Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bullets are not all made of lead. In fact, most self defense rounds are not all lead, only target rounds are. Most rounds have a steel/copper jacket, many special rounds have a hard metal penetrator. A lead only bullet will foul rifling in the gun barrel over time.

An ax head is a LOT different from a knife blade. A lot more mass, different angle, different composition. Note, in your example no one was holding the ax... No one, repeat No One has the reflexes to move a knife faster than a bullet comes at them. To get the knife in the way would be pure luck. And again, if the knife gets hit the knife wielder is gonna be hurting.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your starship troopers example is perfect. It is a MOVIE. That is the ONLY place you will see thrown knives be effective.

halonachos wrote:Just because its finally somewhat relevant.

As much as I enjoyed Starship Troopers as a pulp fiction movie, this scene in particular really irks me. The book used the "knife/nuke" example as a great discussion into the proper use of force and the particular role solders play as a political tool. The movie...didn't.

Also, I like the S&W Sigma Series. Sig Sauers look wimpy. If you're going for maximum intimidation and boominess, Desert Eagle all the way. However, it might be cheaper to buy a new SoB Finecast army than a new Desert Eagle.

halonachos wrote:Frazzled, bullets are made out of lead which is a soft metal compared to steel. Topshot had a challenge wear the shooter had to split a bullet on an axehead and pop two balloons.

Also Frazzled in your hypothetical you are using your own training as a comparison to a knife wielder. What if the person with the knife has had more training in knife fighting than you have in your quick draw?
***Physics. I'd still rather a pistol than a knife, especially against someone better than I am. Now of course, none of us has yet asked, why exactly are we sitting down to table with a guy trying to cut our throat?

I was simply saying that it all depends on who is holding the weapon. If you're sitting down with a gun and intend to kill someone, its not the weapon's fault that its in the hands of a malevolent person. Again, weapons are not dangerous until someone does something dangerous with them. You're not really arguing against that fact, just saying that you're a dangerous person when it comes to concealed weapons.
***Agreed (unless its leaking radiation or hippy treehugger rays or something )



***Man a hack film but I love it so.

I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

biccat wrote:
Also, I like the S&W Sigma Series. Sig Sauers look wimpy. If you're going for maximum intimidation and boominess, Desert Eagle all the way. However, it might be cheaper to buy a new SoB Finecast army than a new Desert Eagle.

If you're gonna intimidate go old school (I have one loaded with hand loaded extra hot loads in case the suburbs are attacked by grizzly bears and the Wife can't get to her minivan in time). It works good for bad guys too, at least until she gets to her minivan then its all raging orky battle deathwagon time...
"Hey where'd that lady get the giant wrecking ball attached to a minivan?"

FITZZ wrote: I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

Amen. If I am forced to draw, it is gonna be a bad day for someone. Better the other guy than me. The other guy is properly intimidated when he is properly perforated.

CptJake wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

Amen. If I am forced to draw, it is gonna be a bad day for someone. Better the other guy than me. The other guy is properly intimidated when he is properly perforated.

Remember in Texas its required to fire at least two to four warning shots center mass.

Yes because a man with a gun will always beat a man with a knife.

But CptJake and Frazzled are not arguing against me really.

Two men are within range of each other, one is armed with a pistol and one with a knife. One plans to kill the other, while the other doesn't who wins? The answer is the one who plans to kill the other, if a man takes a knife and stabs someone and rips the knife upwards or in any direction its going to end the fight. If the homicidal man is the one with the gun then the man with the knife is equally screwed. It all depends on the motives of the person behind the weapon and not the weapon itself.

Frazzled can have all of the quick draw training in the world, but if a man of evil intent manages to get close enough with a knife Frazzled isn't going to make it. Same if the guy had a gun as well. I would hope that Frazzled is a nice enough person that he doesn't think about killing someone everytime he walks out of the house and if a guy comes up to him to ask the time, or does any other seemingly innocent action to get close to him then he's close enough.

Imagine walking in a grocery store, down a hallway, walking on the sidewalk and try to imagine how many people you come into contact with and how close they actually get.

