# Knife Defense: Best strategies in your opinion?



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Seems like the odds are stacked against you and always will be but whats the best thing to do in this bad situation in your opinion?


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

The best strategy is what works for you I'm going to make two examples someone tall with long legs would be good at distances and could use long legs to an advantage 

One more,  when it comes to weapons weapons like tonfa or sai,  those are both that can be used effective in a strategy but personally for me I prefer a distance weapon i can hold with both hands like a bo staff.  So I can keep the opponent at distance and come up with techniques as I go 

That's my ideal strategy yours may be different,  most likely it is but in a way of saying this question is more like an individual question what works for the first person might not work for the second vise versa in a way the answer is similar to the question what style is best.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Seems like the odds are stacked against you and always will be but whats the best thing to do in this bad situation in your opinion?



It would take me about a months worth of classes to give you our best tactics on this topic&#8230; frankly, there's no where near enough information in your description to give anything other than "it depends". But, the very first thing is to learn what an actual knife assault is like.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 18, 2014)

I failed to notice that first word was knife but none the less I think the answer would still vary depending who's welding the knife. 

For instance someone had butterfly knives they might want to fight close up 

Or a different knife like a dao,  maybe a Liuyedao or a pudao could be an extended reach 

I don't know if a kwandao would be considered a knife considering it's size but it does have knife in the name,  none the less unlike the weapons listed above this one would be better used with distance


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 18, 2014)

Only advice you can get from such a vague question is: don't get cut. Or stabbed.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Run in the opposite direction as fast as you can. Seriously, dump the pride and run. Only ever attempt to fight someone with a knife when all avenues are closed to you and you have no choice whatsoever.


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Run in the opposite direction as fast as you can. Seriously, dump the pride and run. Only ever attempt to fight someone with a knife when all avenues are closed to you and you have no choice whatsoever.



And what approach of fighting them would yo recommend for the average man?


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> And what approach of fighting them would yo recommend for the average man?



Don't go places where knife attacks are likely.

I don't know too many people who can honestly claim true expertise in defending against knife attacks.  I know a few who can tell you what worked for them in one or two incidents.  The nearest I've come to being attacked with a knife -- I dealt with by keeping a car between me and them, and pointing a gun at them.  The gun rather convinced them to put the knife down.  But I knew he had a knife first...  In many knife attacks, you don't know about the knife until you realize you're bleeding...


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> And what approach of fighting them would yo recommend for the average man?



Probably not a lot of point answering this now but that approach I would advise everyone to take if at all possible, that and variations such as jks posted. Anything but fight unless you really really have to.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Sep 19, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Run in the opposite direction as fast as you can. Seriously, dump the pride and run. Only ever attempt to fight someone with a knife when all avenues are closed to you and you have no choice whatsoever.



If you are going to run make sure you have a good chance of getting away and are not abandoning a potential victim who may not have a good chance and always remember that when you are running you may have someone chasing you with a knife.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you are going to run make sure you have a good chance of getting away and are not abandoning a potential victim who may not have a good chance and always remember that when you are running you may have someone chasing you with a knife.




True. The question is so generalised though giving anything but a generalised answer is difficult isn't it.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 19, 2014)

I agree with the 'leg it' advice, and the 'don't be there in the first place' advice. But that's generally speaking.

There are of course many and varied complications to both strategies, some of which have already been mentioned, but here's one more. If you leg it, you must consider that you may not be able to run as fast or for as long as your attacker who may be chasing you. That being the case, the worst thing you can do is run out of stamina while still being chased. I.e. don't burn yourself out running. If it looks like you might not out run the assailant, you want some energy left to fight him.

So, it comes down to an actual fight. What is the best strategy? There isn't a best strategy. You simply have to read the situation very, very speedily and improvise.


----------



## KydeX (Sep 19, 2014)

You just need to practice knife defense with a good instructor. A lot. And even if you do, you might still get killed quite easily. Remember what the others have said, fighting someone who has a knife is a last resort.


----------



## K-man (Sep 19, 2014)

KydeX said:


> You just need to practice knife defense with a good instructor. A lot. And even if you do, you might still get killed quite easily. Remember what the others have said, fighting someone who has a knife is a last resort.


We train against knives almost every class and you regularly feel the knife getting through. Message being, you can train as much as you like. It may save your life but there are no guarantees you will be successful.

But in terms of strategies. I would suggest an improvised weapon may give you an edge. Anything from a chair or other furniture if you are inside to a handful of dirt or a stick if outdoors. Even using your belt or a rolled up magazine or paper. Going in empty handed is absolutely the last option.
:asian:


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 19, 2014)

Just to give you an idea of how fast a knife thrust can be , I trained under this guy Ray Floro in Sydney for about a year.
In that time I don't think I ever managed to parry one of his knife thrusts to the face , and I am not exactly slow when it comes to hand speed.

[video=youtube_share;hV5TfZBB1Lo]http://youtu.be/hV5TfZBB1Lo[/video]


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

I was finishing tidying up after Rainbows ( baby Girl Guides) in the hall a few weeks back when the Beaver's ( baby Scouts) leader came in, they follow us. She was all excited because she'd been on a course about dealing with difficult young people and they'd had an instructor show them how to disarm someone with a knife and they 'practised doing it too' so now she is convinced she can safely disarm an attacker. I tried to explain to her but because it worked on the person she practiced with she wouldn't be convinced. Even my fellow Guider, someone who knows nothing about martial arts, self defence etc said she could see this woman was deluded or had been given a very false sense of security. Now it's been a few weeks I wonder if she can actually remember the moves?


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 19, 2014)

A while ago, in our class, I was handed a rubber dagger and asked to attack in a certain way so that my training partner, much higher grade than me, could practice his disarms and counters. Being inexperienced in this club, I managed to completely misinterpret what he'd asked me to do, so in a sweeping motion, I ran the rubber dagger right across his lower abdomen. Apparently I was supposed to aim higher, and a a different angle, and had I done so, I have no doubt he would have effectively disarmed me as everything about his body positioning was right for a defence against the attack he expected, and which I would have done, had I not misinterpreted his instruction.

In a club setting, these mishaps and errors generally lead to no real harm. Ok, accidents happen, which is why they use rubber knives just in case we get it wrong, but generally it is carefully choreographed and subject to strict rules. Outside of the club setting, there are no rules (I'd say "believe me, I know", but I suspect everyone else does too). I've been in scrapes and walked (or ran) away, clearly with the upper hand, but with no idea how come. When its for real, everything happens so fast and so many hormones kick in, you can't calmly recite every move afterwards.


----------



## K-man (Sep 19, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Just to give you an idea of how fast a knife thrust can be , I trained under this guy Ray Floro in Sydney for about a year.
> In that time I don't think I ever managed to parry one of his knife thrusts to the face , and I am not exactly slow when it comes to hand speed.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;hV5TfZBB1Lo]http://youtu.be/hV5TfZBB1Lo[/video]


I think what it demonstrates very well is that if you allow a person inside striking range it is almost impossible to stop them. For a start, it is the attacker's call when the attack is to begin. Your reaction time to the attack determines the outcome. 

Try out your reaction time here:  Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

Now think about false starts in athletics. If you move within 0.1 seconds of the gun it is a break because the brain doesn't register quicker that that. Then your brain has to get the message to the muscles to react, at least another 0.1 seconds. In the same time a sprinter had gone 2 metres. In the situation of the knife attack, the only way you can be faster than that is to anticipate the attack from an understanding of body language and react instinctively. If you watch the hand you will be cut.

Take home message ... keep outside the range.

