Defending against gun with knife...de-fang the snake?

[Aaron04]

What are everyone's thoughts on carrying a knife and using it to defend against someone who has a gun? Obviously you can't use a knife on someone who's shooting at you from across a parking lot, but in a situation where you may be confronted up close in an alley, at an ATM, inside your home, or other similar situation, where the armed assailant is up close.

I know that during a knife fight, the best strategy is to de-fang the snake, as in cut the hand or wrist that is holding the knife. I would imagine this would also be the best strategy for an opponent with a handgun. I haven't found any material on this subject, so what are everyone else's opinions on it?

[BoarSpear]

It's more like slicing the firebreathing dragon's throat when firearms are involved.

Fun subject though, I'll let the experts chime in first.

[EmptyneSs]

defending against an assailents agressive penis in a public bathroom is probobly more of a concern than defending against a gun with a knife.

[knifethrower]

What are everyone's thoughts on carrying a knife and using it to defend against someone who has a gun?

Doc Holiday liked it….He killed almost as many people with a knife as he did a gun. I think that may be because a knife is quicker on the draw than a gun.

I would imagine this would also be the best strategy for an opponent with a handgun. I haven't found any material on this subject, so what are everyone else's opinions on it?

If you can…attack on the draw.

edit-btw, I'm no pro so take that into consideration

[BoarSpear]

"The sword isn't really an icon of the American culture, is it?
American kids don't grow up playing "Three Musketeers;" they grow up playing variations of "cowboys and Indians," or "cops and robbers." In European cultures such as France, Italy, Spain and even England, the sword is a more prevalent and ancient symbol. They have King Arthur, Robin Hood and The Three Musketeers.
This makes perfect sense. When those European nations were developing, the sword was the favorite weapon. When the United States was developing, the favorite weapon was the firearm.
This might explain why Americans don't seem to have a "gut level" sense of the rules of fencing. Perhaps I can use an analogy that will be helpful to those who find the rules of priority obscure—including, I regret to say, some persons who are currently highly ranked olympic officials, referees and coaches.

Here is a scene with which the average American certainly must be familiar: The Showdown. This is the obligatory moment in almost every Western movie or TV show ever made, in which The Good Guy steps into the street to shoot it out with The Bad Guy. If you can catch old re-runs of the classic TV show Gunsmoke , you'll see that this scene kicks off the show, even before the opening credits.

Let's draw some parallels between a gunfight and a swordfight and see if the former can help us understand the latter. First, and I hope obviously, it's a fight. In both cases, the participants intend to inflict injury or death on the other party without suffering the same themselves.
This is to be accomplished through the judicious use of a particular tool, in the former, a pistol, in the latter, a sword. For our purposes, let's imagine the pistol to be the single-action .44 revolver of the Wild West and the sword to be a late rapier, a civilian weapon used exclusively for thrusting, which would be akin to the foil or epee of today.

For the gunfighter, a "tie" might mean death.
It isn't enough to shoot your opponent at the same time he shoots you.
It isn't enough to shoot your opponent a fraction of a second before he shoots you.
It isn't enough to shoot your opponent even a full second before he shoots you.
It is only enough to shoot your opponent without being shot at all, yourself.

For the swordsman, too, a "tie" might mean death.
It isn't enough to stab your opponent at the same time he stabs you.
It isn't enough to stab your opponent a fraction of a second before he stabs you.
It isn't enough to stab your opponent even a full second before he stabs you.
It is only enough to stab your opponent without being stabbed at all, yourself.

As a gunfighter, in order to inflict injury or death upon your adversary with that pistola, there are six things you must do, in this order, assuming you have already loaded the weapon:

1. You must get within range (preferably within 15 paces);
2. you must draw the pistol from the holster;
3. you must cock your pistol;
4. you must aim the muzzle of the pistol at your opponent's body;
5. you must fire the pistol, and
6. you must hit what you aim at, i.e., you must not jerk the trigger or do anything else that will spoil your aim.

