# Reflection on Weapons Carry



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 5, 2015)

Some simple thoughts that have been peculating in my punkin haid for some time now...especially as I am embarking on a new set of martial arts weapons training.  I do enjoy weapons and training with them.

One thinks of a weapon as an advantage in a self-defense situation, and to be sure, it is.  But I believe that there are also disadvantages involved in weapons carry.

First, if one has a weapon, one must protect that weapon from being taken away and used against one.  Whether it is a gun, a knife, a bludgeon, or whatever; nearly any weapon that one can carry can be used against one if it is seized by an aggressor.

Second, nearly all weapons one might carry could potentially be considered capable of inflicting deadly force, at least in legal terms and in the USA (I do not know the laws of every jurisdiction, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc).  However, it is my belief and understanding that one may only legally resort to deadly force when one is authorized to do so; for example when legitimately in fear of one's life.

Third, a weapon, as many here know but some may not, is not a magic wand.  One does not pull it out, wave it around, and things get better.  In general, once a weapon is brandished, the chances that it will have to be used become much, much, higher.  In other words, even if a given confrontation was not life-threatening, by introducing a weapon, now it is.  And that may not be a good idea, depending on the circumstances.

Fourth, weapons in general require proficiency to be anything other than a dangerous detriment to the person carrying them.  A knife, a gun, even a taser or pepper spray.  One gains little advantage from depositing them in a purse or glove box or carrying them in a pocket if one has no particular experience using them.  As a former Military Policeman, we took part in extensive training with our weapons, including spraying each other directly in the face with Mace (before pepper spray).  We did our best to become and remain proficient with our weapons, and we used them constantly in self-defense situations (Marines in garrison, what can you expect?).  I do not think most civilians practice to obtain that level of proficiency.

Fifth, the willingness to use a weapon to take a life.  I suspect that most people who carry weapons have not thought a lot about what happens when you take a human life, or they don't think (or want to think) that the weapon they choose to carry might end a life, or that they would employ it in that manner.

I am not trying to say that one should not defend one's life with deadly force if the need arises.  I am saying that I don't think many people have through through what it means to do so.  To intentionally end a human life is more than pulling a trigger.  There will be blood, brains, fecal matter, urine, vomit, and the general chaos that ensues after such an event.   Even if justified in killing a human being, there will police, questions, lawyers, and expenses.  There will almost always be emotion and financial costs.  Still better than being dead oneself, true.  But I would hope that no one seriously thinks they can blow away a mugger (for example) and tell the cops what happened and that's that, end of story.  Your life will change, forever, starting at that moment, and in many ways not for the better, other than the major upside of still being alive.

I can well imagine a scenario where a person becomes involved in a dispute which becomes physical.  Given our current times, perhaps a road rage incident or a fight over a parking spot or some such thing.  Words are exchanged, neither party backs down, someone throws a punch.

Now, if I am the person being punched, of course I will defend myself.  But if I am carrying, say, a gun, now I have to worry that the person punching me will tackle me or knock me down and somehow gain possession of that gun.  Now my focus it not just on defending myself, but also defending the gun.  And if I defend my possession of that gun by drawing it, now the chances are much higher that I am going to end up using it, or having it used on me.  My attention is divided, and my hand or hands may end up being occupied with the weapon itself, which is of no actual use to me until and unless I am obligated to take a life to save my own.

I will add a few more things.  

It appears to me that there are many who seem to have a preoccupation with the notion of carrying weapons they can 'get away with' in terms of not having them considered to be weapons by law enforcement.  In my opinion, this is dangerous thinking.  I only worked in law enforcement for a short time and I only studied Criminal Justice in college for a few years, but I did manage to absorb some basic understanding that has served me well over the years.  For example, it's not what the item is, it's how you use it.  A screwdriver is a screwdriver, until it's used as a weapon and the person who was carrying it INTENDED to use it for that purpose.  Then is it a deadly weapon.  I'm sorry, there's no way around this.   All the various items that companies make with the idea that they will be mistaken for innocuous items and not weapons, but which are intended to be employed as weapons, they won't pass muster if one actually purchases them with the intent to use them as weapons and then does so.  There are no cheats that work.  Sorry.

Most controversially, I will add that in my experience, there are some people who seem to have either what I would consider an unhealthy obsession with weapons or a tendency to engage in magical thinking about what weapons do for a person.  I do not suspect that such people are going to gain any advantage at all if they carry weapons about for the purposes of self-defense.

That's all I have for now.  Feel free to comment.  I am not against weapons carry, I support the right to carry, I like firearms, and I of course support the right to defend oneself, even with deadly force, when and as required.  I have no sympathy for criminals.  I am merely trying to take a clear-eyed look at the reasons we carry, what we carry, how we carry, and whether or not that is always a good idea for general self-defense.


----------



## Flatfish (Nov 5, 2015)

A very thoughtful post. I agree with much of what you said.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 5, 2015)

Bill, I'm not going to respond to most of your post simply because I'm sitting at the airport in Indianapolis on my phone and it's too painful. When I get home...

While a weapon isn't a magic wand, it IS true that in about 3 out of 4 cases, merely drawing a gun will end a conflict without a shot being fired. 



Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Bill, I'm not going to respond to most of your post simply because I'm sitting at the airport in Indianapolis on my phone and it's too painful. When I get home...
> 
> While a weapon isn't a magic wand, it IS true that in about 3 out of 4 cases, merely drawing a gun will end a conflict without a shot being fired.
> 
> ...



Are these really true? Or just full caps true.

Now you can make a couple of interesting conclusions but you are statistically more likley to be shot if you carry according to one of a very small amount of studies done on the ,subject.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Trying to find anything even vaguely legitimate on this subject is actually quite hard as both sides of the debate are lying their butts off.

Found this from the Harvard injury research centre. That suggests a lot of accepted information is just false. Is this site legit? Stuffed if I know.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health


----------



## Dinkydoo (Nov 6, 2015)




----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 6, 2015)

Really was not my intent to ignite a gun debate. If that's what this is to become, I withdraw from the thread.


----------



## Buka (Nov 6, 2015)

Great post, Bill.


----------



## Flatfish (Nov 6, 2015)

Maybe one thing to add to the discussion would be the potential to inadvertently harm innocent bystanders (use of projectile weapons).

Personally that would be very hard to deal with even if the weapon was used for all the right reasons.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 6, 2015)

Flatfish said:


> Maybe one thing to add to the discussion would be the potential to inadvertently harm innocent bystanders (use of projectile weapons).
> 
> Personally that would be very hard to deal with even if the weapon was used for all the right reasons.



I think that is a valid concern for those who carry firearms.

To everyone else:

To try to bring this discussion back to where I had originally hoped it would go, though, let me try this...

Let's pretend that firearms are not part of the discussion.  Edged weapons, bludgeons of various sorts, chemical and electrical weapons only.  I hope my points are still the same, but without the added dynamic of the pro and anti gun arguments.

If I happen to carry a (let's say) collapsible baton on my person for self-defense purposes, I still have to defend not just my own life, but my possession of that weapon.  I have to keep control of it lest it be used against me.  It also changes the dynamic of a self-defense situation the moment it is brandished.  It is also not a magic wand in the sense that it ends trouble by merely being waved about.  Etc.

Could we all agree to just leave the firearm debate out of this particular thread?  My reflections were really more of a meditation on the possible downsides as well as the advantages to carrying weapons for self-defense, not the right and wrong of guns.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Nov 6, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Really was not my intent to ignite a gun debate. If that's what this is to become, I withdraw from the thread.


You mentioned guns 7 times in the OP and were talking about lives being taken by firearms.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 6, 2015)

Dinkydoo said:


> You mentioned guns 7 times in the OP and were talking about lives being taken by firearms.



Then do as you wish.  I did not intend a political discussion about the pros and cons of firearms.  I am out of this thread.


----------



## Dinkydoo (Nov 6, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then do as you wish.  I did not intend a political discussion about the pros and cons of firearms.  I am out of this thread.


*Launches toys from the pram*

Get a grip man, it was a clip from a comedy show. I have no desire to get into a full blown gun debate either. 

As you were


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Flatfish said:


> Maybe one thing to add to the discussion would be the potential to inadvertently harm innocent bystanders (use of projectile weapons).
> 
> Personally that would be very hard to deal with even if the weapon was used for all the right reasons.



If you have pulled out a gun shot at someone missed and hit some innocent bystander then then it was not used for the right reasons.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Weapons in any form are a serious responsibility. You have a duty to be of decent character. Should be proficient in its use,understand the law and be able to protect that weapon against loss or theft.

It should be the same as if you are walking around with a hundred thousand dollars in your pocket.


----------



## Flatfish (Nov 6, 2015)

drop bear said:


> If you have pulled out a gun shot at someone missed and hit some innocent bystander then then it was not used for the right reasons.




Yeah, I think you are oversimplifying here...there's plenty of scenarios where an innocent person could be hit and you would not have absolute control over that in a SD situation but I'm not going to argue about this.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2015)

Flatfish said:


> Yeah, I think you are oversimplifying here...there's plenty of scenarios where an innocent person could be hit and you would not have absolute control over that in a SD situation but I'm not going to argue about this.



You just did argue about it.


----------



## GiYu - Todd (Nov 6, 2015)

Most jurisdictions look at "disparity of force" regarding application of weapons. 
If facing an unarmed attacker, you rarely are justified using a weapon... with exceptions if you are handicapped or much smaller than the attacker.  If the attacker has a bludgeon or dangerous, but not fully leathal (from a jury standpoint, not from a real damage standpoint) weapon, and you have both a non-leathal weapon and a gun, you often are expected to resort to the less-lethal option first.  However, if you only have a firearm, and the attacker has a dangerous (but supposedly non-lethal) weapon, you may be justified escalating to the gun since that keeps you from being at a significant disadvantage.
A big thing to keep in mind is whatever you do to an attacker (even if you just beat the hell out of them unarmed), you have a real chance of facing legal challenges to your decision, where jurists (sitting comfortably in a nice safe room) may decide that what you did was excessive.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 6, 2015)

When I was younger I used to sometimes carry a weapon of some sort on my person. These days I generally don't.

