actually in a lot better shape than many half my age here. Doing so is simply a choice, and many these days, seem to not choose it.

As you mentioned, Im paying for some of the indiscretions of my past, my body has endured, but Im convinced, staying fit, has alleviated a lot of that, and what Ive seen some of my friends who didnt, have, or are now going through. Again, its a lifestyle choice we all have to make, if it wasnt already made for us.

Choosing to stay fit, and in some cases, moderate some things, makes a big difference towards the later part of our lives. I am convinced of that now. That said, I could well drop dead from a heart attack tomorrow, but thats a whole different story, and Ill at least look good on the table at the morgue.

A dangerous perspective, and really not helpful. OldMarksman addressed this, but it bears repeating.

You may be legally justified in using lethal force to defend yourself from an imminent, lethal threat. If the threat ends and you take the offensive, you will have lost your legal protection. Jerome Ersland is an example of someone who didn't understand that and is now serving a life sentence for murder.

I understand your thoughts on this, I just think my thoughts here are being somewhat misunderstood here.

Once the attack starts, the person being attacked, short of gaining a solid defensive position that can be reasonably defended, gains nothing, by being defensive in nature. They should gather all their aggression and put the attacker on the defensive, to the point its either ended, or they break off the attack. At the later point, youre right, you need to break off as well.

I do think its a mistake, to put the worry of the "law", and any hesitation it might bring into your head, ahead of your life, when it comes to a response though. You need to have resolved that ahead of time, or at least consider it, but once it starts, winning should be your only goal. This "everyone wins" mentality being taught in the schools these days, has no place here. First and foremost, Im going to do my very best, to make sure the other guy loses.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by oopsies: this is IF the gun man is slow and stupid
slow on the draw and fire sequence, and stupid enough to just stand there.

In one's imagination, perhaps.

Anyone who's any good and has room to move, the knife man is going to get shot, even if he starts from 10 ft away.

You sound like a very good candidate for some FoF training. Make sure to use safe equipment.

Against a fit attacker, that would give you 2/3 of a second to draw, present and fire, and that's just the time he would need to run into you you--when it's too late.

The problem is that the attack too often starts at 6 ft, the gun man doesn't see the knife, that footing is slippery or obstacles exist, loved ones dont backpeddle/jump back with you, etc.

Under those conditions, a defender stands very little chance--if any.

Many loads lack the power to stop a man with 1-2 well placed hits, a guy crazy enough to charge a gun is probably so full of dope, booze, or adrenalin that good hits don't stop him, etc..

Most loads will come up short, and you should not bet on "well placed hits" on an attacker moving at 15 FPS.

You'd better run a bit, if you see a knife, or een "just" get charged by a (seemingly unarmed) man, while you draw your gun.

Yes, some fast lateral movement would be well advised.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AK103K: The proper response to that knife attack, may well be to initially move in "towards" the threat, and control the weapon/deflect the attack, and then back off to go for your gun, than it would be to try and draw against the attack, especially one thats already to close (what happened in Boston last night for example).

I don't think so. You want to increase the distance, not decrease it.

And you do not want to be seen moving toward someone before using force.

You may be able to slow the attacker with a shopping cart, or a car door, and that could prove helpful. I might be able to deflect the knife arm, and with luck, slow the man considerably, with my cane, already in hand. And one may be forced to use the weak hand while drawing.

People who are not, or havent been "combative", tend to shy away and act "defensively", rather than be aggressive, when aggression is in fact the proper response.

You do not want to do anything that could be interpreted as, or described by witnesses as, an aggressive move.

...once it starts, winning should be your only goal. This "everyone wins" mentality being taught in the schools these days, has no place here.

That's fine-- as long as "winning" simply means not getting hurt.

First and foremost, Im going to do my very best, to make sure the other guy loses.

I don't care what he does, as long as I end up unhurt.

Do not confuse lawful self defense with fighting.

[zincwarrior]

Whats the issue?
They draw knife. You draw gun.
You shoot them 8-19 times depending on pistol.

A knife has no tactical advantage vs. someone with a firearm.
I'd much much rather face someone with a knife than a firearm, even if the BG with the firearm was trained by the NYPD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
...Knife or Gun, you're still at a disadvantage from the surprise attack.

With a gun you can side-step, move away from, or retreat and gain some sort of distance giving you a chance to respond, where as if your defense option is a knife, you have to close the distance to be able to deal with the threat.

I just don't see me giving up my gun in favor of a knife for self defense.

And I think that pretty much sums it up.

Exactly.

[AK103K]

I don't think so. You want to increase the distance, not decrease it.

Not always. In a perfect world, yea, good choice. We all know how perfect the world is, dont we.

And you do not want to be seen moving toward someone before using force.

You do not want to do anything that could be interpreted as, or described by witnesses as, an aggressive move.

If Im justified in acting, the chips will just have to fall where they may at the end when it comes to who saw what, where and when. If youre so worried about what happens after, then do nothing, and let the other guy worry about it.

That's fine-- as long as "winning" simply means not getting hurt.

Winning means simply that, winning.

I sure hope Im unhurt at the end.

Do not confuse lawful self defense with fighting.

Its all fighting.

If Im justified in defending myself, Im going to do so, and there is going to be a fight. If they stop, Ill stop. If they dont, Im going to do my best to make sure they do.

I understand where youre coming from in regards to the law and deadly force issues. Where we seem to digress, is on where to place it in our minds, once the ball is rolling, and there is a fight for your life underway.

The other guy is controlling the fight, and to a point, the outcome. All they have to do, is "stop". If they remain active, Im not going to act "defensively".

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zincwarrior: Whats the issue?
They draw knife. You draw gun.

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.

You shoot them 8-19 times depending on pistol.

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.

A knife has no tactical advantage vs. someone with a firearm.

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.

I'd much much rather face someone with a knife than a firearm,

[OldMarksman]

Posted by AK103K: If Im justified in acting, the chips will just have to fall where they may at the end when it comes to who saw what, where and when.

The problem is that if a defender may have done things that were not really immediately necessary for self preservation, and those actions will be taken into consideration by others after the fact who have only incomplete evident with which to judge.

And what they will decide is whether you were in fact lawfully justified in acting.

If you move toward the other person before using deadly force, you may well have established yourself as the aggressor. The aggressor is not afforded the right of self defense.

Further, such movement could weaken, if not negate, your claim that your use of force had been immediately necessary--that is, the last resort-- for avoiding harm.

Winning means simply that, winning.

Its all fighting.

There is a very distinct difference. In martial arts competition, winning means outscoring the opponent. In real fighting, it means hurting or killing him.

In self defense, one is justified only in dissuading or preventing an attacker from inflicting serious harm, and while the defender may be justified by necessity in harming the attacker, if he willfully uses any more force than is necessary in the process, he may not even be entitled to a self defense instruction.

If they remain active, Im not going to act "defensively".

Acting defensively is your only lawful option.

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