You may think that the answer to this question seems a bit obvious at first, but it isn't really. It's a knife! A lethal weapon. of course we fear them! But the fear that comes when a knife is pointed at you as a weapon is so much more visceral than the fear that comes when a gun is pointed at you. This is a question I'm answering as part of my thesis for my Yondan.Everyone has been cut at least once in their lives even if it was just a simple a paper cut. The memory of that pain causes a visceral reaction in people when they are threatened with a knife. They can actually remember what it feels like to be cut. Most people have never been shot so it does not evoke the same intensity of response when a gun is pointed at them. The same goes for bludgeoning weapons like a baseball bat.
Moreover, when you see people cut with knives in film, they usually feature a close-up of the victim’s face showing him in extreme pain. When people are shot, on the other hand, the pain isn’t as prominent. Usually the victim just drops to the ground or goes flying back from the impact.
These factors contribute to a stronger emotional reaction to a knife, so when people actually face a knife in reality as a weapon, they are more likely to freeze up and cower behind their arms in response. This is something every instructor should try to address in their teachings to help prepare their students mentally for the psychology that might trip them up even if they do become as technically proficient at knife defense as one can get.
Posts
29 comments:
I would also attribute it experience and familiarization the other way. Kids play-shoot each other and pretend to play with swords, but they never play knife-fighting. It's culturally reserved for killers. Even with swords, people are very comfortable with the idea of killing by chopping the head off or cutting the belly. That's in every movie with swords they've seen, and when doing a drill, they're generally okay with that. But if you take the same person and do a different kind of specific fatal injury in a sword drill, say a femoral cut, or targeting kidneys, or subclavian thrust, they'll get squeamish. Both receiving AND giving.
Interesting take. I'll have to ponder that in my thesis development. Thanks for commenting!
"Most people have never been shot so it does not evoke the same intensity of response when a gun is pointed at them. The same goes for bludgeoning weapons like a baseball bat."
It is hard to really measure fear or emotional responses to different weapons (nor is it particularly useful) but I think that if anything, you have this exactly backwards.
You mentioned films. Thanks to Hollywood, many people have vastly unrealistic expectations of what firearms, particularly handguns, are capable of and so they are generally more fearful of them.
Knives on the other hand are commonplace tools. Almost everyone has a kitchen or workshop full of edged/pointed weapons and so they generally aren't as fearful of them. In fact, many people do not truly respect how devastating edged weapons, even relatively small ones, can really be in the hands of a motivated attacker.
Many people who have been stabbed or cut in real life altercations actually report that they felt little or no pain at all until after the altercation was over. They thought they were simply being hit or punched and did not realize the extent of their injuries until later. Often, they never even saw the knife at all.
Many “martial artists” train to perform knife disarms nonchalantly. In fact, most "martial artists" have an extremely poor understanding of not only how various weapons work and the capabilities and limitations of those weapons, but they also have a generally poor understanding of the legalities of deadly force. Attempting poorly trained maneuvers against a real, committed adversary is likely to get them serious or fatal injuries, in addition to whatever legal problems they may encounter from not understanding what is lawful self defense and what is not.
Most countries have laws in place regulating or restricting firearms use and ownership, whereas knives are generally not regulated to the same extent (in the UK, due to soaring knife crime and hand wringing by doctors, someone actually designed an “anti-stab knife” with no point. Next, I am sure they will be proposing that people are only allowed to use safety scissors).
These days there is more awareness among law enforcement and concealed carry permit holders regarding the lethal danger of edged weapons, but even still, it is not uncommon to encounter one who sneers at the idea of an adversary “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.
Regarding blunt weapons: many people do not understand that striking someone in the head with a club is usually considered lethal force. Police officers receive training to only strike specific areas of the body, and so they are authorized to use a baton as a "less lethal" weapon, but in the hands of a violent criminal, it is most certainly a lethal weapon.
Trying to gauge the level of fear is not really important. What is important is to be able to recognize a lethal threat for what it is. Deadly force is deadly force, whether it is a gun, a knife, a club, multiple adversaries, etc.
In terms of mental preparation, students should understand that just because they were stabbed or shot, the fight is not necessarily over. People have overcome serious injuries and triumphed because they refused to give up. This does not mean we should be foolhardy and take unnecessary risks, but simply that in the event that you are injured, you should continue until you escape or the threat is stopped.
This is important to remember because all too often in training, an instructor will halt a scenario after one participant has been “shot” or “stabbed”. This bad habit reinforces in students' minds that they should give up after being hit, or that the bad guy will stop after one shot or stab wound. It's not over 'til it's over.
Take care.
I don’t know if your premise (knives illicit a more severe emotional reaction than guns) is entirely correct: how do you know people react stronger to knives than they do to guns? You’d think facing a deadly weapon you’re not used to dealing with will seriously screw up your moral no matter the shape or characteristics. However, assuming your premise is correct I’ve come up with a few possible explanations:
1) Perhaps the distance has something to do with this too: usually guns are used at greater distances than knives (most people don’t know how to throw a knife properly and even then the effective distance is rather limited): there’s something about close-combat that’s infinitely more frightening than fighting at a distance. Usually the further away you are from the opponent the higher your chances of survival, perhaps most people instinctively know this (survival-mechanism, self-preservation) and thus their reaction to knives is stronger than to guns.
