# Weapons Defense



## dubljay (Sep 19, 2004)

I am not sure if this question has been brought up yet but here it goes.

 What weapon do you "fear" the most to defend against?  i.e. club/stick, edged weapon, firearm, anything at all.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 19, 2004)

At close range, a knife.  Obviously, impact and edged weapons are only dangerous if someone is close enough to hit/stab/slash you with it (unless they throw it at you).  Therefore if we're not talking about "contact" range or closer the firearm takes the title.


----------



## ThatWasAKick (Sep 19, 2004)

I think a knife.  There is something surreal about facing a gun, almost like you're not you, you're a character in a book, and books always come out okay.  That probably doesn't make any sense.
Anyway, if an assailant were holding a knife in a trained manner, it would scare the bejeez out of me.  Less so if he were holding it in a layman's grip.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 19, 2004)

ThatWasAKick said:
			
		

> I think a knife.  There is something surreal about facing a gun, almost like you're not you, you're a character in a book, and books always come out okay.  That probably doesn't make any sense.
> Anyway, if an assailant were holding a knife in a trained manner, it would scare the bejeez out of me.  Less so if he were holding it in a layman's grip.


This raises a good point that I forgot to mention.  A person's method of employing whichever weapon we're going to put in the scenario is going to influence my level of expectation with regard to coming away from the situation intact (or at least alive).  I'm not saying that it's still not a bad position to be in but if I were to see someone holding or trying to use a weapon the way they do in movies (i.e. the horizontal "gangsta" grip with a handgun or the "psycho-stab" method of knife fighting) I would be a little more optimistic than if I encountered someone in a "modified Weaver" (shooting stance) or using the Pikal-style grip (method of gripping/using a knife).  Either way, still not a situation I ever want to find myself in.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 19, 2004)

dubljay said:
			
		

> What weapon do you "fear" the most to defend against?



The human suicidal murder. We in america are most fortunate it has only been deployed here a few times.

Danny


----------



## 8253 (Sep 19, 2004)

I am not afraid of an opponent with a weapon, i just have a healthy respect or them at the time.


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Sep 19, 2004)

I agree with 8253. I don't fear the weapon, for it is nothing without its wielder. It all depends on how willing my enemy is to kill me.


----------



## Kane (Sep 19, 2004)

I would very much be mostly afraid of someone with a firearm the most. Even if someone pulls out a knife, I can run if I wanted. If he pulls out a gun, I can't run, and disarming is hard to do unless you are an expert at it. Even then, you might get shot still and fazed a little by a bullet.


----------



## sifu nick (Sep 19, 2004)

I don't fear any one weapon. I prefer they don't have any weapons at all. Guns, knives, sticks, beer bottles.....i've seen them all become deadly in the wrong scumbags hands. I just try to be as ready as possible for anything.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 19, 2004)

The mindset of the person.

A weapon that is there for show only wouldn't be as scary as someone without one that wanted to do anything at any price to rip me a part.  Someone in a mind set where they will rip, claw, bite, gouge, and keep going until they are no longer concious.  Someone that would keep beating on me and trying to tear me a part even if I gave up, or lost consciousness.  That would be what I would fear the most, not what weapon they had.


----------



## Silat Student (Sep 20, 2004)

I would say the gun. There are many methods that are taught and refined in the various martial arts to defend against melee weapons but I've yet to hear of a good way to deal with an angry man holding a pump shotgun and standing 10 ft. away (besides not being there in the first place).


----------



## spatulahunter (Sep 20, 2004)

i would have to say the gun simply because its alot harder to run away from then most other weapons. One of the main principles of hakko ryu jujutsu which i take is escape through the openining and that ir really hard with a gun because of the range. I would always rather run away if i could and guns make that really hard


----------



## spatulahunter (Sep 20, 2004)

actually i changed my mind
:xwing:
i would have to say that the x wing would mess me up the worst


----------



## Mark Lynn (Sep 21, 2004)

ThatWasAKick said:
			
		

> I think a knife.
> 
> Anyway, if an assailant were holding a knife in a trained manner, it would scare the bejeez out of me.  Less so if he were holding it in a layman's grip.



