Legality of knife-wielding
 

Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places, but I can't seem to find a decent discussion anywhere that delves into the reasons why many kinds of guns of many kinds of calibers are allowed to be carried under condition (or at all) but, by law, I could be arrested for carrying my OSS San Mai fixed blade hunting knife or other blades I own, concealed or not, in the same places I could carry a gun legally for self-defense. I'm not even talking about actual, made-to-kill-people swords, I'm talking about utility/hunting blades, typically 8-14" long.

I don't figure the reason is simply weapon lethality, because a gun is far more lethal. Sure, a gun and a knife can both make you dead, but a single gun shot can do it from a distance and has a greater potential for internal damage than a single knife thrust, depending on where the entry is. I can't buy the concept of criminal intent either. In terms of tools, a knife is a far more useful thing to have in odd situations than a gun. You could use the gun as a hammer if you reaaaaally wanted to, but a knife (especially one like my San Mai) can be a hammer, a chisel, a screwdiver, a pencil sharpener, a light-use crowbar, a nail pick, a tooth pick, a mirror (right after a good polish), a signaling device... and it can cut stuff. A gun... shoots things. I have far more legitimate answers for the question 'Why are you carrying that knife?" than "Why are you carrying that gun?".

This is not a 'gun vs knife in self-defense' question. This is a 'why is a gun more legal to carry than a hunting knife' question. So why? Why is it illegal for me to strap my San Mai to my waist, a couple of boot knives to my legs (in my boots), and a small thrust blade around my neck but legal for me to carry a couple of .45 HP or FMJ loaded pistols and a rifle?

(This question could also be extended to blunt weapons... I have a couple of maces and a small warhammer I'd like to stash in my car but legally can't.)

ETA: I'm in VA... I know state knife laws will vary, just like gun laws, but on the whole they seem fairly prohibitive.

Good questions. I don't know the answers, but I'm going to watch this thread for input from those more informed than I am.

I would speculate that the gun lobby is stronger and better organized than the knife lobby.

Yeah, the National Knife-Wielding Association ain't a big player.

Interesting that, as it calls itself a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms... but then focus almost entirely on firearms. Knives are still arms. So are maces. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say 'right to bear guns/firearms'.

Joking aside, I've wondered the same thing. But, I do have one problem with what you're asking. "8-14 inches"? WTF, are ya a size queen or what?

Seriously, let's say you come across a stab-worthy person. What's that 14 inch blade gonna do for ya? Ya still have to get real up close and real personal with the guy. In my neck o' the woods I don't think it's even considered a deadly weapon unless it's over six inches. (That's what she said, I know.) Pick up a six inch blade. Hold it. Look at it. Now imagine it stuck in your chest. Do you feel any less dead, because it wasn't a foot long?

How deep inside the body is the heart? Lungs? Liver? Any of the various arteries/veins? Even on a fat guy like me (5'8" - 240lbs), you're only looking at five-six inches, max (yeah she said that, too).

Go legal. Six inches is plenty (that's what I told her!).

Ima hafta look and see if KY regulates maces and warhammers.

Ima bet they don't.

We have restrictions on knives, but allow concealed carry. It is due to archaic laws. Don't forget that a person within 21 feet can stab you before you can draw your firearm - at least that is what is stressed to us in use of force classes

It's because we don't live in a medievel post-apocalyptic epic armageddon science fiction gladiator movie.

Haven't you heard that longer is better? Seriously though, to me, that's the same as asking someone why they're carrying a regular pistol vs a subcompact, or a .33 over a .45. It's personal preference, personal comfort and, when used in the situations they're made for, both guns will put a hole in whatever they're pointing at. Speaking of hunting blades, the difference between a 8" and a 14" would deal more with it's tool worthiness. You could cut your way through underbrush with an 8" blade, but having that extra 6" (which generally ends up looking more like a machete) makes a difference in effectiveness.

And yeah, 6 inches will reach deep enough in most people to cause a direct problem to the major organs from just about any angle of the core, even on a woman who has extra boob tissue. But, considering how close you'd need to be to someone to hit that, a 2.5" blade (which is allowed on pocketknives in a lot of places) will easily reach the big vessels of the throat, will penetrate both vessel and windpipe or fatally penetrate in the eye. You'd have to be reaaaaally fat around the neck to stop that from happening and there's no protection for the eye, barring goggles held on with a tension strap.