My reasoning is that in 51 years of life I have yet to be involved in a situation where having a lethal weapon on me would have been likely to improve the outcome. I have been in several situations where having a gun or knife on me might easily have made the situation worse.

These days I am much less likely to be involved in a violent or potentially violent situation than I was in my younger days, so my need for having lethal force available to me is much less. If something about my life circumstances were to change so that I thought I was likely to need that option, then I would consider carrying something. However I would do so fully aware of the risks and responsibilities attendant on that decision.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 6, 2015)

Dinkydoo said:


>


One of the best things about comedy is that you can sneak some truth in it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 6, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fifth, the willingness to use a weapon to take a life. I suspect that most people who carry weapons have not thought a lot about what happens when you take a human life, or they don't think (or want to think) that the weapon they choose to carry might end a life, or that they would employ it in that manner.


 It's not REAL until it's real. So unless it happens people don't think beyond step 1.  This is people in general.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Most controversially, I will add that in my experience, there are some people who seem to have either what I would consider an unhealthy obsession with weapons or a tendency to engage in magical thinking about what weapons do for a person. I do not suspect that such people are going to gain any advantage at all if they carry weapons about for the purposes of self-defense


 I agree with this. This is a big issue in the U.S. where some people think just because they have a gun that a bullet can't hit them.

If there's a guy randomly shooting someone in a school or movie theater, then one has to factor the bullets flying from that gun as being an issue.  I remind people all the time that police with guns get shot and that's with training, a vest, and back up.
My gun shoots bullets, it doesn't stop them.

The U.S. has already been through a period where everyone had guns. We have a proven history of what happens when a society is saturated with guns. Many of our gun laws today are a result of too many guns in the past history of US society.

I don't have anything against guns but there has to be a balance.  Extremes are never good.  Having too much of anything will almost always be bad.  I can't think of any extreme where having too much of a thing doesn't cause serious problems.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 7, 2015)

*I will pose a question back to you Bill.*  If you are in a violent encounter where someone is attacking you with a weapon/tool.  Would you want a weapon/tool to defend yourself?  Imagine you are out and a person starts slashing at you or your family with a knife.  Same scenario but you are out at dinner or a movie and someone comes in and starts shooting people.  While these things probably won't happen they certainly could in our society. Do you want to deal with either situation empty handed?   Does your self-defense training in the system you study address these potential problems adequately?   

Certainly a weapon you own can be utilized against you but any good training system will address that and have counter measures for it.  Take IRT for instance it is a weapon/tool based system and we have counters for someone trying to take our weapon a lot of time is spent on weapon/tool retention.

 A good system will also recognize the need for legal training and understanding of the laws in their area. This is essential and every martial practitioner should consult with a lawyer so that they know the laws pertaining to personal protection in their area.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2015)

I find the contradictory nature of  the gun discussions is often find on a martial arts forum amusing. 

How often I see this on martial arts boards. 

"Guns are inferior to (x) because"...and then "guns need to be controlled because they are such effective killing instruments".

Which is it?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

Tgace said:


> I find the contradictory nature of  the gun discussions is often find on a martial arts forum amusing.
> 
> How often I see this on martial arts boards.
> 
> ...



Guns are inferior to x? I mean I could find things they are inferior to depends on the job.

They are inferior to being educated and voting the right government  in for the right reasons.

But It is not the gun it is the person. So in the hands of a trained responsible person it is a useful tool. In the hands of an idiot it is a liability and in the hands of a maniac it is a dangerous weapon.

Keep it out of the hands of the last two categories and your problem all but disappears.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 7, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Guns are inferior to x? I mean I could find things they are inferior to depends on the job.
> 
> They are inferior to being educated and voting the right government  in for the right reasons.
> 
> ...



X=knife, empty hands, etc. In reference to many discussions about guns in MA forums.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2015)

Tgace said:


> X=knife, empty hands, etc. In reference to many discussions about guns in MA forums.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



That is because you only really have killing people as an option though. So f I get pizza slapped for example I have the choice of killing the guy or coppng it like a weaklng.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 8, 2015)

drop bear said:


> That is because you only really have killing people as an option though. So f I get pizza slapped for example I have the choice of killing the guy or coppng it like a weaklng.



You live in an oddly black and white world. I carry a gun, and despite your contention, I have _*lots*_ of options other than those you mention. For example, I also carry a knife (as do the vast majority of those who carry a gun). Not to mention a little bit of experience at unarmed conflict resolution.


----------



## KFMo01 (Nov 8, 2015)

I don't carry a weapon. 

I do constantly look for my weapon choices that are available at any given moment, wherever I am. There are many things that can be used as a weapon that are not typically thought of as such. I also train weekly on improvised weapons and am thankful for a teacher that has taught me to be comfortable picking up ordinary objects and using them as weapons. 

I live where it is legal and socially acceptable to carry guns and large knives in the open. I am shocked at how few people seem to be actively protecting this liability they carry with them. 

I am thankful we have the right to carry weapons, I just wish the community had a better understanding of the risks that come with carrying an easily accessible weapon like that. 

