a knife beats a gun

imported post

If I am ever in a situation where I am engaging one attacker, while another attacker is approaching me from a 90-degree direction, I'll think of this test.

This test completely ignores the fact that the shooter will be reacting to the actions of the person charging him. Since the attacker has to move his whole body in a predictable way (toward the shooter) and since the shooter is relatively free to choose his motion (only the bullet need move toward the attacker), the shooter is not restricted to only drawing and firing in time to avoid being stabbed by the attacker.

A simple move to one side or the other, timed in such a was as the attacker's momentum will prevent him from following, will buy additional time to draw and fire. There are, of course, no guarantees, but I'd rather have the gun in that situation.

imported post

9_9

The point of the test is to establish a bare minimum line at which a potential attacker is "to close for comfort". A variant I have seen is to start back to back with the 'attacker's' hand on the shooter's shoulder. The drill starts as soon as the attacker starts running, and the attacker must stop running when he hears the first (or sometimes second or third shot).

The distance ran and the time it took are measured to give an idea of how far away an attacker should be stopped under ideal circumstances. If the attacker is dodging and weaving it would increase the difficulty of hitting him and would support the assertion that 21' (or however far for you) is a reasonable danger zone and you would be unwise to let a potential attacker get within that zone.

imported post

Knives don't have just one shot, they actually "never" run out of ammo. At least not in a single confrontation. I didn't watch the video, but if anyone is discounting the knife or believes that they can beat it on the draw, they need to do some serious research. Carrying a weapon for self-defense is worthless if you haven't got the proper mindset to defend yourself. Another interesting point about the Tueller drill is that most people report being unaware that there was a knife involved in the attack. Unless the aggressor "brandishes" the knife beforehand, many assume that they are simply being hit, not stabbed.

Stay alert, stay informed.

imported post

Regardless of intent, the test is flawed. It provides a number that is valid in a narrow set of circumstances that is unlikely to occur in reality. I might as well determine the height at which I need to detect a safe dropped from an airplane in order to safely step out of the way. Even if I know this number, what good does it do me, unless I am looking up at appropriate intervals.

We all already know that situational awareness increases the chance of a good outcome in the event of a sudden attack. It does not guarantee anything.

If I detect someone charging me, from out of the blue, from 21' (or 20' or 22' or whatever), I am going to evade with a perpendicular movement while drawing and proceed from there.

imported post

I choose to ignore your preposterous example. Besides, everyone knows not to look up. That's how the government satellites identify you. :uhoh: :quirky

Situational Awareness has to have some basis in experience or training for you to be able to quickly and properly assess a situation. How do you measure your comfort zone? How close does a suspicious person have to be to be too close?

The drill isn't meant to train you to take out someone charging at you from 21'. The drill is meant to show you that anyone within 21' can become a threat to your life, likely faster than the average person can react. I don't know how I can explain that any clearer to you, eye.

Your situational awareness should be in hyperdrive when people are in your reaction speed radius. Do you disagree?

imported post

Look out! Safe!

Anyway, I don't need a drill to know that someone within 21' of me could be a threat. Heck, he might be a BG with a gun who won't need to do any running to do me harm. My point is that this exercise comes up when folks are trying to convince others that knives are as effective or dangerous as guns--regardless of why someone thought it up in the first place.

I think the test is of not much use at teaching situational awareness nor does this exercise convince me that a knife is as effective or as dangerous as a gun. From 21', I'd rather have a gun.

imported post

IMO knives are more "dangerous" than guns in that you have a great likelihood of not knowing it's there. Do some blade work with the least skilled person you can find and if you still have less respect for a knife than a gun then go about your days as you wish.

imported post

CarryOpen wrote:

IMO knives are more "dangerous" than guns in that you have a great likelihood of not knowing it's there. Do some blade work with the least skilled person you can find and if you still have less respect for a knife than a gun then go about your days as you wish.

Click to expand...

I agree. Brazilian Knife Fighters are some scary individuals. I've seen them lodge a blade straight through a body, into vital organs, at a distance of 50 feet. (On a ballistics gel dummy, that is) The accuracy of a trained knife fighter is no joke, and they carry a dozen blades concealed in the most random spots on their body.