My San Mai blade is 8.75 inches long and I just prefer that blade for general use, from cutting rope to skinning and fleshing to scoring and cutting cardboard. I like wearing it and I'd love to be able to wear it outside the borders of my yard. I do have shorter 'outdoorsman' knives, 5 and 6ish inches long, but San Mai is my favorite. That's purely my preference.

Besides, around here 6" is still illegal for the carrying I'm talking about.

I think context plays a pretty big role too. They sell machetes at the hardware store a mile away from me, so they must be legal in Virginia. You have to get them home from the store somehow. If you walk down the street with an uncovered machete in your raised hand, you're liable to get some attention. But if you are cutting brush by the side of the road, I doubt the police would bug you.

*facepalm*

There's also the (not necessarily legally relevant) argument that, since suppressors or silencers are illegal most places, carrying a SILENT dangerous weapon like a knife is open to the silent-assassin problem. If you WERE to abuse your right to carry a firearm by using it illegally, most people nearby would probably hear it, and that's at least something, from a law enforcement standpoint. You can't sneak up on someone and cut their throat with a .45.
EDIT: mind you, that's not an argument I'm trying to SUPPORT. I'm just trying to parse the logic and consider the factors and all.

True. At the same time, northern VA has a couple of gangs whose weapon of choice is the machete, the same kind you can get at the store. So then it comes down to (criminal) intent and it's still different. If I open-carry a .45 down the street I don't have to explain what I'm doing with it to a curious officer. But I don't have an explanation for the brush machete (or hunting knife as I'd prefer) strapped to my person, it could cause Paperwork. That there is the discrepancy I'm curious about.

What? A well made knife made for heavy use could do all that. Obviously one would use the butt to do any hammerin'... using the blade would be silly. And blunting.

I'm a big knife user. Every day. I carry smaller knives, folders, though I have some fixed blades too. It's not a crowbar, and you know it, I know it and I think probably Perry Winkle winced at this one the most. I know I did--do.

I figured it out.

It is to keep you safe.

See, being in the US, you should assume the other guy has a gun.

So, any kind of fight is going to turn into a gunfight.

And you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. The gubmint is just reminding you.

It's just the bleeding-heart do-good liberals trying to keep you safe from your own under-armed folly, that's all.

Now take your pill and watch some TV. All is well.

Sometimes you scare me, Mr Gum. This is one of those times.

If you use a 14" knife as a toothpick, you clearly suffer from a severe case of penis envy.

You could use a knife for all of that. But you shouldn't. I can understand using a knife in any way necessary in a survival situation. Sadly, some folks use a knife as something else just because they are too lazy to plan ahead or go retrieve the correct tool.

There's a myth that knives can withstand almost anything you can think of. Buck perpetuated it with their old marketing campaigns. Ginsu made it worse. And then there are the stupid ideas about katanas (and other swords) that can accomplish insipid feats like slicing into a concrete pillar.

Using a knife as a screw driver will tear up the blade. As a crow-bar, well a very high quality knife should be able to be bent 90 degrees without cracking, but I'm not sure I'd trust most production knives more than a few degrees. You're liable to get a fast moving hunk of sharp steel embedded somewhere uncomfortable.

To be perfectly honest, I would use the production knives I've got for most of what you mention without worrying. They're pretty much junk anyway.

Anyway, so that my comments aren't entirely thread jacking...

I'm not sure why our knife laws are the way they are. I know that the UK has tightened up their knife laws a lot in response to a large number of stabbings. My feeling is that this is probably the reason for most of the knife laws in the US, too. What I've read (on the internet) seems to back this up.

I also know a lot of knife makers who will not ship to NY because of their crazy knife laws. Pretty much any folding knife can be classified as "gravity-opening" because officers will go so far as flipping them open holding the blade.

When I taught self defense, armed and unarmed, I taught everyone to first know the local laws in the area in which you intend to carry any weapon. Then, I told them to choose their weapons accordingly. Obviously, I could not cover any other area than Philadelphia. But I had students from as far away as New York City and Baltimore. I advocated carrying a reasonably-sized knife as a less-than-lethal weapon in addition to a firearm, if possible. I used different criteria depending on the class. For beginners, I recommended a smaller, folding knife with a locking blade. For advanced fighters, I recommended a 6-8 inch fixed blade knife (faster into action than a folder) such as a Ka-Bar.

