Do yo carry a knife/MT for self defense?

[glenfiddich1983]

“Do not hurt where holding is enough;
do not wound where hurting is enough;
do not maim where wounding is enough;
and kill not where maiming is enough;
the greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill.”

― Stephen R. Donaldson, The Illearth War

That kind of pacifist stuff in my old neighborhood, would get you killed. It sounds nice in some fantasy, but theres two legged creatures around that only seem to resemble people. They are as vicious and evil as a rabid hyena, and shown the slightest mercy, will kill you and any with you. If someone comes at you with violence in mind, you have to respond in such a way as to leave them incapable of harming you or anyone else. This is why people carry guns. It's the ultimate playing field leveler.

That is exactly what the quote means. Use force if neccesary, but no excessive force.  And indeed it's from a fantasy novel.

In The Netherlands, killing someone in self defense will land you in jail unless you had no other options.

Yes, here the law says the act of self defence should be proportionate to the threat, but I sincerely doubt you'll get in real trouble of you "overact" a bit.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

There's certainly truth in that.

Yes.

But the following is equally true:

In a world without guns, nobody will get shot.

Agree, but unfortunately such a world does not exist...

[Ron Who]

“Do not hurt where holding is enough;
do not wound where hurting is enough;
do not maim where wounding is enough;
and kill not where maiming is enough;
the greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill.”

― Stephen R. Donaldson, The Illearth War

That kind of pacifist stuff in my old neighborhood, would get you killed. It sounds nice in some fantasy, but theres two legged creatures around that only seem to resemble people. They are as vicious and evil as a rabid hyena, and shown the slightest mercy, will kill you and any with you. If someone comes at you with violence in mind, you have to respond in such a way as to leave them incapable of harming you or anyone else. This is why people carry guns. It's the ultimate playing field leveler.

That is exactly what the quote means. Use force if neccesary, but no excessive force.  And indeed it's from a fantasy novel.

In The Netherlands, killing someone in self defense will land you in jail unless you had no other options.

Yes, here the law says the act of self defence should be proportionate to the threat, but I sincerely doubt you'll get in real trouble of you "overact" a bit.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

There's certainly truth in that.

Yes.

But the following is equally true:

In a world without guns, nobody will get shot.

Agree, but unfortunately such a world does not exist...

Ah, but there you are wrong. For all practical purposes, The Netherlands are a gun free country. Most kills overhere are done in relationships gone bad, with fire, or kitchen knives. The recent spree of drug related shootings is only a drop in the ocean. It's the media that would have us believe otherwise.

[4everYoung]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

There's certainly truth in that.

Yes.

But the following is equally true:

In a world without guns, nobody will get shot.

This actually not true at all.
You could be shot by an archer with an arrow, or a slingshot, blow dart, a ballistic knife, potato launcher etc.

Equivocating guns as the reason people are shot makes the gun the problem. It's simply not true. Guns are inanimate objects. People choose to kill or harm others with guns or anything else.
A true statement is: If humans did not desire to do evil, then no humans would be murdered.

[Ron Who]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

There's certainly truth in that.

Yes.

But the following is equally true:

In a world without guns, nobody will get shot.

This actually not true at all.
You could be shot by an archer with an arrow, or a slingshot, blow dart, a ballistic knife, potato launcher etc.

Equivocating guns as the reason people are shot makes the gun the problem. It's simply not true. Guns are inanimate objects. People choose to kill or harm others with guns or anything else.
A true statement is: If humans did not desire to do evil, then no humans would be murdered.

I stand corrected.

But you have to admit that pulling a trigger doesn't require skills or intelligence, as opposed to using other weapons. Which makes guns ever so much more dangerous.

[4everYoung]

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

There's certainly truth in that.

Yes.

But the following is equally true:

In a world without guns, nobody will get shot.

This actually not true at all.
You could be shot by an archer with an arrow, or a slingshot, blow dart, a ballistic knife, potato launcher etc.

Equivocating guns as the reason people are shot makes the gun the problem. It's simply not true. Guns are inanimate objects. People choose to kill or harm others with guns or anything else.
A true statement is: If humans did not desire to do evil, then no humans would be murdered.

I stand corrected.

But you have to admit that pulling a trigger doesn't require skills or intelligence, as opposed to using other weapons. Which makes guns ever so much more dangerous.