I often wonder if having so many people packing deters mass shootings. It seems as if those kind of shooters pick easy targets that won't fire back.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 9, 2015)

I was in a conversation the other day with a fellow practitioner who doesn't carry as well.  His reasoning is that weapons/tools are all around and if he needs one he will find one.  I must say that while I admire this persons optimism there are times when a tool might not be handy during an altercation.  I personally would rather have the option if I should need it to have a tool handy on my person.  So I am carrying both lethal and non-lethal options all legally of course.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 9, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I was in a conversation the other day with a fellow practitioner who doesn't carry as well.  His reasoning is that weapons/tools are all around and if he needs one he will find one.  I must say that while I admire this persons optimism there are times when a tool might not be handy during an altercation.  I personally would rather have the option if I should need it to have a tool handy on my person.  So I am carrying both lethal and non-lethal options all legally of course.


I have fire extinguishers in my home in several places as well as in my vehicles. I also have several extinguishers of opportunity such as towels, flour, water, pot lids, blankets... but still have those fire extinguishers. Why because that is what they are designed specifically for and nothing else is quite as effective in many different fire scenarios.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 10, 2015)

All gun discussion remind me this clip - You have one. I have one too. No big deal, let's just move on.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 10, 2015)

I agree with Bill on his points.  Especially, his view on screwdrivers and other things carried as a weapon.  In Michigan, there is a law specifically that deals with "intent to go armed" and includes "dangerous implement".  If your job requires you to be using a screwdriver most of the time, you might get by with having one in a random pants pocket.  If you don't, it is going to be very hard to get someone to believe your story that you just happened to be carrying around the screwdriver.  It might be easier to pull of, a nice metal ink pen to carry around.  BUT, I would not buy one of those "tactical pens" that look like a weapon that can write.  They are designed as a weapon and would be charged as such.

As to the other points.  If you are carrying a weapon, you now know that every fight you are in, is an armed encounter.  You do have to consider your own weapon and taking care of it.  Lots of research out there about people pulling a weapon and not intending to use it and getting themselves hurt or having the weapon used against them.

The other factor, as some have pointed out, is where to carry your weapons.  A woman who keeps pepper spray in her purse is not going to be able to get to it effectively to use and if she is focusing on that to save her is at an even bigger disadvantage.  Same thing with guys who carry in an ankle holster.  How much time is spent quickly drawing the weapon.  I have seen some that carry in an ankle holster that wouldn't even be able to get to the holster without a warm up first. LOL


----------



## Sapphire (Nov 29, 2015)

punisher73 said:


> I agree with Bill on his points.  Especially, his view on screwdrivers and other things carried as a weapon.  In Michigan, there is a law specifically that deals with "intent to go armed" and includes "dangerous implement".  If your job requires you to be using a screwdriver most of the time, you might get by with having one in a random pants pocket.  If you don't, it is going to be very hard to get someone to believe your story that you just happened to be carrying around the screwdriver.  It might be easier to pull of, a nice metal ink pen to carry around.  BUT, I would not buy one of those "tactical pens" that look like a weapon that can write.  They are designed as a weapon and would be charged as such.
> 
> As to the other points.  If you are carrying a weapon, you now know that every fight you are in, is an armed encounter.  You do have to consider your own weapon and taking care of it.  Lots of research out there about people pulling a weapon and not intending to use it and getting themselves hurt or having the weapon used against them.
> 
> The other factor, as some have pointed out, is where to carry your weapons.  A woman who keeps pepper spray in her purse is not going to be able to get to it effectively to use and if she is focusing on that to save her is at an even bigger disadvantage.  Same thing with guys who carry in an ankle holster.  How much time is spent quickly drawing the weapon.  I have seen some that carry in an ankle holster that wouldn't even be able to get to the holster without a warm up first. LOL



Very accurate.  Just like someone once told me "if you're the type to keep a baseball bat in your car, keep a glove and ball in it as well."  The intent is what matters every time.  Also, I have a tactical pen that barely stays put together.  Useless if you ask me, and the guy gave it to me even though he was selling them for $30.  How much is it really worth, you know?

Carrying a weapon is why I never talk about the actual fight when anyone asks me about self defense.  I'm not an instructor and I don't plan to teach anyone besides my family.  If someone asks me about self defense all I talk to them about is the chance of being injured, the consequences of being on the wrong side of the law, BUT I also talk about WHY someone would get into a fight in the first place.


----------



## iluvmycam (Dec 8, 2015)

OP...yes, many truths in your post.. But, being in my 60's with so-so health I'm not going to get into a grappling match with anyone on the street. I may try to blind them with a tactical light or give them a dose of Tobasco as a minimum deterrent.

If things escalate, I also have a collapsible airweight baton and tactical folder if I am not carrying a snubnose. The tactical folder or snub is used to destroy an attackers arm that happens to give me the chokehold. Although I'd hate to let the snub off so close to my ear, but shooting with a twisted wrist to fire behind me can be a problem. When your getting choked out there is not much time to play games.

