Weapon of Choice...Knife?

[7starmantis]

This is sort of an extension of a discussion allready going on, but I thought it was getting off topic there (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188651#post188651 ) So I started this one.

I am curious, and I'm not trying to pick on anyone or "disrespect" anyone or anyones training. I'm curious as to why a person goes from average fighter, to unbeatable when holding a knife?

Not to pick on anyone, but Paul seems to have strong feelings about this and I read some of your other posts where you said,

Originally posted by PAUL
Now, lets say you F-ed up royally, and you are empty hand Vs. an knife Armed attacker. You must take on the attitude that you are already dead. Your not worried about getting cut, and your not scared of anything. You are a walking dead person. Kiss your @$$ goodbye, get ready to meet your maker, then go for broke.

Please don't get upset, or take me a being rude, I'm seriously curious about this. What is it about a knife that makes the person so unbeatable? We have all dodged punches before, why is dodging a knife attack any different? Is it because of the impending danger of injury or death? That shouldn't change the fact of the matter.

I'm afriad I'm making you mad Paul, so please don't take this wrong, I'm really wanting to pick your brain and hear what you have to say about it.

7sm

 

[Ender]

I prefer a light saber.....

 

[arnisador]

A few relevant posts/threads:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4155#post4155
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=879
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2552

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by arnisador
A few relevant posts/threads:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4155#post4155
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=879
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2552

Those are very interesting threads, and all stacked against me!

I don't see why FMA or any art for that matter would bother with even addressing empty hand Vs Knife if it is truly so impossible to defend against. The knife can only do what the attacker is capable of doing. The knife holds no power on its own, if the attacker can only move a certain speed, so thus the knife be confined to that speed.
By no means am I claiming to be able to de-knife anyone or claiming to want to fight a knifed assailent, but I am saying I train in defending against a knife, and in using a knife, and I prefer the empty hand. I do not believe it is impossible to defend against a knife as I've seen it done and had to do it myslef. The thing is, most assailents using a knife are not masters of the martial arts trying to attack you.

7sm

 

[Rich Parsons]

7StarMantis,

I train empty hand versus knife.

I also think you can defend against the knife empty handed. You skill level must be significantly above that of the person with the knife and your timing must be superb and right on.


The Knife is not the perfect weapon, it just has some immediately deadly attributes.

:asian:

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
7StarMantis,

I train empty hand versus knife.

I also think you can defend against the knife empty handed. You skill level must be significantly above that of the person with the knife and your timing must be superb and right on.


The Knife is not the perfect weapon, it just has some immediately deadly attributes.

:asian:

I agree, your skill level must be well above the attacker, and even then your most likely going to get cut, maybe even several times. I understand that the knife guys here are reading what I'm writing and feeling as if they need to defend and maybe educate me on the knife. If I was going to choose a weapon to use, my very first choice would be a knife, I like the knife and I am trained at using it. I don't want anyone to think I am belittling it or its usefullness/danger. One of my favorite weapons we train in is the double daggers, I love the straight forwardness of the knife.
Me personally, I do not believe a knife makes a person unbeatable.

I personally would rather fight empty hand because I feel confident in my abilities. Just as some of you guys would prefer a knife, I prefer no weapon. I can say your being just as cocky and conceded as I am because you think you can beat anyone with a knife, but I understand that you guys are trained as well, and are confident in your abilities.

My only issue is that it is a little unrealistic to say that no one can defend against a knife. That no one, of any skill level can stand a chance in hell if against an attacker with a knife. Thats an unrealistic outlook, as unrealistic as if I were to say that no one with a knife could beat me unarmed. That would be an unrealistic statement as well.

7sm

 

[lhommedieu]

Actually I prefer a Remington 700 at 500 yards...
Or a cruise missile at 500 miles...

Or...well you get the point.

Given a choice between armed and unarmed, I'd rather go armed - see #2, below.

I've been following this conversation on both threads and have made a couple of comments myself. It's not surprising that some FMA's might be...puzzled...by 7sm's choice of weapons when facing a knife. After all, many have chosen to study FMA's precisely because having a weapon seems to greatly multiply your chances of survival when faced with a similar weapon. That's the theory anyway (and the one to which I subscribe).

