Legality of knife-wielding

[sexobon]

Yes, ZenGum's ideas about gun options being waving it, warning shot, and leg shot are as obsolete as BrianR's throw down knives and guns. Both actions imply that there was no immediate mortal threat that yet required the use of lethal force. With today's forensic capabilities, these have gone the way of shooting someone outside your door and then dragging them inside to justify it. Any of these actions may convince a judge or jury that you wanted to unnecessarily hurt or kill people even if that wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

More seriously, I cannot think of any reason to prefer a knife over a gun, if both are legal. ...

Originally Posted by BigV

More seriously?

Because a knife is useful in a thousand more situations than a gun is. ... And that's why I carry a knife and not a gun, though both are legal.

I got the distinct impression that ZenGum's post was in the context of self defense and not general utility. In any case, why choose when you can do both?

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... And ultimately, guy with a gun usually beats guy with a knife. ...

Here we only do that if we run out of ammunition.

Ummmm..... You Aussies are strange.

(aren't I a stinker)

[DanaC]

Both are illegal here, but culturally Brits have usually tended towards the blade rather than the barrel.

Guns weren't used much in robberies for instance, unless it was a post office or security van. Your average mugger or burglar would have a knife not a gun. Gang fights nowadays might involve guns, but when I was young it was always knives.

Guns tended to be rifles and shotguns, the kind of thing that could reasonably be used for playing or poaching. Sawn off shotguns were the traditional weapon for armed robbery. High-power weapons just weren't available even to the criminal fraternity.

Now...a samurai sword. That used to be something a lot of dealers used to like to have around for show.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Yes, ZenGum's ideas about gun options being waving it, warning shot, and leg shot are as obsolete as BrianR's throw down knives and guns.

By "waving it" I had in mind the situation where a certain awesome dwellar dealt with a problematic individual in a Subway Shop by sweeping the leg and intimidating the bad guy with his gun.

The South Australian police still have a "shoot-to-wound" option in their training and occasionally use it.

Here we only do that if we run out of ammunition.

We shoot them first, then give them a good beating.

[wolf]

If you shoot, you shoot to protect yourself, in other words, you shoot to kill. If you do anything else, you are endangering yourself AND the general public.

[sexobon]

The South Australian police still have a "shoot-to-wound" option in their training and occasionally use it.

Police are routinely required to intervene in less than lethal threat situations. Civilians are generally prohibited from doing so. Police may be authorized to use a lethal weapon in a less than lethal manner against a lesser threat for the public good. A civilian doing so generally becomes an aggressor at that point. There are exceptions such as in the case of a fleeing felon; but, civilians going there are on a slippery slope. Comparing police behavior to civilian self defense is really apples to oranges in this regard.

[BrianR]

Sundae, you have nothing to fear from me. I'm a (mostly) harmless teddy bear. And I have a regular therapist who will testify that I am as sane as anyone.

Love ya

Pam

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by wolf

If you shoot, you shoot to protect yourself, in other words, you shoot to kill. If you do anything else, you are endangering yourself AND the general public.

Hence the rule of thumb: Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

[ZenGum]

Sexybon's point is a good one. I wouldn't expect (well, certainly wouldn't require)a civilian / citizen to have that level of control.

If, for example, Lookout had shot to kill in the Subway encounter, and I were on the jury, I would certainly say Not Guilty. The fact that he dealt with it without shooting just makes him even more awesome.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

snip--

I got the distinct impression that ZenGum's post was in the context of self defense and not general utility. In any case, why choose when you can do both?

--snip

Yes, I see that too, but it was rather an open ended question. It is true that the general utility of a knife is far greater than that of a gun, and that's why I carry one. As for why I don't carry both, though legal to do so, I offer this, respectfully. I don't carry a gun for self defense for the same reason I don't wear a helmet while walking on the street (or driving a car in town) or wear a parachute while walking across a high bridge. I feel the risk for not having such protections does not justify the "trouble" for having them and using them properly. It's an awesome tool for what it does, (they're all awesome protections for their respective risks) but I don't want the hassle/expense/risk required for the protection against what I believe to be remote risks.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Perry Winkle

You could use a knife for all of that. But you shouldn't. I can understand using a knife in any way necessary in a survival situation. Sadly, some folks use a knife as something else just because they are too lazy to plan ahead or go retrieve the correct tool.

There's a myth that knives can withstand almost anything you can think of. Buck perpetuated it with their old marketing campaigns. Ginsu made it worse. And then there are the stupid ideas about katanas (and other swords) that can accomplish insipid feats like slicing into a concrete pillar.

Using a knife as a screw driver will tear up the blade. As a crow-bar, well a very high quality knife should be able to be bent 90 degrees without cracking, but I'm not sure I'd trust most production knives more than a few degrees. You're liable to get a fast moving hunk of sharp steel embedded somewhere uncomfortable.

Perhaps I could have been more clear, but I don't use a knife in place of tools that are more suited (or even made for) the job if I have the tool available or don't need it right away. If I'm at home, yeah I have a flat-head screwdriver that I will use on screws and paint cans, etc. I'm fully aware that a knife can't do any and everything, but I also recognize that they can fill in if suddenly something is really needed.

That's the point I was trying to make, that if you suddenly needed a tool, a knife is far more versatile than a gun. Using a knife as a sub for some tools is inadvisable, but not impossible. And besides... who carries full-size screwdrivers around as a matter of course (who aren't handymen by trade)?

Regarding the crow-bar bit, that's why I specified 'light use'. If you're ever in need of prying something that might push a blade to be bent to 90 degrees, then go get a crowbar. I meant use such as widening a thin space, or getting movement started, like on a sticky window, which I have done with my San Mai.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by sexobon

A few reasons for limitations on carry knives:

Knives are not generally considered humane tools for self defense. You can kill in self defense; but, you're not permitted to unnecessarily maim or mangle.