In the meantime I have something to try out on the guys next week.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 20, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> A while ago, in our class, I was handed a rubber dagger and asked to attack in a certain way so that my training partner, much higher grade than me, could practice his disarms and counters. Being inexperienced in this club, I managed to completely misinterpret what he'd asked me to do, so in a sweeping motion, I ran the rubber dagger right across his lower abdomen. Apparently I was supposed to aim higher, and a a different angle, and had I done so, I have no doubt he would have effectively disarmed me as everything about his body positioning was right for a defence against the attack he expected, and which I would have done, had I not misinterpreted his instruction.
> 
> In a club setting, these mishaps and errors generally lead to no real harm. Ok, accidents happen, which is why they use rubber knives just in case we get it wrong, but generally it is carefully choreographed and subject to strict rules. Outside of the club setting, there are no rules (I'd say "believe me, I know", but I suspect everyone else does too). I've been in scrapes and walked (or ran) away, clearly with the upper hand, but with no idea how come. When its for real, everything happens so fast and so many hormones kick in, you can't calmly recite every move afterwards.



Hi Badger, 

I know it can be rather easy, when in a set training exercise, to say that someone only has success because they know what's coming, but in reality they wouldn't, but that's only a part of it what has to be remembered is that you were (at that point) learning a particular technical method a mechanical application the other student was trying to employ the technique correctly, not because they were trying to defend against a knife, but because they were trying to learn that technique. As a result, they were looking for that particular attack and looking to use a particular movement in response. Sure, ideally, a different attack would be noted before impact (I don't know how experienced your partner at the time was), but the mentality (and expectation) in that context shouldn't be overlooked nor mistaken for something that might happen in "real life". In a real encounter, your partner would (hopefully!) not be looking for a single, particular attack they'd be watching to see what came in first and respond with something appropriate to that. In the class, he would simply have been looking to use the technique he was learning so that, if he had to rely on it, he would have tested and trained it already. There is, as you can tell, a big difference between training a specific technique, and training an unannounced response getting them mixed up can lead to misunderstanding the viability of both training methods.



mook jong man said:


> Just to give you an idea of how fast a knife thrust can be , I trained under this guy Ray Floro in Sydney for about a year.
> In that time I don't think I ever managed to parry one of his knife thrusts to the face , and I am not exactly slow when it comes to hand speed.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;hV5TfZBB1Lo]http://youtu.be/hV5TfZBB1Lo[/video]



To be fair, Ray has stated that no-one has been able to parry those shots of course, he also freely admits that it's really not much more than a parlour trick he uses for seminars illustrating a point, obviously, but not quite what it appears to be presented as 



Tez3 said:


> Run in the opposite direction as fast as you can. Seriously, dump the pride and run. Only ever attempt to fight someone with a knife when all avenues are closed to you and you have no choice whatsoever.



I get the sentiment but to be honest, it's not advice I'd give at least, not by itself. RTKDCMB touched on a part of why in the following post:



RTKDCMB said:


> If you are going to run make sure you have a good chance of getting away and are not abandoning a potential victim who may not have a good chance and always remember that when you are running you may have someone chasing you with a knife.



If you're employing running as a tactic, the most important thing to ensure is that you have the safe option of doing so our young "self defence demonstrator", Sherman, had that as his "knife defence" option at the end of his first video but what he showed (specifically) would have had him with a knife in his back pretty quickly as none of the requisite conditions for running were met. Honestly, even if you are running, if the other guy is chasing you, and catching up, you're best off turning to face them the option is that they catch up, and they only need to get a finger to your clothes in order to start to go to work it's really hard to defend yourself facing away from the danger...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I was finishing tidying up after Rainbows ( baby Girl Guides) in the hall a few weeks back when the Beaver's ( baby Scouts) leader came in, they follow us. She was all excited because she'd been on a course about dealing with difficult young people and they'd had an instructor show them how to disarm someone with a knife and they 'practised doing it too' so now she is convinced she can safely disarm an attacker. I tried to explain to her but because it worked on the person she practiced with she wouldn't be convinced. Even my fellow Guider, someone who knows nothing about martial arts, self defence etc said she could see this woman was deluded or had been given a very false sense of security. Now it's been a few weeks I wonder if she can actually remember the moves?



Get a rubber knife (or a soft, flexible stick) and poke her. Then poke her again. See how many times you can poke her before she remembers what to do...


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2014)

Chris, my answer was a generalised one to a very generalised question, well not even a question. The OP was expecting flash bang wallop techniques to do such as kicking the knife out of the attackers hand with a roundhouse kick, very easily done of course....in films. The basic premise of my answer was that you should not be fighting if you can at all help it, each situation is different. The OP didn't want anything sensible, I could have said ride away on a tiger and he'd have been happy with that though. The 'run away' point was just a point about not fighting is possible. I considered it useless to elaborate without something from the OP that would give us a clue on a situation we could actually comment on. Other's have presumably more patience than I


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 20, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> To be fair, Ray has stated that no-one has been able to parry those shots of course, he also freely admits that it's really not much more than a parlour trick he uses for seminars illustrating a point, obviously, but not quite what it appears to be presented as



Dont really know about being a parlour trick he uses for seminars , he does the same thing in sparring from an even greater distance.
He is just really fast and does not telegraph , he also uses certain deceptive tactics that make you think he is going to go high but then he goes low , and vice versa.

Granted , your average knifer out on the street is not going to have his skills , but I think that a lot of martial artists really under estimate the distance or the reactionary gap needed , to be able to have a chance of defending against the knife.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 20, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Chris, my answer was a generalised one to a very generalised question, well not even a question. The OP was expecting flash bang wallop techniques to do such as kicking the knife out of the attackers hand with a roundhouse kick, very easily done of course....in films. The basic premise of my answer was that you should not be fighting if you can at all help it, each situation is different. The OP didn't want anything sensible, I could have said ride away on a tiger and he'd have been happy with that though. The 'run away' point was just a point about not fighting is possible. I considered it useless to elaborate without something from the OP that would give us a clue on a situation we could actually comment on. Other's have presumably more patience than I



Hey, Irene,

Yeah, I got that&#8230; but felt I'd take the opportunity to flesh out a bit of RTKDCMB's answer at the same time&#8230; and agree completely on not giving the OP much in the way of detailed answers&#8230; which is why I waited until he was banned before I added to it&#8230; ha!



mook jong man said:


> Dont really know about being a parlour trick he uses for seminars , he does the same thing in sparring from an even greater distance.
> He is just really fast and does not telegraph , he also uses certain deceptive tactics that make you think he is going to go high but then he goes low , and vice versa.
> 
> Granted , your average knifer out on the street is not going to have his skills , but I think that a lot of martial artists really under estimate the distance or the reactionary gap needed , to be able to have a chance of defending against the knife.



Ha, yeah, Ray is damn good, there's no doubt about that&#8230; those "deceptive tactics" you mention are part of the "parlour trick" idea&#8230; I mean, even the idea of knife sparring isn't realistic&#8230; which Ray knows well&#8230; it's another part of the show for him.

None of this is taking anything away from Ray&#8230; to the contrary, the guys great at what he does&#8230; just highlighting that things can be set up to give a particular impression that might not be as realistic as they appear&#8230; in both positive and negative ways. I like the way Ray uses that particular trick, actually&#8230; it's designed to remove a sense of safety that people sometimes come into his classes/seminars with&#8230; getting them to need to reassess what they think they can actually get away with.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2014)

If you can't flee and don't have a weapon of your own...IMO your best option of no good options is to trap the arm (taking whatever cut or stab that results in) and get to work with whatever techniques you have been trained with.

IMO the idea of dancing around avoiding the blade just results in a prolonged stabfest till you go down. Of course many real word knife attacks are "attacks" and not dancing around duels.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Badger,
> 
> I know it can be rather easy, when in a set training exercise, to say that someone only has success because they know what's coming, but in reality they wouldn't, but that's only a part of it&#8230; what has to be remembered is that you were (at that point) learning a particular technical method&#8230; a mechanical application&#8230; the other student was trying to employ the technique correctly, not because they were trying to defend against a knife, but because they were trying to learn that technique. As a result, they were looking for that particular attack&#8230; and looking to use a particular movement in response. Sure, ideally, a different attack would be noted before impact (I don't know how experienced your partner at the time was), but the mentality (and expectation) in that context shouldn't be overlooked&#8230; nor mistaken for something that might happen in "real life". In a real encounter, your partner would (hopefully!) not be looking for a single, particular attack&#8230; they'd be watching to see what came in first&#8230; and respond with something appropriate to that. In the class, he would simply have been looking to use the technique he was learning&#8230; so that, if he had to rely on it, he would have tested and trained it already. There is, as you can tell, a big difference between training a specific technique, and training an unannounced response&#8230; getting them mixed up can lead to misunderstanding the viability of both training methods.