2) Perhaps the fact that we’re all familiar with the effect of knives on flesh as opposed to gunshot-wounds and not just from getting cut ourselves: when you cut meat to prepare dinner you immediately see how easily the blade goes through the fabric and there is blood so it’s quite easy to imagine what would happen to you if you got cut. This is an adjunct to your theory since most of us where never cut very deeply let alone in a life-threatening manner.
3) Movies: hacker and slasher movies and a great many of regular horror-movies or even thrillers depict the killers as psychotic/sociopathic and they almost always use a sharp object of some kind to gruesomely murder their victims. Titles that come to mind are: the Silence of the Lambs (dr. Lecter with the lancet), Friday the 13th (Jason with a machete), Nightmare on Elm Street (Freddy Kruger with the finger-knives), The Shining (Jack Torrance with an axe)… The list if fairly extensive, should be fun to sift through them all in the name of science and serious academic work (lol). In my first year of uni I wrote a paper on the philosophical implications of the quintessential zombie-movie ‘Night of the living Dead’ by Romero, it was the most fun I’ve ever had with academia and I actually got high marks too. On a side note: do you like this sort of film or are you like most women and thoroughly detest them?
4) Despite of the fact that guns are now commonly used by criminals and we all know this through Hollywood and gangster-movies the knife is still seen as the ruffian’s weapon: both because of the prison-usage of shanks and other knife-like devices and because the police or ordinary citizens usually don’t carry knives let alone use them on another human-being.
5) Knives are far more ancient than guns and thus humans were exposed to their effects a lot longer, humans have always feared large predators and their teeth do look a lot like knives and can be equally damaging. Perhaps we carry this instinctive fear with us in our genes?
6) Guns can be used far more easily to control people (back off or you get shot, do as I say or you get shot) while knives are a more direct tool for killing: when drawing a knife the first instinct would be to use it to incapacitate the victim, not just wave it around hoping the other guy isn’t packing heat. ...
Jee, all this on an empty stomach at 8.30 am, I really should get up early more often :-) I trust this’ll be of help. Perhaps you could contact your local university’s criminology department and see if there’s been any research done on the subject you could integrate into your thesis. It never hurts to have some actual scientific back-up if at all available. Perhaps this is a bit far-fetched and I don’t know the time-limit for your assignment but it might actually be possible to coordinate your research with that of a graduate or undergraduate majoring in criminology or psychology. Just what was your assignment and how will it be judged? It’s quite rare to have to write a paper to achieve a higher rank in the martial arts although it does present a lot of possibilities: I for one would love to write about bushido, the link between Zen & budo or any other topic relating to Asian culture, the martial arts and self-defense.
Zara
PS: do we get extra credit for this or at least our names immortalized in your acknowledgment? Quid pro quo, Clarice…
I personally find knives/edged weapons more disturbing than most other weapons because they are more common, and because lacerations are scary. It's very easy for me to imagine my tendons and muscles being cut and that disabling an entire limb.
I'd be very interested in your findings, good luck :)
Words Twice - I think you went a little ways off topic - she was discussing the psychology involved when being confronted with a knife as opposed to training knife-defense.
Most of your comments would be better suited to these articles, How to Defend Against a Knife Realistically" and Knife Defense for Dummines. They cover more of the principals of Can-ryu knife defense and happen to address most of the second half of your post.
Zara, I tend to lean in your direction, in the pure abstract, I think I would be more afraid of a gun, despite the fact that a gun has a very small radius of effectiveness. However, you raise several excellent points, one of which is we are more familiar with how effective a knife is.
While working as a cook, a moment of inattention while dicing caused me to cut the tip off my thumb. A tiny little incision, but it caused a ridiculous amount of blood. And any time I cut chicken, I tend to think of how easily the flesh parts for a sharp edge.
Watching surgery shows and real life ER shows, I'm always more squeamish when they're cutting someone open with a knife, as opposed to seeing a gunshot wound. Blood pouring out of the body doesn't freak me out, but seeing tissue pull apart and tear under a sharp edge does. The fact an autopsy is performed with a small scalpel puts into perspective how effective sharp knives can be, and it doesn't take a large one to do damage.
I find the whole premise slightly contradictory in that at first glance, I think I'd be more afraid of a gun, but the rational part of my brain tells me I'd be more afraid of a knife. I'm very interested in finding out the psychological background on this, and I suspect that in regards to my own reaction, unless I'm unfortunate enough to end up being attacked on the street with either one, I will never have a definitive answer for myself.
Some interesting perspectives here - here's hope no one ever ends up with a definitive answer for themselves.
Apologies in advance for the lengthy response.
Anonymous #1: “You’d think facing a deadly weapon you’re not used to dealing with will seriously screw up your moral no matter the shape or characteristics.”
Facing a deadly weapon is cause for grave concern because the situation has escalated to the point where you could be killed or crippled.
To address your points:
1) Most civilian gun use is at very close range, (conversational distance, i.e. within knife range). This is because the gun wielding attacker often wants you to listen to his orders, comply with his demands and hand over your belongings, which is difficult to do from 25 meters away. In addition, there is the marksmanship issue. It is much easier to hit a target that is at arms length than it is to hit a target at extended range, particularly when one or both individuals are moving. In American law enforcement, where detailed statistics are kept, the overwhelming number of officer deaths due to firearms occur at 0 to 5 feet (0 to 1.5 meters), again, conversational distance.
