|
Post by Faldarin on Jan 8, 2017 23:06:45 GMT
Finally we come to a full circle. I value more my life than ego trashed in the alley, because most of the time this is the situation. And to end this, I am one of the obsessed guys who love their tiny knives - SAK - and I would never think to cary a big blade other than in wilderness for camp chores and fun in the woods. And some Canadian wisdom regarding knife and bears in the woods: Derzis has the right of this with the bear infographic. Even with 'only' black bears here in Ohio, there are a LOT of young people here with more balls than brains who could probably need to see this about bears.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 8, 2017 23:07:37 GMT
Making hickory scales for a knife from an axe handle and with minimal tools I need a pause from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 8, 2017 23:10:08 GMT
Polars are worse because they see humans as prey. Browns and blacks not yet, most of them. Yup. And that would be the order for bear, as Polar are just as big as Brown, but hunt and eat meat exclusively, and Blacks are much smaller. Polar bear vs. Siberian tiger...just kidding, as this is a sword thread (but it is an intriguing question, no). Fat content and size for protection would give the bear the edge in my opinion, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 8, 2017 23:19:05 GMT
Polars are worse because they see humans as prey. Browns and blacks not yet, most of them. Yup. And that would be the order for bear, as Polar are just as big as Brown, but hunt and eat meat exclusively, and Blacks are much smaller. Polar bear vs. Siberian tiger...just kidding, as this is a sword thread (but it is an intriguing question, no). Fat content and size for protection would give the bear the edge in my opinion, btw. Is the last joke with bears : Every time I see the sign with "DON'T FEED THE BEARS" I think to this image though ... I behave and let the topic come back to blade sizes. Btw, How big is Big enough for the OP?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 8, 2017 23:25:09 GMT
Yup. And that would be the order for bear, as Polar are just as big as Brown, but hunt and eat meat exclusively, and Blacks are much smaller. Polar bear vs. Siberian tiger...just kidding, as this is a sword thread (but it is an intriguing question, no). Fat content and size for protection would give the bear the edge in my opinion, btw. Is the last joke with bears : Every time I see the sign with "DON'T FEED THE BEARS" I think to this image though ... I behave and let the topic come back to blade sizes. Btw, How big is Big enough for the OP? More bear jokes (like Saturday Night Live..."More Cow Bells"), I think most people would agree...blade sizes AND bear jokes can co exist.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 8, 2017 23:27:34 GMT
Yes, it can work. Avoid the sempriniesque situations like you would avoid a bear, and things will be alright even with a 2" blade. The native indians were saying that if you lift your fist in front of your eyes and you can't cover the bear with your thumb popped up (OK sign) you are too close to the bear. If you see things in front of you that are not right, chose another way to go home.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 9, 2017 0:11:48 GMT
Yes, it can work. Avoid the sempriniesque situations like you would avoid a bear, and things will be alright even with a 2" blade. The native indians were saying that if you lift your fist in front of your eyes and you can't cover the bear with your thumb popped up (OK sign) you are too close to the bear. If you see things in front of you that are not right, chose another way to go home. I'm assuming that is with arm outstretched and not close to the face. Of course, if you take the advise literally, you'd be hundreds of feet from your fellow man...or pub/watering hole.
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Jan 9, 2017 0:49:59 GMT
I like meters, so would be around 150m by my estimations which is not safe at all - it was a guy killed by bear because he decided to take pictures from 50m away, photos / movie confirmed how stupid he was after his carcas was found. Not literally, but be aware of what is hapening around.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 9, 2017 1:10:49 GMT
I like meters, so would be around 150m by my estimations which is not safe at all - it was a guy killed by bear because he decided to take pictures from 50m away, photos / movie confirmed how stupid he was after his carcas was found. Not literally, but be aware of what is hapening around. Bears are INSANE powered beasts. So fast, like horse speed for short distances, (45mph). High powered rifle or shotgun with slugs are best for bear defense...and really, to keep away as far as possible (as it is THEIR turf). I forget the documentary years ago on the fool who was eaten, forgetting bears were wild animals and "humanizing" them. A few nasty ones walked through his tent (with his girlfriend also as victim) because the tent was set up in the bear tunnel/path areas. You think you are helping the bears, but you end up hurting them, as those bears were later killed by park officials.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 9, 2017 6:57:15 GMT
So to make it short: You don't need to carry a big knife if you carry a bear!