However, I also taught that your weapons should be totally concealed at all times. That means not carrying fixed blade knives on the belt. I showed other means of carrying a knife, like inverted harness sheaths placed along the spine or on the weak-side chest. I have seen other places for concealment also.

I never advocated large weapons of any kind and especially not machetes, baseball bats or swords. They are impossible to conceal and difficult to defend in court. They are just not worth the effort to carry and intimidation isn't a value in my system.

What I recommended for people in places where thuggery is a valid career choice was to carry something that is not generally considered a weapon like a screwdriver, hammer or chisel. Very common and easy to defend in court if it happened to also share a hiding place with other common tools in a toolbox or hip holster. You don't even have to conceal them.

You have chosen a fine knife but perhaps not one that I would carry. It's pricey and liable to vanish if confiscated by police. Better to carry something more disposable. I consider a knife to be a throw-down in terms of weapons. That is, if I shoot you dead, I would throw down the knife next to your bleeding corpse and swear that you attacked me. I know more than one cop who does the same thing with a cheap handgun.

Follow my first advice and you'll be okay. Conceal that knife and know the laws that apply to you.

Good luck.

Pamela

Sometimes you scare me Ms Pamela. This is one of those times.

A few reasons for limitations on carry knives:

Knives are not generally considered humane tools for self defense. You can kill in self defense; but, you're not permitted to unnecessarily maim or mangle. Even when using guns you can't put explosives in bullets, fill them with poison; or, choose to shoot someone repeatedly in the extremities when a single incapacitating shot to the trunk can be made. Police and military are bound by similar restrictions.

The general rule for blade length limitation on carry knives is that if someone is attacked with such a knife, they can protect their vital organs by just covering the anticipated impact area with their own extremities which puts the vital organs out of reach of the blade. Exceptions to blade length limitations for carry knives are based on having a demonstrable lawful use.

Guns leave bullets behind which can often be traced. Knives are not generally left behind and wounds can be difficult to attribute to a specific knife.

also

Burglars have tried to avoid being charged with having burglary tools in their possession by carrying sporting tools (e.g. a large hunting knife in lieu of a pry bar or chisel).

Silencers are legal in 38 states (as are machine guns). They must be registered, just like a hand gun, and require a separate permit/license.

And, yes, an actual ATF agent will crawl around inside your butthole with a flashlight when you apply for that permit.

Apologies for the digression.

Ummm....

"HEY, YOU! You're not carrying a CHISEL in this suburban neighbourhood, are you?"
"Oh, heavens no, Officer, just this 14 inch hunting knife, sir."
"Oh, thank goodness, a law abiding citizen. Carry on..."

Ummmm..... :eyebrow: You Merkins are strange.

*snickers*

Some of us are!

More seriously, I cannot think of any reason to prefer a knife over a gun, if both are legal.

Guns work from a distance. Knives need to get within arms reach.

Guns make noise which immediately attracts attention, which if you're being attacked, is what you want. Knives are quiet, which is what the bad guy wants.

Knives may be "less lethal", but you don't always want that. You want easily controlled lethality. Guns have options of waving it, warning shot, leg shot, gut shot, three in the chest and one in the head ... With a knife, you'd have to be very very skilled to get that kind of lethality control.

And ultimately, guy with a gun usually beats guy with a knife.

This is just all in my head, though, it sounds to me like Pamela has a lot more thought and experience on this topic.

More seriously?

Because a knife is useful in a thousand more situations than a gun is. I do shudder at the thought of Cyber Wolf prying the lid from a gallon of paint with his mondo pig sticker... but in every day use, stuff needs to be cut. The number of times stuff needs to be *shot* is zero. So far, so far. And that's why I carry a knife and not a gun, though both are legal.

Fair warning--you're gonna catch hell for this:

Yes, ZenGum's ideas about gun options being waving it, warning shot, and leg shot are as obsolete as BrianR's throw down knives and guns. Both actions imply that there was no immediate mortal threat that yet required the use of lethal force. With today's forensic capabilities, these have gone the way of shooting someone outside your door and then dragging them inside to justify it. Any of these actions may convince a judge or jury that you wanted to unnecessarily hurt or kill people even if that wasn't the case.

I got the distinct impression that ZenGum's post was in the context of self defense and not general utility. In any case, why choose when you can do both?

