You're all carrying your knives backwards!

jackknife said:
No, not sucks any more than living in a country that has no constitution and having a government telling you what you can own and not own. I'll take the insecure in very strong preference to living in a nanny state where you are helpless to defend yourself if need be. Like your country has zero crime, no murders, no prisons?

I'm sorry, but I stopped believing in never-never land a long time ago. Theres not a single country on earth that has zero murders, no crime, and has never had innocent people killed by some violent criminal. Spare us your conceited snideness that is born of total ignorance of what its like to live in a country much larger than yours with a 100% more diverse populace, with no history if being ruled. We have more people in New York City than your total country.

Don't mistake preparedness for insecurity. It was our preparedness that kept you from having to salute with Sieg Heil when you were occupied by the Nazi's. I understand that the German takeover of Denmark was the shortest in history; 4 hours. But then I guess an unprepared populace can't fight back much.
Click to expand...

I'm sympathetic but this is a tad harsh and a little off base in places.

For instance, how well were Danish civilians armed prior to the Nazi invasion? How much civilian resistance was there and how much did the prime minister's call to surrender affect civilian attitudes? From what I recall, the surrender was aimed at preventing aerial bombings.

Also, there is a big difference between personal and national preparedness. We didn't liberate Denmark with our personal sidearms or a defensive militia. We won the second world war with a national military offensive including tanks, ships, planes, and ultimately nuclear weapons.

Of course, there are other instances in history where an armed populace made a difference. It was certainly a factor in the American Revolution, in which we did have a history of being ruled and then made history by casting off the yoke. Between that and British attempts to confiscate guns, the American Founders saw fit to make that right their second amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Getting back to the original comment here, bolstering safety is not the same thing as feeling insecurity. David already mentioned the fire extinguisher example. It's one of the most relatable. I live in a nice, safe, rural area. I EDC a firearm for the same reason that I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen.
 
Chronovore said:
I'm sympathetic but this is a tad harsh and a little off base in places.

For instance, how well were Danish civilians armed prior to the Nazi invasion? How much civilian resistance was there and how much did the prime minister's call to surrender affect civilian attitudes? From what I recall, the surrender was aimed at preventing aerial bombings.

Also, there is a big difference between personal and national preparedness. We didn't liberate Denmark with our personal sidearms or a defensive militia. We won the second world war with a national military offensive including tanks, ships, planes, and ultimately nuclear weapons.

Of course, there are other instances in history where an armed populace made a difference. It was certainly a factor in the American Revolution, in which we did have a history of being ruled and then made history by casting off the yoke. Between that and British attempts to confiscate guns, the American Founders saw fit to make that right their second amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Getting back to the original comment here, bolstering safety is not the same thing as feeling insecurity. David already mentioned the fire extinguisher example. It's one of the most relatable. I live in a nice, safe, rural area. I EDC a firearm for the same reason that I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen.
Click to expand...

Now make no mistake. I am not trying to speak ill of your choices to bear arms. I probably would do the same, if I lived in Philadelphia for instance.

The population of the Metro area of Philadelphia is largely the same as the population of Denmark. About 6 million.
Number of homicides in Philadelphia in 2020: 499. (mentioned further op in this thread)
Number of homicides in Denmark in 2020: 42

The significance of that difference is just so big, that it should induce a want for change.
And I understand why one would want to protect one self.
 
R Rasmus80 , please understand, typically "insecurity" is taken to mean, weak, timid, cowardly and frightened. If that was the implication intended, then it was an ill-conceived implication. If instead, by insecure, you meant "the reasonable apprehension that violence could be directed at oneself", then yes, it is sad that people have to live with that.

But regardless, it is absolutely reasonable to take an attitude of preparedness towards whatever possibilities exist, be they fire (extinguishers), automobile accidents (seatbelts), or unjust assault (self defense tools, including firearms and knives, where legal). Preparedness, acknowledging the possibilities, does not equate to cowardice or timidity. It is much more related to duty and responsibility.