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 9, 2017 17:38:54 GMT
Did anyone say what they meant by "tiny?" The knife that was in my desk here at work has a blade 1 1/2-inches long. It's not a very good knife but it's been good enough for anything I've needed a knife for here at work. I will admit, though, that it's really too small to cut cake with but there's a drawer full of big knives in the break room.
Of the knives I have at home, and I have a lot, the ones I actually use depend on what I'm planning to do. A couple are not really sharp enough to be of any use but the rest are good; none were expensive, that is, not very expensive. I generally take a regular sheath knife with me to the woods but to date (that is, in the last 50 years), I've never used one. Instead, I usually use a small folding knife. Mostly I just don't find myself having much of a requirement for a knife, large or small. I think I'd actually use a hammer more than a knife if that's what I brought along. But I still take them with me. The small ones can do all the cutting I've ever done. They are both easy to carry and easy to lose.
What I'd really like is a knife like Jungle Jim used to kill crocodiles with. But there are no corcs in the country and I'm probably 300 miles to far north for alligators.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 9, 2017 19:30:16 GMT
So to make it short: You don't need to carry a big knife if you carry a bear! Please don't feed the bears small knives.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jan 9, 2017 19:33:35 GMT
Did anyone say what they meant by "tiny?" The knife that was in my desk here at work has a blade 1 1/2-inches long. It's not a very good knife but it's been good enough for anything I've needed a knife for here at work. I will admit, though, that it's really too small to cut cake with but there's a drawer full of big knives in the break room. Of the knives I have at home, and I have a lot, the ones I actually use depend on what I'm planning to do. A couple are not really sharp enough to be of any use but the rest are good; none were expensive, that is, not very expensive. I generally take a regular sheath knife with me to the woods but to date (that is, in the last 50 years), I've never used one. Instead, I usually use a small folding knife. Mostly I just don't find myself having much of a requirement for a knife, large or small. I think I'd actually use a hammer more than a knife if that's what I brought along. But I still take them with me. The small ones can do all the cutting I've ever done. They are both easy to carry and easy to lose. What I'd really like is a knife like Jungle Jim used to kill crocodiles with. But there are no corcs in the country and I'm probably 300 miles to far north for alligators. Lots of videos of bush crafter Mors Kochanski of Karamat on YouTube. He's an old timer and innovator who is pretty amazing, and he shows you what can be done in cold weather climates, and it's pretty basic.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 10, 2017 0:44:05 GMT
Hey... as a dabbler in psychology and human behavior, this site is an intriguing read. Thanks! 3) Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener at war you say? Sounds catchy, but what is this "war" you speak of? Recent events notwithstanding, the collapse of our society is not imminent for some time. We have systems in place to protect us, and have faith that most of our fellow citizens are respectful, lawful human beings. You mean: "We have systems in place to punish anyone who happens to take it into their head that they are going to do something anti-social to us; after, of course, the incident is over, and, of course, provided your assailant is actually caught". Unless Canada has implemented some kind of mass drone-strike mind reading system (or a program that has armed security constantly on duty every twenty feet or so throughout the entire country), there's nothing the police, military, fire department or government can do for you if someone violently attacks you. If attacked, your survival depends solely on you, and anyone around you, if there happens to be anyone