I have had both done to me, and neither was pleasant. The stabbing hurt most the soonest. The gun shot was "numb" for a while immediate after being shot. Perhaps it was the shock or the heat of the bullet killing the nerves along the way. The gun shot required for them to dig and dig and dig for broken bits of lead in my leg - that was "interesting" since I was awake and they numbed the local area... not completely. The knife wound was a clean one, so it was rather quick, pull back the skin a bit, stitch up the inside, burn a blood vessel or two (to "seal" it from bleeding - was the best method I suppose) then stitch up the skin. Healing period - about the same. More stitches for the knife than for the bullet - but I bruised a hella lot more from the bullet (most likely from the digging they did, they did a lot of digging to get most (not all) of the bullet fragments out) than the knife wound. So all things considered I think that they are about equal. If I had to choose one (and absolutely had to have it done) I would prefer the bullet. The immediate shot was not as unnerving as having a knife slice through your skin. Psychologically the bullet was "cleaner".

Shot, I'll take a bullet to the head before bleeding to death from a knife to the gut. Even a throat cut takes about 3 minutes for death to happen, ouch.

It would really depend where and by what... If the choice was between taking a large sword through the heart of a .50cal to the head, I'd probably go with the .50cal just because it'd instantly kill me, when the sword wouldn't (but would certainly kill me eventually). If it was a choice between taking a serrated knife to my gut or a .22 to my backside, I'd probably go with the .22 : P

i think id rather be shot if i really had 2 have 1 done y?! i have no idea!

I have been stabbed so I guess I'll try my hand at a gun shot wound.

I have been shot 10 times and stabbed in the chest two different times, either way is cool

stabbed straight through