# Using a sword for self-defense?



## Swordlady

For those of you currently training in any sword art, would you ever consider using your sword for self-defense - especially at home?  Personally, I would rather use a bokken, jo, or a similar ranged *blunt* weapon.  I would rather avoid the possibility of maiming or killing; a well-connected blow should hopefully incapacitate the intruder.  Not to mention that using a sword on an intruder could lead to legal liabilities (something about "excessive force", I think?)

Serious discussion, please.  No need for any kind of graphic fantasies; this topic is not advocating senseless violence.


----------



## pstarr

Well, if the assailant threatens you with deadly force you're certainly within your rights to answer with equal force (the definition of what constitutes "deadly force" may vary slightly from state to state) - If the intruder is armed, he is (assumed to be) threatening you with deadly force....and you're not (legally) justified in drawing any kind of weapon on him unless you feel that your life is threatened.

     That said, I don't believe I'd have a problem at all cutting him down with my blade (if I can't get to one of my firearms...) except that it'd make a horrible mess - moreso than a bokken.


----------



## Drac

If being threatned with a firearm or any other weapon by an intruder that broke into your home use what you have..Make sure you have a good lawyer because you know that this POS or his family will sue you for cutting poor innocent Johnny...


----------



## KOROHO

I certainly would use it under the right circumstances.
I have access to all sorts of weapons in the house, except I don't own a gun.  What I would grab I guess depends on the situation.  I don't have set plan for what weapon I would grab when.

There was a time when I heard a commotion outside in the apartment complex I lived in.  I realized it was a pretty big fight so I started to go check it out.  On the way out the door, I grabbed a bokken, for some reason, it was in an umbrella stand at the door.

When I got around the corner there was a group of guys beating on one of my neighbors.  A Kenpo 3rd Dan who lived right upstairs from the fight had already gotten down and disarmed one of the attackers who had a knife and was starting to go after the rest of them.  The one who had just lost his knife jumpoed back into the van that they came in and pulled out a gun.  He was just jumping out from the side door of the van with the gun as I rounded the corner with my bokken.  I felt kind of silly standing there and really thought I was going to get shot.  I don't know why he didn't shoot.  I wish I could remember what he said to me.
His buddies jumped back in the van and they just drove away.  But not before my new friend busted a few of them up pretty good.  We both tried to convince the victim to come for training but he said he didn't need it.


----------



## Cryozombie

I would, if I couldnt get my gun.

I think a sword would carry a certain intimidation factor, honestly... and if the intruder wasnt armed with a firearm, the appearance of the sword MIGHT have the effect of taking the fight out of the intruder.

And if not, well, I hear Oxyclean gets blood out of carpets.​


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I would, if I couldnt get my gun.
> 
> I think a sword would carry a certain intimidation factor, honestly... and if the intruder wasnt armed with a firearm, the appearance of the sword MIGHT have the effect of taking the fight out of the intruder.
> 
> And if not, well, I hear Oxyclean gets blood out of carpets.
> ​


You are right on in that if they do not have a gun, a sword would definately be intimidating.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Kensai

Brian R. VanCise said:
			
		

> You are right on in that if they do not have a gun, a sword would definately be intimidating.
> 
> Brian R. VanCise
> www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


 
Let's just say, if I was a burglar, and someone walked downstairs, and I had a piddly little knife, and they stormed in with, say, a samurai sword, I might, first, need a change of undercrackers, then, squeal like a school girl. Then, if my heart hadn't already given out, I'd run like the clappers. So, I'd say approaching someone with a live blade would give a potential aggressor a moment of pause... Whether you use it, is another issue. It could have been a display weapon that happened to be "to hand"? As mentioned, it depends on the laws that apply in any given area. US state law, UK law, European law etc etc...


----------



## Grenadier

My philosophy is that you use the best means available to you, in a self-defense situation, if you are threatened with serious bodily harm (or death).  No sense in giving the other guy any sort of advantage, since you want to end the encounter quickly.  

One of the most important reasons why I believe in this philosophy, is that the human body can be capable of withstanding tremendous amounts of punishment, and if the individual is jacked up on some sort of substance, then it makes it even more difficult to put them down.  

This incident doesn't deal with swords, but is a great example of what someone who is simply jacked up on his own natural adrenaline, can withstand:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

Platt had taken several 12 gauge shotgun blasts, several .38 Special slugs, as well as a 115 grain 9 mm Winchester Silvertip (hit the arm first, went through, entered the chest), and still kept fighting, even though his lung was filled with 1300 mL of blood, and major nerves and blood vessels were severed in his arm, including the right brachial artery.  The toxicology reports show that he was not on any kind of drugs.  

This is why I subscribe to the theory of putting your best foot forward.  

Stay safe!


