From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,rec.martial-arts,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: A little on self defense...
Date: 14 Sep 92 00:13:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: henson.1992Sep14.001351.21247
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Western Washington University

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

>A knife is easier to use defensively, and it's easier also to merely
>disable the person without putting their life in danger.  It's far more

	There is _no way_ to disable a person with a puncture 
weapon (knife or gun) w/o putting his or her life in danger.  For this 
reason, one never uses a knife or gun unless the alternative is to have 
his own safety in danger.  If the attacker's life is a concern to you, 
then you have not reached the point when it would be appropriate to use a 
knife or gun.

	BTW, knives incapacitate one way: blood loss, same as a gun.
This takes several minutes to hours after the stabbing/shooting for
the attacker to become incapacitated (read: expired), depending on
the number and severity of the punctures you inflict.  For incapacitation,
"rapid bleeding" is the name of the game, and knives just don't cut it
against guns.  Knives are much slower for this than guns, and harder to 
use effectively, taking speed, strength, and skill, and for this reason, 
knives have been largely replaced by guns for those interested in self 
defensive weapons  
(Notice what is in the holster your local cops carry, is it a knife or
a gun?).

>precise, and it's also always ready.  Do I carry a knife?  Yep.  It is
>MUCH more controllable than a gun, 

	I couldn't disagree more.

>and if the other person gets it away
>from me, they have to get close to me to use it -- upon which point I
>can defend myself to some extent.

	Good strategy: carry an ineffective weapon, this way if it
is taken away from you, you still have a fighting chance. 

>However, I agree with your statement per se; were I to take out my
>knife, it would be with the intent of killing the person -- neutralizing
>the threat they pose to me, which is all I'm interested in doing.  After
>that, the cops or the ambulance can take over.

>It just sounded like you were lumping guns and knives together very
>generally, and there are serious differences between them. 

	They are both very similar in another sense, except that knives
are inferior for most self-defenseive uses.

>But, thanks to the gun nuts in this country who'd give up their kids
>before their guns, you have to assume that the loonie who broke into
>your place HAS one of the goddamned things, and any martial art doesn't
>teach you to catch a bullet in your teeth.

	I doubt you would blame "the knife nuts" if the attacker who
breaks in kills you with a knife instead, because that would be too
far a stretch for even the worse case of "outside forces" delusion
and "no personal responsibility" world view.

	If someone breaks in and does you harm, there is only him to
blame.

>I would encourage people to learn them to keep in shape and feel good in
>the mind and body, but as a practical mneans for fighting off a probably
>armed interuder?  Nope.

	I would agree.  Boxing, karate, etc are nice hobbies, but they
are just recreation.  They cannot hope to make up the difference between 
115 and 230 lbs, nor between one person and a group of thugs.
	
>Blessings,
>Janis 

JD
Newsgroups: alt.pagan