I love weapons...they are the great equalizer for us that are not as highly skilled in marital arts or have health issues. Can you imagine the shock for the grappler that puts on the choke only to have their elbow blown off?  I do use .38 special and not the big 357 mag loads. They are hell to shoot from a lightweight snub.

I'd advise you to always carry weapons when legal to do so. If you like to test your skills with your hands, fine. It is still good to carry some insurance.


----------



## iluvmycam (Dec 8, 2015)

One thing I forgot to say...

When your wrapped up by someone it can be dangerous to shoot them and you end up shooting yourself. In the scenario I talked about in my previous post, another area to shoot is the thighs of the attacker if they are choking you on the ground. Just gotta be careful you don't end up shooting yourself by mistake or from the bullet exiting them and entering you.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2015)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> If you are in a violent encounter where someone is attacking you with a weapon/tool.  Would you want a weapon/tool to defend yourself?  Imagine you are out and a person starts slashing at you or your family with a knife. Do you want to deal with either situation empty handed?


OK, ignoring the gun scenario as I am in the UK, and taking the knife (or indeed any other sharp or bludgeoning weapon scenario) for me the answer to this would be yes, I would want to deal with it empty handed.

As I am not permitted by law to carry a weapon, or an everyday object modified to be a weapon, or indeed a an everyday object which hasn’t been modified (if it is my intention to use it as a weapon) then I have never done any weapons training, as for me there is little point.  I am therefore, untrained in using weapons.  Why therefore, if my life depended on it, would I abandon my skill set (empty hand) and decide to try and defend myself (and others) using a weapon in which I have no training or skill?

The other factor, which is often over looked, is that that fact that someone has armed themselves with a knife does not change my objective.  My objective remains to either escape, to incapacitate them.  People will of course counter with “but a knife can kill you” yes it can, but so can a single punch.  Regardless, my objective and the way I achieve it remains the same.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 9, 2015)

Paul,

I have to say that your laws are different in the UK and I feel for you.  Most of the friends I have in the UK that train and they work with tools as well.  Most of them carry a pen that they could use in a pinch or some other common everyday item.  I will be honest with you, if you have to defend yourself empty handed versus a knife I don't like your chances.  Particularly since you do not train with tools.  You might want to invest some time with another system that specializes training with weapons to round out your skill set.  You could look at the FMA's for this.  If you understand the characteristics of a weapon you may place yourself in a better position to defend against one.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 9, 2015)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Some simple thoughts that have been peculating in my punkin haid for some time now...especially as I am embarking on a new set of martial arts weapons training.  I do enjoy weapons and training with them.
> 
> One thinks of a weapon as an advantage in a self-defense situation, and to be sure, it is.  But I believe that there are also disadvantages involved in weapons carry.
> 
> ...


Great points! I try to address this sometimes with my FMA buddies who overly fetishize weapons, generally it's a lost cause. Some just don't understand that a case involving weapons use is not clear cut. If a guy tries to stab your wife of course you'll most likely be justified in using any weapon, but that's only one limited scenario and the gray areas encompass many more scenarios. That's why I don't think its a great idea to carry a $300 karambit or any expensive "tactical" weapon. Collect them if you like but be aware of the risks with using one. That's why I carry a knife purchased at a local sporting goods store that I could say I carry as a utility tool. If you want to carry a weapon use a gun.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 9, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Great points! I try to address this sometimes with my FMA buddies who overly fetishize weapons, generally it's a lost cause. Some just don't understand that a case involving weapons use is not clear cut. If a guy tries to stab your wife of course you'll most likely be justified in using any weapon, but that's only one limited scenario and the gray areas encompass many more scenarios. That's why I don't think its a great idea to carry a $300 karambit or any expensive "tactical" weapon. Collect them if you like but be aware of the risks with using one. That's why I carry a knife purchased at a local sporting goods store that I could say I carry as a utility tool. If you want to carry a weapon use a gun.



Or, as has been pointed out repeatedly... both. My knife (most commonly a Benchmade Auto Stryker) sits in my right front pocket. My handgun (most commonly a Glock 19) sits behind my right hip, with spare magazines on the left. I'm unlikely to use either as a weapon, though the knife gets used a lot for opening mail and other mundane chores.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 9, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Or, as has been pointed out repeatedly... both. My knife (most commonly a Benchmade Auto Stryker) sits in my right front pocket. My handgun (most commonly a Glock 19) sits behind my right hip, with spare magazines on the left. I'm unlikely to use either as a weapon, though the knife gets used a lot for opening mail and other mundane chores.


If that knife fits the bill as a utility weapon than a jury just might buy it. But then again if you've got a gun it's not likely you'd use the knife for self defense. Your personal weapons carry choices are irrelevant and we're dealing with a lot of hypotheticals here. Again I'm not talking about a clear case of self defense, I'm referring to the gray areas. Look at the case of the atienza Kali guy (Umalii believe was his name) in the trial it was noted that he had a specialized knife and it worked against him. Did it seal his fate? Maybe not, but it was a contributing factor to his imprisonment.  My point and I think the point of the op is that your choice of weapon could be damning in a court case, especially if you're choosing to carry said weapon as a less than lethal option.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 9, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> If that knife fits the bill as a utility weapon than a jury just might buy it. But then again if you've got a gun it's not likely you'd use the knife for self defense. Your personal weapons carry choices are irrelevant and we're dealing with a lot of hypotheticals here. Again I'm not talking about a clear case of self defense, I'm referring to the gray areas. Look at the case of the atienza Kali guy (Umalii believe was his name) in the trial it was noted that he had a specialized knife and it worked against him. Did it seal his fate? Maybe not, but it was a contributing factor to his imprisonment.  My point and I think the point of the op is that your choice of weapon could be damning in a court case, especially if you're choosing to carry said weapon as a less than lethal option.



