On Jun 2, 2006, at 12:12 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:07 PM Thursday 6/1/2006, Bryon Daly wrote:
On 5/31/06, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Behalf Of Damon Agretto
>
> You guys and your swords. I'll take a pollaxe...
Never bring a sword, batleth or a poleaxe to a gunfight!
Amazingly, this guy did OK for himself with a pocket knife vs 4
attackers
with a shotgun and pistol:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/
0530marine.html
Without even reading the story, I suspect that the last word
(before.html) in the URL is the key . . .
Absolutely -- it all depends on whether the guy(s) with the gun(s) are
experienced with and prepared to use it (them), and whether the guy
with the (knife/batleth/poleaxe) has sufficient experience with and
willingness to use it. If the knife-wielder is cool-headed and quick
enough to inflict serious pain or scary-enough-looking wounds and the
gun-holder is inexperienced or afraid or unwilling to actually use it
before he gets cut or stabbed, the battle will go to the "lesser"
weapon.
Not that I would bet on it. I declined the chance to take a hand-vs-gun
class through my martial-arts school recently because I didn't think
that the likelihood that I will be in a position to have to disarm
someone was worth the $150 or so fee, but the idea is that with the
right training and the ability to maintain composure under extreme
stress, no weapon at all is strictly required.
When lethal punches are outlawed, only outlaws will have lethal punches.
Dave
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