Its not hard to get into close contact with somebody in today's modern age.

FITZZ wrote: I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

Which is why I also mentioned boominess. Because nothing puts a target down like a 44 magnum. Well, at least in the handgun range.

Also, I agree that you should never draw a weapon unless you intend to use it, but IMO it's preferable to have a goon run away after seeing your weapon than have to shoot him. Intimidation may save a life.

However, the first priority should be always be a weapon you can handle comfortably and shoot easily. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't hold or fire it well.

Frazzled wrote:

CptJake wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

Amen. If I am forced to draw, it is gonna be a bad day for someone. Better the other guy than me. The other guy is properly intimidated when he is properly perforated.

Remember in Texas its required to fire at least two to four warning shots center mass.

I believe that "requirement" not only applies in the great state of Texas, but indeed in the entirety of the South...but I may have to go back and review critera.

If you can intimidate someone without firing, then you've used the gun in one of its many applications. It keeps both parties safe and alive, of course you should always be willing to fire at the other person should they continue.

biccat wrote:However, the first priority should be always be a weapon you can handle comfortably and shoot easily. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't hold or fire it well.

Or if, like the deagle, you're embarrassed to be seen with the ugly sack of gak and don't want to draw it

Two men are within range of each other, one is armed with a pistol and one with a knife. One plans to kill the other, while the other doesn't who wins? The answer is the one who plans to kill the other, if a man takes a knife and stabs someone and rips the knife upwards or in any direction its going to end the fight. If the homicidal man is the one with the gun then the man with the knife is equally screwed. It all depends on the motives of the person behind the weapon and not the weapon itself.

Frazzled can have all of the quick draw training in the world, but if a man of evil intent manages to get close enough with a knife Frazzled isn't going to make it.

Thats kind of the point. I tend to try to keep people who are trying to puncture me at a distance. I really hate that.

Imagine walking in a grocery store, down a hallway, walking on the sidewalk and try to imagine how many people you come into contact with and how close they actually get.

***This is true, but I don't generally have soccer attempting to pull out knives and repeatedly stab me. Ok, maybe an ex fiance' but thats another story...

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:However, the first priority should be always be a weapon you can handle comfortably and shoot easily. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't hold or fire it well.

Or if, like the deagle, you're embarrassed to be seen with the ugly sack of gak and don't want to draw it

If you're embarrassed of the gun you're carrying just based on aesthetics then you've bought it for the wrong purpose. If my gun looks like a square piece of metal but functions well and will protect me then I could care less about whether or not the guy I'm aiming it at thinks its pretty. All a gun needs to intimidate someone is a hole at the end of the barrel that says "Hey bud, a bullet comes from this thing.".

biccat wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

Which is why I also mentioned boominess. Because nothing puts a target down like a 44 magnum. Well, at least in the handgun range.

Also, I agree that you should never draw a weapon unless you intend to use it, but IMO it's preferable to have a goon run away after seeing your weapon than have to shoot him. Intimidation may save a life.

However, the first priority should be always be a weapon you can handle comfortably and shoot easily. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't hold or fire it well.

I can agree with this, overall i was basicly eluding to the "intent" of the defender in so much as it is never ever a good idea to draw/aim hopping to "intimidate"...
Now, if the attacker/intruder happens to become intimidated and flees/surrenders..so much the better, but, as you stated, one should never draw/aim a firearm unless they fully intend to use it.

halonachos wrote:If you're embarrassed of the gun you're carrying just based on aesthetics then you've bought it for the wrong purpose.

Oh no, I'm mostly just insulting one of the worst moern handguns ever devised more than anything. I'd rather have almost any other handgun other than that scrap metal that occasionally works as a firearm which is almost as dangerous to me as it is to the person I'm aiming at...

Sure, I exaggerate my dislike of the Deagle, but it's still a horrible gun.

FITZZ wrote:

biccat wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I tend to frown upon the whole " intimidation factor" where firearms are concerned (though of course I know it exist)...
I'm of a train of thought that one shouldn't draw their weapon( or at least aim it) with the intent of intimidation..rather they should draw/aim with the intent of putting their intended target down.