What is a layman's grip?

I have to agree with the knife being the weapon I would be most concerned
(fear) going against.

This was from the local news last night.
There was a robbery last night in a small town outside of Dallas (Rowlett) where a guy enter a gas station/store after a customer and stabbed the customer with a knife (alledgedly to show he was serious) and then proceeded to order the clerk to had over the money.  which he did.

To me the knife can be conceled in an easier manner, (heck how many people wear them as part of your trade or just to carry them) so it might be looked over till they (the assailent) are to close and then pulled and used against you.

The gun as mentioned can be used from a far enough distance away that the guy really might be posturing with no intent to harm you just scare you into submission.  But a guy with the knife I think is more apt to be mentally ready to inflict damage on you. 

Mark


----------



## ThatWasAKick (Sep 28, 2004)

Boar Man - a layman's grip would be just holding the knife as an untrained person would usually pick it up -- like how you would hold a dinner knife.  If I saw someone holding it in a combat grip that would indicate to me he had some training.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 28, 2004)

If he has the gun out at 10 feet you can be next to him in the time it takes him to decide he is going to fire... and obviously, you jink.  Worse with shotgun if it has shot rather than shell because of the area spread, but actually at that range, the nearer you get the more accurate he has to be for a "winging" because the pattern spread is wider the further from the muzzle it gets.  Inside about 3 metres you can close the distance in under, literally, a couple of seconds.  I.e. 2s

For this sort of reason, I would be more concerned about being close to a knife wielder, as a rule, but any melée weapon is bad news at close range.  Knives are just worse because of the way they so easily kill with a seemingly minor wound, as compared to, say, a baseball bat.

John

P.S.  I am not claiming 'Super Powers': if you don't understand why it is easy for someone, especially someone well-trained, to deal with fire-arms at close range, as compared to dealing with melée, please go and study or just ignore.


----------



## CMack11 (Sep 29, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> P.S.  I am not claiming 'Super Powers': if you don't understand why it is easy for someone, especially someone well-trained, to deal with fire-arms at close range, as compared to dealing with melée, please go and study or just ignore.



And if you still don't believe it, go to a firing range with a pistol, put a target at about 10 feet out, and hit the target while firing several shots in under 2 seconds.  It's a humbling experience when you can't hit even once.  Now think about the target moving.  It takes a lot of practice to be accurate with a pistol.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 29, 2004)

A friend of mine, a veteran police officer, told me that up to 20 feet, a knife is more dangerous than a gun. Part of it has to do with the fact that it takes time to draw and aim a gun, while a knife doesn't have to be aimed.  He also agrees that it's a lot harder to shoot accurately in that situation than one would imagine.  

I've seen his training videos, which show a knife vs gun. At that range, knife wins every time.  A moderately fast attacker can be on the cop before he can draw and aim. The cops in his videos miss--frequently--even from from 10 feet, especially if they are trying to evade a knife attack simultaneously. And they often fall while trying to draw and back-pedal at the same time.

I'd prefer not to face any weapon.


----------



## The Sarg (Sep 29, 2004)

My concern would depend on the competency and determination of the attacker. Example; I would rather go against a gun or knife in the hands of someone who is not competent or determined then go against someone who is highly proficient with, say, a stick (ie. I KNOW they can kill me with that stick without difficulty), and who is determined to kill me. However, guns are more chancy. Sure, the person may not be able to hit the broad side of the barn on a regular day, but with my luck theyd get me right in the forehead. With guns, even a simple accident can kill. Knives are chancy too, but not like guns. Your attacker has to really be determined to KILL you with that knife. Without that determination, the knife most likely wont kill you. Again, though, accidents happened, and with my luck Id get nailed in the femoral artery and I would die on a fluke.



I dont fear much, but I havent been attacked much either. I guess that competency and determination of the attacker would play a role in how afraid I would be.



Sarg


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 29, 2004)

Here's an interesting anecdote from Ron Balicki. I attended a knife defense seminar he and Diana Inosanto gave a couple of years ago at NAPMA. (I'm paraphrasing)

He tells a story of being confronted one time, while he was a police officer, by a knife-wielding attacker. Balicki reached for a 2-by-4, which happened to be available, and cracked the attacker with the piece of wood. Later, his collegues laughed at him, saying, "Big karate man--had to use a 2-by-4 to defend himself!" Balicki replied, "The guy had a knife! What was I supposed to do???"