around you and they happen to come to your aid - which is not a given. The police are not there to prevent crimes - they can't, unless they just happen to be standing near by when something crazy happens. The police are there to enforce the laws of the government - this means apprehending people who break the laws, or trying to rush to crime scenes and stop them as they are happening. Most violent encounters are over quickly - before the police arrive at the scene. Violent crime is a reality, always has been and probably always will be. Not as common, maybe, as everyone thinks, but people die every year from violent, unprovoked attacks. You can't go through life expecting someone else to cover your backside. If the government actually had a monopoly on force it might be a different story (dictatorial government discussion aside), but it doesn't. Anyone that feels like it can stick a kitchen knife in their pants, walk into a crowded area, and start murdering people. Not that this has much to do with knives as self defense options; I'd still pick a gun or (maybe) a stick over a knife.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 10, 2017 0:44:44 GMT
Self defense is an awesome responsibility, and not to be taken lightly. You pull and use a lethal device and MANY lives will change forever (legally, physically, spiritually) in the blink of an eye. It is good that you (I feel) value human life so much, regardless of our discussions and quibbling over the details. Finally we come to a full circle. I value more my life than ego trashed in the alley, because most of the time this is the situation. And to end this, I am one of the obsessed guys who love their tiny knives - SAK - and I would never think to cary a big blade other than in wilderness for camp chores and fun in the woods. And some Canadian wisdom regarding knife and bears in the woods: I love this!
|
|
|
Post by 1776 on Jan 10, 2017 2:01:21 GMT
3) Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener at war you say? Sounds catchy, but what is this "war" you speak of? Recent events notwithstanding, the collapse of our society is not imminent for some time. We have systems in place to protect us, and have faith that most of our fellow citizens are respectful, lawful human beings. You mean: "We have systems in place to punish anyone who happens to take it into their head that they are going to do something anti-social to us; after, of course, the incident is over, and, of course, provided your assailant is actually caught". Unless Canada has implemented some kind of mass drone-strike mind reading system (or a program that has armed security constantly on duty every twenty feet or so throughout the entire country), there's nothing the police, military, fire department or government can do for you if someone violently attacks you. If attacked, your survival depends solely on you, and anyone around you, if there happens to be anyone around you and they happen to come to your aid - which is not a given. The police are not there to prevent crimes - they can't, unless they just happen to be standing near by when something crazy happens. The police are there to enforce the laws of the government - this means apprehending people who break the laws, or trying to rush to crime scenes and stop them as they are happening. Most violent encounters are over quickly - before the police arrive at the scene. Violent crime is a reality, always has been and probably always will be. Not as common, maybe, as everyone thinks, but people die every year from violent, unprovoked attacks. You can't go through life expecting someone else to cover your backside. If the government actually had a monopoly on force it might be a different story (dictatorial government discussion aside), but it doesn't. Anyone that feels like it can stick a kitchen knife in their pants, walk into a crowded area, and start murdering people. Not that this has much to do with knives as self defense options; I'd still pick a gun or (maybe) a stick over a knife. You took the words right out of my mouth leagacyofthesword... bravo. Just remember; when seconds matter the police are only minutes away!
