frandroid | (no subject)

In the West Bank, an Israeli settler killed three Palestinians and wounded two others, in a shooting that aroused fears of Palestinian retaliation and the disruption of the evacuation which had gone largely without serious violence.
[...]
The gunman was identified as Asher Weisgan, 40, a driver who transported Palestinian labourers daily to work in the industrial zone of the West Bank settlement of Shilo. Weisgan seized a gun from a security guard at knifepoint, then shot two Palestinian labourers in his car, media reports said. He then continued shooting randomly, killing one more Palestinian and wounding two. Police captured and arrested him, said the reports. [via thestar.com]

Gun vs. knife, you'd think the security guard would have an advantage, no?!?

(yes I know, once you have a knife to your throat, the gun might be too far to do anything. but still.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But still what? You kind of answered your own question.

I can't help myself asking the smartass question, and be the smart one who answers the question, all at once.

Some time in the mid-eighties, a law-enforcement training video called "Surviving Edged Weapons" was produced. Its major intent was to redress this opinion, common amongst law enforcement professionals, that a knife-wielding opponent is little threat to one armed with a gun. One of the things the video demonstrated was that the minimum safe distance between a knife-wielding assailant and a cop with a holstered handgun is about 21 feet. This distance decreases as the cop is in increased states of readiness (gun already drawn, for example) but was always larger than one might have expected. The gun is an often overestimated advantage.

Also, presumably Weisgan knew the guard had a gun. I imagine the guard didn't know Weisgan had a knife. So I'd say it seems obvious that Weisgan would have the advantage, not the guard.