aardwolf wrote: You should sign her up for the 10/3 knife class at krtraining.com and she should carry OC whether or not she gets a CHL.
Excellent advice, maybe it will be accepted.
Seems like I suggested the small fixed blade knife back in June, and got a
wow
for my recommendation.
Not from me.
I had my daughter carrying a S&W HRT (fixed blade, false edge) long before she was old enough to get her CHL. She still carries it sometimes.
The U.S. is not really a "knife culture".... so I am not surprised that some would be shocked at the idea of carrying an edged weapon for self defense. Even more so....a female.
Thanks for all of the discussions here. I wasn't looking for recommendations on what my wife should do although the Utah CFP idea is a good one that I will look into.
Just pointing out that IMHO the system is broken if someone with a legitimate, immediate need to improve their self-defense preparedness is prevented from doing so because of excessive costs and time. If anything it just encourages people to carry illegally if they feel the need to carry, rather than jump through all of these hoops.
It'd be like if they lowered the speed limit on I-35 to 20mph through the entire state. Certainly an argument could be made that 20mph maximum speeds on the freeway would dramatically reduce traffic deaths. However virtually everyone would find the speed limit too low to be worth abiding so they would either break the law when driving on that road, or they would avoid the road altogether. I think our current CHL requirements in TX are much like a 20mph speed limit on an interstate highway.
flintknapper wrote:
The U.S. is not really a "knife culture".... so I am not surprised that some would be shocked at the idea of carrying an edged weapon for self defense. Even more so....a female.
I typically think of a knife as an offensive weapon more than a defensive weapon. Most knife wounds are not going to have the same stopping power of say a gun or ball bat. Especially if the person attacking me is crazed or doped up. My attacker could pummel me while I wait for him to bleed out. It doesn't hurt to carry one, but I sure wouldn't want to depend on a knife to stop a criminal before he can inflict serious harm on me.
flintknapper wrote:
The U.S. is not really a "knife culture".... so I am not surprised that some would be shocked at the idea of carrying an edged weapon for self defense. Even more so....a female.
I typically think of a knife as an offensive weapon more than a defensive weapon. Most knife wounds are not going to have the same stopping power of say a gun or ball bat. Especially if the person attacking me is crazed or doped up. My attacker could pummel me while I wait for him to bleed out. It doesn't hurt to carry one, but I sure wouldn't want to depend on a knife to stop a criminal before he can inflict serious harm on me.
mr.72 wrote:The cost of the class + application fee for her for a CHL will be one month's wages for the job at which she would need to carry.
Cost to work at Tom Thumb or other reasonably safe job $0. Amount of time working at grocery store to pay for CHL =40 hours. The minimal exposure with "no gun" would be from the parking lot, to work. Last time I checked Tom Thumb, Kroger and others did not have a 51% sign.
It is the well trained freedom of speech that demonstrates the power of reasoning and thought. Get a safer job, make the same money.
flintknapper wrote:
The U.S. is not really a "knife culture".... so I am not surprised that some would be shocked at the idea of carrying an edged weapon for self defense. Even more so....a female.
I typically think of a knife as an offensive weapon more than a defensive weapon. Most knife wounds are not going to have the same stopping power of say a gun or ball bat. Especially if the person attacking me is crazed or doped up. My attacker could pummel me while I wait for him to bleed out. It doesn't hurt to carry one, but I sure wouldn't want to depend on a knife to stop a criminal before he can inflict serious harm on me.
Lacking a "gun or ball bat" a knife can be a very effective weapon. In the hands of the average person ...I tend to agree with your statement. However, with a small amount of training...I think you'll find that targeting certain areas (that result in "bio-mechanical cuts") can render a person not much of a threat in just seconds....so its not a matter of "waiting for him to bleed out".
By cutting "across" the length of a muscle/tendon/nerve group it is possible to completely sever them. It doesn't matter if the person is "doped" up or not, he simply doesn't have control of that muscle group any longer. It would surprise many folks to see just how quickly this can be done.
So, I am not arguing for a knife as the first weapon of choice, but please don't underestimate their effectiveness in the hands of someone with a little training.
03Lightningrocks wrote:I typically think of a knife as an offensive weapon more than a defensive weapon. Most knife wounds are not going to have the same stopping power of say a gun or ball bat. Especially if the person attacking me is crazed or doped up. My attacker could pummel me while I wait for him to bleed out. It doesn't hurt to carry one, but I sure wouldn't want to depend on a knife to stop a criminal before he can inflict serious harm on me.
If you're waiting for your attacker to bleed out "you're doing it wrong" to quote an internet meme. I suggest taking a good defensive knife class. They're not knife fighting classes. Many of the good ones evolved from the clipit class Erik Remmen taught before he retired. The one I took taught us how to cut our way out of a rape or kidnapping attempt. Mr.72 should try to find one of these classes for his wife. I can carry my knife in bars and clubs and schools and pretty much everywhere except jury duty and airplanes.
amber wrote: I can carry my knife in bars and clubs and schools and pretty much everywhere except jury duty and airplanes.
Amber, Good for you! It sounds like you recieved some good instruction.
“It is the belief that violence is an aberration that is dangerous because it lulls us into forgetting how easily violence may erupt in quiescent places.” S. Pinker
03Lightningrocks wrote:I typically think of a knife as an offensive weapon more than a defensive weapon. Most knife wounds are not going to have the same stopping power of say a gun or ball bat. Especially if the person attacking me is crazed or doped up. My attacker could pummel me while I wait for him to bleed out. It doesn't hurt to carry one, but I sure wouldn't want to depend on a knife to stop a criminal before he can inflict serious harm on me.
I tend to classify a knife as a tool. It has a lot of positive attributes going for it.
I am not too sold on the "stopping power" theory for handguns. How about if you used a knife to fight your way to your handgun? Is that better than using your bare hands?
Flintknapper has a good point about how a little training, in the proper context, can go a long way toward effectiveness.
“It is the belief that violence is an aberration that is dangerous because it lulls us into forgetting how easily violence may erupt in quiescent places.” S. Pinker
The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.
And I disagree with that. That's just a watered-down version of the anti-gun position that CHLers can't be trusted with guns, and it can be refuted with exactly the same facts, which are that states that don't have shooting requirements for licensed carry (like New Hampshire) don't have a higher rate of problems with CHLers than states that do.
I will go so far as to say that if you can back that up with more states that provide similar examples, I might change my mind. As it stands now, I can only base how I feel about the situation on what I have personally experienced.
If I am interpreting your response above correctly, I am classified as an anti-gun CHL holder.
The other day my ex-wife was ranting about needing laws to stop AK-47's from being sold to the public. All I could think was that we should stop selling cars that kill people also... there are just so many fine-lines and grey-areas when it comes to guns and laws.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.
Yes I agree with you but,,,,, I do not remember reading anywhere in the second ammendment that a prerequisite to bear arms was to qualify. That stipulation is not from our forefather's, but from our legislative add-on's.
There are a lot of drivers on the road that shouldn't be driving as well. There are a lot of high school graduates who cannot read & write, who do not know simple math, science or economics, and who are woefully unqualified to vote, live on their own or work.
So much for the state's ability to perform qualifications.
IMHO, get the state out of my way, let me take responsibility for my own training and take my own chances.
You really think the criminals are going to submit to all of these safety-minded regs?
But it is better than nothing 