Which is why I also mentioned boominess. Because nothing puts a target down like a 44 magnum. Well, at least in the handgun range.

Also, I agree that you should never draw a weapon unless you intend to use it, but IMO it's preferable to have a goon run away after seeing your weapon than have to shoot him. Intimidation may save a life.

However, the first priority should be always be a weapon you can handle comfortably and shoot easily. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't hold or fire it well.

I can agree with this, overall i was basically eluding to the "intent" of the defender in so much as it is never ever a good idea to draw/aim hopping to "intimidate"...
Now, if the attacker/intruder happens to become intimidated and flees/surrenders..so much the better, but, as you stated, one should never draw/aim a firearm unless they fully intend to use it.

I'm of the opinion that intimidation is just an added bonus of intending to use the gun on someone who has the potential to be deadly dangerous...Case in point:

My Dad (who I've said before works in law enforcement) was serving a warrant one day with another deputy and basically the answer at the door was that the person in question had just left. When the deputy asked to enter the house, the guy in question ran into sight out the back door carrying a hunting rifle.

Long story short, my dad ran back to his car, grabbed his Remington 870 and then came back around to the back of the house where the suspect was trying to escape out of a window. He came around the corner of the house and was told to drop his weapon, he didn't comply immediately so my dad chambered the round on his pump action with the distinctively loud "Kch chk" of a shotgun....guy drops the gun upon hearing the noise and everybody lives...

He intended to use the gun but didn't have to in the end because of the way it intimidated the guy...In that situation intimidation results in non violent resolving of the matter, but if that doesn't work the only choice you have is to follow up with violence...its either him or you.

I've never gotten the concept of having a pretty gun for protection. If you plan on using it for protection then you need to find one with a big bore size because that's the part that's going to be pointed at the bad guy. Its why shotguns are so effective at getting people to back down, its a huge freaking hole that slugs and other things can come out of and when its staring at you, you tend to think that its a bad idea to keep messing with the guy holding it.

The sound of a pump-action does the same thing, people imagine the black pit of death at the front of a shotgun.

halonachos wrote:Yes because a man with a gun will always beat a man with a knife.

But CptJake and Frazzled are not arguing against me really.

Two men are within range of each other, one is armed with a pistol and one with a knife. One plans to kill the other, while the other doesn't who wins? The answer is the one who plans to kill the other, if a man takes a knife and stabs someone and rips the knife upwards or in any direction its going to end the fight. If the homicidal man is the one with the gun then the man with the knife is equally screwed. It all depends on the motives of the person behind the weapon and not the weapon itself.

Frazzled can have all of the quick draw training in the world, but if a man of evil intent manages to get close enough with a knife Frazzled isn't going to make it. Same if the guy had a gun as well. I would hope that Frazzled is a nice enough person that he doesn't think about killing someone everytime he walks out of the house and if a guy comes up to him to ask the time, or does any other seemingly innocent action to get close to him then he's close enough.

Imagine walking in a grocery store, down a hallway, walking on the sidewalk and try to imagine how many people you come into contact with and how close they actually get.

Its not hard to get into close contact with somebody in today's modern age.

Again, you very much over estimate how much damage a knife can quickly do, and how quckly that damage will incapacitate someone. The guy with the knofe may in fact kill the guy with the gun. Bu tnot before the guy with the gun gets off several shots. And at knife range, the guy with the knife may end up very dead too. In fact, because of the way the damage works, he may die before the guy he cut bleads out. Intent to kill is nice. Desire to live has a place in the argument too. Guys with knives don't win gun fights. ever. At all.

Do some research on how many stab wound victims actually die, and how many times they were stabbed, and how long it took them to bleed out.

Which of course is why you don't see a lot of armies skimping on issue of fire arms and replacing them with knives.

CptJake wrote:Guys with knives don't win gun fights. ever. At all.

apparently you've never heard of the Sandbar fight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbar_Fight

halonachos wrote:Yes because a man with a gun will always beat a man with a knife.

But CptJake and Frazzled are not arguing against me really.

