Brillianter.com

Great work! I also have my own blog I just find it hard to write quality content like this.
I guess I really don't have the time.

Tom, not speaking for WordsTwice, but we do tend to agree more than we disagree. I do enjoy reading your posts and I hope you won't take this comment as being "combative" - it is debate between pros.

Simply put: "A knife fills a different role than firearm does." your post made an apples to oranges comparison:

"The way I see it, if the knife was a “superior” weapon, Id have one on my duty belt instead of a Glock"

As you well know the equipment you are issued is driven by department policy and not personal preference. The argument can certainly be made that the number of officers killed with their own firearms would drop if those officers were issued knives and trained with them as part of their handgun retention system.

"The author of the Gun vs. Knife article postulates a “duel at high noon” scenario."

Uhhh..no Im not. That little slice that you focused on was intended to point out that, at its roots things like the Tueller drill take out many factors like awareness, accessibility and initiative and replace them with one factor (distance). I argue that if you rearrange the factors..you with a knife in pocket and your hands visible and me with a holstered and accessible pistol and awareness of you as a threat..that it changes the results. If thought I was saying that "all you have to do is have your hand on your pistol at all times" either I have an issue with my writing or you didnt read it well enough.

Having a background in Filipino martial arts I have a very healthy respect for blades and carry one myself almost all of the time.

I do agree with your closing paragraph, which if you read any other of my posts you would see that we agree more than disagree.

The author of the Gun vs. Knife article postulates a “duel at high noon" scenario. How often does that happen? Awareness is all fine and good but even the most hypervigilant tactical guru can be ambushed.

I detect an inherent anti-knife bias, demonstrated by categorizing knives as “offensive” and guns as “defensive”. I guess that makes the porcupine a dangerous predator and a poacher shooting at it is only firing in self defense. Even today, it seems that many police officers have this attitude that only scumbags use knives and that they are “inferior” weapons. Many ordinary citizens are denied the use of firearms by legislative decree and when they turn to knives for self defense, laws are passed to restrict or ban those as well. Frequently, these laws and their accompanying attitudes disproportionately effect immigrant and minority communities.

“If incorporated into a good CQB system the gun is as effective close up as a knife.”

The knife is a good “CQB system”. A knife is dangerous from multiple vectors and angles. The pistol is only dangerous in one direction. It is very difficult to grapple with and disengage from someone wielding a knife without sustaining serious, multiple injuries. In contrast, while it is still a dangerous endeavor, it is quite possible to grapple with a gun wielding person and prevent them from shooting you, or even firing their weapon at all.

“The elderly or disabled are just not going to be able to employ a knife in the same manner as a fit and athletic youth.”

The caveat in the author's earlier statement was that a firearm needs to be incorporated into a “CQB system”, something that requires at least a modest level of athleticism. If the hypothetical elderly or disabled person is too infirm to employ a knife against a fit and athletic youth, they will also have great difficulty engaging in “CQB” with a young, athletic opponent. A firearm by itself is not a complete solution. Fighting in close quarters (with or without weapons) is often a violent, athletic endeavor that is light years away from static drills and target shooting at the range. This is why military forces are comprised primarily of athletic young men, not grandmothers in wheelchairs. You can mitigate this to some degree with tactics and technology, but in the end, it is still not a task for the weak, infirm or timid. The idea that a firearm allows a physically weaker individual to triumph over a stronger one is technically true, but a bit simplistic and misleading. It is more complicated than would appear at first glance.

“The gun can be used defensively by gaining distance, getting cover and using the range advantage...”

How, exactly? The gun cannot do this, the “operator” must do this. You have to survive the contact range fight first, which will probably be an ambush.

“Id be willing to bet that if you had a knife in your pocket and I had my G27 in a good holster, with my jacket on and unzipped and I was AWARE of you as a threat, I could beat you to it.”

So, the prerequisites are a good holster, unzipped jacket, and being warned beforehand. This is essentially the formula for a duel. How many lethal encounters fit this criteria? I can't argue with the first one, a quality holster is always a good idea. The other two are things that you can't necessarily count on all the time. In many parts of the country, is a bit too cold to be running around with an unzipped jacket, and advance warning of the exact nature, location and time of an attack is something that one would like to have, but it doesn't always happen.

I respect handguns and knives for what they are. They complement one another very well. When you really need a gun, a knife is a poor substitute, and when you really need a knife, a gun will just not cut it.