I get that, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. The point is, in class we learn all these really cool techniques. We practice and practice them until we have them pretty much perfect. We get promoted through the grades to prove that we've mastered these and other techniques, and can apply them in a combat situation in the very strictly controlled environment of the club, then we pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves what skilled fighters we are. Then if we happen to be a bit young or naive or have led a sheltered life where our ONLY experience of fighting is in the club environment, then we have a problem. A false sense of security that has the potential to get us killed in the first real encounter we have, a real encounter we might otherwise have run away from as fast as possible had we not placed all our faith in our martial arts training.

I proved this point against the same lad in training. He asked me to take the dagger in both hands and stab towards his head. I said "but everyone can defend against that". He laughed, and said sarcastically "oh really?", and offered me the chance to prove my point. So he held the dagger up ready to stab me, and I rushed him, grabbed both arms,  right leg behind his leg, and twist. He went flying. I held him because I didn't intend to really hurt him but had I followed through, he would have have hit the ground very hard, and I would have also fallen with him but in a controlled way, whereby I use his belly as a cushion for my knee as we land. He wasn't waiting for a textbook response from me that time because he didn't know what I had in mind. Perhaps he thought he did know what I had in mind, and that is another hazard of placing all your faith in martial arts. People who've been around a while tend to know that things don't go according to any plan, but people without real world experience have no experience to draw upon except what they get from the controlled conditions of the club.


----------



## Buka (Sep 20, 2014)

I'll run, drawing my weapon as I do so, which I've practiced a lot, and shoot. If I'm not carrying a firearm, I'll draw my blade, probably running for a bit as I do so. If I'm not carrying anything, I'm probably in the back yard. If someone pulls a knife on me there, I'm probably going to get cut. 

I have no idea how to disarm a knife barehanded. I've been training in knife fighting for over ten years, been in MA a lot longer, but I still don't know. Knives still scare me way more than guns.


----------



## K-man (Sep 20, 2014)

Tgace said:


> If you can't flee and don't have a weapon of your own...IMO your best option of no good options is to trap the arm (taking whatever cut or stab that results in) and get to work with whatever techniques you have been trained with.
> 
> IMO the idea of dancing around avoiding the blade just results in a prolonged stabfest till you go down. Of course many real word knife attacks are "attacks" and not dancing around duels.


Trapping the arm is fine in theory but only really works well against a committed thrust or slash, which is what you see most people training. Once the attacker uses 'slice and dice' or multiple thrusts, especially with the knife in the rear hand the dynamic changes significantly. There is obviously no right or wrong, but if you just rush in and try to grab I reckon the chances of getting cut are higher that if you can get some avoidance and deflection until the opportunity arises to get control of the arm. Certainly the chances of taking a cut or stab are high regardless of the option you choose.

Of course the other option is using a kick or a series of low kicks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUo00gU_Q_E
Can't find a video of the multiple kick defence.
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2014)

K-man said:


> Trapping the arm is fine in theory but only really works well against a committed thrust or slash, which is what you see most people training. Once the attacker uses 'slice and dice' or multiple thrusts, especially with the knife in the rear hand the dynamic changes significantly. There is obviously no right or wrong, but if you just rush in and try to grab I reckon the chances of getting cut are higher that if you can get some avoidance and deflection until the opportunity arises to get control of the arm. Certainly the chances of taking a cut or stab are high regardless of the option you choose.
> 
> Of course the other option is using a kick or a series of low kicks.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUo00gU_Q_E
> ...


That's assuming that you know that the other guy has a knife as well...IMO many knife attack victims are not even going to know they are being stabbed. The dojo meme is typically the "bad guy" brandishing a blade then attacks. If someone "brandishes" a knife IMO that's an invitation to run away. The real "Im ****ed" moment is when the other guy seems like he's swinging punches or GNPing you, and at some point you see the knife in his had. My .02... If you have already been stabbed and cut, disengaging is only gonna mean more stabbing unless you can flee or get your own weapon in play.  I believe you have better odds of controlling the weapon hand than you do depending on punches/strikes to end it. In my experience most of the FMA disarms I ever worked seemed at least somewhat probable while grappling over the weapon vs trying to "slap/twist" the blade away while the other guy is slashing away at you.

Any defense against a blade is an exercise of "do or die" anyway. Any option is going to be a bad one, but you have to try something.


----------



## K-man (Sep 20, 2014)

Tgace said:


> That's assuming that you know that the other guy has a knife as well...IMO many knife attack victims are not even going to know they are being stabbed. The dojo meme is typically the "bad guy" brandishing a blade then attacks. If someone "brandishes" a knife IMO that's an invitation to run away. The real "Im ****ed" moment is when the other guy seems like he's swinging punches or GNPing you, and at some point you see the knife in his had. My .02... If you have already been stabbed and cut, disengaging is only gonna mean more stabbing unless you can flee or get your own weapon in play.  I believe you have better odds of controlling the weapon hand than you do depending on punches/strikes to end it. In my experience most of the FMA disarms I ever worked seemed at least somewhat probable while grappling over the weapon vs trying to "slap/twist" the blade away while the other guy is slashing away at you.
> 
> Any defense against a blade is an exercise of "do or die" anyway. Any option is going to be a bad one, but you have to try something.


Agree totally. If you are already engaged you can't disengage. Strikes also are more or less essential, but not in isolation and normally only after the arm is controlled. Actually it brings to mind one training session we did years ago where we were taught to react immediately, if one hand disappears behind the back. to trap that arm.
:asian:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 20, 2014)

*Sound advice both Tgace and K-man*.  Tough to deal with a blade.  Really tough and I do not wish it on anyone.  Yet, in the moment you gotta do what you gotta do and that is light up that person and gain control if you can.  If you are able to disengage and bring a weapon/tool of your own to bear all the better!  No one and I repeat no one wants to be dealing with a blade empty handed.  The odds are just not in your favor!!


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Sound advice both Tgace and K-man*.  Tough to deal with a blade.  Really tough and I do not wish it on anyone.  Yet, in the moment you gotta do what you gotta do and that is light up that person and gain control if you can.  If you are able to disengage and bring a weapon/tool of your own to bear all the better!  No one and I repeat no one wants to be dealing with a blade empty handed.  The odds are just not in your favor!!



I'm not sure I agree with the idea that being unarmed against someone who is armed is necessarily worse than if you are both armed.

The way I see it (and this is from experience) is that if you are armed, there is a risk that you will be disarmed, and then your assailant will become armed with your weapon. In our club we are taught exactly that scenario, but also I've seen it first hand in the sickeningly real situation of the drunken brawl, which is quite possibly the most likely scenario that these issues become relevant.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 20, 2014)

*I would never want to be unarmed* in a life or death situation and considering that I carry 24/7 there is little chance that I will not have some tool to bring to bear in a violent conflict if needed.  If your unarmed versus the a knife you are in *dire straights* regardless of how good you are or how long you have practiced.  This does not mean that you cannot survive and or even disarm the other person but if you have the choice of having a force multiplier (ie. weapon/tool) and you do not bring it to bear that is really bad strategy.  Having a weapon/tool helps to equalize a situation and or make it better in your favor.  Ie. someone pulls a knife you disengage and pull a firearm.  Even if you disengage and manage to deploy a knife that helps you immensely.