Here we only do that if we run out of ammunition.

Ummmm..... :eyebrow: You Aussies are strange.

(aren't I a stinker)

Both are illegal here, but culturally Brits have usually tended towards the blade rather than the barrel.

Guns weren't used much in robberies for instance, unless it was a post office or security van. Your average mugger or burglar would have a knife not a gun. Gang fights nowadays might involve guns, but when I was young it was always knives.

Guns tended to be rifles and shotguns, the kind of thing that could reasonably be used for playing or poaching. Sawn off shotguns were the traditional weapon for armed robbery. High-power weapons just weren't available even to the criminal fraternity.

Now...a samurai sword. That used to be something a lot of dealers used to like to have around for show.

By "waving it" I had in mind the situation where a certain awesome dwellar dealt with a problematic individual in a Subway Shop by sweeping the leg and intimidating the bad guy with his gun.

The South Australian police still have a "shoot-to-wound" option in their training and occasionally use it.

:p:

We shoot them first, then give them a good beating.

If you shoot, you shoot to protect yourself, in other words, you shoot to kill. If you do anything else, you are endangering yourself AND the general public.

Police are routinely required to intervene in less than lethal threat situations. Civilians are generally prohibited from doing so. Police may be authorized to use a lethal weapon in a less than lethal manner against a lesser threat for the public good. A civilian doing so generally becomes an aggressor at that point. There are exceptions such as in the case of a fleeing felon; but, civilians going there are on a slippery slope. Comparing police behavior to civilian self defense is really apples to oranges in this regard.

Sundae, you have nothing to fear from me. I'm a (mostly) harmless teddy bear. :D And I have a regular therapist who will testify that I am as sane as anyone.

Love ya

Pam

Hence the rule of thumb: Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

Sexybon's point is a good one. I wouldn't expect (well, certainly wouldn't require)a civilian / citizen to have that level of control.

If, for example, Lookout had shot to kill in the Subway encounter, and I were on the jury, I would certainly say Not Guilty. The fact that he dealt with it without shooting just makes him even more awesome.

Yes, I see that too, but it was rather an open ended question. It is true that the general utility of a knife is far greater than that of a gun, and that's why I carry one. As for why I don't carry both, though legal to do so, I offer this, respectfully. I don't carry a gun for self defense for the same reason I don't wear a helmet while walking on the street (or driving a car in town) or wear a parachute while walking across a high bridge. I feel the risk for not having such protections does not justify the "trouble" for having them and using them properly. It's an awesome tool for what it does, (they're all awesome protections for their respective risks) but I don't want the hassle/expense/risk required for the protection against what I believe to be remote risks.

Perhaps I could have been more clear, but I don't use a knife in place of tools that are more suited (or even made for) the job if I have the tool available or don't need it right away. If I'm at home, yeah I have a flat-head screwdriver that I will use on screws and paint cans, etc. I'm fully aware that a knife can't do any and everything, but I also recognize that they can fill in if suddenly something is really needed.

That's the point I was trying to make, that if you suddenly needed a tool, a knife is far more versatile than a gun. Using a knife as a sub for some tools is inadvisable, but not impossible. And besides... who carries full-size screwdrivers around as a matter of course (who aren't handymen by trade)?

Regarding the crow-bar bit, that's why I specified 'light use'. If you're ever in need of prying something that might push a blade to be bent to 90 degrees, then go get a crowbar. I meant use such as widening a thin space, or getting movement started, like on a sticky window, which I have done with my San Mai.

Bullets (especially hollow point) will maim and mangle worse than a knife can. Just because one uses a gun doesn't mean they'll make a clean, painless kill. Any shots to anything other than the heart or head will cause pain and/or disfigurement if the patient survives. How is that more humane than a knife stab?

But a bullet can go through all your protective extremities and, for some, right through you with enough leftover velocity to stick in a wall. To me, on the subject of penetration, that suggests a knife would be less of a weapon to worry about. Besides, once you get above a certain length, knives tend to be more about slashing and less about stabbing (not saying one couldn't stab).

That logic doesn't work (or rather no one will let it work) when you apply it to a gun. Someone with murderous intent can walk around with a gun as long as he has no spots on his record and/or has the proper permits. Now it could very well be that socially there is a different logic applied to knives and that brings me back to my original question: Why? It doesn't make sense to me that the same society that will permit open carry of pistols will raise Cain over someone's hunting knife.

fixed for you :)

Please accept my apology.