Balicki respects blades.


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

The canonical range is "21 feet".  Inside 21 feet if you have a holstered gun and the other guy goes for you, trying to pull your gun is suicide if he can and will kill you. 


			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Balicki replied, "The guy had a knife! What was I supposed to do???"
> 
> Balicki respects blades.


Only people who do not are those who have never faced them or know nothing about self-defence.  The former, if they do know about SD are heading for a life-changing and possibly life-*ending* experience.  The latter can be forgiven when you consider TV portrayal of MA, guns, etc.

John


----------



## Tydive (Sep 29, 2004)

Notice how nobody is afraid of the stick, but it is the most effective weapon against a knife (at close range).


----------



## Gaidheal (Sep 29, 2004)

I am afraid of nothing.  Honestly.  But I already stated that I would not choose to be in melée range when someone has a melée weapon (and presumably I don't).

John


----------



## Nightwish (Oct 14, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> I am afraid of nothing. Honestly. But I already stated that I would not choose to be in melée range when someone has a melée weapon (and presumably I don't).
> 
> John


Everyones afraid of something John, don't be ridiculus. Its ok to be afraid, having fear is fine...you just have to know fear, and how to harness it, to make it usefull towards you and not against you. I've always found with people that say "i'm afraid of nothing" are people who are overconfident. I'm not saying this is true with you, but please think hard about that issue.

I guarantee you if you were out with yuor mom/dad/best friend, whatever, and a guy came walking along and all of a sudden pulled a gun on your relative/parent/friend, you would be scared for there lives HOPEFULLY.

If someone put a REAL gun to your head with LIVE ammo with the intent to kill you would be afraid, trust me man.

And how can you not choose to be in melee range? your opponent will choose wether or not you'll be in melee range by encroaching you somehow. Now i'm not an advocate of letting people approach me on the street, most of the time, they just stay away, but maybe your on a crowded bus/subway. Maybe your in a mall where there are people all around you. You can't profile 500 people at one time in that big of an open space....the variables are infinite.

Some people believe distance creates safety, i STRONGLY disagree, and think distance creates opportunity. If the bad guy gets away from you and makes distance he has time to deploy weapons and you may not be able to get to him befroe he starts gutting you like a cat fish, or shooting you.  However if you keep him close range by ripping his neck apart or whatever, and he goes for a weapon, you can jam his hand before he draws, and thus you do not need to deal with whatver it was he wanted to kill you with in the worst of terms...the weapon may be still there, but you jammed his hand and he can't deploy it, and while he's trying to deploy it, you are hurting him very severley.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 27, 2004)

Apologies for the delay, been at parents' place for a while (father is away working, mother wanted to visit her sister in IoM).

I'm not afraid of anything, sorry if that bothers you. Thought about it long and hard quite a lot at various times for several reasons. It may be that my faith (or lack thereof, as the case is) has something to do with this, it might be irrelevant - I am still not sure. In any case, it's not because I am convinced I would always prevail, it's because it actually makes no real difference whether I do or do not. I will either succeed or I will fail; if I fail I will not be around to worry about it, in a life/death choice. If I succeed, great. In neither case does fear aid me, it's generally considered to be a hindrance and I am not worried about the outcome in a way that will cause me to feel fear. Excitement if the stakes are high, but not fear.

If someone put a gun to my head, I'd seriously injure, if not outright kill them. Assuming I was aware that they had just done so. The issue of why they stand a good chance of losing that particular scenario has been done to death elsewhere, but in short, they are too close to keep the weapon on target and there are literally hundreds of ways for me to injure and ultimately kill them whilst immediately making myself a very difficult or impossible to hit target.