No I don't agree with that either. A gun with a safety not cocked and unloaded would be very difficult for someone to pick up and use for the first time. The first time my wife shot a firearm I had to teach her to use it. Unless you are within a few feet of someone you would have to be able to aim the gun properly to be effective as well as load it. Cock it and disable the safety before firing.

Where as a knife is pretty straight forward. It's sharp and holding it in hand it goes wheee your hand goes. So it you can grip a knife and move your hand, you can inflict harm. That seems ever so much simpler and less a thoughtful action.

[cbl51]

WOW!

Are some you actually deluded enough that you think a world without guns will mean no murders?

Okay, go back to the middle ages when traveling the roads was a dangerous thing because of roving bandits who would kill you for whatever you ahd. Life was a very cheap commodity way before guns came on the scene. Swords, knives, axes, clubs, and arrows killed many thousands of years before gunpowder was invented. Man is a killer animal that preys on his own kind. Always have. England outlawed gun ownership years ago. How many knifings are there in the U.K.

Dream on about some gun free utopia, but it will never exist. I understand gun ownership is a no-no in scandinavia, but how many kids where killed on that island in Norway by a nut case with a gun?

Humans are a species prone to violence, and if guns were somehow totally done away with, they will just use a knife.

I moved out of Maryland because of congestion and crime, yet Maryland had no CCW possible. Yet here in Georgetown, Texas, crime is almost non existent, yet a very high percent of the population is legally carrying a gun on their person. Of the 40 of the 50 states in the U.S. that now permit the licensing to carry, crime has dropped significantly when people carry. The old saying; "An armed society is a polite society" must be true. When a criminal does not know who is carrying a gun and who is not, they tend to go elsewhere. I firmly believe in the right to self defense, and that means firearm carry. Any government who will not permit this, is not a government for the people, and not to be trusted.

[Ron Who]

I like your arguments,  cbl. Especially the Scandinavian one. This was a one time only thing, as opposed to what happened in the US in the past years.

If guns are not the cause of the violence, then what is? Because the USA are undeniably much more violent than The Netherlands, or the Scandinavian countries.

[cbl51]

[quote
But you have to admit that pulling a trigger doesn't require skills or intelligence, as opposed to using other weapons. Which makes guns ever so much more dangerous.
[/quote]

Heck yes, they are dangerous with little skill and training. That's what makes a 5 foot 3 inch woman or 75 year old man a match for a 6 foot 200 pound mugger. The woman who is attacked by a larger more powerful man is about with little skill to shoot the heck out of the criminal low life to defend herself. Same with anyone. The gun gives the underdog a fighting chance agains one or more criminals intent on harm. Theres an old saying; "God created man, Samual Colt made them all equal."

I understand some European governments think a 5 foot 3 woman should go one on one with a 6 foot plus would be rapist, but I think God for the right of my wife to carry her Smith and Wesson revolver on her person. And this old fart loves being able to defend myself as well against younger more powerful and multiple assailants if need be.

You're darned right guns are dangerous. I would not be carrying one if they were not!

[lister]

This thread is on the fast track to lock down. 

I just wonder, is it enough to put in action the last stage of my nonlinear progressive overkill? What do you guys think, are we done with this universe? 

 

[Ron Who]

But you have to admit that pulling a trigger doesn't require skills or intelligence, as opposed to using other weapons. Which makes guns ever so much more dangerous.

Heck yes, they are dangerous with little skill and training. That's what makes a 5 foot 3 inch woman or 75 year old man a match for a 6 foot 200 pound mugger. The woman who is attacked by a larger more powerful man is about with little skill to shoot the heck out of the criminal low life to defend herself. Same with anyone. The gun gives the underdog a fighting chance agains one or more criminals intent on harm. Theres an old saying; "God created man, Samual Colt made them all equal."

I understand some European governments think a 5 foot 3 woman should go one on one with a 6 foot plus would be rapist, but I think God for the right of my wife to carry her Smith and Wesson revolver on her person. And this old fart loves being able to defend myself as well against younger more powerful and multiple assailants if need be.

You're darned right guns are dangerous. I would not be carrying one if they were not!

I hear you. But you make it sound like the streets are crawling with badasses. Maybe true in some parts of the world, but not here.

[cbl51]

I like your arguments,  cbl. Especially the Scandinavian one. This was a one time only thing, as opposed to what happened in the US in the past years.

If guns are not the cause of the violence, then what is? Because the USA are undeniably much more violent than The Netherlands, or the Scandinavian countries.