I am also not worried about being disarmed and then my opponent utilizing the tool against me.  First off it probably will not happen due to my skill set.  Yet, even if I had no skills it would be very difficult for someone to disarm me as I am naturally athletic.  The real reality though is that disarms are very difficult against any tool.  Disarms against the knife even more difficult.   If someone is teaching you not to have and or utilize tools for your personal protection then I think you might want to rethink your personal protection skill set and or find a new instructor.  *We humans are tool users *and it is a big advantage to utilize a tool in a violent conflict!  *Big advantage!*


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I would never want to be unarmed* in a life or death situation and considering that I carry 24/7 there is little chance that I will not have some tool to bring to bear in a violent conflict if needed.  If your unarmed versus the a knife you are in *dire straights* regardless of how good you are or how long you have practiced.  This does not mean that you cannot survive and or even disarm the other person but if you have the choice of having a force multiplier (ie. weapon/tool) and you do not bring it to bear that is really bad strategy.  Having a weapon/tool helps to equalize a situation and or make it better in your favor.  Ie. someone pulls a knife you disengage and pull a firearm.  Even if you disengage and manage to deploy a knife that helps you immensely.
> 
> I am also not worried about being disarmed and then my opponent utilizing the tool against me.  First off it probably will not happen due to my skill set.  Yet, even if I had no skills it would be very difficult for someone to disarm me as I am naturally athletic.  The real reality though is that disarms are very difficult against any tool.  Disarms against the knife even more difficult.   If someone is teaching you not to have and or utilize tools for your personal protection then I think you might want to rethink your personal protection skill set and or find a new instructor.  *We humans are tool users *and it is a big advantage to utilize a tool in a violent conflict!  *Big advantage!*



If we adopt the mentality that we should carry a weapon for self defence, then those that would attack us will just carry a better weapon, because they know there's a chance their intended victim will bring a weapon to bear on them. So what do you do? Bring a better weapon? So then your would be attacker needs to make sure he is prepared for that. The attacker is always more prepared than the victim (generally speaking) by virtue of the fact that he knows he intends to be in a hostile encounter, while his victim generally assumes peace. So where does it end? With assault rifles? Sub machine guns? There's more than enough recent history to show how that pans out.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> If we adopt the mentality that we should carry a weapon for self defence, then those that would attack us will just carry a better weapon, because they know there's a chance their intended victim will bring a weapon to bear on them. So what do you do? Bring a better weapon? So then your would be attacker needs to make sure he is prepared for that. The attacker is always more prepared than the victim (generally speaking) by virtue of the fact that he knows he intends to be in a hostile encounter, while his victim generally assumes peace. So where does it end? With assault rifles? Sub machine guns? There's more than enough recent history to show how that pans out.




Seriously?

Hope you enjoy being a victim to someone with a weapon. All martial arts fantasies aside...a committed untrained attacker with a weapon can kill you more often than not.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Hope you enjoy being a victim to someone with a weapon. All martial arts fantasies aside...a committed untrained attacker with a weapon can kill you more often than not.



Yes seriously. Look at the statistics. Of all the developed nations in the world, the one with the highest murder rate also happens to be the one with the most liberal gun laws. I'm not going to continue with this discussion on these lines. I've expressed my opinion and explained it. I have very strong views on this which many, especially in the US, will disagree strongly with. I've had the debate many times on many forums and in the interests of peace and mutual respect, I'm not going to have it again here. All I'll say is either accept my opinion as valid input, disregard it silently, or look at the statistics.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 20, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> If we adopt the mentality that we should carry a weapon for self defence, then those that would attack us will just carry a better weapon, because they know there's a chance their intended victim will bring a weapon to bear on them. So what do you do? Bring a better weapon? So then your would be attacker needs to make sure he is prepared for that. The attacker is always more prepared than the victim (generally speaking) by virtue of the fact that he knows he intends to be in a hostile encounter, while his victim generally assumes peace. So where does it end? With assault rifles? Sub machine guns? There's more than enough recent history to show how that pans out.



Start from a reality: we're poorly designed in terms of natural weapons.  Our "claws" are a joke, and break all too easily.  Our teeth aren't set up for predation.  We're not nearly as strong as many animals.  We're not well protected naturally; our throats and eyes are vulnerable, our two-legged posture begs to be knocked over...

But our brains!  That's what's made us THE apex predator of our planet.  Sharks have bigger, badder teeth -- but we have spears and spear guns and more.  Tigers are stronger and faster -- but we have spears and guns.  So accept that you're a tool user -- and if you sincerely want to defend yourself, learn to use tools to do it.  You wouldn't try to dig a field of corn with your bare hands unless you had no other choice, right?  Why would you defend yourself with only your hands/feet if you had another choice?

Sure, someone can always carry a bigger, better weapon -- but someone (or something) out there is always bigger and stronger, or faster, or more deceptive, too.  Go down that path too far, and you'll curl up and hide under a rock.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2014)

[video=youtube_share;U2iiPpcwfCA]http://youtu.be/U2iiPpcwfCA[/video]


----------



## Tgace (Sep 20, 2014)

The philosophy that "I would prefer to face a knifer without a weapon because I don't believe in weapons" is...well.....


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Start from a reality: we're poorly designed in terms of natural weapons.  Our "claws" are a joke, and break all too easily.  Our teeth aren't set up for predation.  We're not nearly as strong as many animals.  We're not well protected naturally; our throats and eyes are vulnerable, our two-legged posture begs to be knocked over...
> 
> But our brains!  That's what's made us THE apex predator of our planet.  Sharks have bigger, badder teeth -- but we have spears and spear guns and more.  Tigers are stronger and faster -- but we have spears and guns.  So accept that you're a tool user -- and if you sincerely want to defend yourself, learn to use tools to do it.  You wouldn't try to dig a field of corn with your bare hands unless you had no other choice, right?  Why would you defend yourself with only your hands/feet if you had another choice?
> 
> Sure, someone can always carry a bigger, better weapon -- but someone (or something) out there is always bigger and stronger, or faster, or more deceptive, too.  Go down that path too far, and you'll curl up and hide under a rock.



But for the most part we've evolved beyond. The animals you mention routinely and regularly kill each other. If it wasn't for that superior brain you mention, humans would also still routinely kill each other. In fact we still do, but for the most part its organised and for some excuse. I've never killed a rival male over a potential mate, or killed a rival over food. I've never attacked and killed someone for walking too close to my house, or stepping too close to one of my kids. That's because I belong to species that has evolved significantly further than your tiger or shark.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 20, 2014)

We humans have evolved with a big brain and we utilize tools every day to prey upon those weaker than us.  You or I may not be preying upon anyone.  However, there are a good number of 
predators in our society that are preying on people and guess what they are quite often utilizing weapons to do so.  Our species "homo sapiens" is the most violent on the planet.  We kill for food, fun, to impress, gain advantage, improve our position, defense, protect our homeland, because of a mental disorder, etc.  We currently have armed conflicts going on all over the planet.  In comparison to animals who kill for food, mating, defense. they kill for a lot less reasons.  We do a lot more killing than them for a much larger variety of various reasons.  We have not evolved beyond killing!  Just look at the news any day of the week and it is easy to see!


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 20, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Our species "homo sapiens" is the most violent on the planet.  We kill for food, fun, to impress, gain advantage, improve our position, defense, protect our homeland, because of a mental disorder, etc.  We currently have armed conflicts going on all over the planet.  In comparison to animals who kill for food, mating, defense. they kill for a lot less reasons.  We do a lot more killing than them for a much larger variety of various reasons.  We have not evolved beyond killing!  Just look at the news any day of the week and it is easy to see!



I agree 100%. Which is all the more reason why those of us that through natural selection have evolved a bit more intelligence than most should not be too quick to 'up the ante'.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 20, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> I agree 100%. Which is all the more reason why those of us that through natural selection have evolved a bit more intelligence than most should not be too quick to 'up the ante'.



*It is not necessarily upping the ante but instead having tools to defend ourselves if needed*.  I have no problem with someone not wanting to carry tools for personal defense.  That is certainly anyone's personal choice.   However, if you do not you will be at a disadvantage if dealing with an adversary that has one.  That is just reality.  Our military carries tools, our law enforcement officers carry tools and civilians interested in personal defense should carry tools.  Why, because violent criminals will more than likely be carrying tools/weapons to commit their crimes.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Seems like the odds are stacked against you and always will be but whats the best thing to do in this bad situation in your opinion?