The likelihood of criminal violence doesn't even need to be high for a reasonable person to want to form precautionary habits. Forty-two murders is not zero. But four hundred and ninety nine murders is not something that would make me "lack feeling safe" in my surroundings. Because violence is like metal. It is drawn by a certain magnetism, and it won't go where it is not drawn. Usually. So we learn what causes violence, and we avoid those behaviors. And in the rare but surely precedented cases where violence comes calling uninvited, we learn how to stop it effectively and decisively.
 
I don't carry on my belt, but in my pocket... that being said I just have one jeans less now since I just cut them up trying to pull out my knife with edge facing forwards... :(
 
David Mary said:
R Rasmus80 , please understand, typically "insecurity" is taken to mean, weak, timid, cowardly and frightened. If that was the implication intended, then it was an ill-conceived implication. If instead, by insecure, you meant "the reasonable apprehension that violence could be directed at oneself", then yes, it is sad that people have to live with that.

But regardless, it is absolutely reasonable to take an attitude of preparedness towards whatever possibilities exist, be they fire (extinguishers), automobile accidents (seatbelts), or unjust assault (self defense tools, including firearms and knives, where legal). Preparedness, acknowledging the possibilities, does not equate to cowardice or timidity. It is much more related to duty and responsibility.

The likelihood of criminal violence doesn't even need to be high for a reasonable person to want to form precautionary habits. Forty-two murders is not zero. But four hundred and ninety nine murders is not something that would make me "lack feeling safe" in my surroundings. Because violence is like metal. It is drawn by a certain magnetism, and it won't go where it is not drawn. Usually. So we learn what causes violence, and we avoid those behaviors. And in the rare but surely precedented cases where violence comes calling uninvited, we learn how to stop it effectively and decisively.
Click to expand...

I am not implying that one is timid, weak or a coward for wanting to carry a knife or a gun for self defence.
I would say, that the means with which you choose to protect your self, reflects in the means your potential attacker chooses to arm him-self. And vice versa.
In the end resulting in a sort of arms-race.

Edited to add:
those who are timid, weak and cowards may well chose to arm themselves too, resulting in less than level-headed persons, potentially overreacting to perceived threat.
 
Last edited:
Chronovore said:
I'm sympathetic but this is a tad harsh and a little off base in places.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was harsh at all. The man came here with a comment based in a snide, arrogant, and condescending attitude that was insulting. And I made it clear that I'd rather live in a place where may need a tool for self defense than a country that sticks its nose in near every aspect of my life telling me what I can own and can't own.

There was a discussion going on about a knife for self defense, and he comes in with his comment is like arriving at a party and pissing in the punch bowl. Let the mods decide what is too harsh, thats their jobs. As for an intrusion of some liberal European attitude telling we're insecure because we carry a knife or gun to be better prepared,, screw 'em. As I understand Denmark, you can't even carry a pocket knife there. The government tells you that its illegal. Screw that. I'll follow Ben Franklin's advise that people who give up freedoms for security, don't deserve either.
 
V interesting and level headed discussion, gents. I understand Rasmus’s point, and think that language got in the way. Just a quick fact check on Denmark rolling over to Germany in WWII. They rolled over the far more powerful France in very short order. Denmark sensibly capitulated rather than send its young men to be slaughtered when the outcome was inevitable.

However, here is a thing. The Danes saved all but two of the Jewish population from falling into the hands of the Nazis, and even those two survived. This was organised by the Lutheran clergy in Denmark. Danish civilians took them over to Sweden in boats, mostly. There are many countries I could sling no end of mud at: Denmark is not one of them.
 
David Mary said:
R Rasmus80 , please understand, typically "insecurity" is taken to mean, weak, timid, cowardly and frightened. If that was the implication intended, then it was an ill-conceived implication. If instead, by insecure, you meant "the reasonable apprehension that violence could be directed at oneself", then yes, it is sad that people have to live with that.