Obviously laws vary widely from country to country, but in the US (which is where I live) the weapon is irrelevant. You're either justified in killing them, or you're not. 
And although I am not a lawyer, I have spoken with a number of lawyers and police officers about this issue, and the consensus is clear.
If you use a weapon, don't BS about it. State clearly that you used a weapon because you were in fear for your life and that you intended to shoot/stab/bludgeon them.
In criminal court, you're either justified or not. But if you say something along the lines of 'I didn't mean to shoot him" then you're opening yourself up to civil charges for negligence.

As for using the knife as a weapon... it depends on the specifics. Am I on my back with my gun under me and an attacker on top? I might well go for the knife, depending on other factors.


----------



## Mephisto (Dec 9, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Obviously laws vary widely from country to country, but in the US (which is where I live) the weapon is irrelevant. You're either justified in killing them, or you're not.
> And although I am not a lawyer, I have spoken with a number of lawyers and police officers about this issue, and the consensus is clear.
> If you use a weapon, don't BS about it. State clearly that you used a weapon because you were in fear for your life and that you intended to shoot/stab/bludgeon them.
> In criminal court, you're either justified or not. But if you say something along the lines of 'I didn't mean to shoot him" then you're opening yourself up to civil charges for negligence.
> ...


I agree somewhat. A weapon should only be used if you're in fear of losing your life, follow that rule and you're less likely to end up in trouble. But reality, your perception, and the perception of the legal system are different and that's when problems arise. If it's evident to all of the aforementioned parties that you would have died if you hadn't used a weapon you're probably in the clear, but things aren't always so clear and that's where things like intent come into play. Good people can wind up in prison for killing bad people and it's a terrible situation, it needs to be considered.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 9, 2015)

I think with the Atienza Kali guy what really killed him was stabbing someone and then fleeing the scene.  That is never going to work out well for you.


----------



## joejeweler (Dec 27, 2015)

Dinkydoo said:


>



I always enjoy Mr. Hicks Humor,....but I think his satirical comparison between the handgun related deaths in the USA compared to the United Kingdom contain a few SERIOUS flaws.

Firstly,....there HAS to be an assumption that a great deal of the "other" murders committed in the United Kingdom last year were accomplished using another weapon of convenience, since a handgun is so restricted.  Evil will make use of what's easily obtainable,.....so I suspect many more UK murders were instead committed by knives, clubs, baseball bats, rope used in strangulation,...etc,...you get the picture. 

Mr Hicks somehow seems to convey that since so few handgun deaths occurred in Great Britan, that those driven to take a life did NOT use another method, which of course would not have been the case!

Secondly, the POPULATION number differences would have to be accounted for to make any fair comparison.

According to a Google search, in 2014 the Population in the USA was 318.9 Million.

Google

In a similar Google search in 2014 the Population in the UK was 64,019,370 as listed here:  U.K. Population (2015) - Worldometers

So the US population is about 5X that of the UK, which is not insignificant when an observer wishes to make a fair comparison.

......just saying it's not as straight forward as Mr. Hicks presents it. 

cheers,
Joe T


----------



## daifu (Jan 10, 2016)

Hicks was like too many these days, spin whatever bs however you want to for your benefit. The euros are in serious danger of being extinct and if they don't have a deterrent of some kind, they better get one soon. 
It's largely an unreal world presenting no real challenges and with a simpleton child's explanations and ideas. But the more what is false and worthless gets foisted up, so all the real consequences get ratcheted up too. 
One group of people becoming more dependent, mush brain commies and another group becoming more rabid and violent. When numbers reach certain points, more victimizations and violence become "routine". Unofficially accepted as a "norm".
In those circumstances the gov who taught the mush head effeminate commies historically does not back them up or "reward" their being good little barneys with "protection". 

I have to lean towards the "items of opportunity" - unless it is a gun and one is open carrying. There will be more problems with t*rds trying to rob people to steal their pistol, than normal people causing problems with their pistol.
I think women should open carry pistols if they think they can be a big girl. If not, they are potentially meat and there's nothing for it. 
What the UK did to itself being "french" is being imposed on Americans whether they like it or not, forced and enforced. When it's a huge mess, people will be on their own. 

At this point for everything else, weapons of opportunity.
For pistols, strap one on and walk your females around the grocery store.

The only reason we aren't in the same shape as the euros is the reputation that we will fight back.

Ridiculous social laws for a society of queer mice won't be observed by stupid wild savages or stronger individuals who aren't so brotherly. Be careful.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 10, 2016)

daifu said:


> I think women should open carry pistols if they think they can be a big girl.



