# Bat or knife - greatest chance of fatality during an attack



## WingChunIan (Jul 30, 2012)

Okay so this seems a little bit like those conversations you used to have as a kid - who'd win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong etc etc but it was raised on another thread that some folks teach that attacks with bats (I assume of the wooden and metal kind as opposed to the flying kind) are more likely to result in fatal injury than attacks with knives. My view for what it's worth is entirely opposite, so I thought it might make an interesting thread to see what people's views and experiences are. Obvioulsy either weapon has the potential to cause massive amounts of damage both fatal and otherwise and neither should be taken lightly but given the way in which the weapons are used, the areas of the body targetted, the nature of the injuries inflicted and the ease / difficulty of detecting the threat and dealing with it. Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jul 30, 2012)

_Godzilla vs. King Kong_ haha I love it, this is a fun one.

Of course there are the obvious factors like did somebody get the 'drop' first and environment, is it close quarters or in an empty lot? So ... if both guys had the heads-up, no surprises in an empty environment with good lighting, my answer would fall under the distance needed to cover for the first strike. Close quarters, (elevator for example) I'll take the knife. If I had distance to move and run around (an empty parking lot for example), I'll take the bat.

lol good post,  :cheers:


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 30, 2012)

There are way too many variables to say that one is more lethal than the other. In own professional experience (and beaing in mind that anecdotal evidence is not scientific) I've seen more fatalities from stab wounds (slashes are not nearly as lethal as stabs) than from blunt instruments.


----------



## seasoned (Jul 30, 2012)

And then there is the 21 foot rule pertaining to edged weapons, or any weapon in fact. Distance can be covered in a relatively short time span. No matter how trained you are, more distance and some type of cover is the best course of action, if possible. 
We are talking blunt trauma to the arms if you can get them up in time versus cuts and stab wounds where you can bleed out quickly. A lot of food for thought.


----------



## jezr74 (Jul 30, 2012)

I think I recall the "science" behind a baseball bat in an episode of Mafia Vs Yakuza, where they test effectiveness of weapons. Will see if I can find a link. 


Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 30, 2012)

I go with Godzilla because ...

I have no statistics to back up what I think.

There are two many variables, including the intent of the attacker, not just the skill of the defender. Assuming no escape from the attack, and no superior weapons, I tend to go with the knife. A glancing blow from a bat may knock you out, and give you a concussion. Or you may have broken arms from defense. If that satisfies the attacker, you will recover, probably with a new resolve to avoid fights with bat weilding assailants. 

Knife fighters may both slash and stab during one fight. A stab in the heart or penetrating the skull is more likely to cause death. Slashes which take out major muscle groups in the legs or arms, render you incapble of defending, and may cause you to bleed out if one or more large arteries are cut. Stabs which involve organs such as the liver or spleen also may cause you to bleed out quickly, and first aid isn't likely to help. If simply giving you some new tatoo patterns satisfies your assailant, you may indeed live. 

If your assailant is determined to kill you, and you don't know any defenses and cannot run, it isn't going to be a good day for you.


----------



## MJS (Jul 30, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> Okay so this seems a little bit like those conversations you used to have as a kid - who'd win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong etc etc but it was raised on another thread that some folks teach that attacks with bats (I assume of the wooden and metal kind as opposed to the flying kind) are more likely to result in fatal injury than attacks with knives. My view for what it's worth is entirely opposite, so I thought it might make an interesting thread to see what people's views and experiences are. Obvioulsy either weapon has the potential to cause massive amounts of damage both fatal and otherwise and neither should be taken lightly but given the way in which the weapons are used, the areas of the body targetted, the nature of the injuries inflicted and the ease / difficulty of detecting the threat and dealing with it. Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?



I'm going to assume that you're not asking for specific situations/scenarios in which each may be used, but instead simply our opinion.  So, IMHO, while both have the potential for death, I'm going to go with the knife.  I would say that with the bat, the most obvious target is going to be the head.  Sure, if you took a full power swing at the arms or legs, you will most likely get a break, unless you're repeatedly hitting the head, or perhaps the chest, the end result probably won't result in death.