2) My belief is that, to some extent, familiarity breeds contempt. Attitudes are changing but I think that a lot of people still don't view the knife as being as lethal as a handgun. In some circumstances, I believe knives are actually more dangerous than guns, but this is obviously dependent on many factors. Certainly, one should treat either one with the utmost concern.
3) Movies are entertainment and so looking at them for accurate information is unwise. Depictions of weapons characteristics, use and terminal effects are often grossly exaggerated or completely wrong. Although, it is interesting to see how they shape public opinion on various topics.
4) This is very much dependent on what part of the world you are talking about and what social circles you associate with. For example, folding pocketknives are very popular in most of the United States among regular citizens, law enforcement and the military, and they do indeed get used in legitimate self defense. Like firearms, they are used for criminal purposes as well as honest ones. In many people's minds, firearms are most commonly associated with either police or criminals, not regular citizens. But all of these weapons are merely tools, with no inherent moral value. How they are put to use determines whether they are good or evil. Unfortunately, many people frown on any sort of self defense at all, most especially any self defense involving the use of weapons. There is a stigma attached to defensive knife use among some people, and I think it is likely that this has its origins in the same kind of racist attitudes and moral panic that led to a lot of weapons legislation.
5) Doubtful. I think that people have an instinctive fear of pain and injury, not of any specific weapon. Emotional reactions to weapons are learned, not genetic. The only truly instinctive fear responses might be to such primal things as fire, but I am skeptical about that also.
6) Guns are much better for addressing multiple adversaries that are not within grappling distance. Both knives and guns are useful for intimidating people but guns definitely have an advantage in terms of range. However, firearms do not make one invincible. If you are not familiar with the Tueller Drill, it demonstrates that the average person wielding a knife can close a distance of approximately 6.4 meters and deliver deadly force before their gun wielding opponent can draw their handgun from the holster.
Action beats reaction. Merely being armed with a holstered/concealed weapon is of little use unless you can actually get your weapon into action, and being ambushed definitely puts you at a disadvantage. This is why I constantly stress to armed citizens and law enforcement that they need empty hands skills in addition to being proficient with their firearm.
“Words Twice - I think you went a little ways off topic - she was discussing the psychology involved when being confronted with a knife as opposed to training knife-defense.
She said: “These factors contribute to a stronger emotional reaction to a knife, so when people actually face a knife in reality as a weapon, they are more likely to freeze up and cower behind their arms in response. This is something every instructor should try to address in their teachings to help prepare their students mentally for the psychology that might trip them up even if they do become as technically proficient at knife defense as one can get.” [Emphasis mine]
So you believe that mental and physical preparation should be treated as separate entities? One without the other is useless. Mental preparation (“psychology”) is certainly just as much training as 100 repetitions of your favorite disarm technique.
I was stating that analyzing the depth and variation of feelings is irrelevant. Freezing and cowering are common responses to violence, or threats of violence, not something inherent to knives. Do you really believe that when someone has a gun stuck in their face with murderous intent, they are not as likely to freeze or cower? Does it even matter? Personal feelings about knives per se are of little consequence, except perhaps in post incident psychological trauma counseling.
I am not sure what you mean by “a very small radius of effectiveness” for the firearm. You have this precisely backwards: it is the knife that has a small range of effectiveness: the reach of your arm plus the length of the blade. In contrast, the handgun is generally effective out to the maximum range of the shooter's marksmanship capabilities, which can vary significantly.
Perhaps you meant that the gun is only dangerous in one direction at any one given moment in time, whereas the knife is dangerous along multiple vectors, in which case I agree.
“Some interesting perspectives here - here's hope no one ever ends up with a definitive answer for themselves.”
There is no definitive answer because this is all so subjective; it is based on individual feelings. I have never been attacked with a knife in real life but I have been shot at in military combat and seen the effects of numerous gunshot and shrapnel wounds firsthand. How does mortar fire make me feel versus machine gun fire? Who cares? I did what needed to be done. I have interviewed one person who used a knife in military combat and others who have survived knife attacks in a civilian context. I have also had many discussions with paramedics who routinely treat knife and gunshot wounds and I have a little experience with treating wounds myself. In other words, I have studied this topic in depth and I have a little bit of first hand experience.
It is important to prepare students mentally. In military/LEO/gunfighter circles this is called “mindset”, roughly analogous to the concept of fudoshin in Japanese martial arts. It is often a very difficult thing to learn, and it can't be taught in an hour long lecture. It is something that an individual has to cultivate within themselves.
Focusing over how you feel, or how you think you might feel, about a knife versus a gun is not very useful. Both are lethal threats. Deal with them accordingly. Freezing or cowering is the type of response that you see in untrained or poorly trained people. They are overcome by events. They have let their opponent seize and maintain the initiative because their own decision making cycle is paralyzed by emotion.
I think that the topic of people's varying emotional reactions to specific weapons is more useful and interesting in the context of understanding people's irrational fear of and need to control or demonize those who choose to arm themselves for legitimate self defense purposes.
Zara,
I dont think its THAT unusual for people to submit or present a paper / essay / or other study for progression through higher ranks. of instructors. It doesnt happen in every art /style its all abput that groups emphasis. But this is a topic for another discussion about the relative merits or different testing systems.