Shoot him, or run.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> The philosophy that "I would prefer to face a knifer without a weapon because I don't believe in weapons" is...well.....



I don't know whose philosophy that is but it wasn't Badger's for sure. To say 'oh he doesn't believe in weapons' is simplistic, he's explained his point and it's a valid one for all that some don't share it. It's also a far more complicated argument than many think as well as being for another thread. My views on this subject are my own and I've never shared them on this or any other site, I don't intend to know either so this post should not be taken to imply I either support gun ownership or gun control.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> I don't know whose philosophy that is but it wasn't Badger's for sure. To say 'oh he doesn't believe in weapons' is simplistic, he's explained his point and it's a valid one for all that some don't share it. It's also a far more complicated argument than many think as well as being for another thread. My views on this subject are my own and I've never shared them on this or any other site, I don't intend to know either so this post should not be taken to imply I either support gun ownership or gun control.


Dunno know where gun ownership came into the discussion. The original point presented was "having a weapon to defend yourself is bad because it can be taken and used against you".

A gun may have been what he was implying, but the philosophy is one of "don't carry any weapon".


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Dunno know where gun ownership came into the discussion. The original point presented was "having a weapon to defend yourself is bad because it can be taken and used against you".
> 
> A gun may have been what he was implying, but the philosophy is one of "don't carry any weapon".



'Gun ownership' came into to it because I mentioned it as per my post. I was not discussing gun ownership however. I'm not sure why people can't accept another's point of view without wishing to prove it 'wrong'. Facts you can prove one way or another but a point of view not really. I don't think it was a philosophy as much as what works for an individual. If not carrying a weapon works for them so be it, if it doesn't work for you ditto.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> 'Gun ownership' came into to it because I mentioned it as per my post. I was not discussing gun ownership however. I'm not sure why people can't accept another's point of view without wishing to prove it 'wrong'. Facts you can prove one way or another but a point of view not really. I don't think it was a philosophy as much as what works for an individual. If not carrying a weapon works for them so be it, if it doesn't work for you ditto.


Because some things are wrong. Believing its statistically better to face am armed attack unarmed is one of them.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Because some things are wrong. Believing its statistically better to face am armed attack unarmed is one of them.




Do people believe 'statistically' or do they believe they are able to cope with a situation if it occurs?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> Do people believe 'statistically' or do they believe they are able to cope with a situation if it occurs?


Believing you can "cope" with an armed attack unarmed is a pipe dream....if you do its more luck (and lack of a truly committed attacker) than skill.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114930


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22419


----------



## K-man (Sep 21, 2014)

QUOTE=Tgace;1658191]Because some things are wrong. Believing its statistically better to face am armed attack unarmed is one of them.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that anyone would disagree with you on your statement above but it is not always possible. For example, if you are visiting another country it is quite possible that carrying a weapon is illegal. Even carrying something that could be construed to be a weapon may be illegal. 


For me that is not a problem. I have visited many other countries and never felt the need be armed. For people who reckon they need to be armed at all times, I guess you are just going to stay at home which takes away from life's experiences.

That at being the case we return to the OP and perhaps make a slight amendment (seeing the snapper is no longer with us I doubt he'll complain  ) so that it reads_, "In the situation where you are unarmed, what are the best strategies for defence against a knife?"_



Tgace said:


> Believing you can "cope" with an armed attack unarmed is a pipe dream....if you do its more luck (and lack of a truly committed attacker) than skill.


That may well be true, so in my new scenario how will you handle the situation?
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

There's a big difference between HAVING to face an attacker unarmed, and BELIEVING that doing so is "better". If telling yourself that its better because you have no choice and that's how you gain some sort of mental security...well that's your affair.


----------



## K-man (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Martial Arts Expert Killed in Durban, South Africa.....


Seems he forgot the first rule of self defence ... be aware of your surroundings.


> They believe Tyson Murugan, 24, who was trained in self-defence and street-fighting techniques, might have been caught unawares by his assailants because *he was listening to music on his earphones at the time* of the vicious attack.





Tgace said:


> Systema instructer murdered





> Stepankovskiy had operated a pair of Russian martial arts schools, the SystemaAcademy of Self Protection. One school is in Chicago; the other is near his home in Des Plaines. *"All I know is he got shot," *Ekaterina Stepankovskiy said. "It's hard to talk about him." She said his martial arts business had been successful and Stepankovskiy enjoyed teaching. According to his Web site, Stepankovskiy was born in Uzbekistan and practiced martial arts for more than 16 years. He said he was trained in karate, jujitsu and boxing.


Mmm! Not quite sure why you picked this one. The guy was shot! That happens whether you are armed or not.
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-03-09/news/0503090407_1_wounds-wheeling-medical-examiner

They were not shootings. 

Martial arts expertise is not the answer to surviving armed attacks. Its just one layer of options. Just like my pistol (as a LEO) is not the "best" option against an armed attacker. Its just the one best option I can have on my hip at all times. And its 100% better than just having my hands to deal with an armed attacker.

Even if they were shootings...so what? The point remains the same. How do you defend yourself against an armed opponent?


----------



## K-man (Sep 21, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> Yes seriously. Look at the statistics. Of all the developed nations in the world, the one with the highest murder rate also happens to be the one with the most liberal gun laws. I'm not going to continue with this discussion on these lines. I've expressed my opinion and explained it. I have very strong views on this which many, especially in the US, will disagree strongly with. I've had the debate many times on many forums and in the interests of peace and mutual respect, I'm not going to have it again here. All I'll say is either accept my opinion as valid input, disregard it silently, or look at the statistics.





Tez3 said:


> Do people believe 'statistically' or do they believe they are able to cope with a situation if it occurs?





Tgace said:


> There's a big difference between HAVING to face an attacker unarmed, and BELIEVING that doing so is "better". If telling yourself that its better because you have no choice and that's how you gain some sort of mental security...well that's your affair.


I'm sorry but who said this? I don't believe *Tez* meant that at all and *Badger*'s post is qualified. Statistically we are unlikely to be attacked by an armed assailant, at least in the UK and Australia. So 'statistically' we have no need of a weapon. Nothing to do with mental security. 'Statistically' if someone pulls a knife you are not going to be harmed if you comply with the attacker's request, assuming a robbery. 'Statistically' it's likely you could avoid the situation entirely or run away if you are trained in self defence. So as *Badger* said carrying a weapon in an environment where weapons are not the norm can lead to escalation. 

But in the situation you are not armed, what is the best way of handling it?
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

> "'Statistically' if someone pulls a knife you are not going to be harmed if you comply with the attacker's request, assuming a robbery."



Wow..what a sterling example of "if that idea makes you feel better". Better to just let the armed people have their way because they know their victims will 99% be likely to be unarmed. That's placing your well being in the hands of a criminal...no thank you.

I've posted my opinion on unarmed techniques against a knife attack up thread.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Dunno know where gun ownership came into the discussion. The original point presented was "having a weapon to defend yourself is bad because it can be taken and used against you".
> 
> A gun may have been what he was implying, but the philosophy is one of "don't carry any weapon".



I didn't want to be drawn into yet another debate on this, so I'm just going to try one more time to clarify my point before I give up.

There are actual statistics in many countries that show that carrying a weapon of any kind increases your chances of getting hurt. There are lots of reasons why that might be. The two most obvious ones, backed up by statistics, are 1) If you have a weapon, it may be turned against you and 2) In areas and situations where carrying a weapon is normal, the criminals are also more likely to be carrying a weapon, and as they have criminal intentions, they are more likely to be experienced in the use of the weapon than a law abiding citizen and they have the advantage of taking the lead in the situation because they are the ones that intend to start the confrontation.

Its all backed up by statistics that are there in the public domain for anyone to look at.

In some countries (not the UK thankfully) it is up to people to decide for themselves if they lack the confidence to go out unarmed. But consider this. Here in the UK, if a bar brawl breaks out and rapidly escalates to the point where everyone is fighting everyone else (happens quite a lot), 9 times out of 10 the ambulance crews that turn up will administer no more than basic first aid for minor cuts and bruises. How different would that be if everyone in there was armed?