The knife...well, IMO, I think we've seen those pretty graphic pics that've been posted on this forum, of knife wounds.  While a slash may not have the immediate effect as a stab, I'd say the accumulation of slashes, again going back to those pics, will add up.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jul 30, 2012)

grumpywolfman said:


> _Godzilla vs. King Kong_
> Of course there are the obvious factors like did somebody get the 'drop' first and environment, is it close quarters or in an empty lot? So ... if both guys had the heads-up, no surprises in an empty environment with good lighting, my answer would fall under the distance needed to cover for the first strike. Close quarters, (elevator for example) I'll take the knife. If I had distance to move and run around (an empty parking lot for example), I'll take the bat.



I forgot to mention in my reponse, the hypothetical situation would be where both guys have a weapon to fight with (& which would I choose). If the question is where one person is _unarmed_, and has to defend against an armed assailant, then a knife would definitely be the more lethal weapon IMO to defend against.


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 30, 2012)

I say the bat. The knife can pierce deep, but the bat can break and damage more in one blow than a knife can in one cut.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 30, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> I say the bat. The knife can pierce deep, but the bat can break and damage more in one blow than a knife can in one cut.



To each there own, but a slash can cut or sever a juglar or carotid; a slash across the abdomen can seriously eviserate a person; none of which will ensure survival. And those can happen with a glancing type attack.

Maybe your should sharpen your knife and think it through again ( :uhyeah: ). A single glancing blow with a bat might stun a person, or a limb, but won't necessarily lead to death. What I describe above is very likely to lead to death, especially at the juglar or carotid.  

A continued determined-to-kill attack with either weapon without defense, is of course likely to lead to death.  And I don't want to face either weapon if I can avoid it.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jul 30, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I go with Godzilla because ...
> 
> I have no statistics to back up what I think.



Actually, both Godzilla and King Kong have documented fights. I think Godzilla has a great distance game with the breathing fire, and could try to sneak up on Kong swimming across the ocean - but the in-fighting game is where Kong remains King. Godzilla vs. King Kong? I'll put my money on King Kong


----------



## Takai (Jul 30, 2012)

While there are to many variables to say outright which is better I would rather deal fight against a bat than a knife. While the bat is a devastating bludgeoning weapon that will crush and pulverize I feel much more comfortable being able to get on the inside neutralizing it than a knife.

A knife is designed to pierce and slash. I really like my internal organs but, I don't really want to see them up close and personal. Getting to safe position on a knife is a lot harder in my opinion and it is much easier for your opponent to change to direction/angle of their attack. A glancing blow from a bat is really going to hurt but, a sharp knife is going to splay you open.

In the end both are very dangerous weapons to deal with given the choice I would opt for "none of the above."


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 30, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> To each there own, but a slash can cut or sever a juglar or carotid; a slash across the abdomen can seriously eviserate a person; none of which will ensure survival. And those can happen with a glancing type attack.
> 
> Maybe your should sharpen your knife and think it through again ( :uhyeah: ). A single glancing blow with a bat might stun a person, or a limb, but won't necessarily lead to death. What I describe above is very likely to lead to death, especially at the juglar or carotid.
> 
> A continued determined-to-kill attack with either weapon without defense, is of course likely to lead to death.  And I don't want to face either weapon if I can avoid it.


Of course - But Id rather not be hit in the neck with a baseball bat, either. And since its longer, Im inclined to think itd be easier to use.

To each their own


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Of course - But Id rather not be hit in the neck with a baseball bat, either. And since its longer, Im inclined to think itd be easier to use.
> 
> To each their own



It is just that I can touch or be touched by a bat while blocking and counterattacking, without worrying about being cut.  But it is what one is comfortable with defending the most easily.  Everyone has to decide for themselves for sure.  And I still prefer not to have to defend myself against either, but know defenses for knife and sword (applical in some ways to a bat) if it is a last ditch stand and no running allowed.


----------



## DennisBreene (Jul 31, 2012)

The techniques in Arnis are designed for just such fighting. Like any MA it takes time and practice, but you spend a great deal of time learning to use these weapons and build better reflexes for counterfighting and defense. This is not to say that Arnis will make you invulnerable. I still believe in the old adage that when fighting a knife, expect to get cut. Hopefully you can control the attacks to minimize the damage inflicted by a blade. Your best defense is still running if possible.