As for knives Lori you missed one reason why we fear them. your right its basic and primal, a knife is just a modern tooth or claw, which we are bredto at least becautious of. eg. looking at a lion in the zoo you may be in awe of the muscle and power of the animal but if it should merely yawn and show those huge teeth or if it flexs its claws, that fear -flight/fight response begins immediately. A pirhana is just an ugly goldfish, till you see those teeth. I think it may be related to you observation about our experience of being cut (paper cuts etc) but I think its possibly even more primal
This surely has turned into a lively discussion, always a good thing.
@ Words Twice: while you seem to be quite knowledgeable on the subject I do think you sometimes read too much into people’s words and draw hasty, unwarranted conclusions based more on your own feelings and thoughts about the subject (however valid they may be) than correct understanding about the other party’s point of view or argument. If you don’t aim for the right target you’ll always miss your mark and inaccurate interpretation (which I assume you didn’t do on purpose) can lead to arguing beside the point.
.
You answered point per point, I like this modus operandi so I’ll do the same.
1) It’s true guns are mostly used at close range in a non-military context, obviously it’s much easier to hit a target a few feet away than 5 or more yards. However, that was not my main point: my point was that guns have the potential to be used at greater ranges than the knife, hence it could be the case people are more scared about what they can’t defend against (if you get caught more than 3 meters away from a gun-wielding assailant you’re dogmeat unless he’s a really lousy shot or you can return fire with your own weapon which isn’t even an option in large parts of the world) than against a knife whereby the attacker has to physically close the distance to hurt you giving you a chance to intercept or run away. Basically a gun is dangerous at much greater ranges than a knife and thus potentially a greater cause for concern although I concede the point about the usual, practical range. At short range obviously the knife offers more of a threat: very quick, nimble attacks from multiple angles and the moment the blade makes contact you’ll be injured further reducing your chances of survival. It’s a well known fact successful defense against a highly trained, highly motivated knifeman is virtually impossible unless you can get your hands on an equalizer (in order of general efficacy/safety: gun, stick, knife, other blunt/throwable objects) but these people are far and in between and generally only found in certain circles (special forces, organized crime and insane Filipino guys who sleep with their knife in their hand and pick their teeth with it after dinner). I am aware of the distance-issue here, more about that in my closing argument.
2) ‘Belief’ is subjective and thus not a very reliable source of information, unless someone takes the time to actually investigate this using the scientific method we won’t know for sure and my guess is as good as yours. You say frequent exposure to a weapon breeds contempt for it: I say familiarity and actually seeing the results of the use/misuse (depending on the context) is more likely to instill in people a healthy respect for it. I empathically believe facing a mean-looking individual with a large, shiny hunting-knife will scare the bezeejes out of almost everybody, regardless of how much time they spend in the kitchen or how experienced they are in the use of knives for other purposes. If I have no experience with a gun and a as a result I don’t know how dangerous it can be than I might be inclined to underestimate it, especially since Hollywood’s portrayel of the hero flawlessly and effortlessly dodging bullets and disarming multiple gun-wielding opponents is so persistent these days. In any case both knives and guns are dangerous and ignoring this simple fact is akin to full-blown stupidity. ...
3) If you read my response again you’ll clearly see I didn’t claim information contained in movies or other media was by any means accurate, not by a long shot. Your reply is besides the point here since my argument was that if it’s true people are generally more afraid of knives than they are of guns (Lori’s position) then it might be due to the association of knives and other sharp objects with movie-villians (the personification of pure evil) and the deadly result they have on the big screen. I never claimed the general public’s understanding of weapons is accurate nor Hollywood’s depiction is factual as I’ve already stated.
4) While it is true that in certain parts of the world knives are carried regularly and legally in other parts it’s generally not the case, especially in the largely urbanized western world. In my part of the world knives (especially switchblades and the like which are forbidden by law) are still very much looked upon as a criminal’s weapon, especially among young ruffians, streetgangs and illegal immigrants. Good, honest citizens don’t carry knives on their person unless they happen to live in the countryside and the police is very likely to consider it carrying an unlawful weapon and arrest you for it since it shows possible intent or anticipation of violence (implying you went looking for trouble which is not in accordance with the law regarding self-defense), at least unless you have a good reason for carrying it (when you’re living in the city this would be rather hard to explain, especially when you carry a tactical folder in your pocket). In case you’re wondering: our crime-rate (including violent crime and murder/homicide and the like) is much, much lower than in the States which I assume is where you live. Cutting up someone in legal self-defense is rarely justified and I consider the knife more of a lethal-force, offensive weapon than a less-than-lethal, defensive one. The fact that police are issued batons, tasers and handguns but not knives says a lot: knives do too much damage and if you’re that up close and personal superficially damaging somebody for the purpose of disarming and subduing him is not easy and actually much more dangerous than inserting the blade into his vitals (throat, stomach, groin, kidneys).
