NerblyBear wrote:It's much less dangerous to "brandish" a knife than to point a gun at someone. If you do the latter, you risk being shot if he's carrying a gun. If you do the former, he will either (a) brandish his own knife if he has one, at which point you can run away, or (b) point a gun at you, at which point you can drop the knife and surrender, or (c) run away himself if he has no weapons.
This is possibly the worst logic I've seen outside of creationists and the executive branch.
If (a),
you are now in a knife fight. You do
NOT turn your back on a man with a knife. If you run, your attacker will be emboldened, probably pursue, and you have a good chance of getting your ass stabbed if he catches you.
If (b), you're just fucked; at least if you'd had a gun on him you could have pulled the trigger when he went for his piece, but no, now you're just the bitch.
There's also (d), which is that the motherfucker might see you holding your bitchass knife like a man who has no idea how to use it and no desire to actually stick the thing in another human being and, your desperate intimidation ploy failed, will kick your ass anyhow.
You do not carry a weapon you are unable to use.
You do not carry a weapon you are unwilling to use.
If you carry a weapon you are unwilling and unable to use, you have just introduced a deadly weapon into any confrontation, without the possibility of controlling it yourself.
That's fucking idiotic.
http://www.myspace.com/leopoldandloebchicago
Linus Van Pelt wrote:I subscribe to neither prong of your false dichotomy.