You'd better accept that apology.

Or he'll stab you.

But at least he'll do it with a home-made knife. It's the little touches that make all the difference.

I gave you some of the reasons why. Whether those reasons are based in practicality, political correctness, or something else is another matter. You're free to disagree with them. There are laws of land warfare, definitions for war crimes, prosecution of war criminals; yet, there are still people who ask "Why?" They feel that war is war, all's fair in war, and no rationale will ever change that for them.
That could pertain to any bullet if you're comparing a single shot to a single stab or slash; but, in a meaningful comparison of shots to the stabs and slashes in aggregate that it takes to incapacitate an attacker, the reverse may very well be true.

I'm not sure why you singled out hollow point bullets as special. They're designed to expand (mushroom) in diameter at the nose of the bullet so as to achieve the affect a larger caliber bullet. Any larger caliber bullet, from a compatible gun, would be of more concern to me at handgun bullet velocities.
That's why I said "unnecessarily." A gun typically has the greater potential for a humane defense even though it isn't always possible. It's because a gun gives people of various sizes and physical capabilities a better chance to proficiently (i.e. without "unnecessarily" maiming or mangling) incapacitate an attacker: guns aren't called the great equalizer for nothing. In the same vein, the greater working distance potential of guns typically provides better weapon retention capability than with knives so your weapon isn't taken away from you and used against someone else.
Some knife blade designs (and some arrowheads) can defeat low level soft body armor, like that routinely worn by law enforcement officers, since they can be thrust to penetrate through the weave which is designed to protect against the rapid blunt force of bullets (fibers are only slash resistant).
Slashing isn't PC regardless of blade length. I remember the case of an older Filipino man who was trained in a self defense discipline in which a short bladed knife is very rapidly and repeatedly worked across an attacker's body, to inflict cuts at multiple points with each slashing stroke, until the attack stops. He used the technique on an attacker who didn't stop aggressing until after the victim had inflicted over 200 cuts on the attacker (took less than a couple minutes). In addition to the attacker being prosecuted, the VICTIM was prosecuted for mangling his attacker. The victim was eventually exonerated; but, went bankrupt establishing the validity of his defense.
I'm not applying it to a gun and don't see an analogy there. Burglar with a knife instead of a pry bar corresponds to someone carrying a gun instead of ______?
The same would be true if people were permitted to carry knives, batons, baseball bats, hammers, golf clubs; or, anything else they felt comfortable carrying to protect themselves. Arguments could be made in favor of all these and more, especially for those who can't afford guns. I'm trained in combat shooting, knife fighting and baton use and I empathize with you. It is; however, guns that are the great equalizer. How does anything else measure up? What else works across the board rather than just serving a social niche? Where would it all end?

A can opener? a hole punch?

Maybe keys, just shoot the locks.

Graciously accepted.

Home-made means you care :)

It's not so much that I disagree. I just don't see how lawmakers reached the conclusion that knives (or any other weapon) should be given a solid 'No' while a gun, for the most part, gets at least a 'maybe'. In terms of practicality, for every reason given why someone has no business have a knife on them, there's another reason why he could (and then it's his business, not anyone else's, just as it is when you open carry in and open carry state). If it comes down to what's socially acceptable, then they might as well issue permits for them. Plenty think no one needs to carry a gun but that doesn't stop anyone who wants to carry and there's plenty of (absence of) laws to back them up. If it comes down to lethality or humaneness, then there's a bit of a split. They are two different types of weapons, one close range and one is nearly any range. Yes, to stab someone you will be close enough to look into their eyes as you do it... or is THAT what they don't want people to do?

I pointed out hollow point because of that... because it will do more damage on the same path through a body than a smooth bullet will, because, instead of a pretty smooth hole, it will rip and tear on either side. A smooth bullet may just miss that important vessel but a hollow point will nick it.

And in terms of incapacitation, if you're talking about the weapon capability alone, the gun will do more with less. You can incapacitate/kill from 50 yards away with a good (or lucky) shot. With a knife you're up close, but then you also have a range of places to stick that knife. Even if you aren't trained in knife combat, you can make a pretty stopping attempt at a neck, which is woefully unprotected for that kind of thing. No one does much fighting while choking on their own blood. No one likes a knife in the face either... you don't even need to stab. A slash across the forehead will get blood in the eyes and you have the advantage if a second attack is necessary. And if you get behind the other person, then it's all you. Granted, if the other person has a gun, then most of the close combat tactics won't mean much, but not all (relative) bad guys attack with a gun and some of those that would are even stupid enough to approach you and get within range of a pointed thing.