Open carry does one thing, really. It tells the bad guy who to shoot first.
If you're going to carry a defensive weapons (I do, and have for many years) it's better to do so concealed.
And it doesn't matter which plumbing you have, either.



daifu said:


> For pistols, strap one on and walk your females around the grocery store.



Wow, that doesn't sound sexist at all. Nope. Not at all.


----------



## daifu (Jan 10, 2016)

"Wow, that doesn't sound sexist at all. Nope. Not at all."

Rapists and thugs I think are more sexist than me. 
Your statement was entirely politically correct tho, which I like most intelligent people find repugnant.....


----------



## elder999 (Jan 10, 2016)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I think with the Atienza Kali guy what really killed him was stabbing someone and then fleeing the scene.  That is never going to work out well for you.


I dunno. Sometimes it works out okay-the problems with the case of Isias Umali (the "Atienza kali guy")
First off, though, you're right-he shouldn't have run
.
Geography was against him-he was in NYC, where weapons laws are restrictive, and his Spyderco Delica became a "tactical, military weapon" in the hands of the prosecution, not simply illegal to carry in NYC.

So he was also screwed by his choice of weapon.

His lawyer could have been better-someone versed with the nuance of self-defense in New York. Witnesses should have been cultivated (though this was screwed by his running away).

Subsequent attempts at covering-up: throwing his clothes away, etc.-turned what could have been a legitimate case of self-defense  into conspiracy to commit murder, and his instructor Alain Atienza into being charged with obstruction of justice, and being a co-conspirator, and witness for the prosecution.


----------



## Steve (Jan 10, 2016)

daifu said:


> "Wow, that doesn't sound sexist at all. Nope. Not at all."
> 
> Rapists and thugs I think are more sexist than me.
> Your statement was entirely politically correct tho, which I like most intelligent people find repugnant.....


So, for those keeping score at home, you are self described as intelligent, intentionally offensive,  and sexist, but not as sexist as a rapist.   Funny.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 11, 2016)

*Admin's note:*

Please keep this discussion civil, and on-topic.


----------



## daifu (Jan 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> So, for those keeping score at home, you are self described as intelligent, intentionally offensive,  and sexist, but not as sexist as a rapist.   Funny.



I have +2 on the unnecessary fight picking why-people-dont-post-here list?

Really, you can have your territory. It's a SMALL matter.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 20, 2016)

I'm really late to this thread, so please excuse if others have already posted similar statements.



Bill Mattocks said:


> One thinks of a weapon as an advantage in a self-defense situation, and to be sure, it is.  But I believe that there are also disadvantages involved in weapons carry.


Hmmm... Not particularly major disadvantages.



> First, if one has a weapon, one must protect that weapon from being taken away and used against one.  Whether it is a gun, a knife, a bludgeon, or whatever; nearly any weapon that one can carry can be used against one if it is seized by an aggressor.


For the most part, this is easier done than said.  You read that right, "*easier done* than said."  Generally speaking, the willingness to use a weapon dramatically increases the difficulty for a defender to take it away.  This is particularly true when the weapon is employed at its ideal range.  Waiting to employ an 8 foot staff or a firearm at 2 feet away is not the ideal range, shows an lack of willingness to use the weapon, and decreases the difficulty that a defender will have in defending against it.



> Second, nearly all weapons one might carry could potentially be considered capable of inflicting deadly force, at least in legal terms and in the USA (I do not know the laws of every jurisdiction, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc).  However, it is my belief and understanding that one may only legally resort to deadly force when one is authorized to do so; for example when legitimately in fear of one's life.


Well, yes, if it is a Deadly Force weapon or if it is being used in such a manner.  Take, for instance, the expanding baton.  When used against the head it is considered deadly force.  LEO's are now taught to only use it (or use it first) against extremities and to try to strike nerve clusters in those extremities.  When used in this manner, it is not considered Deadly Force, usually.



> Third, a weapon, as many here know but some may not, is not a magic wand.  One does not pull it out, wave it around, and things get better.  In general, once a weapon is brandished, the chances that it will have to be used become much, much, higher.  In other words, even if a given confrontation was not life-threatening, by introducing a weapon, now it is.  And that may not be a good idea, depending on the circumstances.


Well, in general, yes.  However, the more "intimidating" a weapon is, the more likely its very presence will cause the threat to decide to remove itself.  Statistically speaking, in the U.S., this is particularly true for firearms.  Most studies which track the use of firearms show that merely displaying one has a high chance of dissuading an attacker.  This isn't because a firearm is magical, it's because the attacker is generally convinced that a firearm is particularly intimidating and dangerous.  The less intimidated a person is by a given weapon, the less likely that he will be dissuaded by its display and the more likely the defender will be required to actually commit to using it.



> Fourth, weapons in general require proficiency to be anything other than a dangerous detriment to the person carrying them.  A knife, a gun, even a taser or pepper spray.  One gains little advantage from depositing them in a purse or glove box or carrying them in a pocket if one has no particular experience using them.  As a former Military Policeman, we took part in extensive training with our weapons, including spraying each other directly in the face with Mace (before pepper spray).  We did our best to become and remain proficient with our weapons, and we used them constantly in self-defense situations (Marines in garrison, what can you expect?).  I do not think most civilians practice to obtain that level of proficiency.