Two points, however, that merely state my opinion:

1. "Greatly multiply your chances of survival" means that you've elevated your chances to 50-50 (or less). This is how I argued on another forum (to the question "How do you rate your chances unarmed against two people with knives?"):

"Slim to none" sounds about right.

Look at it this way:

1. One-to-one (both armed). If YOU are armed and HE is armed, and if you both have intent (i.e., neither will back down until the other can't move), then your odds are about 50-50 for and against survival. Why am I so pessimistic? Because you cannot count on your training to make up for accidents. Why train at all then? Because, barring accidents, your training may make that slight difference that makes all the difference.

2. One-to-one (one unarmed, one armed) If YOU are unarmed and HE is armed, and if you both have intent (i.e., neither will back down until the other can't move), then your odds just slipped way below the 50-50 mark. You can choose any number you want, but you can't tell me they come close to 50%. Let's split the difference and call it a 25% chance of survival. Your
superior training may make the difference, but it's a steep climb from 25%.

3. Two-to-one (two armed, one unarmed). If YOU are unarmed and THEY are armed, and if you all have intent (i.e., they won't back down until you can't move, and so on...), then your odds just slipped way below the 25-75 mark. You can choose any number you want, but you can't tell me they come close to 25%. You cant even split the difference because the odds don't decrease geometrically - they decrease exponentially. That's why "slim to none" sounds about right.

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't train empty-hand against knife or whatever - but, rather than fill our students' heads with dangerous fantasies, why not acquaint them with some realistic information? That way, they'll learn to avoid getting into not just dangerous, but close to impossible, situations.

O.K. - that's just my opinion. I am arguing that if I start from the position that my chances are 50-50 (or less) knife against knife, then I'm logically compelled to be pessimistic about my chances unarmed against knife. I'll understand if there are some individuals for whom my point of view doesn't make sense - that's what keeps the conversation going.

2. Optimistic talk about how you'd do unarmed against knife is exactly the same as optimistic talk about how you'd do knife against knife. I'm a pessimist, so both kinds of talk don't make sense to me. I guess it's fair to say that, bottom line, I want to survive such an encounter on the basis of the very slim margin of luck that my training has provided. In the back of my mind is always the saying "wanting is not having." I wonder how many have considered that it's not confidence that might make the difference between surviving or not - but fear.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
if the attacker can only move a certain speed, so thus the knife be confined to that speed.

No, the weapon speed can significantly exceed the hand speed.

Imagaine an extreme case--the whip. The tip can break the sound barrier, but the hand wielding it surely cannot.

Imagaine swinging a 6.5' staff around your body. Let's say, for convenience, that your arm is 3' from the center axis of your body and you hold the staff so that it extends 6' beyond your arm. Swing the staff around your body in a perfect circle, parallel to the floor, for one revolution. Your hand moves a distance of 2*pi*r1 or roughly 18 feet (taking pi=3', as the Indiana state legislature once tried to make law)--the circumference of the circle.

But the tip of the staff moves a distance of 2*pi*r2 or roughly 54 feet (r2=3' for your arm plus 6' for the staff), in the same period of time. Now speed is distance travelled over time, so if this takes, say, 1 second, then the tip of the staff is moving 54/18=3 times as fast as your hand.

As a rule of thumb, the weapon moves up to ten times faster than the hand. Repeat this mental experiment with a 6" knife blade held in your hand, pointing up. Flick it down by rotating your wrist forward through a right angle. The top of your fist moves perhaps 2". How fast is the tip of the knife moving?

This is very simplified, but should give an indication of why the weapon speed is greater than the hand speed. Now add in that a relatively light touch with the very tip of the knife will cut, whereas a hand needs to land a heavy blow, and you begin to get a very deadly weapon!

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I agree, your skill level must be well above the attacker, and even then your most likely going to get cut, maybe even several times. I understand that the knife guys here are reading what I'm writing and feeling as if they need to defend and maybe educate me on the knife. If I was going to choose a weapon to use, my very first choice would be a knife, I like the knife and I am trained at using it. I don't want anyone to think I am belittling it or its usefullness/danger. One of my favorite weapons we train in is the double daggers, I love the straight forwardness of the knife.
Me personally, I do not believe a knife makes a person unbeatable.

