If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes I would. Without training then im gonna get stabbed or shot anyway and id much rather be shot than stabbed.
Anyone who thinks they can defend themselves against a determined man with a knife is kidding themselves. Attempt to deflect them? When 6"+ of sharpened steel comes into contact with an arm made of flesh and bone, it doesnt deflect.
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Balddog ]
Er...have you actually <STRONG>read</STRONG> the rest of the thread?
1. It wasn't about <STRONG>you</STRONG> being armed. It was about your opponent - would you be more concerned about a gun or a knife.
2. You kinda make the anti-gun lobby's point for them. Their assertion is that facing a knife is preferable, by saying that you would prefer to <STRONG>use</STRONG> a gun (because it is more effective) you have just further validated that assertion. Thank you.
Naah Hardly - look at it this way - Id prefer not to be in the situation at all - all Im saying is this yes, Id rather be shot than stabbed, CDC data and all relevant data suggest the stab wound is liklier to kill me.
Secondly, I only made the 'effectiveness' point in this way - if someone has intents to kill me be it with a knife, gun or whatever, yes the gun is a far preferable, more effective means of self defense.
Funny how having ATT go through one of their frequent FUBAR moments dis-enables one from reading, much less posting.
Situation rectumfied.
I am certain that you await my full return {awol from work momentarily} with bated breath... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
But I didn't know that either.
But did you notice how he was shot six times by a fully loaded <STRONG>knife</STRONG>?
Yes...go get a kitchin knife and see how fast you can stab.
As you said, its academic..Its more than likely that fewer than 6 stab wounds to the head would have been needed to kill him....6 bullets only served to wound him and he died a while later.
He died at the scene.
PS, im slightly worried that i just went downstairs and repeated stabbed a melon with a kitchin knife.
Fruit salad anyone?
It doesn't matter how many times he was shot, how long it took him to die, or how many slices your melon is in Baldy <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
It makes no difference if one stab wound would have been enough, if his aides would have stopped a knife, or if he could have run away.
The point is that the assassin's weapon of choice was a <STRONG>gun</STRONG> and not a knife.
As usual.
His aides(assuming he had any) were fuckin useless anyway because they just let the bloke walk off after blowing their bosses head off.
They let him get away.
Or better still caught the bullets in their hands, like in that film with Christopher Reeve <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
They let him get away, becuase he was shooting at them.
With his knife.
AH..just for the record, it was 4 members of the public who chased the gunman...He didnt have any aides...He had recently hired private security but couldnt afford to have constant protection.
He didn't have any bodyguards - he was with his aide, and driver.
They did chase after the gunman, but were then shot at.
He died within half an hour - I don't think he'd have died sooner with stab wounds.
The murderer used a gun because you can shoot and run with a gun - they require no close-range attack.
If the Dutch guy had been armed, he would still be dead.
He would have died sooner with 6 stab wounds to his head..Thats almost certain.
Either way he's dead.
Its always nice to see that no matter what else is going on in the world, some things never change <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
<STRONG>
But he wasn't stabbed. He was shot.
It makes no difference what <STRONG>could</STRONG> have happened. What is relevant is what <STRONG>did</STRONG> happen.
What actually happened was that, as usual, a gun was the assassin's weapon of choice.
He could have used a knife but didn't. He, like most other assassins and like most (single incident) mass murderers, chose to use a gun.
Man of Kent smells of wee wee. <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Hmm well seeing as how there were 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the US last year, we have a lot of cowards don't we?
But at least they survived. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
<IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
... and fools do not. They come to the confrontation armed with their "high ideals", and then are dispatched to their graves.
Darwin at work.
I know that may be a surprise to you, but you <STRONG>will</STRONG> still die, and as far as I'm aware <STRONG>not</STRONG> owning a gun isn't terminal.
This is where the difference between our cultures comes to the fore. We see you as being paranoid, that you see everyone that approaches you as a potential threat. That paranoia means that you feel the need to be armed at all times, just in case.
Personally, I don't feel so threatened.
But the foundations of my country (and I don't mean the revolution) weren't laid at the hands of the gunslinger only 200 years ago. We don't have the recent 'kill or be killed' history that you have.