I’ll discuss the morality of using weapons for self-defense later, lets stick to this point for now. Knives are indeed used sometimes as weapons in self-defense, however so is virtually any object even remotely capable of hurting another human-being and I maintain that in general people will view a knife as a lethal force instrument not very suited to legal self-defense (in most cases) and associated with criminal usage and with the sinister connotation of murder and willful misuse of a highly dangerous instrument for personal gain or revenge. This might be different in some parts of the world: I know in the Philippines people regularly and openly carry knives and machetes on their person since it’s part of the culture and they are used quite frequently in street fights, clan-wars and legitimate self-defense against criminals but then only in the provinces and the country-side which is far less developed and controlled by the justice-system than the big cities like Manila. In any case I wouldn’t want to live in a place were people habitually wear knives on their person. …
5) I did some research and it turns out fear is indeed the result of a learning-process, however some fears are more persistent and widespread than others, suggesting a genetic basis even though this is still theory and hasn’t been proven conclusively. In any case the ability to experience fear aids greatly in survival and thus it is likely underpinning genes that contribute to fear were selected and passed on since people with no fear-reflex whatsoever wouldn’t have survived long enough to produce offspring.
6) I do think it is easier to control someone by pointing a gun at them than by waving a knife around: with a gun people aren’t as prone to run away since a bullet is way faster than any human including Bolt while he can’t hurt you with a knife if you’re faster than him or you can slam a door in his face and get away. When someone points a gun at you you stay put (at least when he orders you to) while people generally run away when they see a knife, except when he presses it against your carotid artery and orders you not to move. Threatening someone with a gun from a certain distance (outside of arms reach) together with verbal commands allows you to control his or her behaviour without putting yourself at risk (even if he has his own gun the moment he reaches for it you pull the trigger). I’m aware of the Tueller drill and I never claimed guns are invincible nor that they are suited for any range. I agree empty hand training is paramount and in my view sufficient for self-defense except in the most extreme cases.
Basically the outcome of armed confrontations depends on three factors: 1) the distance between you and the attacker, 2) how good he is with his weapon and 3) your means of retaliation and general skill level. The first factor is pretty obvious: at longer range gun beats knife, at medium range the stick (or any fairly long impact weapon) will beat both knife and gun (depending on the circumstances), at short range the knife generally is superior to both gun and stick. How good he is obviously plays a major part in the outcome of the altercation: I’d rather face a lousy shot than someone apt with the knife or an impact weapon (especially if he has killed with it before) and vice versa. Thirdly your means of retaliation: if it would be legal in my country to carry a concealed weapon and the threat was big enough (meaning it would be likely I would get mugged or jumped while going about my business or the homicide-rate would suddenly go through the roof) I would opt for a handgun since it offers the most options and it’s potent against any weapon as long as your empty hand skills are up to par (if you get blindsighted you first defend unarmed, then you create distance and shoot the guy or order him on the floor). The main advantages of a gun to me are distance (the more distance between you and your attacker the safer you are) and the ability to control behaviour without having to kill or even injure, my second option would be the knife since it’s easy to conceal and very potent up close. Even against someone wielding a baton or a baseball-bat it’s fairly easy to close the gap unless he’s had extensive training in kali or a similar art (most bad guys don’t, fortunately). ...
Unarmed (which for me is the case anyway) I’d rather face someone with a knife or a stick than a gun since I feel this increases my chances of survival but we train for all three categories. For the untrained a gun is simple to operate: just point the muzzle at your target and pull the trigger and no-one is fast enough to successfully dodge a bullet in flight, the knife and the stick are still dangerous but if you know what you’re doing and your skill level is higher than his your chances of survival are in fact excellent unless he caught you with your back turned or he has his buddies with him.
Against an expert you’re in deep shit no matter what he carries and if someone’s really out to kill you, you generally will not stand a chance no matter your own weapon or means of defense since he’ll sneak up behind you and attack when you least expect it. In some situations your chances of survival are minimal at best so it doesn’t matter what your skills are or what you’re carrying and I generally steer clear of any situation where it’s even remotely likely you’d have to carry a weapon in order to survive. Luckily my knack of the woods is pretty safe and I’m actually glad we have such stringent weapon-laws and such a reasonable attitude towards conflict (talk, don’t fight) and the whole safety-issue. The more weapons there are the more trouble and I don’t want to live in a country with a wild-west mentality: shoot or be shot. I don’t live in a warzone, I don’t have enemies who hate me enough to want to see me dead and if someone sticks a gun or knife in my face I’ll gladly back off or hand over my wallet with a smile. I am trained in the use of force and my training does involve self-defense but my main interest is still the arts themselves and what they offer me in terms of spiritual and personal growth.
A lot of problems and violence you bring upon yourself (hanging with the wrong crowd, being a general pain in the a** with the self-control and reasoning-skills of a 6 year old and being where you shouldn’t be) and I almost never get in trouble: when I do in almost all cases I manage to talk my way out of it and up to date I only have had 2 serious fights/incidents (one involving a knife & death-threats, the second a multiple attacker scenario). Obviously my self-defense skills work and both times I actually had to fight I won, without killing or maiming my opponent(s) and without having to resort to a weapon.
In closing: for practical self-defense the gun, stick and knife are all considered lethal force weapons (obviously they can cause great harm and we assume the attacker is out to kill us) and should be dealt with accordingly. In that respect you’re right: how people in general feel about these weapons is fairly irrelevant (debilitating fear is to be weeded out and replaced with automatic, single-minded action) and a lethal threat is a lethal threat regardless of the form it takes. However I do think it’s a legitimate and interesting question and obviously Lori’s thesis looks at the bigger picture and it’s always useful to have as much background info on the subject as possible. Human behaviour is always interesting, even if it doesn't suit your immidiate end...