I believe guns are considered the great equalizer simply because of the range and relative accuracy of the weapon, not because of how bad it can hurt you. As I mentioned above, at 50 yards someone can still end up dead. That's far less likely to happen with a knife, even if one is a skilled thrower.

Weapon retention is a matter of being aware of your surroundings and the state of your gripping hand/arm. If someone gets a hit in on your weapon hand and causes it to lose grip, forcing you to drop the weapon, the weapon will fall whether it's a gun or a knife. If it's a matter of grabbing and pulling, the gun is easier because it's not covered in sharp edges. Of course, they risk getting a shot in the gut too. If someone tries to grab a knife, unless someone is holding it by the tang or the blade itself, that person is going to end up with an opened hand or possibly missing fingers. You'd have to be tussling with the person to get a good chance at not just disarming but taking the knife from them too and if that's the case, the same can be said for a gun. It's not uncommon to hear of a shooting that resulted from someone wrestling a gun from somebody.

Now this is what I've been looking for, a compelling reason. I can understand the restrictions on blades of certain lengths based on this.

Proving your validity in a self defense shooting can be just as personally devastating, especially if the circumstances aren't clear to the judge/jury. The recent Treyvon case in FL is a good example. Zimmerman says Trayvon was in the process of attacking him when he shot, claimed self defense and is invoking their Stand Your Ground law. There's evidence that suggests, by the time Treyvon was shot, he was no longer being the aggressor and was being chased, which could mean Stand Your Ground was no longer in effect and then it'd be revenge, not defense. The question will be, if someone is attacking you then leaves, then you follow your attacker THEN attack your attacker can you still call it a self defense attack? And exactly when does Defense end and Revenge begin? It'll be up to judge and jury to determine if that happened and sort everything out but until then Zimmerman is in all kinds of trouble, socially, financially and (so his last representatives claimed) mentally.

I meant it's about context. No one knows that guy with the baseball bat is going to break out the window of the house until he does. He could be on his way to a game, going to lend/getting it back from someone or, frankly, going to whollop the guy he saw with his girl the other day. Same with a crowbar, he could be on his way to help a neighbor with a stuck windor or door, bringing it home to pry out the old door jambs to put in new ones, or to get the sewer cover loose so he can reach the puppy that got stuck (or go to whollop the guy he saw with his girl). If you see a man walking around with a gun, the only reason he has it is to serious harm/kill someone if he feels he must.


Then issue permits for them. If guns are the be-all-end-all, that suggests other weapons aren't as (and this is probably not the right word) dangerous and less in need of oversight. Or perhaps they consider them more so, which is why the laws will be very specific about what is not allowed? Check out VA's no-no weapon list... they take care to describe all kinds of flails, throwing discs/stars and disguised weaponry (like sword canes). But VA doesn't care what kind of gun you have as long as it's not federally banned or a machine gun, and then they just want you to register it.

I can see how you might have difficulty with that ... :zzz:

Well that could be taken a couple of ways.

If the zzz's are for the topic, then yeah, because not a lot of people want to talk about it.

If the zzz's are for my posts, which admittedly sometimes end up really long, you can blame my high school English classes for that. A lot of emphasis went into presenting a full argument in a discussion platform and it stuck.

eggs

You saying this thread is ova?

I notice that Zen's pun frequency has gone up exponentially approaching infinity, just as his employment dropped to zero.

Because I'd rather be shot dead...

Gawd.

That guy still has the option to be shot dead.

I'm not talking about suicide.

I'm talking walking about in Florida wearing a hoodie ... then, when challenged, pop it back to reveal THAT.

Poor dude. Sorry.

Seriously, I've seen pics of a guy whose face was blasted off in a #%&$-up with a shotgun at a party. No better than this guy. Knives mangle. Guns mangle. Both hurt.

Getting shot doesn't guarantee dead... just as getting slashed doesn't guarantee live-with-disfigurement. But I'd agree it's potentially less messy.

I specified shot dead. ;)