Yes, the USA has more violence than your country. I'm not sure why, but I think it is a more sociological problem than a crime problem. Most of the hot spots for crime is the big cities like New York, Washington D.C., L.A., Chicago, and such. Coincidence that these are locations where the regular citizen cannot get permission to carry?

Also the USA has a much more diverse population with people from some parts of the world where violence is the norm. Too many people have been permitted in from too many countries that are violent third world hell holes. Scandinavia has a much more homogenous population that I am openly jealous of. Although I understand so many mid-eastern types have taken over some parts of Sweden that the police can't even go into some parts of Malmo, I think it is. They have declared Sharia law there!

Crime in the USA is very separated. The big eastern cities are antigun, while the smaller cities in the west and midwest are very permissive on guns yet have very little crime. Some connection there? I don't know, and I don't think I'm smart enough to figure it out.

One thing I do think about; the fact that the European countries have had a thousand years to get it figured out, while the USA had until just a generation or two ago had some lawless areas where people where on their own. The sheriff or law was days away by horse, and if you couldn't defend yourself, you didn't live long. Plus there were large animals that thought you tasted like chicken. So guns were a necessary part of American everyday attire until the 1920's. There are still very deserted places in the USA where you are on your own, and there are still large animals that think you taste like chicken. Every season, some hiker gets eaten by a grizzly in Glacier National Park, and mountain lion attacks are not uncommon.  In southern Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas along the Mexican border, the increasingly vicious attacks by illegals crossing the U.S. border are becoming more common. They rob and carjack at roadside rest areas so they have to increase the police patrols at the interstate highway rest areas.

The USA has lots of problems, and I think in time they will get worked out. Your country and the rest of europe has a thousand year head start on us. But I do believe in the armed citizen being a first stop in the fight against crime. You get investigated, have to take the course, get educated in the law as when you can and cannot pull your gun, and you have to pass the same qualification as the state police to get the license. This makes sure the right people get the gun to carry. It takes time and money to get the license. Convicted felons can't pass the investigation, nor anyone with a mental problem background, nor alcohol or drug abuse record.

Nothing wrong with guns, just make sure the right people are carrying them.

[Ron Who]

I understand, thanks. I'm grateful that I was born in peace, in a friendly country. My opinions are definitely colored by our history and culture. I assumed that the USA are very much like Europe in all aspects. It appears there are major differences too.

[Kampfer]

Cbl51 

[glenfiddich1983]

Cbl51 

+1

[4everYoung]

I like your arguments,  cbl. Especially the Scandinavian one. This was a one time only thing, as opposed to what happened in the US in the past years.

If guns are not the cause of the violence, then what is? Because the USA are undeniably much more violent than The Netherlands, or the Scandinavian countries.

Kennesaw co Georgia in the USA. Known as Gun town USA. The standing order is that every head of household own a firearm. Is considered one of the safest places to live in the US. More guns per person yet less violence.

The problem is humanities perpetual desire to do evil. We've been killing each other since the beginning and will continue to whether with guns, knives, light sabers or a just plain stick and rock. Everyone is a victim at some point . But you have the choice to what degree you are the victim by the way you respond to the aggressor.

You may not like guns, knives or even a dedicated weapon of any kind. But if that's u are willing to fend of an aggressor to save your or someone's life, then you have no moral high  ground to stand  on. If you plan to simply let the aggressor do what they will if you can't escape without a fight. Well kudos to your pacifism....

[cbl51]

I understand, thanks. I'm grateful that I was born in peace, in a friendly country. My opinions are definitely colored by our history and culture. I assumed that the USA are very much like Europe in all aspects. It appears there are major differences too.

Oh yeah, there's a whole world of difference in both culture and history between the USA and Europe. One thing is the afor mentioned thousand year head start. The other, that the USA was a wilderness, a hostile wilderness at that, until just a few generations ago. Thus a powerful gun culture exists here that is almost unique among nations. There was a real world need to be armed until fairly recent in USA history.

On the other hand, European and UK culture going back a thousand years, you have the 'peasants' being forbidden to have a 'knights weapon. Medieval peasants were kept pretty unarmed by the landed gentry who ruled them. I don't know about the Netherlands, but in old England, a peasant caught with a 'weapon' could be killed on the spot if in possession of a sword. Moving on through time, the European people had much more strict control exercised over them many hundreds of years ago, vs the USA when it existed as a colony of England, was hacking out a civilization from a forrest wilderness. There was conflict with native peoples, bears, mountain lions, and outlaws to deal with. Here in Texas, the state capital city of Austin was raided and burned by the Comanche indians in the mid 19th century. As late as the 1890's, raiding Apache's kept the Arizona and New Mexico territories very under populated.