But regardless, it is absolutely reasonable to take an attitude of preparedness towards whatever possibilities exist, be they fire (extinguishers), automobile accidents (seatbelts), or unjust assault (self defense tools, including firearms and knives, where legal). Preparedness, acknowledging the possibilities, does not equate to cowardice or timidity. It is much more related to duty and responsibility.

The likelihood of criminal violence doesn't even need to be high for a reasonable person to want to form precautionary habits. Forty-two murders is not zero. But four hundred and ninety nine murders is not something that would make me "lack feeling safe" in my surroundings. Because violence is like metal. It is drawn by a certain magnetism, and it won't go where it is not drawn. Usually. So we learn what causes violence, and we avoid those behaviors. And in the rare but surely precedented cases where violence comes calling uninvited, we learn how to stop it effectively and decisively.
Click to expand...

Murder isn't the only violent crime a weapon can help a victim deal with.

Assault, robbery, intimidation, e.t.c.

The truth of the matter is this: I will always care about my personal safety and security more than anyone, including the government.

Sure, I can't expect to prevent all things from happening to me. That's unrealistic. But the better prepared I am, the more options I have available to me......the better my outcome is likely to be.

I'd still avail myself of weapons if the murder rate was 0. It might not always be zero, and just because the risk is low does not mean that the outcome if I'm very unlucky is any less bad than being murdered in a high murder risk area.

Government protects all it's valuable things with weapons. Why shouldn't I do the same?

(I'm agreeing with you, essentially)

One final note: any government that doesn't trust its citizens with the same weapons it fields is a government that cannot be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Rasmus80 said:
It is in fact truly sad, to see so many advocate carrying knives for self defence.

Not so much for the way they conduct them selves.

More for the lack of them feeling safe in their surroundings. Must really suck to walk around with such a feeling of insecurity.
Click to expand...

Okay, look at what this posted as the 53d post intros thread. It sucks.

The whole post was offensive and typical of that euro/liberal attitude of a nanny state that disarms everyone. And it does come off as arrogant to me. It has zero to do with the subject being discussed, and is a standout of the "my country is better than your country."

Bull hockey.

If 42 people were murdered, then there is a problem in paradise. A smaller problem but still a problem. Thats 42 people that may have had a chance to live if they had something to shoot, stab, cut, smash, whatever. But under danish law, they can't. So that holier than thou attitude is repellent to me. Go peddle it elsewhere. Living in a country thats a little smaller than the size of Massachusetts, with a population of Philly spread out over it, and having people totally disarmed, yes of course you have a lower murder rate.

But don't come in here and tell us it must suck to be us.
 
David Mary said:
R Rasmus80 Because violence is like metal. It is drawn by a certain magnetism, and it won't go where it is not drawn. Usually. So we learn what causes violence, and we avoid those behaviors. And in the rare but surely precedented cases where violence comes calling uninvited, we learn how to stop it effectively and decisively.
Click to expand...

You sound like my old Sensei back in my martial arts days.

This guy was as deadly a person as I've ever met. Yet his teachings first and foremost dealt with avoiding places, people and situations where violence fomented.

He was big on the saying "Speak softly and carry a big stick", and much of his time was spent advocating the "speak softly" part. I miss that guy.

I got thinking of the comment in the OP mentioning the "iaido-like" aspect of this carry, so I tried with a Cold Steel Magnum Tanto and a Kobun.

The Magnum Tanto is problematic with this style of carry, as you have to manipulate the blade's release from the sheath with a bit of finger/thumb action. And it's a big ol' 9 inch blade that just doesn't seem like it's suited for reverse grip. I am not a practitioner of Iaido, nor a knife duelist so I am probably missing something here that could straighten me out with a bit of instruction and kata work.