Steps 1–4 are preparations. Steps 5–6 are the offensive action. The preparations are essential—you cannot attack with a reliable chance of success unless you do them—but they cannot inflict a wound. Only steps 5–6 do that. Indeed, if your opponent (or anyone else) should happen to shoot you at any time before step 5, nothing that you have done previously represents much danger to your opponent at all.
It is vital that you do follow these steps in the given order. You cannot fire before you cock the pistol. Firing the pistol before drawing it has serious contraindications. Firing it without first aiming may be admirable optimism, but then, Boot Hill is full of optimists.

Are there no other possibilities?
There are.
You could throw your gun at your opponent at your opponent, the way the bad guys inexplicably used to do with Superman when they ran out of bullets. But even if you had a pitching arm that would be the envy of the New York Yankees, the best you could hope for is to give your opponent a nasty bruise, while your opponent remains fully capable of shooting you dead. (Especially now that you've disarmed yourself.)

Instead of aiming at your opponent, you might aim at the lamp post and hope the bullet will ricochet in the desired direction.

You could try to shoot the gun out of your opponent's hand.

Possible? Sure. Any takers?

In order to inflict injury or death upon your adversary with a rapier, here's what you must do:

1. you must draw the sword from the scabbard
2. You must get within range
3. You must aim the point of your sword at your opponent's body
4. You must propel the point of the sword toward your opponent's body
5. You must hit what you aim at
6. You must penetrate with the point at least several inches into your opponent's body.

Steps 1–3 are preparations; steps 4–6 are the offensive action. The preparations, once again are essential—you cannot rely on attacking successfully without doing them—but only steps 4–6 can actually inflict a wound.

Are there no other possibilities?
There are.
You could slam your opponent with the guard of the sword or slap him on the butt with the flat of the blade, like a clown-hero in a b-movie swashbuckler. But the best you could hope for here is to give your opponent a nasty bruise and while you're capering around, you haven't done anything that would prevent your adversary from stabbing you dead.
You could chuck the sword at your opponent like a spear—if you don't mind disarming yourself.
You could reverse the weapon, grasp it by the blade and swing it like a club.
Possible? Sure.

With either the pistol or the sword, a correctly executed attack will result in grave injury unless the opponent does something to prevent it. The gunfighter can only attempt to dodge the bullet. Firearms HAVE NO DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY. They have only offensive capability. In a swordfight, the attacked person has a defensive option unavailable to the pistolero—he can parry. Indeed, the swordman could choose only to parry and never strike an offensive blow.

Of the preparation steps, you may have noticed that some are more "threatening" than others.
There is a long-standing maxim that you should never aim a weapon at anyone unless you intend to use it.
First, this is to avoid tragic accidents. Second, this is to avoid the other person accidentally taking you seriously and killing you in self-defense. (As a general rule, acting in "self-defense" means that there is an immediate threat of grave physical injury or death that you cannot avoid in any other way.)
So clearly, pistol step 4 and sword step 3 would represent an immediate threat to a reasonable and prudent person. That is, your opponent has progressed along the sequence as far as he can go without actually striking. Striking is the next logical step in the sequence. You can ignore everything your opponent does up to step 4/3; once that step is taken, you can ignore him no longer.

Let's suppose your opponent "got the drop on you." That is, he has taken you unawares ten feet away, has drawn, cocked and aimed his pistol at you, having now only to pull the trigger to shoot you.
What do you do?
Do you vault behind the nearest solid object gambling on your opponent's 1/4 second "lag time?" Or if no solid obstacle is available, do you at least try to remove yourself from the line of fire, knowing that a moving target is more difficult to hit than a stationary one? Or do you disregard the threat to you and go for your gun anyway, hoping that you are so phenomenally fast that you can somehow clear leather, cock, aim and fire all in less time than it takes for your adversary to squeeze that last fraction of an ounce on the trigger and drop the hammer on you?
If you would prefer the last option you must be either a)phenomenally fast b) very, very brave or c)very, very stupid. You can probably get pretty good odds as to which one.