I personally would rather fight empty hand because I feel confident in my abilities. Just as some of you guys would prefer a knife, I prefer no weapon. I can say your being just as cocky and conceded as I am because you think you can beat anyone with a knife, but I understand that you guys are trained as well, and are confident in your abilities.

My only issue is that it is a little unrealistic to say that no one can defend against a knife. That no one, of any skill level can stand a chance in hell if against an attacker with a knife. Thats an unrealistic outlook, as unrealistic as if I were to say that no one with a knife could beat me unarmed. That would be an unrealistic statement as well.

7sm

7SM,

It sounds like you and I are at least in the same chapter, if not on the same page. Yes, skill does make a big difference. I think what the problem was is how you asked your orignal questions. No Big deal.

More Later with Steve Lemade

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by lhommedieu
Actually I prefer a Remington 700 at 500 yards...
Or a cruise missile at 500 miles...

Or...well you get the point.

Given a choice between armed and unarmed, I'd rather go armed - see #2, below.

I've been following this conversation on both threads and have made a couple of comments myself. It's not surprising that some FMA's might be...puzzled...by 7sm's choice of weapons when facing a knife. After all, many have chosen to study FMA's precisely because having a weapon seems to greatly multiply your chances of survival when faced with a similar weapon. That's the theory anyway (and the one to which I subscribe).

Two points, however, that merely state my opinion:

1. "Greatly multiply your chances of survival" means that you've elevated your chances to 50-50 (or less). This is how I argued on another forum (to the question "How do you rate your chances unarmed against two people with knives?"):



O.K. - that's just my opinion. I am arguing that if I start from the position that my chances are 50-50 (or less) knife against knife, then I'm logically compelled to be pessimistic about my chances unarmed against knife. I'll understand if there are some individuals for whom my point of view doesn't make sense - that's what keeps the conversation going.

2. Optimistic talk about how you'd do unarmed against knife is exactly the same as optimistic talk about how you'd do knife against knife. I'm a pessimist, so both kinds of talk don't make sense to me. I guess it's fair to say that, bottom line, I want to survive such an encounter on the basis of the very slim margin of luck that my training has provided. In the back of my mind is always the saying "wanting is not having." I wonder how many have considered that it's not confidence that might make the difference between surviving or not - but fear.

Best,

Steve Lamade

Steve,

I like you analogy. 50/50 down to less than 25%. I also like your comments about skill not be enough and fear being a motivator. I also like how your presented mistakes and that you may not be able to recover from them. All good points in my mind.

Waiting for more discussion from everyone.
:asian:

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by lhommedieu
Look at it this way:

1. One-to-one (both armed). If YOU are armed and HE is armed, and if you both have intent (i.e., neither will back down until the other can't move), then your odds are about 50-50 for and against survival. Why am I so pessimistic? Because you cannot count on your training to make up for accidents. Why train at all then? Because, barring accidents, your training may make that slight difference that makes all the difference.

2. One-to-one (one unarmed, one armed) If YOU are unarmed and HE is armed, and if you both have intent (i.e., neither will back down until the other can't move), then your odds just slipped way below the 50-50 mark. You can choose any number you want, but you can't tell me they come close to 50%. Let's split the difference and call it a 25% chance of survival. Your
superior training may make the difference, but it's a steep climb from 25%.

3. Two-to-one (two armed, one unarmed). If YOU are unarmed and THEY are armed, and if you all have intent (i.e., they won't back down until you can't move, and so on...), then your odds just slipped way below the 25-75 mark. You can choose any number you want, but you can't tell me they come close to 25%. You cant even split the difference because the odds don't decrease geometrically - they decrease exponentially. That's why "slim to none" sounds about right.

Your using statistics to prove an encounter that contains an abundance of variables that render statistics inaccurate. A fight, is in no way limited by statistics. Its not feasable to accept an outcome of an encounter using statistics.