----------



## K-man (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> 2 slayings weren't shootings as first thought, autopsy finds - Chicago Tribune
> 
> They were not shootings.
> 
> ...


Cool, missed the amendment. The original link was missing and I found the original report. But the point is totally different. This thread is about defending against a knife. It was my mistake in this last example.

So as you might well ask, how do you defend yourself against an armed opponent? As I said in the post above, it is unlikely I will ever be in that situation. If I am, I will rely on my self defence training to have either avoided that situation or left that location. Failing that, if the situation is unavoidable, then I will just have to rely on my martial art experience, but again, that may be an improvised weapon.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Wow..what a sterling example of "if that idea makes you feel better". Better to just let the armed people have their way because they know their victims will 99% be likely to be unarmed. That's placing your well being in the hands of a criminal...no thank you.
> 
> I've posted my opinion on unarmed techniques against a knife attack up thread.


And I accept you opinion. So, as in all situations you are going to be armed you really have little advice to offer in the situation where you are not armed. But even in the situation where you might have a gun, can you get it out, aim and fire if your assailant is within a couple of metres? I might suggest the fact that you are armed, outside the police situation, is another sterling example of "if that idea makes you feel better".

Food for thought?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

If that's what you need to believe to trivialize the effectiveness of a firearm that's your affair.

Instead of rewriting stuff over and over again, the middle of this post addressees weapon deployment while being attacked.

http://tgace.com/2011/04/11/of-knives-guns-and-21-feet/

And even though this is a "gun" video..it's a good illustration of a point. If the bad guy had a knife, how the officer reacted is still an example of how you deploy a weapon in a fight. He gained position then used the tools that were available to him. 

http://www.heaven666.org/trooper-shooting-motorist-1761.php

Depending on any one tool is somthing I call the excalibur syndrome...but that syndrome is far from denying the advantage of having a weapon.

http://tgace.com/2008/12/16/excalibur-syndrome/

Thinking your martial arts is your "excalibur" is the same as counting on any single tool. The fact is...a weapon is a force multiplier...if your culture allows them is a political concern, not a tactical truth. In a deadly force encounter you may have to use H2H techniques to be able to use your weapon. Thats not to say that H2H is therefore all you need to survive an armed encounter.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 21, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Because some things are wrong. Believing its statistically better to face am armed attack unarmed is one of them.


*
This is where both Tgace and myself have the issue in this thread. * Having a tool is going to help you immensely versus someone with a weapon who is attempting to attack you.  The thought that you cannot arm yourself because then your attacker might well take it away from you is not really a smart way of looking at practical self-defense.  I believe both Tgace and I would advise having layers of options. ie. firearm, knife, baton, OC spary, pen, empty hands, etc.  We are not giving up the option to utilize empty hand technique but instead understanding their place in a hierarchy of options.  

*I understand that someone may not want to carry a weapon/tool and that is there personal decision.*  I also understand that in some countries you may be limited with what you can carry.  When I travel I have to take that into account.  Still I will always have something that I can use even if it is a heavy pen or belt, etc.  Those would be low down the line in my every day carry but if I cannot carry a firearm, knife, baton, etc. then I will have to make do with what I can carry.  However, if I was faced with a violent knife wielding thug I would much rather have a pen or a belt, etc. than facing them empty handed.  Better yet I would rather deploy a firearm or knife as I can here where I live.

I respect someone's right to not carry just do not delude yourself into thinking that you are not at a *huge disadvantage*.  An untrained adult with a knife or even a 12 year old with a knife would be a bear to deal with if they are committed to doing you harm.  People need to understand just how dangerous weapons can be so that they do not underestimate someone who has one.


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 21, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> People need to understand just how dangerous weapons can be so that they do not underestimate someone who has one.



I agree 100%. That's why its better to have a culture where it is not considered normal to be armed in day to day life. A criminal also doesn't want underestimate his intended victim. If a mugger gets caught (here in the UK), there is a chance he is not going to jail, or if he is, it wont be for as long as it ought to be. Unless he is armed, because then he is an armed robber, and he is going to jail for a long time.

So, if that mugger lives in a culture where carrying a weapon is not the norm, then he is not so likely to be armed himself. Unless he is in one of the areas where the law is a bit lacking (some of the rougher inner city parts for example). In a setting where his victim might be armed, then the mugger is going to be armed, and as the old saying goes, in for a penny, in for a pound, if you're going to risk going down for armed robbery, you may as well do your robbery with a gun or at least a big knife. Armed robbery is armed robbery whether your weapon is a small pen knife, or a machine gun, so best equip one's self with the most terrifyingly lethal thing you can lay your hands on. So the criminal is armed with the most fearsome weapon he can acquire and conceal because he knows his victim might be armed. The criminal has the advantage that he knows who and when he is going to attack, and the criminal knows that whatever he does, he must do it decisively in order to prevent any chance of his victim bringing a weapon to bear on him.

Then what about innocent passers-by? With everyone going around carrying the most fearsome weaponry they can, just in case, what happens if a battle does break out in the middle of the street? Instead of being a typical scuffle, suddenly now there are blades being waved around, possibly gun shot going astray?

And what if the coppers turn up while this skirmish is in progress. If you're having an unarmed scuffle and the coppers turn up, you're going to be dragged and bundled into the back of a van until you calm down. If you're in the street fighting with a weapon, say hello to the armed response unit, who are not ordinary coppers, but trained marksmen.

I've never been to the US, so I can't possibly understand the culture of love of and need for weapons, so I'm in no position to judge, but suffice to say that I'll never agree that we should all walk around armed in public, and I know that those that endorse such will never agree with me. That's cool. We're not causing each other problems, so lets just respect each other's opinions even if we don't agree, and move on.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> I didn't want to be drawn into yet another debate on this, so I'm just going to try one more time to clarify my point before I give up.
> 
> There are actual statistics in many countries that show that carrying a weapon of any kind increases your chances of getting hurt. There are lots of reasons why that might be. The two most obvious ones, backed up by statistics, are 1) If you have a weapon, it may be turned against you and 2) In areas and situations where carrying a weapon is normal, the criminals are also more likely to be carrying a weapon, and as they have criminal intentions, they are more likely to be experienced in the use of the weapon than a law abiding citizen and they have the advantage of taking the lead in the situation because they are the ones that intend to start the confrontation.
> 
> ...


Using bar brawls as your example/barometer is a non-starter. Being in a drunken bar brawl is an issue all its own...

http://tgace.com/2012/02/27/self-defense-magic-formula/

Again. Whatever makes you feel better about letting the bad guys be the ones with weapons...and letting them decide what they will or won't do to you....

Funny how the ones who "want to move on" are the ones who want to have the last word about "lack of confidence" and Americans and their "love of weapons". Nice passive aggressiveness there....

I don't love any inanimate object. But I won't be made subject to another man because he has a tool I'm not allowed...or because he's simply larger/stronger than me.


----------



## K-man (Sep 21, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *
> This is where both Tgace and myself have the issue in this thread. * Having a tool is going to help you immensely versus someone with a weapon who is attempting to attack you.  The thought that you cannot arm yourself because then your attacker might well take it away from you is not really a smart way of looking at practical self-defense.  I believe both Tgace and I would advise having layers of options. ie. firearm, knife, baton, OC spary, pen, empty hands, etc.  We are not giving up the option to utilize empty hand technique but instead understanding their place in a hierarchy of options.
> 
> *I understand that someone may not want to carry a weapon/tool and that is there personal decision.*  I also understand that in some countries you may be limited with what you can carry.  When I travel I have to take that into account.  Still I will always have something that I can use even if it is a heavy pen or belt, etc.  Those would be low down the line in my every day carry but if I cannot carry a firearm, knife, baton, etc. then I will have to make do with what I can carry.  However, if I was faced with a violent knife wielding thug I would much rather have a pen or a belt, etc. than facing them empty handed.  Better yet I would rather deploy a firearm or knife as I can here where I live.
> ...