Takai said:


> While there are to many variables to say outright which is better I would rather deal fight against a bat than a knife. While the bat is a devastating bludgeoning weapon that will crush and pulverize I feel much more comfortable being able to get on the inside neutralizing it than a knife.
> 
> A knife is designed to pierce and slash. I really like my internal organs but, I don't really want to see them up close and personal. Getting to safe position on a knife is a lot harder in my opinion and it is much easier for your opponent to change to direction/angle of their attack. A glancing blow from a bat is really going to hurt but, a sharp knife is going to splay you open.
> 
> In the end both are very dangerous weapons to deal with given the choice I would opt for "none of the above."


----------



## lklawson (Jul 31, 2012)

Get a wiffle-bat and a rubber trainer and spar it out.

Solid strikes with the bat "do damage."  Broken arm, busted skull, broken ribs, etc.

Solid stabs or "good" slashes with the knife "do damage" to that area.

Spar it out then consult medical references to get an idea of who dies first/fastest and what injuries are incapacitating even if not deadly.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Takai (Jul 31, 2012)

lklawson said:


> Get a wiffle-bat and a rubber trainer and spar it out.
> 
> Solid strikes with the bat "do damage."  Broken arm, busted skull, broken ribs, etc.
> 
> ...



Never tried the wiffle bat but, I used to train against the rubber knives. At the time
 would put chalk on the edges. It made it really easy to see  point of "contact" on a black gi.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 1, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> Okay so this seems a little bit like those conversations you used to have as a kid - who'd win in a fight between Godzilla and King Kong etc etc but it was raised on another thread that some folks teach that attacks with bats (I assume of the wooden and metal kind as opposed to the flying kind) are more likely to result in fatal injury than attacks with knives. My view for what it's worth is entirely opposite, so I thought it might make an interesting thread to see what people's views and experiences are. Obvioulsy either weapon has the potential to cause massive amounts of damage both fatal and otherwise and neither should be taken lightly but given the way in which the weapons are used, the areas of the body targetted, the nature of the injuries inflicted and the ease / difficulty of detecting the threat and dealing with it. Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?



Right. Being the person who made the claim that a baseball bat attack is more potentially a lethal attack in the first place, I think it might be pertinent to explain what that was in reference to, as it wasn't to the amount of damage that each weapon could potentially cause. It was more to do with the more commonly encountered tactics that you might come up against.

When it comes to a knife, the most common usage is to threaten/intimidate, commonly in order to extort compliance or money out of someone. The next is a "defensive offence", in which the knife is used to create a barrier by slashing back and forth. The idea is that the person doesn't really want to do much damage, or kill you, but is using the knife to maintain a sense of power. Finally you have the dedicated attempt on your life, which is far more commonly a stabbing action than a slashing one. While common in prisons (where a lot of people seem to get their ideas on knife combat/assault from), it's not as common as a "street" assault, to the point where it makes up the minority of knife attacks.

With a baseball bat, it again can be used to intimidate, either by showing it and waving it around, or by hitting other objects (think road rage incidents, where the car becomes the "victim" of the attack). Once it becomes a case of actually attacking the other person, whether it's the "defensively offensive" actions, or an actually intended lethal assault, the common targeting is the same: the head. That's due to a range of reasons, including the psychological aspects of attacking the "face" (which represents the person, psychologically speaking), as well as it being perceived (accurately) as a powerful action. In other words, as soon as the baseball bat-attacker moves past intimidating, the most common attack is going to be potentially lethal, whereas with a knife it might not be.

So the reasoning behind saying that a baseball bat attack is more likely to be potentially a lethal attack is based on the type of attack more prevalent with a baseball bat, not on the amount of damage that could be done, or the type of attack that could be made.



MJS said:


> I'm going to assume that you're not asking for specific situations/scenarios in which each may be used, but instead simply our opinion.  So, IMHO, while both have the potential for death, I'm going to go with the knife.  I would say that with the bat, the most obvious target is going to be the head.  Sure, if you took a full power swing at the arms or legs, you will most likely get a break, unless you're repeatedly hitting the head, or perhaps the chest, the end result probably won't result in death.
> 
> The knife...well, IMO, I think we've seen those pretty graphic pics that've been posted on this forum, of knife wounds.  While a slash may not have the immediate effect as a stab, I'd say the accumulation of slashes, again going back to those pics, will add up.



