Never Bringa Knife Toa Gunfight

In the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark, a big burly fellow draws a menacing looking scimitar and challenges Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) to a duel. Unfazed, Indy pulls out a revolver and shoots him dead on the spot.

In the movie The Untouchables, one of Al Capone's goons tries to sneak up on Malone (Sean Connery) with a knife, to stab him in the back. As soon as he gets close, Malone turns around and reveals a 12-gauge pointed directly at the guy's gut. "Just like a <derogatory term for Italians>" growls Malone. "Brings a knife to a gunfight". (Of course, Malone soon discovers that he has committed the same error; he is soon turned into Swiss cheese by another of Capone's henchmen, this one wielding a Tommy-gun.)

Far too often, experts in a particular tool, especially one which is primitive, will claim that their expertise in that tool will trump any and all advantages in more modern tools - especially when the more modern tool is designed to be used by novices.

Often, refusal to use the new tools is seen as a mark of distinction and pride; the new tools, rather than a useful labor-saving device, are seen as a "crutch", and/or as only suitable for novices, weaklings, cowards, or sissies. Real men only use the old stuff. (It should be disturbing when such arguments are brought forth in a technical context, but I've heard many arguments suggesting one's virility can be determined by one's choice of programming language or OS).

New does not always equal good. I suspect only about one out of four fads has lasting power. People should be required to demonstrate the superiority of their newfangled tools before shoving them down one's throat in my opinion. --top
Further, ideas that look good in theory often don't work so well in the field. Road-testing is a good thing. Often weapons designed in a clean air-conditioned lab didn't work well on the battle field because weather, dust, shrapnel, etc. would jam them up or ruin their accuracy. Or they were difficult to clean, reload, or repair under the stress of war. It's difficult to simulate the stress of war in staged test field. What are you going to do, make the test soldier drink 15 cups of coffee and smack him/her in the face 15 times to simulate tripping in the dark under fire? There's nothing comparable to actual field usage.
The Nazi's often tried to embrace and adapt new technologies, but it often turned out there were unforeseeable problems at the cutting edge. For example, early jets were too fast; they'd zip past the target plane before aiming could be completed, and slowing down risked stalling the engine. It took time to develop new attack strategies for dealing with the speed. True, if the war lasted significantly longer, the early investment may have paid off, but that's because "big" new ideas require time to prove themselves and work out the kinks. Many analysts conclude the Nazi's would've strategically been better off if they devoted more resources to conventional technology. The kill-per-dollar ratio (or equiv.) was much higher for conventional weapons. They perhaps should have spent their resources on incremental improvements to conventionals. (Incidentally, related directly to the intro, around the Korean war, the best conventional plane pilots often were equally or more effective than average jet pilots if paired up (2 versus 2). Conventional planes still had enough of a maneuverability advantage to counter raw speed.)
Even the US atomic bomb was arguably not a good war-time investment. Germany had already surrendered, and the same resources could have purchased some heavy conventional bombing capability, and be less controversial. The lesson of such weapons appears to be: focus on incremental improvements during the war, and "quantum leap" weapons only between wars.
My rule of thumb for road-testing IT is about 5 years of actual usage by multiple organizations that are reasonably similar to your own organization. And if it's only slightly better, I'll still recommend the older tech. For example, a 15-year-old technology that's scores B- is a safer choice than a 5-year-old one that scores a B.

The fallacy in their reasoning is that an expert armed with modern tools (or a toolbox containing both the old and new, coupled with the knowledge of which to use when) will usually outperform an expert armed only with the old stuff. One of the erroneous myths of the Samurai is that the use of ranged weapons (bow, firearms) was dishonorable; only close quarters combat was honorable. As history has it the Samurai were eventually defeated by a modern military force using current weapons and tactics.

[Note that in fact the Samurai learned to use bows and firearms and every other form of weapon as soon as it became available to them. This is why Japan became one of the most powerful militaries on the planet after the Meiji restoration and before WWI.]

It was their full-time job to master those. In the real world one is often wearing multiple hats such that they can't sit around all day mastering some newfangled gizmo shoved down their throat by a PointyHairedBoss.

Legend has it that Harrison Ford was sick the day of filming that scene, so rather than go through the fight scene, he said, "I don't feel so well; why can't I just pull my gun and waste him?". Behind schedule, the director agreed.

What about bringing a frying pan to a knife fight? http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149664&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149490&contentPK=12227177

"No, no, no... I told the guy a thousand times. You don't pour the hot grease from the pan down the sink. You fling it at your enemy." -- http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1441933

ranged weapons [are] dishonorable

I've heard a few times that Japanese soldiers were convinced that with enough martial arts training, they could avoid or deflect bullets with their muscles. Is this true, or an urban legend?

A quick Google search found several news stories about people in Africa who believed machine-gun bullets would turn into water: http://www.covchurch.org/cov/companion/article/0408HolyHostage.pdf http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n06/bullets-into-water.html http://pw1.netcom.com/~reincke/omdurman.html http://web.pitas.com/tashlan/15m11_15m12.html

(Getting further and further OffTopic. Sorry.)

In the RealWorld, you never bring a gun to a gun fight: Always have technology at least one generation better than your opponent. (Carrying along some nasty diseases only you are immune to is a somewhat related tactic, but it only works if you intend to take land and live on it.)

But back on topic: many tactical instructors will tell you that if you are going to carry one firearm then you might as well carry two. Having a backup is better than not; to have and not need is far better than to need and not have. Ask the guy holding the knife.

Stuff a few grenades down your briefs also, just in case.

Very phunny, but not applicable. If I am going to go through all the expense, time, and hassle to complete my CCW training and certification, apply and pay for a license, buy a sidearm and maintain manual-of-arms proficiency with it (that means spending money on ammo on a regular basis, cleaning it, YaddaYaddaYadda), buy a carry rig that fits me, buy clothes that conceal my rig and prevent it from "printing" when I bend over or walk -- then what is the Big Deal(tm) with carrying a second pistol, particularly when the main warm piece is a 1911 .45 ACP full frame and the backup is a tiny 9mm in a Kahr?

Oh, by the way -- always carry a knife, too. Regardless of anything else, a knife is far too valuable a utility to be without.

Wow. You must be trying to compensate for what I can only assume is an unusually -- probably to the point of being medically interesting -- small dick.

Yes, yours. This is why you find it necessary to be such an asswipe, one presumes?

You play with concealed weapons and live ammo in public places and yet somehow I am the asswipe??? *boggle*

Who is playing? I am deadly serious, in a quite literal way. My manual-of-arms training in self defense includes putting my own life on the line to protect others. Even those who belittle my choice to be prepared for this eventuality. How are you prepared? Perhaps you have some witty quip to fling at the armed antagonist? [cough]

See: DesertIslandFallacy

CategoryIdiom