The Kobun on the other hand comes out in a reverse grip like a stroke of lightning. It's actually really fun and it feels just fine in reverse grip. It's new enough that the knife is still a bit sticky in the sheath, so a couple of times the knife and sheath came out together off the waist band. But once it wears itself in there I'm sure one could make a very effective opening move with this thing.

David, the one part I'm not recognizing is where you said "I can index my finger on the spine all the way up to the tip without worrying about cutting my finger."

I am apparently missing the point of this, is it for returning the blade to the sheath? Perhaps a bit more explanation, or video maybe would help.
 
jackknife said:
Okay, look at what this posted as the 53d post intros thread. It sucks.

The whole post was offensive and typical of that euro/liberal attitude of a nanny state that disarms everyone. And it does come off as arrogant to me. It has zero to do with the subject being discussed, and is a standout of the "my country is better than your country."

Bull hockey.

If 42 people were murdered, then there is a problem in paradise. A smaller problem but still a problem. Thats 42 people that may have had a chance to live if they had something to shoot, stab, cut, smash, whatever. But under danish law, they can't. So that holier than thou attitude is repellent to me. Go peddle it elsewhere. Living in a country thats a little smaller than the size of Massachusetts, with a population of Philly spread out over it, and having people totally disarmed, yes of course you have a lower murder rate.

But don't come in here and tell us it must suck to be us.
Click to expand...
Brother, he was not saying any of those things. None of them. That is what you are imputing, failing to take into account any language barrier. Furthermore, you then went on the offensive by insulting his nation on its war record, and as a European, specifically English - with Danish family - I seriously resent it. Please, please tone down this damn rhetoric, or I predict than a moderator will shut this thread down.

Tom
 
And, while trying to be on topic somewhat, I agree with David regarding draw, but not for SD reasons, although he is also right about that in my view.

Off topic, but germane to this discussion, I would point out that Denmark & the UK have nearly identical laws on knives. Guess where the disparity is? Yep. Mrs Pilsner is heavily involved in tackling English kids stabbing each other to death, which happens a lot here. So, what is the difference? What is Denmark getting right? Ha! Don’t look down the wrong rabbit hole, they have a far more rehabilitative approach to criminal justice, and a far lower rate of offending and reoffending. Good social security, a national health service and decent wages. Go figure it out.
 
Pilsner said:
And, while trying to be on topic somewhat, I agree with David regarding draw, but not for SD reasons, although he is also right about that in my view.

Off topic, but germane to this discussion, I would point out that Denmark & the UK have nearly identical laws on knives. Guess where the disparity is? Yep. Mrs Pilsner is heavily involved in tackling English kids stabbing each other to death, which happens a lot here. So, what is the difference? What is Denmark getting right? Ha! Don’t look down the wrong rabbit hole, they have a far more rehabilitative approach to criminal justice, and a far lower rate of offending and reoffending. Good social security, a national health service and decent wages. Go figure it out.
Click to expand...

The danes have lower population density and a much more homogeneous populace that has similar views on life. That naturally leads to less conflict in general.

I'll be damned if I sign up for the effective tax rate needed to bring that kind of welfare to the usa. On the rehab of criminals, I tend to agree....mostly. The way the usa issues what amounts to a scarlet letter does not help....if a criminal that's done their time cannot gain meaningful employment, they will go back to crime to survive. Some need to be locked away for life (serial sex offenders, etc). There are also many things in the USA that ought not be crimes.

But thinking that what works for the danes is a good model in the usa is a major fallacy.

But to the point: weapons do not make people violent. Culture and conflict does that. A nonviolent person will be a nonviolent person whether they are armed to the teeth or unarmed. A violent person will be violent whether they're armed or not. Better for the good nonviolent people to be armed and be able to resist violence when and where it may occur.
 
Last edited:
I will change the perspective. I have felt it to suck, not being able to be unarmed and feel secure in my surroundings.
Case in point: Bladeshow 2013. After finishing a dinnerparty, I asked my hosts, if it was safe to walk the 1 mile walk back to my hotel. The answer was, that it depended on what I was carrying.