In general, yes, true.  However, weapons are "Force Multipliers."  They allow a person to have equal "force" to someone who is unarmed but with greater training.  In other words, while it may take 10,000 hours of training for a person to be expertly deadly with their bare hands, it may take only a few hundred with a sword when employed against someone who is bare handed.  Certain weapons are usually "easier" than others and require less training and demand less physicality than others.  A knife requires less physicality than a Meteor Hammer, for instance.  And a firearm tends to require the least physicality of all, allowing even a physically disabled person or an aged and weak person to employ a Force Multiplier to be "even off" against a young, strong, and trained unarmed person.  This is the reason why armies have always employed weapons and have always gravitated to the most effective personal weapons available which require the least physicality and the lowest training threshold.  In Late Medieval England, the freemen class was required, by law, to practice with the longbow every weekend. 



> Fifth, the willingness to use a weapon to take a life.  I suspect that most people who carry weapons have not thought a lot about what happens when you take a human life, or they don't think (or want to think) that the weapon they choose to carry might end a life, or that they would employ it in that manner.


Well, that depends on the weapon, of course.  You earlier mentioned Mace, which is generally considered a Non-Lethal/Less-Lethal alternative but still a "weapon," and often bearing a regulated status in some legal jurisdictions.  Most people would not worry too much about taking a life when using a Taser or Pepper Spray because circumstances which end a life while employing either of those are, statistically, minuscule.  On the other hand, if someone were to carry a knife for self defense, then the possibility of taking a life raises significantly over that of Pepper Spray.



> I am not trying to say that one should not defend one's life with deadly force if the need arises.  I am saying that I don't think many people have through through what it means to do so.  To intentionally end a human life is more than pulling a trigger.  There will be blood, brains, fecal matter, urine, vomit, and the general chaos that ensues after such an event.   Even if justified in killing a human being, there will police, questions, lawyers, and expenses.  There will almost always be emotion and financial costs.  Still better than being dead oneself, true.  But I would hope that no one seriously thinks they can blow away a mugger (for example) and tell the cops what happened and that's that, end of story.  Your life will change, forever, starting at that moment, and in many ways not for the better, other than the major upside of still being alive.


There may be legal consequences, even if your actions are justified, which could ruin you financially and destitute your family.  The families and sympathizers of attackers have shown an increased willingness in recent decades to sue.  Even if the suit is eventually thrown out of court, it may end up costing your life savings and earthly possessions.



> Now, if I am the person being punched, of course I will defend myself.  But if I am carrying, say, a gun, now I have to worry that the person punching me will tackle me or knock me down and somehow gain possession of that gun.


Nah.  Gun Retention techniques are easy, well known, and well disseminated as well as being augmented by a willingness to use the firearm in defense.  Same goes for any weapon.  They're harder to take away than most people imagine.  Sadly, I find this to be particularly true of "trained martial artists."  I believe this to be because they have always trained their disarming techniques in a compliant manner and learned them from those who have also done so.



> It appears to me that there are many who seem to have a preoccupation with the notion of carrying weapons they can 'get away with' in terms of not having them considered to be weapons by law enforcement.  In my opinion, this is dangerous thinking.  I only worked in law enforcement for a short time and I only studied Criminal Justice in college for a few years, but I did manage to absorb some basic understanding that has served me well over the years.  For example, it's not what the item is, it's how you use it.  A screwdriver is a screwdriver, until it's used as a weapon and the person who was carrying it INTENDED to use it for that purpose.  Then is it a deadly weapon.  I'm sorry, there's no way around this.   All the various items that companies make with the idea that they will be mistaken for innocuous items and not weapons, but which are intended to be employed as weapons, they won't pass muster if one actually purchases them with the intent to use them as weapons and then does so.  There are no cheats that work.  Sorry.


To a certain degree, you got that right.  The best defense for why you used a "weapon" is "he was trying to do serious bodily harm or cause death to my and/or innocent third parties."  The only justified use of Deadly Force is against Deadly Force (using "the Reasonable Man" test).



> Most controversially, I will add that in my experience, there are some people who seem to have either what I would consider an unhealthy obsession with weapons or a tendency to engage in magical thinking about what weapons do for a person.  I do not suspect that such people are going to gain any advantage at all if they carry weapons about for the purposes of self-defense.


Content yourself with the knowledge that the Mall Ninja will, statistically, never be in a position which requires him to deploy his weapon of choice.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 20, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> To try to bring this discussion back to where I had originally hoped it would go, though, let me try this...
> 
> Let's pretend that firearms are not part of the discussion.  Edged weapons, bludgeons of various sorts, chemical and electrical weapons only.  I hope my points are still the same, but without the added dynamic of the pro and anti gun arguments.
> 
> ...


Weapons are weapons.  There's a lot of mystique surrounding firearms based on politics, misinformation, and general inexperience.  When carried as a weapon, they're just a weapon not particularly different from a knife or a sword.  It's not hard.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