Bullets (especially hollow point) will maim and mangle worse than a knife can. Just because one uses a gun doesn't mean they'll make a clean, painless kill. Any shots to anything other than the heart or head will cause pain and/or disfigurement if the patient survives. How is that more humane than a knife stab?

Originally Posted by sexobon

The general rule for blade length limitation on carry knives is that if someone is attacked with such a knife, they can protect their vital organs by just covering the anticipated impact area with their own extremities which puts the vital organs out of reach of the blade. Exceptions to blade length limitations for carry knives are based on having a demonstrable lawful use.

But a bullet can go through all your protective extremities and, for some, right through you with enough leftover velocity to stick in a wall. To me, on the subject of penetration, that suggests a knife would be less of a weapon to worry about. Besides, once you get above a certain length, knives tend to be more about slashing and less about stabbing (not saying one couldn't stab).

Originally Posted by sexobon

Burglars have tried to avoid being charged with having burglary tools in their possession by carrying sporting tools (e.g. a large hunting knife in lieu of a pry bar or chisel).

That logic doesn't work (or rather no one will let it work) when you apply it to a gun. Someone with murderous intent can walk around with a gun as long as he has no spots on his record and/or has the proper permits. Now it could very well be that socially there is a different logic applied to knives and that brings me back to my original question: Why? It doesn't make sense to me that the same society that will permit open carry of pistols will raise Cain over someone's hunting knife.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by BigV

I do shudder at the thought of Cyber Wolf prying the lid from a gallon of paint with her mondo pig sticker...

fixed for you

[BigV]

Please accept my apology.

[ZenGum]

You'd better accept that apology.

Or he'll stab you.

But at least he'll do it with a home-made knife. It's the little touches that make all the difference.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

... Now it could very well be that socially there is a different logic applied to knives and that brings me back to my original question: Why? It doesn't make sense to me that the same society that will permit open carry of pistols will raise Cain over someone's hunting knife.

I gave you some of the reasons why. Whether those reasons are based in practicality, political correctness, or something else is another matter. You're free to disagree with them. There are laws of land warfare, definitions for war crimes, prosecution of war criminals; yet, there are still people who ask "Why?" They feel that war is war, all's fair in war, and no rationale will ever change that for them.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Bullets (especially hollow point) will maim and mangle worse than a knife can. ...

That could pertain to any bullet if you're comparing a single shot to a single stab or slash; but, in a meaningful comparison of shots to the stabs and slashes in aggregate that it takes to incapacitate an attacker, the reverse may very well be true.

I'm not sure why you singled out hollow point bullets as special. They're designed to expand (mushroom) in diameter at the nose of the bullet so as to achieve the affect a larger caliber bullet. Any larger caliber bullet, from a compatible gun, would be of more concern to me at handgun bullet velocities.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

... Just because one uses a gun doesn't mean they'll make a clean, painless kill. Any shots to anything other than the heart or head will cause pain and/or disfigurement if the patient survives. How is that more humane than a knife stab?

Originally Posted by sexobon

... You can kill in self defense; but, you're not permitted to unnecessarily maim or mangle.

That's why I said "unnecessarily." A gun typically has the greater potential for a humane defense even though it isn't always possible. It's because a gun gives people of various sizes and physical capabilities a better chance to proficiently (i.e. without "unnecessarily" maiming or mangling) incapacitate an attacker: guns aren't called the great equalizer for nothing. In the same vein, the greater working distance potential of guns typically provides better weapon retention capability than with knives so your weapon isn't taken away from you and used against someone else.

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

But a bullet can go through all your protective extremities and, for some, right through you with enough leftover velocity to stick in a wall. To me, on the subject of penetration, that suggests a knife would be less of a weapon to worry about.

Some knife blade designs (and some arrowheads) can defeat low level soft body armor, like that routinely worn by law enforcement officers, since they can be thrust to penetrate through the weave which is designed to protect against the rapid blunt force of bullets (fibers are only slash resistant).

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Besides, once you get above a certain length, knives tend to be more about slashing and less about stabbing (not saying one couldn't stab).

Slashing isn't PC regardless of blade length. I remember the case of an older Filipino man who was trained in a self defense discipline in which a short bladed knife is very rapidly and repeatedly worked across an attacker's body, to inflict cuts at multiple points with each slashing stroke, until the attack stops. He used the technique on an attacker who didn't stop aggressing until after the victim had inflicted over 200 cuts on the attacker (took less than a couple minutes). In addition to the attacker being prosecuted, the VICTIM was prosecuted for mangling his attacker. The victim was eventually exonerated; but, went bankrupt establishing the validity of his defense.

Originally Posted by sexobon

... Burglars have tried to avoid being charged with having burglary tools in their possession by carrying sporting tools (e.g. a large hunting knife in lieu of a pry bar or chisel).

I'm not applying it to a gun and don't see an analogy there. Burglar with a knife instead of a pry bar corresponds to someone carrying a gun instead of ______?

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Someone with murderous intent can walk around with a gun as long as he has no spots on his record and/or has the proper permits.

The same would be true if people were permitted to carry knives, batons, baseball bats, hammers, golf clubs; or, anything else they felt comfortable carrying to protect themselves. Arguments could be made in favor of all these and more, especially for those who can't afford guns. I'm trained in combat shooting, knife fighting and baton use and I empathize with you. It is; however, guns that are the great equalizer. How does anything else measure up? What else works across the board rather than just serving a social niche? Where would it all end?