In a sword fight, the analogous situation we call a "point-in-line."
You opponent has "got the drop on you." He has drawn his sword, is withing distance to strike (by lunge or pass) has his arm stretched out fully, aiming the point of his weapon at your heart. He has only to actually launch himself forward now.
What do you do?
Do you remove yourself from the "line of fire" by stepping back out of range? Do you wait for your opponent to launch his attack, counting on your judgement, time and distance in execute a parry?
Do you strike your opponent's blade aside and in the short gap of time during it's absence launch an attack?
Or do you ignore the point aimed at your heart and hurl yourself forward onto your opponent's blade, hoping that your own offensive action will prove effective and that impaling yourself will not prove fatal?
If you would prefer the last of these options, once again, you're either very, very brave or—well, you know the alternative.

Let's consider another scenario.
Suppose you opponent draws his gun, but instead of cocking it and aiming it at you, he goes into an impressive array of spins and twirls with it, forward and backward, tossing it from one hand to another, between his legs, over one shoulder and so on, juggling with the aplomb of a Homecoming Baton Champion.
What do you do?
Do you duck or dodge, or leap behind the water trough?
Or, while your opponent is so occupied, long before he ever gets around to cocking and aiming his pistol at you, do you draw your own weapon, cock it, aim and fire? You may object to the morality of shooting someone who is engaging in a display of posturing prior to establishing an imminent threat. But you cannot fault its tactical utility.

In swordfighting the analogous situation is called "attack on the preparation."
Your opponent draws his sword, but aims it at the sky or waves it around willy-nilly while making a series of hops, skips, jumps and body feints.
What do you do?
Do you withdraw as if these actions could hurt you?
Do you attempt to follow every twitch, just in case?
Or do you simply attack while your opponent is posturing?
Unless and until your opponent aims his weapon at you (point in line) there is nothing to prevent you from attacking him and he certainly can¹t be attacking you.

Let's consider one final situation.
Suppose the pistoleros face off and, in Gunsmoke fashion, the Bad Guy makes his move. But the Good Guy (who is, yes, phenomenally fast) is too fast for him. The hero plugs the hapless black hat before the desperado can skin leather. Next stop: Boot Hill.
This example demonstrates what should be obvious: it doesn't matter who STARTS to draw first; what matters is who FINISHES drawing first.
If you go for your gun, and just as you wrap your sweaty little hand around the grip you see that your opponent has already drawn, cocked and aimed in your direction, what do you do?
Here's a hint: refer to the section covering "got the drop on you."

From these examples we can logically conclude several things.
First, an attack cannot begin before the would-be attacker has extended his arm as fully as possible aiming at his opponent's body, establishing a "point-in-line." (It's "ready, aim, FIRE!" not "Ready, fire, AIM!") An attack is NOT begun by moving your body closer to your opponent's point, only by moving your point closer to the opponent's body.
Second, unless and until the fencer establishes a point in line, he is vulnerable to his opponent's attack or his opponent establishing his own point in line. All that comes before is preparation. The notion that a fencer is &ldquot;attacking&rdquot; by advancing, fleching, leaping, lurching or lunging forward WITHOUT having the point of his weapon aiming at the opponent is completely false.
Third, if your opponent has his point in line, don't impale yourself on it. Suicide, despite what the MASH theme advises, is NOT painless.
Fourth, it doesn't matter who first STARTS extending his arm to establish a point in line; it matters who first FINISHES extending his arm to establish a point in line.

Faced with these clear analogies, there are some people—let's not call them "fencers"—who will reply, "So what? Fencing isn't supposed to be like a real sword fight."
Well, with all due respect, yes, it is.
It has always said so in the rules, right at the outset: "to simulate a courteous and frank encounter." That means to make it as much as possible as an actual duel, or swordfight, if you please. That's what it's all based on, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not.
To claim otherwise is a foolish—and transparent—attempt to justify as legitimate whatever the latest fashion in cheating happens to be.