And this is exactly my position. I agree 100% with every thing you have written, right down to the improvised weapons. An interesting question, and I will raise it in a separate thread, is how many people train to utilise improvised weapons?
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 21, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *
> This is where both Tgace and myself have the issue in this thread. * Having a tool is going to help you immensely versus someone with a weapon who is attempting to attack you.  The thought that you cannot arm yourself because then your attacker might well take it away from you is not really a smart way of looking at practical self-defense.  I believe both Tgace and I would advise having layers of options. ie. firearm, knife, baton, OC spary, pen, empty hands, etc.  We are not giving up the option to utilize empty hand technique but instead understanding their place in a hierarchy of options.
> 
> *I understand that someone may not want to carry a weapon/tool and that is there personal decision.*  I also understand that in some countries you may be limited with what you can carry.  When I travel I have to take that into account.  Still I will always have something that I can use even if it is a heavy pen or belt, etc.  Those would be low down the line in my every day carry but if I cannot carry a firearm, knife, baton, etc. then I will have to make do with what I can carry.  However, if I was faced with a violent knife wielding thug I would much rather have a pen or a belt, etc. than facing them empty handed.  Better yet I would rather deploy a firearm or knife as I can here where I live.
> ...


Great post Brian.

The only thing I would ask is, are we really talking about ones RIGHT not to carry a weapon. Or the legal inability?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 21, 2014)

*Well certainly one has the right not to carry and make that their choice*.  Then or course in some countries it is harder to carry certain weapons.  I think they are in some cases interrelated.  If you or I were living in the UK our ability to carry a firearm would be restricted as well as a knife, etc.  Yet, knowing our perspectives we would carry some thing legally that we were allowed to for personal protection.  You or I would not be carrying nothing for personal protection even if we lived in the UK based on our backgrounds.  Badger1777 has decided not to carry a weapon/tool for personal protection based on his posting.  That would be a right he is exercising.  He is not totally in able to carry a tool for his personal protection.  He could certainly carry an innocuous umbrella, pen, etc. legally in the UK.  I am with you in total disagreement that this is a wise choice.  *Where I find it troubling the most and I believe you feel the same way is the thought that being unarmed against a weapon is a better choice*.  We know this not to be the case.  Each of us having witnessed some violence first hand through work or in personal life understand that a force amplifier of any kind and especially a knife or firearm is a huge advantage.   So much so that an untrained person more than likely will be successful even against a very well trained person in empty hand martial skills.


----------



## Buka (Sep 21, 2014)

I can't even wrap my mind around the concept of "someone might take the weapon away from you."


----------



## Badger1777 (Sep 22, 2014)

Buka said:


> I can't even wrap my mind around the concept of "someone might take the weapon away from you."



You must be more skilled than these guys then. Particularly relevant from 3:45

Royal Marine Commandos- HAND TO HAND COMBAT - YouTube


----------



## drop bear (Sep 22, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> I didn't want to be drawn into yet another debate on this, so I'm just going to try one more time to clarify my point before I give up.
> 
> There are actual statistics in many countries that show that carrying a weapon of any kind increases your chances of getting hurt. There are lots of reasons why that might be. The two most obvious ones, backed up by statistics, are 1) If you have a weapon, it may be turned against you and 2) In areas and situations where carrying a weapon is normal, the criminals are also more likely to be carrying a weapon, and as they have criminal intentions, they are more likely to be experienced in the use of the weapon than a law abiding citizen and they have the advantage of taking the lead in the situation because they are the ones that intend to start the confrontation.
> 
> ...




No a third reason. If you are in an area that you are likely to get attacked. You are more likely to carry a weapon.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 22, 2014)

Buka said:


> I can't even wrap my mind around the concept of "someone might take the weapon away from you."



Man charged with assaulting guard, officer and woman - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...st-at-proserpine/story-e6freon6-1225730000476


----------



## Buka (Sep 22, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> You must be more skilled than these guys then. Particularly relevant from 3:45
> 
> Royal Marine Commandos- HAND TO HAND COMBAT - YouTube



I was speaking more about attitude. Specifically, you can't have the attitude that your weapon will be taken away and used against you. Sure, it can happen, but proper training in both weapon retention and weapon disarming (which, if not BOTH trained, IMO, does little good) makes that worry a moot point.

And, yes, I am more skilled than those guys, but I'm older and have been training in everything shown there longer than they've been alive. Been doing those kinds of demos longer as well. I like some of what was there, and really appreciate their showmanship to the public - which is different than if they were doing it to other members of military (all these kind of demos are audience specific) - but don't agree with any of their knife defenses, nor their sentry removal approaches. Specifically the ones they do while standing and approaching. I don't have any experience with the crawling ones, so know nothing about that.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 26, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Seems like the odds are stacked against you and always will be but whats the best thing to do in this bad situation in your opinion?


A 12 gauge.  If that's not available, run like hell.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 1, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Because some things are wrong. Believing its statistically better to face am armed attack unarmed is one of them.



On the contrary, if your training predominantly consists of being unarmed, then abandoning your training and now trying to fight with a weapon in which you have little or no training puts you at a disadvantage.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 1, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Wow..what a sterling example of "if that idea makes you feel better". .


No at all, it's quite correct.  Have you not heard the phrase "A stabber rarely shows and a shower rarely stabs"?  

Generally speaking if someone shows you a knife it is to intimidate you into giving them want they want (Phone, wallet, etc)  Give them what they want they go away.  Not in every case no but in the majority yes, so K-Man is correct, statistically if you comply and you won't be harmed.

If they wanted to kill you they wouldn't face you and show you the knife, the first you would know about it would be when the knife was sticking in your back.


----------



## geezer (Oct 4, 2014)

:lol:





Paul_D said:


> On the contrary, if your training predominantly consists of being unarmed, then abandoning your training and now trying to fight with a weapon in which you have little or no training puts you at a disadvantage.



Hmmm._ I don't think so_. I have very little experience with guns. Oh sure I hunted deer and birds (successfully) and shot trap and skeet as a youth, and have been out shooting a few times with my gun nut brother. Years ago. But I really don't even know how to properly hold or operate most pistols. But if I had one and could figure out how to get the safety off (if it even has one) and fire it, I'd sure rather have it over nothing if I had to defend myself against a deadly assault on myself or my family.

Same goes for holding a shovel, axe-handle, baseball bat, machete, chair, ....dang, almost anything I can get my hands on as a force equalizer. Haven't you ever heard that being able to quickly _assimilate tool use_ is one thing that made Homo-sapiens the dominant species on this planet (at least for the moment). 
_

"...put's you at a disadvantage"_. Ha. that's crazy talk! :lol:


----------



## Badger1777 (Oct 4, 2014)

geezer said:


> _"...put's you at a disadvantage"_. Ha. that's crazy talk! :lol:



There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 4, 2014)

That is just silly Badger1777.  Firearms are not unreliable at close range when deployed.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/chinese-police-guns_n_5186952.html


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 4, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.



Sorry -- you need to prove this statement.  Knives certainly have a place, but I'm skeptical that there's a police force using knives over guns.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU (Oct 20, 2014)

I have taught my form of American Kenpo for years. Knives are dangerous. I not only teach Kenpo knife defense techniques, but I have my students practice all kinds of blocking, grapping, etc. the attacking knife in all types of attacks. I even take from other types of blocking a knife moves from other arts, if it looks effective.
But if the student is scared of the attacker and his knife moves seemed too deadly and effective for my student, I tell them to fall to the ground and defend themselves from there with kicks and body motion that we practice. This is if theres no place to run to and no weapons to use.
Sifu


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2014)

Badger1777 said:


> There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.



Add me to the list of people who think this raises a certain flag... :bs:

It doesn't take any longer to use a firearm at close range than it does to use a knife. As for more effective... I've treated one or two member of the knife & gun club over the years, and the idea that a knife is somehow more dangerous than a gun at any range is, frankly, ludicrous.


----------



## new.era.player (Oct 20, 2014)

My opinion? The strategies where you don't get cut or stabbed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 21, 2014)

Trying to let your opponent to drop his knife should be the highest priority. One way is to attack his elbow joint.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2014)

new.era.player said:


> My opinion? The strategies where you don't get cut or stabbed.