Two men are within range of each other, one is armed with a pistol and one with a knife. One plans to kill the other, while the other doesn't who wins? The answer is the one who plans to kill the other, if a man takes a knife and stabs someone and rips the knife upwards or in any direction its going to end the fight. If the homicidal man is the one with the gun then the man with the knife is equally screwed. It all depends on the motives of the person behind the weapon and not the weapon itself.

Frazzled can have all of the quick draw training in the world, but if a man of evil intent manages to get close enough with a knife Frazzled isn't going to make it. Same if the guy had a gun as well. I would hope that Frazzled is a nice enough person that he doesn't think about killing someone everytime he walks out of the house and if a guy comes up to him to ask the time, or does any other seemingly innocent action to get close to him then he's close enough.

Imagine walking in a grocery store, down a hallway, walking on the sidewalk and try to imagine how many people you come into contact with and how close they actually get.

Its not hard to get into close contact with somebody in today's modern age.

Not always true, that's why I think the range we could shoot someone wielding a knife was something like 25m.

I thought it was BS until we ran drills using blue knifes and blue guns, someone with a knife out will the majority of the time reach and strike the officer before he can draw and fire his pistol. But I think we actually agree, a knife, like a gun or self defense training, is just another tool for your tool box.

And I know here in AZ, if you draw on someone, you have to have reasonable expectation to use that firearm to defend your self, others or to prevent certain types of crimes. I've drawn on people and been drawn on, what type of firearm they have doesn't factor into my mental process to much beyond "HOLY , then I lump it into pistol, longarm or shotgun" to know if I need to run or just tackle em. Press the threat and all that.

Different type of training though, and unless your wearing body armor most likely going to get you killed hell most likely going to get you killed even if you are wearing body armor.

Sckitzo wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yes because a man with a gun will always beat a man with a knife.

But CptJake and Frazzled are not arguing against me really.

Two men are within range of each other, one is armed with a pistol and one with a knife. One plans to kill the other, while the other doesn't who wins? The answer is the one who plans to kill the other, if a man takes a knife and stabs someone and rips the knife upwards or in any direction its going to end the fight. If the homicidal man is the one with the gun then the man with the knife is equally screwed. It all depends on the motives of the person behind the weapon and not the weapon itself.

Frazzled can have all of the quick draw training in the world, but if a man of evil intent manages to get close enough with a knife Frazzled isn't going to make it. Same if the guy had a gun as well. I would hope that Frazzled is a nice enough person that he doesn't think about killing someone everytime he walks out of the house and if a guy comes up to him to ask the time, or does any other seemingly innocent action to get close to him then he's close enough.

Imagine walking in a grocery store, down a hallway, walking on the sidewalk and try to imagine how many people you come into contact with and how close they actually get.

Its not hard to get into close contact with somebody in today's modern age.

Not always true, that's why I think the range we could shoot someone wielding a knife was something like 25m.

I thought it was BS until we ran drills using blue knifes and blue guns, someone with a knife out will the majority of the time reach and strike the officer before he can draw and fire his pistol. But I think we actually agree, a knife, like a gun or self defense training, is just another tool for your tool box.

And I know here in AZ, if you draw on someone, you have to have reasonable expectation to use that firearm to defend your self, others or to prevent certain types of crimes. I've drawn on people and been drawn on, what type of firearm they have doesn't factor into my mental process to much beyond "HOLY , then I lump it into pistol, longarm or shotgun" to know if I need to run or just tackle em. Press the threat and all that.

Different type of training though, and unless your wearing body armor most likely going to get you killed hell most likely going to get you killed even if you are wearing body armor.

People arguing knives (or swords, yes I've had that conversation) generally start with the guy already having the knife in his hand, whilst the GG has his holstered. Of course, if the guy had his pistol out already too then its game over.

Why are the guys with the knife and gun fighting?

I don't think I could judge who would win without the scene being set a little better.

Monster Rain wrote:Why are the guys with the knife and gun fighting?

I don't think I could judge who would win without the scene being set a little better.

