Legality of knife-wielding

[BigV]

More seriously?

Because a knife is useful in a thousand more situations than a gun is. I do shudder at the thought of Cyber Wolf prying the lid from a gallon of paint with his mondo pig sticker... but in every day use, stuff needs to be cut. The number of times stuff needs to be *shot* is zero. So far, so far. And that's why I carry a knife and not a gun, though both are legal.

Fair warning--you're gonna catch hell for this:

Guns have options of waving it, warning shot, leg shot, gut shot, three in the chest and one in the head ...

[sexobon]

Yes, ZenGum's ideas about gun options being waving it, warning shot, and leg shot are as obsolete as BrianR's throw down knives and guns. Both actions imply that there was no immediate mortal threat that yet required the use of lethal force. With today's forensic capabilities, these have gone the way of shooting someone outside your door and then dragging them inside to justify it. Any of these actions may convince a judge or jury that you wanted to unnecessarily hurt or kill people even if that wasn't the case.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

More seriously, I cannot think of any reason to prefer a knife over a gun, if both are legal. ...

Originally Posted by BigV

More seriously?

Because a knife is useful in a thousand more situations than a gun is. ... And that's why I carry a knife and not a gun, though both are legal.

I got the distinct impression that ZenGum's post was in the context of self defense and not general utility. In any case, why choose when you can do both?

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... And ultimately, guy with a gun usually beats guy with a knife. ...

Here we only do that if we run out of ammunition.

Ummmm..... You Aussies are strange.

(aren't I a stinker)

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Yes, ZenGum's ideas about gun options being waving it, warning shot, and leg shot are as obsolete as BrianR's throw down knives and guns.

By "waving it" I had in mind the situation where a certain awesome dwellar dealt with a problematic individual in a Subway Shop by sweeping the leg and intimidating the bad guy with his gun.

The South Australian police still have a "shoot-to-wound" option in their training and occasionally use it.

Here we only do that if we run out of ammunition.

We shoot them first, then give them a good beating.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by sexobon

snip--

I got the distinct impression that ZenGum's post was in the context of self defense and not general utility. In any case, why choose when you can do both?

--snip

Yes, I see that too, but it was rather an open ended question. It is true that the general utility of a knife is far greater than that of a gun, and that's why I carry one. As for why I don't carry both, though legal to do so, I offer this, respectfully. I don't carry a gun for self defense for the same reason I don't wear a helmet while walking on the street (or driving a car in town) or wear a parachute while walking across a high bridge. I feel the risk for not having such protections does not justify the "trouble" for having them and using them properly. It's an awesome tool for what it does, (they're all awesome protections for their respective risks) but I don't want the hassle/expense/risk required for the protection against what I believe to be remote risks.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by BigV

I do shudder at the thought of Cyber Wolf prying the lid from a gallon of paint with her mondo pig sticker...

fixed for you