----------



## HKphooey

This guy thought so...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19713718-1702,00.html


----------



## Swordlady

HKphooey said:
			
		

> This guy thought so...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19713718-1702,00.html


 
Wasn't this a premeditated act, and not a matter of self-defense?


----------



## Charles Mahan

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Platt had taken several 12 gauge shotgun blasts, several .38 Special slugs, as well as a 115 grain 9 mm Winchester Silvertip (hit the arm first, went through, entered the chest), and still kept fighting, even though his lung was filled with 1300 mL of blood, and major nerves and blood vessels were severed in his arm, including the right brachial artery. The toxicology reports show that he was not on any kind of drugs.


 
A good example of the one advantage swords have over firearms.  A good clean kesagiri cut which severs the deltoid, pectorals, and some of the abs is going to mechanically disable the attacker.  I don't care how much adrenaline you've got in your system.  If your muscle tissue no longer connects to your skeleton, no amount of adrenaline in the world is gonna make those parts move.

That said I still believe that a sword is a lousy choice for home defense.  I still contend that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is your best bet in most cases.  Bird shot because it won't penetrate the average household wall with enough force to kill small children sleeping in adjacent rooms who happen to get caught in the crossfire.


----------



## HKphooey

Swordlady said:
			
		

> Wasn't this a premeditated act, and not a matter of self-defense?


 
Yeah, it is Friday and i was just being a wise a$$.   Sorry.


----------



## pgsmith

While I would have no qualms about cutting another person that attacked me, it's idle speculation on my part. I am not going to be carrying my sword with me if I happen to be attacked on the street, and I have dogs at home so I'm never going to have a home invasion robbery to defend myself from. A couple of mid-sized dogs is still the best theft deterrent system on the market.


----------



## Kreth

I would say yes. If there's an armed instruder in your home, then you've just extended your reach by 3 feet. If he's not armed, as others have said, the intruder may very well run or surrender.
On a related note, I once got into a quasi-argument with a friend. I told him that my first reaction to someone breaking into my apartment would be to grab my Mossberg. Apparently, he was disappointed that with all my training, I would elect not to go hand-to-hand with the intruder... :uhyeah:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Kreth said:
			
		

> I would say yes. If there's an armed instruder in your home, then you've just extended your reach by 3 feet. If he's not armed, as others have said, the intruder may very well run or surrender.
> On a related note, I once got into a quasi-argument with a friend. I told him that my first reaction to someone breaking into my apartment would be to grab my Mossberg. Apparently, he was disappointed that with all my training, I would elect not to go hand-to-hand with the intruder... :uhyeah:


 
That is why we study combative martial arts.  People are tool users and if we have access to the use of a tool why would we not use it.  It is all about survival after all.  Good post Jeff.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## MA-Caver

pstarr said:
			
		

> Well, if the assailant threatens you with deadly force you're certainly within your rights to answer with equal force (the definition of what constitutes "deadly force" may vary slightly from state to state) - If the intruder is armed, he is (assumed to be) threatening you with deadly force....and you're not (legally) justified in drawing any kind of weapon on him unless you feel that your life is threatened.


IMO, if a person is in your house (uninvited, unexpected) then they just constituted "just cause" to use deadly force. Having a burglar in the house is bad enough. Having a burglar in the house while you're *still in it *is, I consider life threatening. 

Still, using a (long) blade indoors in an average house requires some exceptional skills. Unless you don't mind busting up that leg-lamp from your grandfathers or some other valuable trinket(s) in the house that may get caught in the swing of things. 
True, one could utilize thrust maneuvers to get through to the problem at hand. Just be sure of your mark, it's likely to be dark in the house when this sort of things occurs. 
For home defense a gun is probably still the best bet... properly trained with one of course


----------



## Cryozombie

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> Bird shot because it won't penetrate the average household wall with enough force to kill small children sleeping in adjacent rooms who happen to get caught in the crossfire.


 
I'd check the box of truth on that one... I seem to recall him doing birdshot and it penetrating like 6 walls... but I could be mistaken


----------



## Charles Mahan

Note the "enough force to kill small children" bit.  I didn't make any claims about not maiming   It is a better option than most hand guns, or buck shot, the rounds of which could very easily be fatal.


----------



## Swordlady

Hm...the intimidation factor from brandishing a sword could definitely be a deterrent.  One of my qualms about using a firearm is that it is too easy for something to go wrong - especially if there are other people in the house.  Then again, having a shotgun pointed right at your head would be enough to invoke fear in most everyone.

The thing about most baddies is that they want an "easy target".  Merely waving a sword or a gun at their face may be enough for them to high-tail it away from you.  But if both sides are carrying weapons, there is a good possibility that both parties will sustain injuries.  Which is why physical confrontation ought to be a last resort.

Just my humble opinion, for what it's worth...