If you have good situational awareness you always make most of the choices regarding your personal safety not least of which is knowing when you are somewhere it is not good to be right at that moment. There are plenty of contrived scenarios where you people are asked "what would you do if...?" but in point of fact, if someone tries to attack you with a melee weapon, improvised or otherwise, you have usually had ample warning of their intention and therefore can choose the range or more sensibly choose to get the hell away without even fighting, unless that really is impossible. If it is crowded, by the way, they will not be using melee weapons - it requires a lot of space to swing and more than many people realize to thrust with all but the smallest knife. For the same reason, high spinning kicks are not used much even by people who are confident enough to try it - there is rarely the space. Indeed, when most people have to get "down and dirty" (and be honest; most never will have to) it is going to be very close range, involve a lot of punching, elbowing and employing of any improvised weapon that can be used well at point blank range (ashtrays are good, glasses can be). You don't need to profile 500 people because at most *20* are close enough to see you, much less attempt to attack you and people are rarely attacked in large public crowds anyway for obvious reasons. This is especially true of any scenario involving a weapon.

Distance does creat safety. Unless s/he uses a ranged (read: gun, in most cases) weapon, your phantom attacker has to get within at least 12 more likely 6 feet of you to have any hope of attacking you with even a large melee weapon, such as a pool cue, baseball bat, etc, without you or someone else being very much aware and able to simply run away, pull a gun, or whatever your choice is to be. Outside of guerrilla warfare people are not ambushed with "deployed" weapons. If you have distance and he is not firing/throwing something at you, the nastiest weapon he has is name-calling.

John


----------



## Mark Weiser (Oct 27, 2004)

I have a healthy respect for knifes due to the fact they are more versatile in attacks than a gun which attacks linear. A firearm once redirected can only fire in one direction but a knife in the hands of a trained person is more lethal.


----------



## Gaidheal (Oct 28, 2004)

Good point.. the right knife in the right hands will always have an angle of attack.  Even in inexperienced hands, knives are difficult and very dangerous to attempt to redirect or disarm; at least you can just grab a stick/bat/baton and hold on or try to.  This is suicide with a knife.  Of course any (that I can think of) melee weapon has the same advantage in terms of angles, but those which rely on concussion rather than penetration are generally a lot easier and safer to face in all regards.  I can think of some useful stick disarms that I would consider employing if someone attempted to strike me by swinging such a weapon.  I would almost never attempt any disarm technique (unarmed assumed) on a knife wielder - they are extremely unlikely to succeed, despite the hype and involve (usually) you getting dangerously close to the knife and its wielder.  I would not choose, as a rule, to *close* distance on someone with a knife.  I would often do so for specific techniques to deal with bats/batons/clubs/etc - e.g. a very effective technique, space permitting, for someone swinging a bat is to close with it, grab and at the same time move in the same direction as the bat whilst pivoting so as to pull the weapon along the axis of the user's arm.  Performed correctly (easy enough with some careful practice, bringing the speed up until it is a full speed technique) this should avoid you taking much if any of the impact at all, as well as redirecting it in such a way as to practically guarantee stripping it from the attacker's hand.  At the very least it will be a less than optimal hit and s/he should be off-balance, especially if they over committed to the swing.  I think you would have to be mad to attempt anything similar with a knife.

John


----------



## Adept (Nov 7, 2004)

Gaidheal said:
			
		

> If he has the gun out at 10 feet you can be next to him in the time it takes him to decide he is going to fire... and obviously, you jink. Worse with shotgun if it has shot rather than shell because of the area spread, but actually at that range, the nearer you get the more accurate he has to be for a "winging" because the pattern spread is wider the further from the muzzle it gets. Inside about 3 metres you can close the distance in under, literally, a couple of seconds. I.e. 2s
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...


 A simple analogy - If you are fast enough to see someone throw a punch, and move to react, then you can bet your bottom dollar that a reactive trigger squeeze will leave you bleeding and in shock on the ground.

 Try a simple exercise. Stand 10 feet from your training partner. Have him hold a rock in his hand, by his side. Tell him to drop the rock as soon as you start moving towards him. If you can catch the rock before it hits the ground, you might be able to beat the reaction time of a man with a shotgun. If not, your best bet might be to just do what he says.

 Even if you think you _might_ be able to beat him, the risk is simply too great. If you miscalulate by even a tenth of a second, you lose big.


----------