The thing is that aiming at the head is the more common method for a baseball bat, not the arms. And as for the effects of the slashes, as seen in the well-worn photos, well... they didn't die. Most of those wounds are nasty looking, but realistically superficial. A baseball bat to the skull is not really such a superficial injury.


----------



## MJS (Aug 2, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> The thing is that aiming at the head is the more common method for a baseball bat, not the arms. And as for the effects of the slashes, as seen in the well-worn photos, well... they didn't die. Most of those wounds are nasty looking, but realistically superficial. A baseball bat to the skull is not really such a superficial injury.



Are we talking about the same pics?  I know they've been posted on here before.  I'll see if I can find them.  Perhaps you're correct, and they didn't die, however, by the looks of them, you'd swear they were dead.  Of course, how fast one gets treatment is also key.


----------



## Chris Parker (Aug 2, 2012)

These are the ones I'm referring to (http://www.dlsports.com/knife_dangers.html). For the record, the first time I saw them was when a friend of mine, and a fellow senior, who is a cardiac surgeon, sent them around to us, which included the stories for the injuries, and the fact that, despite the appearances, these injuries were really superficial, rather than genuinely life-threatening. Still damn scary, but this is the difference between slashing attacks and stabbing ones.


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> These are the ones I'm referring to (http://www.dlsports.com/knife_dangers.html). For the record, the first time I saw them was when a friend of mine, and a fellow senior, who is a cardiac surgeon, sent them around to us, which included the stories for the injuries, and the fact that, despite the appearances, these injuries were really superficial, rather than genuinely life-threatening. Still damn scary, but this is the difference between slashing attacks and stabbing ones.



Yup, those're the ones.


----------



## geezer (Aug 3, 2012)

"Bat or knife?" ...I ran this question past a friend of mine who is into Western historical weaponry. His answer, "Why chose? Combine them both. It's called a broadsword!" LOL. 

But seriously, granted enough space to move around freely I'd favor the bat, simply for the reach advantage. If you let the knife wielder get inside, you are done for.


----------



## WingChunIan (Aug 4, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Right. Being the person who made the claim that a baseball bat attack is more potentially a lethal attack in the first place, I think it might be pertinent to explain what that was in reference to, as it wasn't to the amount of damage that each weapon could potentially cause. It was more to do with the more commonly encountered tactics that you might come up against.
> 
> When it comes to a knife, the most common usage is to threaten/intimidate, commonly in order to extort compliance or money out of someone. The next is a "defensive offence", in which the knife is used to create a barrier by slashing back and forth. The idea is that the person doesn't really want to do much damage, or kill you, but is using the knife to maintain a sense of power. Finally you have the dedicated attempt on your life, which is far more commonly a stabbing action than a slashing one. While common in prisons (where a lot of people seem to get their ideas on knife combat/assault from), it's not as common as a "street" assault, to the point where it makes up the minority of knife attacks.
> 
> ...



Hi Chris, thanks for clarifying. My experience of knife and bat (type) attacks is very different to your own and at least explains our different perspectives. I've been up close and personal to both types of attack for real (witnessing them first hand) and whilst I have no idea whether the victims of the attacks survived (i suspect that they did) I can say that almost all of the knife attacks that I've seen have been a an intial slashing followed by repeated stabbing very much like the shank attacks seen the clips. The bat type attacks that have been successful have almost all resulted in a floored opponent in the foetal position arms covering their head being pounded about the arms and body. I've seen far more bat attacks fail than I have knife attacks. In my own view bats are far easier to defend against than knives and are decidely easier to spot ahead of time, although I would prefer not to face either.


----------



## geezer (Aug 4, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> In my own view bats ...are decidely easier to spot ahead of time.



Yep. That bat is pretty hard to hide in your waistband or behind your palm! I suppose you could try and hide it in your pants, but you'd sure walk like you had a stick up your... oh nevermind!  :uhyeah:


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 4, 2012)

WingChunIan said:


> Which do folks feel is more likely to result in fatal injury, a knife attack or an attack with a bat?



Like others have said, there are a lot of other variables involved, because both weapons can result in fatal injury. But, imho, I'd have to go with the knife because well, it's easier to pierce vital organs with a knife. Plus you can cut vital arteries with knives. With a bat, there are only 2 ways I can think of where you can kill somebody. 