As to the morality of armed self-defense: in theory weapons and their use are morally neutral (the moral value of an action generally derives from the situation and context) but if everyone starts arming themselves mutual trust will rapidly vanish and you create an atmosphere in which the use of force is regarded as a relatively trivial matter and something that is normal instead of the exception. It’s the government’s job to keep a lid on crime, help the poor and underprivileged (a major source of crime) and keep you safe and I don’t see how carrying a weapon would increase my security (whether actual or emotional) and in general it could actually spell more trouble: it’s known weapons (especially guns) can sometimes be as dangerous to their owners as to the bad guys, for some guys carrying a weapon is like an extension of their c*** and an inflated ego easily leads to foolish risk-taking and/or jailtime for unlawful use of force. That’s if a real badass criminal or streetfighter (not a weekend-warrior like most gun-owners) didn’t blow your head off or cut you up for posing and taking on more than you could handle. Granted, much depends on where you live, what the local laws are and how safe/unsafe your environment is but our crime-rate’s fairly low, our police force’s reasonably effective and not overly corrupt and until either of those factors changes dramatically I won’t change my opinion although I am training in the use of the knife and stick. I’m interested in learning how to use a pistol but that’s very expensive and I don’t have the time for it anyway. In any case it would be more of a hobby than a skill I’d actually need.
A while ago there was a case in the Belgian media involving a jeweler who shot and killed a burglar who stole from his shop and ran away: he’ll probably be sent to prison and I for one agree with that. Burglary and theft is wrong, no doubt about it but leave it to the police and no amount of money is worth taking a life over. It’s not like his livelihood was in danger (he was insured and obviously loaded) and there’s no way in hell anyone running away from you could ever pose a threat to your safety. I fully support the right to self-defense (even armed in some cases) but being attacked doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want to the guy although if I were a judge I’d rather err on the side of the defending party if the facts weren’t crystal. Don’t convict people for using force in defense of their lives and person unless you’ve got clear and irrevocable proof he willfully damaged or killed the attacker after it was clear he didn’t pose a threat anymore. ‘Killing is not the way of humanity.’ (Musashi)
Zara
PS: what’s your opinion about this, Lori? After all you started the discussion.
First off, I would like to thank everyone for all their comments and insights. This certainly was a lively debate and incredibly useful for helping to flesh out my thesis. Everyone has made valid and interesting points and I will respond with another post that will reflect what will go into my thesis.
My initial post was based on a premise that I was assigned for my thesis. I was told to answer the question: "Why do people cringe in fear when faced with a knife in particular?" My post was some initial thought processes that I got through my research, but not as fully fleshed out as I would have liked it to be. That is a large part of the reason why I posted it on my blog.
A blog, when you have the quality of readership that I am lucky to have :), is a great way to see different sides of an argument, get ideas for further research, and to come up with a more complete understanding of a topic. Anyway, as for my thoughts on all the discussion. I will write a new blog post compiling my thoughts into a more complete argument on the topic.
Thank you everyone once again! I am truly grateful for the variety of ideas and the thoughtful debate that you provided. Keep an eye out for my next post. :)
"@ Words Twice: while you seem to be quite knowledgeable on the subject I do think you sometimes read too much into people’s words and draw hasty, unwarranted conclusions based more on your own feelings and thoughts about the subject (however valid they may be) than correct understanding about the other party’s point of view or argument."
@Zara: From the way you write your comments, you sound young, inexperienced and female. If anyone is guilty of hasty unwarranted conclusions, it would be you. I understand your views much better than you might think. I have been doing this a long time and there is very little you can write that I have not seen before. It is not that I don't understand your views, it is just that I don't agree with them because many of them are factually wrong, logically flawed or irrelevant. What you see as arguing beside the point is actually me trying to correct and expand upon your factually incorrect assertions and speculations about topics that you clearly have little familiarity with. Contrary to currently fashionable belief, not all ideas are equally valid or correct.
Since you seem rather defensive and thin skinned, you may want to brace yourself.
Once again, point by point:
1) "...it could be the case people are more scared about what they can’t defend against (if you get caught more than 3 meters away from a gun-wielding assailant you’re dogmeat..."
They might be more scared but proclaiming them to be dogmeat is simply not true. Your original point (that distance is a factor in emotional response) is correct and I didn't dispute that. What I was explaining is that your speculations about the range of typical civilian gun encounters was totally wrong. A lot fear (and lack of respect) about weapons is due to ignorance.
2) "‘Belief’ is subjective..."
Yes, which is why I used the word belief rather than stating it as an established fact.
3) "If you read my response again you’ll clearly see I didn’t claim information contained in movies or other media was by any means accurate, not by a long shot."
I actually did read it again. If you read my response clearly, you would see that I never explicitly said you made that claim, although you clearly did. Remember this?: “Despite of the fact that guns are now commonly used by criminals and we all know this through Hollywood and gangster-movies...” Perhaps you were being facetious, but this does depend to a large extent on what country you are talking about. In the US, where firearms are more readily available, handguns are commonly used in crimes. Elsewhere it can vary, but just because guns are mostly banned or heavily restricted in your country does not mean that criminals cannot get them fairly easily if they want to.
4) "While it is true that in certain parts of the world knives are carried regularly and legally in other parts it’s generally not the case, especially in the largely urbanized western world."
