Actually, I have read a section of that study (though not all of it). Part of my post was generated specifically from it.
I would be more than happy to submit my sources for my assertions. I'm not really sure what facts I presented, as I tried to keep most of my post to my own experience and theories.
Looking back on my post, I see that I said that most "violent offenses" committed with a knife are sneak attacks. I want to first clarify that I intended "violent" to mean "where the knife ends up in the victim" as opposed "the knife was used to intimidate a victim into giving something up." To justify this statement, I direct you to this page
on the No Nonsense Self Defense website
. About a fifth of the way down the page, the author, Marc MacYoung
, states that "as far as your attacker is concerned this is not a fight, it is an assassination." In reading further, I interpret that in the author's experience, it is very unlikley that one would have more than one second to respond. I added my own interpretation that the attacker will be behind you, and say that you will not have sufficient warning and space to knock the knife out of uke's hand. If we take Marc MacYoung's opinion as that of an expert
, then I believe this to be a well reasoned argument.
(I would welcome you to ask a more specific, line-item question, and I'll see what I can come up with. I think it's also certainly realistic that I may have presented something as a fact that is, in fact >humor<, my assumption or bias.)
Also, in rereading my post, I see alot that appears... how should I say... accusatory. I must appologize for this. I did not mean this to be true. I was trying to add my views on situations dealing with a knife-armed attacker, as I believed was the original post/question. I agree that the question was both appropriate and, as you said, reasonable. Finally, I did not mean to imply that anyone was looking for a fight.