Yeah, the USA has a whole different mindset because of the culture it has of being a frontier settlement until almost 1900. Maybe in another 800 to 900 years we may catch up with the European and Scandinavian countries of having a nice peaceful population. But for now, just too many unlawful types around. When you have outlaw types around, it's best to keep Sam Colt's saying in mind. I've been to northern Europe and I admit that I am a bit jealous of how nice it is. Maybe in time with the right leadership, we may even rejoin the Paris agreement. But that will have to wait until the current idiot in charge is gone. 

[lister]

I was always fascinated by weapons of all kinds and I have long been a pacifist.

But the simple fact is, high population density and guns don't mix well...

[Ron Who]

I was always fascinated by weapons of all kinds and I have long been a pacifist.

But the simple fact is, high population density and guns don't mix well...

Haha by now y'all must think I hate guns. Not so. I like hunting rifles and know how to use one. It's just that I hate all these killings, and that's what guns are mostly used for. I do not own any fire arms, and I do not have a license.

[LoopCutter]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kampfer]

A little more info on bicycle defense, here is how it works:
When you sense danger, have a bicycle nearby or move close to one. (Make sure it isn't chained to something).
When the opponent shows aggression, lift the bicycle up front, so it can act as shield protecting your face and torso, at this point you are pretty much immune from all melee attacks. (fist, knife, bat, machete, etc.)
If the aggressor continues to attack, wait until he is within 2~3 meters from you, ram and toss the bicycle at him. Due to the sheer size of bicycle and close range, it would be very difficult for the aggressor to dodge it, and he is most likely to go down because the mass and momentum of the bicycle. Even if he doesn't go down, the bicycle will drop on his feet and prevents him to advance toward you, giving you time to escape.

This saved my butt many times.

[Kampfer]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, but a knife is something that is always in your pocket, if you choose to.
Having something is better than having nothing at all.

[LoopCutter]

~
If guns are not the cause of the violence, then what is? Because the USA are undeniably much more violent than The Netherlands, or the Scandinavian countries.

Drugs, money, gangs, all contribute to the higher occurrences of crime in countries were the law is slow and or corrupt. 
 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LoopCutter]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, but a knife is something that is always in your pocket, if you choose to.
Having something is better than having nothing at all.

A SAK Classic ?
A Pioneer ?
A Slipjoint Stockman?

A ball point pen tip can also inflict pain and be used defensively. 

I do not carry a knife to be defensive weapon, I carry it as a tool.  I adapt my tools for the situation, then any tool can be defensive if required. 

The best knife to use in a knife fight is the other fellow's. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kampfer]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, but a knife is something that is always in your pocket, if you choose to.
Having something is better than having nothing at all.

A SAK Classic ?
A Pioneer ?
A Slipjoint Stockman?

No sir, those aren't knives, the one in my avatar is a knife.
However, I much prefer having a bicycle instead.

[LoopCutter]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, but a knife is something that is always in your pocket, if you choose to.
Having something is better than having nothing at all.

A SAK Classic ?
A Pioneer ?
A Slipjoint Stockman?

No sir, those aren't knives, the one in my avatar is a knife.
However, I much prefer having a bicycle instead.

If it folds, it is broken!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ron Who]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, but a knife is something that is always in your pocket, if you choose to.
Having something is better than having nothing at all.

A SAK Classic ?
A Pioneer ?
A Slipjoint Stockman?

No sir, those aren't knives, the one in my avatar is a knife.
However, I much prefer having a bicycle instead.

If it folds, it is broken!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A folding bike!

[lister]

A pocket bike? Hm, you might be on to something there.. .

 

[LoopCutter]

No, a knife is not the best defensive option. 

Awareness is and has been the defensive tool, as is the ability to exit a environment when require because it is unsafe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, but a knife is something that is always in your pocket, if you choose to.
Having something is better than having nothing at all.

A SAK Classic ?
A Pioneer ?
A Slipjoint Stockman?

No sir, those aren't knives, the one in my avatar is a knife.
However, I much prefer having a bicycle instead.

If it folds, it is broken!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A folding bike!

Most likely if I used that folder it would break!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lister]

Also:

You call that a folding bike? This is A folding bike:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-bike

 

[4everYoung]

Folding tactical bikes. New trend