The guy with the gun said the guy with the knife's mandoll collection was inferior and "reaked of Matt Ward love." It went downhill after that.

Frazzled wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:

halonachos wrote:Yes because a man with a gun will always beat a man with a knife.

But CptJake and Frazzled are not arguing against me really.

Two men are within range of each other, one is armed with a pistol and one with a knife. One plans to kill the other, while the other doesn't who wins? The answer is the one who plans to kill the other, if a man takes a knife and stabs someone and rips the knife upwards or in any direction its going to end the fight. If the homicidal man is the one with the gun then the man with the knife is equally screwed. It all depends on the motives of the person behind the weapon and not the weapon itself.

Frazzled can have all of the quick draw training in the world, but if a man of evil intent manages to get close enough with a knife Frazzled isn't going to make it. Same if the guy had a gun as well. I would hope that Frazzled is a nice enough person that he doesn't think about killing someone everytime he walks out of the house and if a guy comes up to him to ask the time, or does any other seemingly innocent action to get close to him then he's close enough.

Imagine walking in a grocery store, down a hallway, walking on the sidewalk and try to imagine how many people you come into contact with and how close they actually get.

Its not hard to get into close contact with somebody in today's modern age.

Not always true, that's why I think the range we could shoot someone wielding a knife was something like 25m.

I thought it was BS until we ran drills using blue knifes and blue guns, someone with a knife out will the majority of the time reach and strike the officer before he can draw and fire his pistol. But I think we actually agree, a knife, like a gun or self defense training, is just another tool for your tool box.

And I know here in AZ, if you draw on someone, you have to have reasonable expectation to use that firearm to defend your self, others or to prevent certain types of crimes. I've drawn on people and been drawn on, what type of firearm they have doesn't factor into my mental process to much beyond "HOLY , then I lump it into pistol, longarm or shotgun" to know if I need to run or just tackle em. Press the threat and all that.

Different type of training though, and unless your wearing body armor most likely going to get you killed hell most likely going to get you killed even if you are wearing body armor.

People arguing knives (or swords, yes I've had that conversation) generally start with the guy already having the knife in his hand, whilst the GG has his holstered. Of course, if the guy had his pistol out already too then its game over.

The scenarios we used were domestic violence situations, potential robberies/rapes/ect.

It was pretty buch, knife=bad guy. I mean, if your gonna jack my wallet from me, you going to walk up empty handed or you going to be ready to stab me at the first sign of trouble?

ETA, gotta get to class, pick this up later if it goes on

Well if the BG appears with a knife you don't hesitate. You immediately cap him.

Frazzled wrote:Well if the BG appears with a knife you don't hesitate. You immediately cap him.

And if he is close enough, you will probably get cut or stabbed in the process. But the BG will suffer a lot more and sustain a LOT more damage.

CptJake wrote:
Again, you very much over estimate how much damage a knife can quickly do, and how quckly that damage will incapacitate someone.

Do some research on how many stab wound victims actually die, and how many times they were stabbed, and how long it took them to bleed out.

I believe that you are underestimating the damage a knife can do. A bowie knife inserted all of the way into a person will do a lot of damage compared to an icepick being stabbed into someone of course. However, I've seen two people get shot in the head and still live. Mind you it was a domestic murder/suicide attempt but the gunshots were at close range and directly to the head(actually the wife had a pillow in between her head and the gun), either way they both survived and the husband was actually perfectly fine albeit serving jail time now. The wife has some weakness on her left side now, but is recovering. It all depends on where you hit, and sometimes a bullet wound won't do anything besides make a nice hole in a guy.

CptJake wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well if the BG appears with a knife you don't hesitate. You immediately cap him.

And if he is close enough, you will probably get cut or stabbed in the process. But the BG will suffer a lot more and sustain a LOT more damage.

I thought that was the point.

Monster Rain wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Well if the BG appears with a knife you don't hesitate. You immediately cap him.

And if he is close enough, you will probably get cut or stabbed in the process. But the BG will suffer a lot more and sustain a LOT more damage.

I thought that was the point.

And if the BG gets close enough there may be a point when you actually end up aiming it at yourself.