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 10, 2017 2:30:45 GMT
3) Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener at war you say? Sounds catchy, but what is this "war" you speak of? Recent events notwithstanding, the collapse of our society is not imminent for some time. We have systems in place to protect us, and have faith that most of our fellow citizens are respectful, lawful human beings. You mean: "We have systems in place to punish anyone who happens to take it into their head that they are going to do something anti-social to us; after, of course, the incident is over, and, of course, provided your assailant is actually caught". Unless Canada has implemented some kind of mass drone-strike mind reading system (or a program that has armed security constantly on duty every twenty feet or so throughout the entire country), there's nothing the police, military, fire department or government can do for you if someone violently attacks you. If attacked, your survival depends solely on you, and anyone around you, if there happens to be anyone around you and they happen to come to your aid - which is not a given. The police are not there to prevent crimes - they can't, unless they just happen to be standing near by when something crazy happens. The police are there to enforce the laws of the government - this means apprehending people who break the laws, or trying to rush to crime scenes and stop them as they are happening. Most violent encounters are over quickly - before the police arrive at the scene. Violent crime is a reality, always has been and probably always will be. Not as common, maybe, as everyone thinks, but people die every year from violent, unprovoked attacks. You can't go through life expecting someone else to cover your backside. If the government actually had a monopoly on force it might be a different story (dictatorial government discussion aside), but it doesn't. Anyone that feels like it can stick a kitchen knife in their pants, walk into a crowded area, and start murdering people. Not that this has much to do with knives as self defense options; I'd still pick a gun or (maybe) a stick over a knife. The justice system doesn't work solely on a single-encounter basis. Yes, there are people out there (even in friendly 'ol Canada eh) who might be inclined to stick a knife into an unsuspecting stranger. And sometimes, they even succeed. The justice system can't prevent that, unfortunately. However, if can at least insure that they rarely get a chance to do it a second time. Killers can't kill if they're too busy in prison trying not to drop the soap in the shower... ...speaking of not dropping your soap in the shower, the threat of jail-time (or in our case, Nickleback) might be sufficient to deter would-be murderers. If jail-time doesn't sound like a credible threat, just imagine Shawshank Redemption but without the comfort of Morgan Freeman's soothing voice. Personally, self-defense is something that I figure is out of my hands. Let me explain thus: IF you're getting mugged by a street-thug: you'd probably be better of handing him your wallet, and everyone walks away alive. I'm not a coward, but honestly there's nothing in my wallet that's worth risking my life for. Also remember that your average thug might be content to take your stuff and sucker-punch you in the face if you are unarmed. If you pull a knife on them, they'll very likely kill you out of fear for their own lives if for nothing else. IF you're getting jumped by a psycho murder: you'll be dead no matter what. Unless the psycho-murder stops to deliver a witty monologue before killing you (as I wish every psycho murder did), they have every tactical advantage over you: surprise, concealment, and initiative. Even if you have a gun and your assailant is unarmed, you'd be hard-pressed to defend against them if they got the drop on you. Basically, if someone wants you dead and they know what they're doing, very few weapons will protect you. That being said, I do agree with legacyofthesword to an extent. Law enforcement and security is not provided on an all-or-nothing: we don't live in a world where justice is perfect and nobody every gets hurt. However, we also don't live in a lawless "Mad Max" dystopia (although my inner 18-year old finds that prospect highly appealing). In my city I'm fortunate enough to have a reliable law enforcement system and safe streets, which makes arming myself for self-defence rather unnecessary and as Afoo pointed out earlier actually puts me at legal risk. On the other hand if I lived in a rough neighborhood, then the benefits of carrying weapons for self-defence start to outweigh the legal and practical drawbacks. As afoo pointed out, there are drawbacks to carrying weapons (problems with law enforcement, legal ramifications, intimidating/scaring everyone around you); it's up to you to determine whether those costs to yourself and society are necessary. The equation probably comes up with a huge "no" in places like small-town Canada, but might come up with a "yes" in places like 1980's Baltimore ("Omar comin'!").
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 10, 2017 5:04:46 GMT
legacyofthesword and 1776 - you are correct in that I am putting myself at a risk, and I do acknowledge that in my rant. However, I would argue that this risk is very small, and it is the price I pay for honouring the social contract I have with the rest of society. Again, for us here in Canada, the state has monopoly on the use of force. That's not a feeling or opinion - thats the law. There are some who would wish to defy the spirit or letter of this law, fine, but I am not one of them for the reasons mentioned above. Clearly there are some regions of the world who have a very different view on arms control than Canada. We could debate the merits of either approach and quote stats on violent crime etc till the cows (or moose in our case) come home. Nonetheless, the States and other similarly well armed societies have yet to descend into vigilante hellholes, and our more pacifist society here has yet to descend into a lawless backwater like in Judge Dredd. As such, it is safe to say that there are merits to both views. I do not claim our way to be superior, but I just wanted to share with those on the internet *why* we have these laws here in Canada. I have seen too many youtube videos from 19 year old kids (or indeed 91 year old kids) who rant about how our laws are draconian and oppressive, but there is a reason behind them if you look at the legal and social background....and so far they seem to be working. BTW: This argument was intended to justify why myself and like-minded people do not carry large knives for the explicit purpose of self defense, hence its relevance to the post at hand. Speaking of the post at hand - I wonder where the OP went....