I have had the same experience in The Dominican Republic.

I have not attacked your right to bear arms.
I would like to be able to enjoy some of the same liberties.

It is the social aspect, which creates to problems, which leads to the much higher crimerates.
 
Rasmus80 said:
Now make no mistake. I am not trying to speak ill of your choices to bear arms. I probably would do the same, if I lived in Philadelphia for instance.

The population of the Metro area of Philadelphia is largely the same as the population of Denmark. About 6 million.
Number of homicides in Philadelphia in 2020: 499. (mentioned further op in this thread)
Number of homicides in Denmark in 2020: 42

The significance of that difference is just so big, that it should induce a want for change.
And I understand why one would want to protect one self.
Click to expand...

In order to talk about what's really going on in the USA, we would have to go to The Hellfire Thread.
 
Smiling said:
I don't carry on my belt, but in my pocket... that being said I just have one jeans less now since I just cut them up trying to pull out my knife with edge facing forwards... :(
Click to expand...

Whoops! Sorry to hear that. Edge forward carry should of course only be done with a rig where the blade edge has full clearance, like the set up I used in my video. It can be quite a bit trickier to get it right with IWB setups, though I have done it without problem. But when trying it the first time with any set up, slow is the only way to practice. If it cannot be done slowly without the blade contacting something it's not supposed to, then whatever setup being used needs to change in some way, before trying again, also slowly. Once it is consistently done slowly, and flawlessly, then progressively faster repetitions can begin.

Velitrius said:
David, the one part I'm not recognizing is where you said "I can index my finger on the spine all the way up to the tip without worrying about cutting my finger."

I am apparently missing the point of this, is it for returning the blade to the sheath?
Click to expand...

Yes.

It just means that I can lay my finger along the spine or side of the blade so that I can feel where the point is going without looking. For re-sheathing by feel without looking. In retrospect I don't know why I mentioned it, because I don't usually re-sheath like that anyway.
 
Rasmus80 said:
I am not implying that one is timid, weak or a coward for wanting to carry a knife or a gun for self defence.
I would say, that the means with which you choose to protect your self, reflects in the means your potential attacker chooses to arm him-self. And vice versa.
In the end resulting in a sort of arms-race.

Edited to add:
those who are timid, weak and cowards may well chose to arm themselves too, resulting in less than level-headed persons, potentially overreacting to perceived threat.
Click to expand...

The idea of a personal "arms race" comes up from time to time. That may be valid when it comes to "good guys carrying guns" but only in that guns as a category are at the top of the food chain. It's worth considering that among guns, a battle rifle is obviously more effective than a pistol, a full-size duty pistol may be more effective than a compact, etc. Most civilians who EDC a gun in America tend to carry things that are more comfortable to lug around all day. For instance, I often carry a lightweight, short-barreled, six-shot revolver.

The reality for bad guys in America is that they could have anything. It could be a gun. It could be a knife. It could be a length of copper pipe. In some cases, it could just be a big, strong, muscular body. The motivations for their violence can be pretty diverse (theft, drugs, revenge, road rage, sexual assault, mental illness, etc.). Meanwhile, the "good guy" or intended victim could be a man, a woman, someone old, someone disabled, etc.

So going to the top of the chain on defensive tools, relative to what you can carry as a civilian, increases effectiveness against the greatest possible breadth of risk. It's also worth noting that many violent crimes are opportunistic. So considering the diversity of tools for violence and the diversity of potential victims, having the top tool can be an incredible equalizer. Knowledge that a "little old lady" might have said equalizer in her purse can itself act as a powerful deterrent to some kinds of violence.
 
Nice! I carry my fixed blade knives edge forward too, I think everyone would do it if they tried it. Makes selling my "lefty" sheaths a bit harder I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top