I wonder how much of the world you have actually seen. I do agree that in large urban areas, they tend to have rather draconian laws. Of course, the laws aren't very effective at stopping anyone except the people that are least likely to be a problem.
"In case you’re wondering: our crime-rate (including violent crime and murder/homicide and the like) is much, much lower than in the States which I assume is where you live."
Please provide a citation for your per capita violent crime rate. Crime in the USA has been steadily declining for years. I am not sure where you are writing from, but from what I recall, the UK has a high rate of violent crime, including gun crime, despite being a virtual Orwellian police state that criminalizes honest self defense while letting real criminals run rampant.
"Cutting up someone in legal self-defense is rarely justified and I consider the knife more of a lethal-force, offensive weapon than a less-than-lethal, defensive one."
A knife is a lethal weapon and only a fool would say otherwise. You are conflating the terms “less lethal” with “defensive”. Justification for deadly force in self defense is fairly clear in the US. Generally speaking, deadly force is to be used only as a last resort, when all other means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed. Generally, using deadly force is authorized in the defense of yourself or another from forcible felonies.
"The fact that police are issued batons, tasers and handguns but not knives says a lot..."
What they are issued depends in large part by departmental policy, which is often driven by budgets, politics and fads. The reality is that many police officers (and armed citizens) in the US carry their own personal pocketknives as a backup weapon in the event that they are involved in struggle for their sidearm, or the sidearm malfunctions or they run out of ammunition - as well as more mundane tasks like cutting seat belts to free people from car wrecks, etc.
Police do not carry sidearms in order to subdue people. They carry them to defend human life.
"Knives are indeed used sometimes as weapons in self-defense, however so is virtually any object even remotely capable of hurting another human-being..."
Yes, but most people find that carrying a shovel, a glass ashtray or a pool cue in their pocket to be extremely inconvenient.
... and I maintain that in general people will view a knife as a lethal force instrument not very suited to legal self-defense (in most cases)..."
You are one of those many “martial artists” I mentioned in my earlier reply that has a very poor understanding of the use of force, and self defense generally.
Laws vary depending on jurisdiction, but most courts recognize that self-defense may involve force, and that may escalate all the way up to lethal force. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of a Force Continuum, then you can comment more intelligently. I should also point out that just because something is enshrined in law does not make it morally or logically correct.
"In any case I wouldn’t want to live in a place were people habitually wear knives on their person..."
It's too late, you already do. At the end of section 6, didn't you describe your heroic victories against knife wielding maniacs issuing death threats?
5) Fear is valuable. Without it we would be extinct. However, obsessing over emotions is not very helpful. We train in order to control, direct or suppress our emotional responses.
6) "I do think it is easier to control someone by pointing a gun at them than by waving a knife around: with a gun people aren’t as prone to run away since a bullet is way faster than any human..."
Many people do become meek and submissive when confronted with any threat of violence. Regarding handguns, running away (at an angle, towards cover) is probably your best bet if at all possible since hitting a moving target is difficult and even if you are hit there is still a reasonable chance that you could escape and survive, whereas compliance gives you no guarantee of anything other than you are completely at the mercy of your assailant.
"When someone points a gun at you you stay put... "
Some people do indeed allow themselves to be herded like lambs to the slaughter when confronted with a gun but that is by no means a universal response, nor is it necessarily the correct one.
I am not sure why you seem to take every one of my comments so personally, but I never said that you claimed guns are invincible. I am writing for the edification of a wider audience than just you.
Once again, you are acting like a typical “martial artist”. Empty hand training is sufficient in many cases, but the most extreme case is what we are talking about. My point earlier was that if you are truly serious about defense, you should be well rounded, and recognize that some situations will require deadly force. Those situations are thankfully rare for most people, however, they do happen, and when they do, empty hands are often woefully inadequate.
"Basically the outcome of armed confrontations depends on three factors... The first factor is pretty obvious..."
What is pretty obvious is that you have a lot of theories.
"The main advantages of a gun to me are ... the ability to control behaviour without having to kill or even injure..."
That is a common misconception. If you are pointing a gun at someone, you are using the threat of deadly force and should therefore be prepared to use it. I tell students that if they don't believe they can actually bring themselves to shoot someone, then they should not have a firearm for defense (this also applies to knives or any other weapon). The problem with bluffing is that eventually, someone is going to call the bluff and test to see if the threat is as empty as it seems.
"Unarmed (which for me is the case anyway) I’d rather face someone with a knife or a stick than a gun..."
I'd rather face someone who was armed with only a Nerf football but we have to play with the cards we are dealt.
"For the untrained a gun is simple to operate: just point the muzzle at your target and pull the trigger and no-one is fast enough to successfully dodge a bullet in flight..."
Handguns are somewhat intuitive for many people, however since pop culture has filled so many peoples minds with a lot of mythology and nonsense, there are still many things about firearms and the associated tactics that untrained/undertrained people don't understand. This is especially problematic for "martial artists" who train to confront weapons with which they have no familiarity at all outside of movies and TV.
"... I don’t want to live in a country with a wild-west mentality: shoot or be shot."
And I don't want to live in a country that does not allow me to adequately defend myself against armed, violent criminals. Like many foreigners, you have a very distorted idea about what the United States is actually like. It may surprise you to learn this, but gun crimes still happen in places like the UK and even Japan. How is this possible? I thought it was so super safe and gun free there.