1. Blunt trauma to the head
2. Use it as a garrote to choke the life out of them (but this is even pushing my imagination)

Where as a knife can stab at the liver, kidneys, and possibly penetrate the heart if it's over 7 inches in length. Not to mention slice the carotid arteries, femoral arteries, etc... you get my point.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 4, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> Like others have said, there are a lot of other variables involved, because both weapons can result in fatal injury. But, imho, I'd have to go with the knife because well, it's easier to pierce vital organs with a knife. Plus you can cut vital arteries with knives. With a bat, there are only 2 ways I can think of where you can kill somebody.
> 
> 1. Blunt trauma to the head
> 2. Use it as a garrote to choke the life out of them (but this is even pushing my imagination)
> ...




I normally stay out of these threads, but this is becoming ridiculous.

Potentially lethal strikes with a bat:
Head, neck, throat, ribs, clavicles, liver, spleen, gut, bladder, pelvis, upper arm, upper leg. If you can only think of two, you're just not trying very hard.

You do NOT need a blade "over 7 inches in length" to reach the heart, unless your target is HUGELY obese. A 2" blade, inserted just to the left of the sternum at the 4th or 5th intercostal space, is PLENTY long enough to reach the heart.

While it's true that blades are more lethal than bats (in my 30 years of experience in a busy trauma center, at least), it's not because of arteries being sliced. Stab wounds are far more lethal, and the most common lethal stab wounds are to the abdomen, where they puncture the aorta, the liver, the spleen, the renal arteries, the diaphragm... The idea that you're going to slice someones femoral artery in a fight is fairly silly. The idea that you're going to slash someones carotid in a fight is similarly silly. 

Not quite as silly as Zenjael claiming he could escape from a rear naked choke by biting through the brachial artery, but pretty damned silly.

Chris, I've seen those pictures. Honestly, two of the three look unlikely to even spend the night in the hospital. Stitch them up and let them go. The cut just below the ribs would need a CT to make sure it didn't penetrate the abdominal cavity. If it did, then it's off to the OR to explore. If not, it's stiches and home. A chest xray for the other two, a few stitches, and off they go.


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 4, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> I normally stay out of these threads, but this is becoming ridiculous.
> 
> Potentially lethal strikes with a bat:
> Head, neck, throat, ribs, clavicles, liver, spleen, gut, bladder, pelvis, upper arm, upper leg. If you can only think of two, you're just not trying very hard.
> ...



Silly ideas, but not impossible right? Thanks for the insight, I'd never imagine getting hit in the upper arm or upper leg with a bat would be potentially lethal. Why didn't they teach me that in the military? guess it must be too deadly and effective for warfare. Can you explain why it would be lethal? And how would you hit somebody in the throat with a bat? Would you thrust it forward towards their throat with the handle end? or would you swing it at their throat like you're playing baseball? 

Sounds like you have to be pretty precise shot in order to hit the heart with a 2in blade. Which is highly likely to happen during a fight. I'm sure the person being attacked might even draw a map for the knife attacker and write 'insert knife here' on their chest.

i can see the femoral artery slashing being silly, but carotid doesn't sound too far fetched, it's right there on the side of the neck. a diagonal downward slash with a sharp knife would do the trick. they teach this to U.S. Marines.

I'm not questioning your experience from working in a trauma center. I'm sure you've seen some nasty things, but dying from a baseball bat strike to the leg sounds silly.


----------



## geezer (Aug 4, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> ...but dying from a baseball bat strike to the leg sounds silly.



Another reason, besides longer range, that I'd favor a bat (or similar long, heavy club). You've got a better chance of ending a fight without killing your attacker.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 4, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> Silly ideas, but not impossible right?



Not impossible, no. I think you'd have as much luck skiing through a revolving door though.



StreetReady said:


> Thanks for the insight, I'd never imagine getting hit in the upper arm or upper leg with a bat would be potentially lethal. Why didn't they teach me that in the military? guess it must be too deadly and effective for warfare. Can you explain why it would be lethal?



Bone fragments. Axilary or femoral artery. Both of which, incidentially, are closer to those bone fragments than your knife blade.



StreetReady said:


> And how would you hit somebody in the throat with a bat? Would you thrust it forward towards their throat with the handle end? or would you swing it at their throat like you're playing baseball?



Either way would work. Personally, I'd be more inclined to thrust. The tracheal rings can't really take too much impact. The baseball swing would be more ideal for a strike to the cervical spine or (even better) the base of the skull.