----------



## Grenadier

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> A good example of the one advantage swords have over firearms. A good clean kesagiri cut which severs the deltoid, pectorals, and some of the abs is going to mechanically disable the attacker. I don't care how much adrenaline you've got in your system. If your muscle tissue no longer connects to your skeleton, no amount of adrenaline in the world is gonna make those parts move.


 
The laws of (bio)physics certainly hold true.  My kobudo teacher always emphasized, that you want to keep your elbow of your sword arm tucked closer to your body, lest you give your opponent a target to hit.  No sword arm = no sword swinging.  



> I still contend that a shotgun loaded with birdshot is your best bet in most cases. Bird shot because it won't penetrate the average household wall with enough force to kill small children sleeping in adjacent rooms who happen to get caught in the crossfire.


 
I subscribe to this theory as well.  

Back when I lived in an apartment that had rather thin walls, my Remington 870 had five shells chambered.  The first three were #8 shot, and the remaining two were Federal Tactical 00 buckshot.  Anyone who thinks that a hail of 12 gauge #8 shot at close range is feeble would probably rethink that once the flesh is flayed away.  

These days, now that I own a house (no kids in the house) that has some nice, stout walls, it's stoked with 5 shells of Federal Tactical 00 buckshot.  No need to worry about stray shots here!


----------



## Shaolinwind

Swordlady said:
			
		

> For those of you currently training in any sword art, would you ever consider using your sword for self-defense - especially at home? Personally, I would rather use a bokken, jo, or a similar ranged *blunt* weapon. I would rather avoid the possibility of maiming or killing; a well-connected blow should hopefully incapacitate the intruder. Not to mention that using a sword on an intruder could lead to legal liabilities (something about "excessive force", I think?)
> 
> Serious discussion, please. No need for any kind of graphic fantasies; this topic is not advocating senseless violence.


 
Umm.. Yeah if I used a broadsword against an intruder he'll most likely end up slightly disemboweled or at least have large chunks of muscle severed.  I'd definately go for the short staff before the broadsword.  

Here's a thought.. What if the intruder had a sword too?  How would the law regard self defense with a sword in that case?


----------



## Don Roley

In Japan I am not allowed firearms. So the 15th century sword I have might be used if someone were to try to get into my house.

Oh, and it happend to our next door neighbors. Someone tried to sneak in while they were there. I know a few people that had their downstairs robbed while they were sleeping upstairs. No guns in this country means that the burglers work a little different from those in America. Everyone notices everyone during the day, so breaking in at night, even if you know someone is in the house, seems to be standard.

If someone is in my house, with my family- then they are dead. I would run like hell if it was just me. It is not just a matter of fear- but because I know that like most folks that the idea of killing someone else is just abhorant to me. But there is something about my family that would make me grab the nearest weapon that could do the job best and put aside those concerns for the other guy's life.

Bokken and  sticks work well. But they need room to swing to be best used, while the sword can be thrust in with a stab or run across part of the body in a slice. There are a few places in my home where I might have problems getting a decent swing, but with a sword I could always stab or at least keep someone back from me.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Swordlady said:
			
		

> For those of you currently training in any sword art, would you ever consider using your sword for self-defense - especially at home? Personally, I would rather use a bokken, jo, or a similar ranged *blunt* weapon. I would rather avoid the possibility of maiming or killing; a well-connected blow should hopefully incapacitate the intruder. Not to mention that using a sword on an intruder could lead to legal liabilities (something about "excessive force", I think?)
> 
> Serious discussion, please.  No need for any kind of graphic fantasies; this topic is not advocating senseless violence.




Having hit people in the hand(s) with a stick and they still hang onto the stick, I have no problems grabbing a sword for self defense in my home. I like the Wakizashi as it is light and small and can be used in hallways. It also can cut an arm and make it much more difficult for a person to controll a gun or some other weapon. Now obviously if they had no weapon and were not charging me or threatening family or those staying with me, I would not just cut them. 

It is a decision I have made in the past and am ready to make again in the future. I do not recommend it for others only what I am willing to do.


----------



## Erik H

I have heard from a criminal justice instructor that should an intruder break into your home and you happen to kill him with whatever, remember to drag the body back inside if he died outside and always prove to the police that he had a weapon in his hands even if you have to put it there yourself.  Where I live, unfortunately, does not have any self-defense laws, but should an intruder break into my home then I would have to assume that he is armed. The first thing I would do is reach for my katana (because I don't own a gun). Gun, katana, crossbow, whatever works for you to be safe...point is I would rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

Erik H


----------



## Kensai

The other thing to bare in mind here is, choice of weapons aside, you don't know what the intruders intentions are. People talk about "burglars this, robbers that", what if their sole intention is rape or murder? Less likely perhaps, but in the defence of my heavily pregnant partner and her 10 year old girl, I'm going down with the maximum scare effect, that doesn't work, sod the law, I know which is more important to me. As Erik said, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Stuff that.


----------