I am trained in the use of force and my training does involve self-defense but my main interest is still the arts themselves and what they offer me in terms of spiritual and personal growth."
Written like the typical “martial artist”, with a lopsided emphasis on “artist”. It always amuses and depresses me that so many "spiritual" martial artists have so completely misunderstood and corrupted the whole idea of using martial training as a vehicle for character development. You clearly do not understand the moral and legal aspects of the use of force as well as you think you do.
"... I only have had 2 serious fights/incidents..."
If what you say is true, then you have an enormous surplus of luck, which is not something that is wise to rely upon. Wait, I thought your area has a very low level of violent crime? Your harrowing encounters with knives, death threats and multiple attackers sure sounds like a "war zone" to me.
"In that respect you’re right..."
So we agree. But you are still mistaken about many things.
"As to the morality of armed self-defense..."
Your paragraph is a mishmash of your socialist ideology, tired propaganda, poorly thought out speculation, and feminist pseudo-Freudian pop psychology. Nowhere do I see any thoughtful examination of morality.
"I’m interested in learning how to use a pistol ...it would be more of a hobby than a skill I’d actually need."
A firearm is one of those things that you rarely need, but if/when you do really need it, nothing else is an acceptable substitute. I do not take most “martial artists” very seriously because most of them are so poorly educated in the realities of actual fighting. They are too busy being caught up in emotion, ceremony, "spirituality" and mythology.
"I fully support the right to self-defense (even armed in some cases) but being attacked doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want to the guy..."
I am not sure why, but people like you almost always end up using some version of this whenever the subject of lethal violence in self defense comes up. I don't believe anyone in this thread has advocated doing “whatever you want”.
" ‘Killing is not the way of humanity.’ (Musashi)"
Ah yes. Musashi. The guy who spent most of his life killing men in duels and warfare is going to lecture to us about how killing is bad?
While I appreciate all the comments and have nothing against a heated debate, let's all try to avoid making assumptions, generalizations and insulting remarks about each other personally and stick to the arguments themselves.
I'm always amazed how quickly an interesting topic can spiral out of control because people get frustrated and stop arguing and start name-calling. The second you debase someone else personally, you debase your own argument.
By going after a person rather their argument you pull attention away from your own argument. So it doesn't matter what you say, whether your points are good or garbage, people focus on the emotional attack.
Keeping it clean means accepting others have dissenting views and you won't always agree. It also means having some respect for someone's right to have different views, and assuming a level of intelligence. That means giving the benefit of the doubt when perhaps the best wording isn't used to describe something.
Example, clearly guns have a range advantage, but when I said radius of attack, I was talking about the dangerous end of the gun, and pistol whipping/butt stroking aside, it's just the end of the gun that's dangerous. With that pointed away from you, the hammer controlled, unloaded, etc - the gun is effectively no longer an immediate danger to you as long as those conditions are maintained. A knife is always dangerous, even if you've taken it away from your attacker, it continues to pose a danger until it's removed from the scene.
Don't choose to assume someone is saying the wrong thing when it can be interpreted that way. Common sense dictates a gun has a physically longer range.
Considering the original discussion was on "why do we fear knives," it seems we've gotten well away from the original premise. We were discussing one specific aspect of training, the psychology, something we need to understand to better prepare ourselves, and our students when teaching knife defense. We can talk about one without having to talk about the other. They're all interconnected, and the thoughts and ideas presented by all the commenters are very interesting.
I definitely liked Ian Purnell's addition of evolutionary aspect. Edged weapons being the new claws and teeth, I could certainly see that playing a strong role in the fight/flight response compared to where a gun might be a more surreal and shocking experience, like a deer caught in the headlights.
I think it's unlikely there is any real research that studies specific fear responses based on the type of weapon used in a threat or attack. Do we fear guns or knives more? A subjective theoretical discussion, but in a real self-defense situation, we'll discover our own personal answer to that question. Here's hoping our training in self-defense and awareness keeps us from ever finding that answer.
A note to all readers: I do allow heated discussion in my blog's comments but if people don't refrain from personal attacks out of their comments after being warned, they will not be published.
I Know most people do fear knives and your points make valid sence, but i belive that after one is cut enoiugh times, as i have been the fear of knives practily vanishs, it is instead replaced with intence fasination, i would never dream of hurting anything with a knife but i am adimatly familiar with them and have no fear whatsover of tossing them up in the air and catching or over my shoulder or when others toss them to me. I am just so surprised at other peoples reacion when i do such things, the most important thing that people need to fiqure out is that they really arnt that dangerous, your average knife really can nit cut you very easily, example, take a steak or parring knife out of your drawer, press your hand as hard as you can against the blade un moving , there is an extradinailly low chance you will be cut, the same goes with puncture wounds, sure you might et a nick or two but nothung more than a couple seconds of pressure on the location wont cure. for a knife to cut you 99/100 times you have to want it to.
I fear knives because is it dangerous and it can kill you. At the house we only have few and we don't bring it out most of the time because of the kids. I know a family who’s their kid got so curious with a knife in their kitchen and died. So tragic so I fear for my kids too.
I think that a knife or blade would be more terrifying, because of the possibility of a slow and painful death instead of a gunshot which could just allow the victim to be alive and then just gone no thought, pain, sorrow. However the knife you would go through your regrets, pains, fears and would have to fight to stay alive even though you might not.
Zach
Post a Comment