Subject:
|
Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:40:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> > > I'd far rather take my chances with a Canadian Mugger than a US one, because
> > > 95/100 up here, all I would face is a knife. And, the bleeding idiot had
> > > better know how to use it.
> >
> > In close quarters, or in terms of hand-to-hand self-defense, a knife can often
> > be deadlier than a gun. Based on what I've learned in self-defense classes,
> > and from a bit of personal training by a friend who teaches martial arts,
> > attempting a knife-strip to disarm an attacker can often be more dangerous
> > than disarming someone with a gun. There are a number of pretty fast and
> > effective ways to turn a handgun back on your assailant or use a combination
> > of strikes to >remove the gun and assault your attacker. Clearly, defending
> > yourself against a handgun in close quarters is very dangerous, but when push-
> > comes-to-shove and my life depends upon it, I'd rather face someone with a
> > gun in close quarters than a knife (at least a gun has surface area that can
> > be grabbed.)
>
> But the issue is "close quarters."
Exactly my point. I'd rather face, within my striking range, a mugger with a
gun than with a knife.
> A gun is more or less equally deadly
> (other than matters of aiming) at a range of ten feet or of one foot; both
> can therefore be considered close quarters for a gun-wielder, but it's hard
> to disarm someone from five feet away even though the gun is still deadly at
> that range. A knife, by contrast, becomes substantially less deadly when
> one moves beyond arm's reach, so, while it's still hard to disarm a
> knife-wielder at that range, the likelihood of the knife inflicting injury
> upon you is sizably diminished. Further, I can run from just about anyone
> brandishing a knife at me, but I'd be surprised to find that I could outrun
> a bullet. Therefore the argument that "knives can be deadlier than guns"
> doesn't hold much water except in knife-to-the-throat vs. gun-to-the-head
> discussions. I grant you--most muggers don't assault people from a
> distance, but the issue of range:threat is vital when distinguishing the
> relative danger of each weapon; if it were not, then the world's armies
> would go into combat with knives rather than rifles (although the increased
> dangerous range *still* isn't an argument for outlawing private gun ownership.)
Clearly all that you say above is correct. Again, my point was that in hand-to-
hand combat (as I define mugging), you often have a greater chance of escaping
injury when facing a gun than a knife.
james
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