StreetReady said:


> Sounds like you have to be pretty precise shot in order to hit the heart with a 2in blade. Which is highly likely to happen during a fight. I'm sure the person being attacked might even draw a map for the knife attacker and write 'insert knife here' on their chest.



I've seen far more people die from stab wounds that penetrated the heart than I have from slashes to the neck or groin. Or baseball bats, for that matter.
Like, for example, the kid I saw about a year ago. He and his mother were fighting over a pack of cigarettes (they were both well known to the police for substance abuse issues). She stabbed him with a paring knife (about a 3" blade). She missed the point I described, since she stabbed him to the right of the sternum, but still managed to put the knife through both the front AND back walls of the right ventricle. I know this, because when we cracked his chest we were able to staple the hole in the front wall, but couldn't get to the one in the rear. We did manage to get a pulse back, though, as long as I kept my finger in the hole in the back wall. That made for an...interesting...trip to the OR. He didn't make it, despite all that.



StreetReady said:


> i can see the femoral artery slashing being silly, but carotid doesn't sound too far fetched, it's right there on the side of the neck. a diagonal downward slash with a sharp knife would do the trick. they teach this to U.S. Marines.



It is indeed. And pretty deep (farther from the surface than the heart, by a long way). I've seen people with their throat cut in exactly the manner taught by the US military. In at least one case, it was done by a member of the US miltary. The carotid was intact in all the cases I've seen, including the one that had his trachea laid open (which made intubating him very easy...). Slashing the throat is most likely to cut the external jugular, and while this may eventually be fatal, it's certainly not going to be terribly fast.



StreetReady said:


> I'm not questioning your experience from working in a trauma center. I'm sure you've seen some nasty things, but dying from a baseball bat strike to the leg sounds silly.



Guess you've never seen a retroperitoneal hematoma caused by a hip or pelvic fracture. Nor anybody with a proximal femur fracture that damaged any of the very large vessles in the area. Yes, the femur is strong. And yes, it can be broken with a baseball bat.

Of course, the vast majority of the time, attacks with a bat result in a CT or plain xrays, some stitches, an ice pack, maybe a tetanus shot, and a trip home.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 4, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> Silly ideas, but not impossible right?



Defense against haymaker:
Backflip out of the way
Forward roll
As you stand up, uppercut the testicles

Not impossible, right?


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 4, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Defense against haymaker:
> Backflip out of the way
> Forward roll
> As you stand up, uppercut the testicles
> ...



if a baseball bat to the leg is lethal, i don't see why this is impossible.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 4, 2012)

Forgetting everything else -- the simplest way a baseball bat to the leg, especially, could be lethal is a blood clot.  Might not be immediate -- but you might find the Year & a Day rule of interest.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> if a baseball bat to the leg is lethal, i don't see why this is impossible.



The next time I see someone with a liter of blood in their thigh from a femur fracture, I'll tell them not to worry, they're not going to die, or even need a transfusion. After all, you said it's not possible.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Forgetting everything else -- the simplest way a baseball bat to the leg, especially, could be lethal is a blood clot.  Might not be immediate -- but you might find the Year & a Day rule of interest.



More likely a fat embolus, actually. 

The mortality within a year of femur fractures runs something like 25-30%.


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 5, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> The next time I see someone with a liter of blood in their thigh from a femur fracture, I'll tell them not to worry, they're not going to die, or even need a transfusion. After all, you said it's not possible.



http://www.u.tv/News/Man-injured-in-baseball-bat-attack/48123953-cdff-414f-9dbb-5c85754a9b59

I think this guy died. Just how you said he would.


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 5, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> The next time I see someone with a liter of blood in their thigh from a femur fracture, I'll tell them not to worry, they're not going to die, or even need a transfusion. After all, you said it's not possible.



Don't forget to also tell the next person you see with a slashed throat that he's lucky his attacker didn't decide break his legs with a baseball bat. After all, a slashed carotid isn't at all life threatening like you said.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 5, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> Don't forget to also tell the next person you see with a slashed throat that he's lucky his attacker didn't decide break his legs with a baseball bat. After all, a slashed carotid isn't at all life threatening like you said.