Now if some folks want to go off on some odd technophile tangent and invent some game of "tag you're it" with whippy steel rods, that's fine with me. Do so, and go in peace. Make the rules whatever you want. Base them on whimsey. Change them weekly. I don't care.
But don't call your little game "fencing."
You can't reasonably and honestly call it "fencing" and then say it's not about swords any more than you can call it "equitation" and say it's not about horses. (Indeed, this specious, so-called "fencing" is no closer to actual fencing than it is to equitation.)
Fencing is about swordplay.
Period.
If you can't get into it, get out of it."

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/swordfight.php

..............................................

Yeah, I know this is a sword, not a knife but the concepts are the same, except knives clear the sheath faster....

and yes Tant01, guns make fine clubs

[lionleo]

The analogies are good and impressive-thanks for taking time.

Here is my 2 cents on this subject....

First- I consider myself a knife enthusiast . I have been in the FMA for 12 years- have seen and been exposed to a lot of good combat sense and bad combat sense. I guess the best combat sense will always be from people who have experienced combat per se. E.i... streetfights with multiple opponents who you dont know what weaponries they have/at knife fights -thus jeopardizing your life and actual gunfights/firefights where a person is really in harms way. As to my guage- a person no matter how much he trains (Seals/Rangers/Law Enforcement/Martial Arts) if they have never been in ACTUAL combat aside from training-their combat sense can never be tallied as good. Even in controlled so called No-Hold Barred fighting or all out sparring Although training will help in situations that we have trained for-that's why we train on the first place.

In the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS- we have all the amenities to defend ourselves and our loved ones from danger in the streets. You acn carry a folder legally as long as it's within 4 inches, and you can get a "Concealed Handgun License"(CHL- from DPS) and carry an array of firearms you want. With this i took the initiative to better myself with the handgun- so me and my wife joined this club called "International Defensive Pistol Association" (www.IDPA.com).I know alot of you have heard of this group. The scenarios are great and really realistic. Although we have just been in for a few months, i feel it's the right track than just stationary firing. Why am i mentioning this- training in clubs such as IDPA gave me a total outlook and respect of the handgun. Before in the Philippines- when we train- we always concluded that handgun defense will always be impossible; but through IDPA- i have seen experts compared to the regular street douch bag even fumble with the firearm they have been using forever. Human error and adrenaline rush is always a factor in any scenario. With this observation-i saw the fact that a person with an easy to deploy blade or empty hand to hand combat expertise can increase his chances of survival against a firearm based on the knowledge the person has on the certain firearm pointed at him. Firearm vary, and the fact that a douch bag can be a neophyte in his chosen career will show in handling a firearm, and if we are aware of the safeties and the handling of the firearm within our reach- chances of survival will rapidly grow in case you really have to disarm the perpetrator. So i developed defensive handgun disarmings and knife handgun defense- I am not saying that these are fool proof- but based on my experience in actual streetfights and handgun manipulations- i could say that in my own mind-these concepts can increase my chances of survival.

Another factor that we in this state can choose- is carry a firearm. I conceal carry a .45 Kimber TLE 1911 (with laser sights-since i suck compared to my wife). And if the eventuallity will come, i will use it with my optimum judegement.

Check out our groups page every now and then it is still under construction but we aim to place fotos and videos of what i have been writing about.

https://www.combat-concepts.com

Another training that i participate is Military Simulation Games. Although this is solely based on how you as a participant will carry and handle yourself realistically. I cant controll my co participants reaction- but everytime i do- i always place myslf in a combat firefight mindset.. Check out this webpage as well.....www.houstonairsoft.com

Knife is a defensive tool, and with the right knowledge and training-it can and have emerged victorious against the firearm.

MY TWO CENTS