I don't understand if an attacker is weilding a knife, and I'm unarmed, what is going to raise my chances of survival so much by me taking up a 3" blade? Your telling me that all this speed and dangerous tearing of arteries done by well trained knife fighters is going to go away because I pick up a blade myself? Forgive me, but that is naive.

Originally posted by lhommedieu
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't train empty-hand against knife or whatever - but, rather than fill our students' heads with dangerous fantasies, why not acquaint them with some realistic information? That way, they'll learn to avoid getting into not just dangerous, but close to impossible, situations.

No one on this thread is suggesting getting into this type of situation, in fact, I prefer to stay out of any type of physical encounter myself. A dangerous fantasy would be entering into an encounter hoping on statistics to save you. A dangerous fantasy would be to believe that because you pull a blade you are invincible. Training empty habd vs knife is a realistic situation to train against, because it can happen to you. Training realistically against it, knowing your going to get cut, possibly even seriously, is realistic. I know the realism of getting cut, but that doesn't change that think a skilled fighter can effectivly defend themselves against an edged weapon. I've seen it done, I've had to do it myself, it is possible, and very worth training for.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by arnisador
No, the weapon speed can significantly exceed the hand speed.

Imagaine an extreme case--the whip. The tip can break the sound barrier, but the hand wielding it surely cannot.

Imagaine swinging a 6.5' staff around your body. Let's say, for convenience, that your arm is 3' from the center axis of your body and you hold the staff so that it extends 6' beyond your arm. Swing the staff around your body in a perfect circle, parallel to the floor, for one revolution. Your hand moves a distance of 2*pi*r1 or roughly 18 feet (taking pi=3', as the Indiana state legislature once tried to make law)--the circumference of the circle.

But the tip of the staff moves a distance of 2*pi*r2 or roughly 54 feet (r2=3' for your arm plus 6' for the staff), in the same period of time. Now speed is distance travelled over time, so if this takes, say, 1 second, then the tip of the staff is moving 54/18=3 times as fast as your hand.

As a rule of thumb, the weapon moves up to ten times faster than the hand. Repeat this mental experiment with a 6" knife blade held in your hand, pointing up. Flick it down by rotating your wrist forward through a right angle. The top of your fist moves perhaps 2". How fast is the tip of the knife moving?

This is very simplified, but should give an indication of why the weapon speed is greater than the hand speed. Now add in that a relatively light touch with the very tip of the knife will cut, whereas a hand needs to land a heavy blow, and you begin to get a very deadly weapon!

I see your point, and its a good one, but what I'm trying to say is it is not "superhuman" speed. a 3' blade will not extend far enough to pick up much more speed than your allready moving. some, yes, but not as much as a staff or especially a whip as you mentioned.

the speed is increased, thus increasing the danger, but it is not the superhuman speed alot of people are claiming it becomes. It is still managable and possible to defend against. A whip I would hate to have to defend against, as would I a knife or any weapon for that matter.

If your close enough for the "wrist flick" to seriously cut you, then you shuld have allready done something, not just been sitting there ready to be cut.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

It is still possible to defend against, but one shouldn't underestimate the speed advanatge. It's also an effective reach advantage because you need only nick someone with the end of the blade to get a cut, whereas a hand must lay a blow. If the knife gets close enough to touch, it cuts, whereas a hand just grabs. Anytime you could grab, block, etc., your opponent, the knife could cut.

I understand your position that for you, you might be better off without a knife. I would feel the same way about some weapons, I imagine--that I would more be encumbered than empowered by a strange weapon.

A dedicated knifer who's out to get you is a scary scenario, as Col. Fairbairn's quote indicates. But luckily, most of us are not attacked by highly skilled adversaries.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by arnisador
It is still possible to defend against, but one shouldn't underestimate the speed advanatge. It's also an effective reach advantage because you need only nick someone with the end of the blade to get a cut, whereas a hand must lay a blow. If the knife gets close enough to touch, it cuts, whereas a hand just grabs. Anytime you could grab, block, etc., your opponent, the knife could cut.

I understand your position that for you, you might be better off without a knife. I would feel the same way about some weapons, I imagine--that I would more be encumbered than empowered by a strange weapon.