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 10, 2017 5:07:13 GMT
All good points bfoo2. Unfortunately, the threat of jail time doesn't seem to do much for criminals... if they thought they were going to get caught, they wouldn't be committing the crime in the first place. I mean, crime was still rampant when the punishments were even harsher (back in the 1700s death by hanging wasn't unusual for crimes like theft).
I totally agree with what you said about self defense. That's why situational awareness is, in my opinion, more important than even carrying anything to defend yourself with. If you can see the threat coming and avoid it, then you'll never even have to utilize self defense. Running for your life is always the best option. If you do see the attack coming though (this is why awareness is so important) then you have vastly evened the odds. Also very important is mindset - being ready to deal with a violent attack, instead of just walking around with a "hmmm, what's happening on Facebo- OH CRAP DOES THAT GUY HAVE A KNIFE?!" Sadly, it's usually the people who have decided to cause harm to the other person that win the fight, not the people who hesitate. You don't have to be a sociopath, just be aware and ready to deal with stuff. Sometimes that's not an option though; say if you have children, or if you're cornered, or if your attacker is actually faster than you. Running might not help if the crazy guy's got a gun too - but then again, it might work just fine. Run, and try to get something substantial between you and the shooter. Fight is always the last option, after all other options have been exhausted.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 10, 2017 5:12:37 GMT
legacyofthesword and 1776 - you are correct in that I am putting myself at a risk, and I do acknowledge that in my rant. However, I would argue that this risk is very small, and it is the price I pay for honouring the social contract I have with the rest of society. Again, for us here in Canada, the state has monopoly on the use of force. That's not a feeling or opinion - thats the law. There are some who would wish to defy the spirit or letter of this law, fine, but I am not one of them for the reasons mentioned above. Clearly there are some regions of the world who have a very different view on arms control than Canada. We could debate the merits of either approach and quote stats on violent crime etc till the cows (or moose in our case) come home. Nonetheless, the States and other similarly well armed societies have yet to descend into vigilante hellholes, and our more pacifist society here has yet to descend into a lawless backwater like in Judge Dredd. As such, it is safe to say that there are merits to both views. I do not claim our way to be superior, but I just wanted to share with those on the internet *why* we have these laws here in Canada. I have seen too many youtube videos from 19 year old kids (or indeed 91 year old kids) who rant about how our laws are draconian and oppressive, but there is a reason behind them if you look at the legal and social background....and so far they seem to be working. BTW: This argument was intended to justify why myself and like-minded people do not carry large knives for the explicit purpose of self defense, hence its relevance to the post at hand. Speaking of the post at hand - I wonder where the OP went.... I disagree with you about the state having the monopoly on violence - the law doesn't prevent anything, it only punishes. Any Canadian who feels like it can commit violence anytime he or she wishes to. But I totally respect your points and opinions. You are quite correct: neither method of dealing with crime works perfectly, and there ARE merits to both view. I would posit that Canada's way is the "better path" and the U.S. has the more "realistic approach". The real problem is not stopping crime as it happens, the real problem is figuring out how to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place. But that's been the human problem from the dawn of time, and it seems no one has figured it out. Anyway, I'll stop derailing this thread. It's nice to talk about these things with someone of different opinions and views in a calm, reasonable way though.
|
|