Good thing it never came to that. I reckon one of the paring / boning / fillet knives and possibly the smaller Santoku knife would literally come in handy rather than the chef’s knife preferred by terrorists.
I mentioned above the two so-called London Bridge attacks in 2019 & 2017 (van and guys with ceramic knives). In that one pub patrons threw bottles and chairs at them, and one guy in a steakhouse shouted, “Fuck you, I’m Millwall!” (a district in London) and fought with his fists till the police with the guns showed up (another cop had been using his baton).
The 2019 attack was in Fishmongers Hall and that terrorist (who had just been released from jail for being a terrorist) taped chef’s knives to his wrists and started attacking. In this case some guy grabbed a Narwhal tusk from the wall and fought back!
And getting back to Mick Dundee: He not only brandishes his Bowie knife but then fillets the muggers Micheal Jackson Thriller-style jacket.
If you look at the fighting knives actual soldiers are equipped with, you typically see something similar to the k-bar or a double-edged dagger. Larger knives like the Bowie, trench knife or kukri are typically substitutes for when a short sword would be too cumbersome to routinely carry.
Yes but a kitchen knife is something you might legitimately have with you, if you are a chef. A fighting knife, Bowie knife, or dagger would be a weapon and thus illegal to carry in many jurisdictions, e.g. the United Kingdom. (An argument could be made that many of these double as utility knives, but good luck convincing the police that you need that jungle knife or cowboy knife in the middle of London)
I’d definitely feel a lot more confident defending myself with a narwhal tusk than with a knife. For one thing, it’s got a lot more reach. Though I must admit that a narwhal tusk isn’t part of my typical everyday carry.
Except that i suspect for most people, wielding a knife dramatically increases the odds of someone else trying to kill you. If you are a chief of state, or have a violent ex, your odds may be different.
Yeah. Waving a knife you don’t know how to use at a mugger is a good way to escalate a mugging into your own murder. Or at least severe stabbing injury.
Now you have no way of knowing a priori if that mugger intended to get violent or not; maybe their whole MO is credible threats only. If that had been their plan, you just started something you can’t finish. If they were going to get violent, at the extreme limit case where they fully intended to kill you to eliminate a witness, well you’ve got nothing to lose.
But there’s a big intermediate space there. Most muggings end with a lot more damage to your psyche and your wallet than to your person. Not all, but most. Challenging a thug to a fight with weapons probably forecloses that happier middle outcome.
I’ve always found it odd that weapons seem to simultaneously be terrible for self-defense but excellent for committing crimes. The majority of muggers are looking for easy victims. i.e. Someone who won’t or can’t put up a fight. If you’re waving a knife around you’re more trouble than you’re worth.
I’d say that weapons are excellent to attack with by people accustomed to attacking with them. They are less good as defense when used by alert people accustomed to defending with them. And are worse than useless as defense when used by people utterly caught unawares and utterly unaccustomed to defending with them.
The case we’re discussing here is a lot closer to Door #3 than Door #2.
Yes, most criminals prefer unarmed victims and cooperative victims. For them every attempted mugging is opening an Easter egg. Will they get a fat wallet, an empty wallet, a kung-fu beatdown, or 3 rounds of .40SW? They don’t know; they can guess by size, age, gender, and carriage of the intended victim, but they don’t know.
If you’re going to surprise them, you’d better be as good as you think you are and they’re as unskilled as you hope they are. Because you’re definitely playing their game in their arena by their rules after spotting them the element of surprise and choice of venue. Most muggers aren’t rocket scientists; rather the opposite. But they are experienced at mugging. Unlike you. And practice matters.
That’s why I said, “actively trying to kill her”. As in shooting at her with a gun, trying to stab her with a knife, closing his hands around her neck, or trying to shove her in front of a train - and without her being able to escape. I’m not talking about a mugging.
Yes, if the encounter proceeds to that point, and she’s aware that it’s proceeded to that point, and she’s still capable of doing so, at that point drawing the knife would be a rational move.
I suppose the problem with theoreticals is that we can both keep coming up with scenarios to prove our point. The long and short of it is even if you’re at a disadvantage, you’re at an even greater disadvantage if unarmed and your assailant is armed. I think a lot of people are intellectually fine with the idea of self-defense, but a lot of them are uncomfortable with anyone taking practical steps to defend themselves if it involves a potential for violence.
I agree with you that there are a lot of people who are way more morally against violence than makes good sense IMO.
But that’s not where I’m coming from. Morally I find nothing wrong with killing would-be muggers as soon as they show their colors. My argument is simply with the practicalities of getting that successful outcome.
I’m coming from the practical point that the majority of muggings end with the muggee without money and also without (much) injury. You starting a fight you’re statistically vastly likely to lose doesn’t let you keep your money; it just costs you more teeth or stabs. Most muggers are content to threaten violence, not perpetrate it (much). Of course there are exceptions. But any one of us is only getting mugged zero or one times per lifetime. We’re not going to get good at it.
The police are pretty adamant that resisting a street robbery is a statistically losing proposition. So don’t do it.
If you’re set upon by a gang of thugs out to have some fun at your expense, or you’re being kidnapped, etc., yeah, fight like hell with everything you’ve got. The situation will only get worse for you if you don’t. You’re still almost certainly screwed though.
Again that’s only half the equation.
If you’re already fighting then yes, more weapons for you is better. Even if you’re not greatly skilled with them. At least until they’re taken away from you and turned against you.
But if you’re not already fighting, just being threatened, then you escalating with a weapon you’re no good with will probably convert their threat of violence into actual violence. They might run away. Better bet they won’t. You converted losing a wallet into losing a wallet and taking a bunch of battle damage. Perhaps even fatal battle damage. Or maybe, just maybe, you won. Each of those is a possible outcome. But for somebody with no fighting training or experience, which outcome do you think most likely? Really.
And this is why I’d never pull out my knife if i were mugged.
And i really don’t think there’s anyone out there who hates me enough to want to kill me unprovoked. Sure, there are lots of people who might want to steal from me. But kill me? Why?