A dedicated knifer who's out to get you is a scary scenario, as Col. Fairbairn's quote indicates. But luckily, most of us are not attacked by highly skilled adversaries.

Very true, its a mistake to underestimate any weapon or fighter for that matter. The speed advantage is one to be reconed with, but we fight opponants with speed advantages over us all the time.
Why do so many train empty hand against a knife if it is so impossible to defend against? In my experience nothing is impossible. Everytime I think something is impossible, I see someone do it. There is an old Chinese saying, "He who says it is impossible should not interupt the one doing it".

Again I dont understand why it is impossible for me to defend myself empty hand, but the huge advatange the knife holder has dwindles so much when I myslef pick up a blade. The speed advantage we've been talking about, the lethal cuts that happen seemingly instantaneously, even the reach advantage all seem to disapear? I don't understand that mindset.

7sm

 

[arnisandyz]

I would feel more comforatable with something vs a knife.
And obviously you, 7sm would feel more comfortable emptyhanded vs a knife.

Nobody is really wrong and no one way is better than the other, Self defense is a very personal thing and you must do what you think is best for yourself to survive the situation. I think a few people (myself included) initially didn't like the way you approached the situation, "I don't see how much damage a boxcutter could do before I've broken a knee or two." And yet you say you have respect for the knife? If I said, "When the attacker thrusts at me I'll just cut the outstretched arm with my own knife." The problem with both of these statements is that they are predicated on what the attacker is going to do and what your going to do. As many people know, knife fights aren't always predictable. I'm not sure what is going to happen, but would feel better holding something in my hand to help me survive. Perhaps you would find more people in agreement with your views of unarmed self defense vs a weapon in the more traditional styles? or elswere on this forum. I think most people who frequent the knife forum are knife people. In anycase, your views have been very refeshing. Perhaps someone can start a poll like "Against a knife attack, what do you prefer"?
1. knife
2. stick
3. emptyhand

 

[7starmantis]

I can accept that, however I didn't mean for my views or opinions to threaten or "disrespect" anyone or their training.
I still hold the view that if someone comes at me with a boxcutter that has a what 1" blade at best, I would be able to defend myself quite well.

We have had some good points made here, and I appreciate the tactfulness and friendliness we have been able to sustain while disagreeing. This is good conversation.

You made mention of traditional styles, which I guess would be what I'm classified as. Do you think traditional systems tend to focus on empty hand vs weapon more than others? If so why is that? Is it that it is just an outdated part of traditional training that needs to be cut away and discarded, or is their some credence to that training?

I believe there is credence to training empty hand vs knife, because I don't carry a weapon with me, and refuse to, even when I'm licensed as a concealed handgun carrier. So for me, training empty hand vs weapons, is a must.

7sm

 

[arnisandyz]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
I can accept that, however I didn't mean for my views or opinions to threaten or "disrespect" anyone or their training.

You made mention of traditional styles, which I guess would be what I'm classified as. Do you think traditional systems tend to focus on empty hand vs weapon more than others? If so why is that? Is it that it is just an outdated part of traditional training that needs to be cut away and discarded, or is their some credence to that training?

I believe there is credence to training empty hand vs knife, because I don't carry a weapon with me, and refuse to, even when I'm licensed as a concealed handgun carrier. So for me, training empty hand vs weapons, is a must.

7sm

I am not in anyway a Historian on all Martial Arts, but these are my views. Most traditional systems I see in my area, TKD, Karate, KungFu focus mainly on empty hand training, mixing in weapon training after a fundamental of empty hand skill has been demonstrated. Problem is, this is usually in the way of forms and patterns and not actual fighting skills with the weapon and usually are taught for competition. The styles I have mentioned have already gone though an evolution from a combat form to an art form or “way of life.” Many traditional styles do practice empty hand vs weapon situations. However, they are approaching it from the perspective of an emptyhand persons point of view. The person “feeding” the knife may or may not have an understaning of the weapon. This could be for serveral reasons, some of which you have claimed, comfortable with empty hands, not going to be carrying a weapon, liability in todays world, teaching kids, or ignorance.