Dont forget to also tell the next person You see with a broken skull that Hes lucky His attacker didnt slash His arms.
Seriously, both of them hurt. Both have upsides and downsides. Its like comparing a Revolver to a Handgun (Is that the right word?). The difference is that they do different kinds of damage.


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 5, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Dont forget to also tell the next person You see with a broken skull that Hes lucky His attacker didnt slash His arms.
> Seriously, both of them hurt. Both have upsides and downsides. Its like comparing a Revolver to a Handgun (Is that the right word?). The difference is that they do different kinds of damage.



a revolver is a type of handgun.


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 5, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> a revolver is a type of handgun.


Im aware of that. I mean, whats the word for non-revolver handguns? Its a bit late.


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 5, 2012)

Cyriacus said:


> Im aware of that. I mean, whats the word for non-revolver handguns? Its a bit late.



semi-automatic


----------



## Cyriacus (Aug 5, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> semi-automatic


Cheers


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 5, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> http://www.u.tv/News/Man-injured-in-baseball-bat-attack/48123953-cdff-414f-9dbb-5c85754a9b59
> 
> I think this guy died. Just how you said he would.





StreetReady said:


> Don't forget to also tell the next person you see with a slashed throat that he's lucky his attacker didn't decide break his legs with a baseball bat. After all, a slashed carotid isn't at all life threatening like you said.



Are you trying to be an *** about this?  Dirty Dog actually works in an ER, and has extensive experience seeing the actual results of trauma.  He's never said a slashed carotid wouldn't be fatal... just that it doesn't come about all that often.  Kind of makes sense, or you'd think that there'd have been tons of deaths that way over the years.  I've personally seen a guy whose throat was slashed leave the hospital within about 36 hours.  He had a cut about  4 or 5 inches long, so big that that the ER surgeon just used it to place the tracheotomy stuff...  and he woke up, and identified his assailant.  Granted, that was at a Level III trauma center that's probably one of the best in the country -- but slashed throats aren't necessarily fatal.

Blunt force trauma, whether delivered via baseball bat or car crash, can indeed be fatal, in a number of ways.  Hitting a home run on someone's skull is only the most obvious...  Internal bleeding due to trauma to the torso, compound fractures to limbs or broken limbs damaging blood vessels, spinal injury... those among other ways a baseball bat attack can do serious or fatal harm.

I tried to look in Crime in the US, but they don't have it immediately and obviously broken down by knife/cutting injuries vs. blunt force.  And, honestly, I'm not spending several hours digging the numbers out.  Suffice to say that either means can cause fatal injuries, and that you need to understand that about them.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 5, 2012)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep this conversation civil.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## StreetReady (Aug 5, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> I tried to look in Crime in the US, but they don't have it immediately and obviously broken down by knife/cutting injuries vs. blunt force.  And, honestly, I'm not spending several hours digging the numbers out.  Suffice to say that either means can cause fatal injuries, and that you need to understand that about them.



Which is what I've been saying. I simply stated my opinion that I feel a knife is more deadly than a bat if it came down to numbers. What part of this aren't you people getting? I'm not going to sit here all day and try to explain myself. You're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. Call it whatever you'd like, but dirty dog and I both agreed that a knife is more deadly to a degree.

He just said carotid artery attacks with a knife seem silly, just as I am saying a baseball bat to the leg seems silly. I doubt you've done either to a person. But if I had to mention numbers, I'd say more people probably would probably likely die from knife attack to the throat than a baseball bat to the leg. 

Either way, I'm done with this thread...said all I needed, you either get me or you don't. See you on the next topic.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 5, 2012)

StreetReady said:


> http://www.u.tv/News/Man-injured-in-baseball-bat-attack/48123953-cdff-414f-9dbb-5c85754a9b59
> 
> I think this guy died. Just how you said he would.



"Broken leg" is hardly synonymous with "femur fracture". You do know that the leg has other bones in it, don't you?

Nor did I ever say "would", I said "could". Attempting to put words in my mouth and misrepresent what I have said does you no good.


----------



## chinto (Aug 21, 2012)

both have the same lethal potential... however I would say the defense against the bat would be a bit easier... again to many variables! I would tend to give the blade an edge ( no pun intended)  in general... I think its harder to evade and easier to conceal, but both will kill.  

Now training can change that... a staff is not a bat, but very deadly.   a good batter would have a good feel for the distance and all... the same can be said for the blade and some training.


----------