In its combat state, weapons were taught first for several reasons. You could take an average person, train them with a weapon and in a short amount of time have them fighting the war. Much like how today’s military trains it infantry on the M-16, with limited training in hand to hand combat. The goal was not to create martial artists, but to teach enough skill to kill quickly, and putting a weapon in someones hand was the most effective.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by arnisandyz
Most traditional systems I see in my area, TKD, Karate, KungFu focus mainly on empty hand training, mixing in weapon training after a fundamental of empty hand skill has been demonstrated. Problem is, this is usually in the way of forms and patterns and not actual fighting skills with the weapon and usually are taught for competition. The styles I have mentioned have already gone though an evolution from a combat form to an art form or “way of life.”

There are traditional kung fu systems and very non-traditional as well. The way we train is simply fighting oriented. We focus on applicable techniques and work on the realistic application of ever technique. We do not do competition much, and focus simply of the realism of self-defense.

Its hard to lump all kung uf practitioners into a box like saying Kung Fu is a traditional art that teaches for competition.

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Again I dont understand why it is impossible for me to defend myself empty hand, but the huge advatange the knife holder has dwindles so much when I myslef pick up a blade. The speed advantage we've been talking about, the lethal cuts that happen seemingly instantaneously, even the reach advantage all seem to disapear? I don't understand that mindset.

7sm

This is what I'm confused about however. Why if the knife is so dangerous, does it lose a bit of impossibility when faced with another knife?

7sm

 

[Cruentus]

I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but I promise I will on Monday!

Sevenstar...I'm not mad at all, even from the other thread. I just have a hard time buying some of what you say, thats all. I just hope your not mad at me for being honest!

Now...a short sharp weapon, such as a knife, is very dangerous. It takes very little training to become deadly with the weapon. The only thing that can bme more deadly with less training would be a gun. A knife to me is just below a gun. The reason is because a sharp knife, like a box cutter, hunting knife, folder, etc. is designed to cut....and it cuts meat particularly well. Hang up a slab of pork ribs or a beef cut, and take your blade and practice some slices and stabs. Watch how well even the smallest knife slices meat. You will slice meat into bits, cut through bone, etc. This is what it can do to the body, with very little effort. Also, your empty hand sparring with an untrained person isn't the same as a knife person. An untrained person may never "hit" you, but I garuntee thay can touch you if they are determined. All a knife player has to do is touch you and you are cut. Even the smallest cuts on the hands and arms could be severing nerves, cutting arteries and viens, and hindering your ability to fight. Many times, your attacker (especially if they are terrorists who are determined to lose their lives to make a point) may be so out of their minds that they'll take your strikes, a bloody nose, a broken rib, etc., just to close in and cut you repeatedily. When you can't use your limbs as effectively because of cuts and blood loss, your attacker is able to move in and kill you.

A knife fighter doesn't have to be skilled. He doesn't have to be trained well. All he has to do is touch you. And...that's the problem with going against a knife fighter empty handed.

Now....do I teach empty hand vs. knife. Absolutly! However, I don't want my students (or myself) to have an aire of false confidence regarding a bladed weapon. This way they will exhaust every other option available before it gets to that point, not just decide "hey...I train empty hand...to I'll just go in to a knife fight empty handed because thats what I am used too!" If you are going empty hand vs. knife, you have to consider your self a walking dead person. You are giving your life up right then in their; its a last resort where you say "F-it!" and you go for broke using what you know. Yes...I teach empty hand vs. knife. But No....I don't teach false confidence against a knife wielding attacker.

Now...on a personal note, I have survived a few edged attacks myself. Each time, I didn't have a weapon available to me, and I had to use my empty hand, and I survived unharmed. However, I am wise enough to realize that the Angels were watching me at that time....because if any slight dynamic in the situation would have changed I would have been dead or injured. It wasn't my vast amount of skill alone that got me out of it, and I won't falsly think that it was. I now carry a knife with me almost every where I go...because I don't want that one mistake to happend, costing me my life.

With Empty hand encounters, or even blunt weapon encounters, you can afford a mistake. Against a blade, a mistake will most likely kill you.

Thats how I feel on the subject.

Stay safe...

W/ respect,

PAUL