Which are what?


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> the idea that a knife is somehow more dangerous than a gun at any range is, frankly, ludicrous.


The 21 foot rule would seem to suggest it might not be as straight forward as just dismissing it as ludicrous.


Knife vs Gun - The 21 Foot Rule - Great Demonstration - YouTube


----------



## drop bear (Oct 21, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> The 21 foot rule would seem to suggest it might not be as straight forward as just dismissing it as ludicrous.
> 
> 
> Knife vs Gun - The 21 Foot Rule - Great Demonstration - YouTube




I am just going to take both threats seriously.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2014)

I am pretty sure there was a similar experiment to the (gun/knife video) with running away.  If I remember rightly you needed something like 10 feet of space to be able to run away, reason begin that people will turn and run in the opposite direction (to the way they are facing) where as the attacker is already facing that way and so can easily catch you.

Can't or the life of me find the link now though. :-(  Maybe I dreamt it.


----------



## jezr74 (Oct 21, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> I am pretty sure there was a similar experiment to the (gun/knife video) with running away.  If I remember rightly you needed something like 10 feet of space to be able to run away, reason begin that people will turn and run in the opposite direction (to the way they are facing) where as the attacker is already facing that way and so can easily catch you.
> 
> Can't or the life of me find the link now though. :-(  Maybe I dreamt it.


I've heard this as well. Think was in a few podcasts.


----------



## new.era.player (Oct 21, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> Which are what?



As I understand it, there are too many variables and possibilities for there to be a single solution or single list or syllabus of techniques to properly disarming an aggressor armed with a knife; if there were, I'd think we'd all be doing it.
As I understand it, there are so many different techniques that _can _work, and so many different ones that _probably won't_. I think that the worst thing you can do in any real self-defense situation is underestimate an aggressor with a knife (or even nothing at all) and put too much confidence in your level of training or in your technique.

In other words, the question in itself in my opinion is very vague and I don't believe that anyone can give you anymore of a narrower answer on what the best type of defense strategies are -- other than what I said before:


new.era.player said:


> My opinion? The strategies where you don't get cut or stabbed.



I will refer to Murphy's Laws:


> Murphy's Law #39: _There is no such thing as a perfect plan._



In any real physical altercation, there are so many different variables and possibilities. There is no plan that will work every time.
Let's take it back to medieval times... Even if you had a sword, shield and a full suit of armor -- you could still get killed by something so small as a rock thrown from a slingshot, so you could most certainly get killed by a man wearing cloths but wielding a dagger, especially if he's keen on keeping it concealed until he uses it and you don't see it coming.
If I'm coming at you with a knife and my intent is to actually hurt and/or kill you, I will do everything that I possibly can to make sure you don't have the opportunity to defend yourself and I will do my best to make sure you don't know what's coming until it's too late.

So let's say you actually see it coming and have enough time to react... Again, in my opinion there are too many variables and possibilities to say which technique or defense strategy would be the best. All I can really say is again...


new.era.player said:


> My opinion? The strategies where you don't get cut or stabbed.



Even if you maintained an out-of-reach distance (such as the 21 foot rule) and had a drawn firearm in your possession, aimed at the ready and on your target, and loaded with good ammunition; even then, there are enough variables and possibilities where you can still get killed by something so simple as a little man with a dagger. Firearms jam, and that's just 1 variable or possibility.

Sorry I can't be much more help than that; I'm only a white belt.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 21, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> The 21 foot rule would seem to suggest it might not be as straight forward as just dismissing it as ludicrous.
> 
> 
> Knife vs Gun - The 21 Foot Rule - Great Demonstration - YouTube



Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the actual topic being discussed. All it shows is that an attacker (who gets to move first) can close ground quickly. To which I (and most people) respond with a resounding chorus of "Thank you Captain Obvious".
You attack me. I draw a weapon to respond. The amount of time I have to draw that weapon is the same, regardless of whether I'm drawing a knife or a gun. 
Therefore, the idea that there is some Magical Mystical Mythical group of Chinese cops who use knives because they're "faster and more effective" than a gun, remains completely ludicrous.

The time required to deploy a knife vs a gun is the same. Any difference will be such a small fraction of a second as to be totally irrelevant. 
The suggestion that a knife is somehow more effective than a gun at close range is idiotic. The gun is the more dangerous. At any range. Unless you'd like to quibble by saying things like "oh yeah? whut if you get shot in the arm with a 22 and stabbed in the belly with a sword" or some other equally silly comparison.
Put an average size knife into a body in a particular place, at a particular angle. Now put a commonly carried round into the body at the same place, at the same angle. The bullet will pretty much always be a far worse injury.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2014)

new.era.player said:


> As I understand it, there are too many variables and possibilities for there to be a single solution or single list or syllabus of techniques to properly disarming an aggressor armed with a knife; if there were, I'd think we'd all be doing it.
> As I understand it, there are so many different techniques that _can _work, and so many different ones that _probably won't_. I think that the worst thing you can do in any real self-defense situation is underestimate an aggressor with a knife (or even nothing at all) and put too much confidence in your level of training or in your technique.
> 
> In other words, the question in itself in my opinion is very vague and I don't believe that anyone can give you anymore of a narrower answer on what the best type of defense strategies are -- other than what I said before:
> ...



Thanks, the extra information helps.  Cheers.


----------



## Paul_D (Oct 21, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> To which I (and most people) respond with a resounding chorus of "Thank you Captain Obvious".


If you are just going to resort to personal attacks and childish name calling then I see no point in attempting to have a sensible discussion.  There are plenty of other MA forums I can go to for that.  I came here to get away from that.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 22, 2014)

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> I have taught my form of American Kenpo for years. Knives are dangerous. I not only teach Kenpo knife defense techniques, but I have my students practice all kinds of blocking, grapping, etc. the attacking knife in all types of attacks. I even take from other types of blocking a knife moves from other arts, if it looks effective.
> But if the student is scared of the attacker and his knife moves seemed too deadly and effective for my student, I tell them to fall to the ground and defend themselves from there with kicks and body motion that we practice. This is if there&#8217;s no place to run to and no weapons to use.
> Sifu



Hmm&#8230; to be frank, there's a lot of issues I can see in the way you describe things here&#8230; most of all with the idea of dropping to the ground deliberately&#8230; lots of issues&#8230; 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Trying to let your opponent to drop his knife should be the highest priority. One way is to attack his elbow joint.



And again&#8230; "letting" them drop their knife is absolutely not the highest priority&#8230; and that "attack to the elbow joint" only works against absolutely no attack at all. In other words, no. On all counts.



new.era.player said:


> As I understand it, there are too many variables and possibilities for there to be a single solution or single list or syllabus of techniques to properly disarming an aggressor armed with a knife; if there were, I'd think we'd all be doing it.
> As I understand it, there are so many different techniques that _can _work, and so many different ones that _probably won't_. I think that the worst thing you can do in any real self-defense situation is underestimate an aggressor with a knife (or even nothing at all) and put too much confidence in your level of training or in your technique.



Hi there,

First off, welcome aboard. 

That said, let's look at what you've got here&#8230; there's some good thought processes, and a fair bit of common sense applied&#8230; however, the problem is that a knife assault isn't a "common sense" situation&#8230; so it's actually not as applicable as many may think.

At this point, you're thinking of techniques&#8230; mechanical actions applied to various attacks or stimulus&#8230; which is perfectly normal, especially at the beginning of your martial journey. Thing is, though, the techniques aren't the answer&#8230; they're really just expressions of the actual principles, tactics, and lessons&#8230; so yeah, there are many, many different physical methods that can be applied&#8230; but the principles need to be understood, and the techniques, no matter what they are, need to adhere to those principles. And, in that, you'll find that most who are doing anything of any real value or credibility, are really doing the same thing after all. And, of course, once the principles are understood, it's very easy to see when things don't fit them.



new.era.player said:


> In other words, the question in itself in my opinion is very vague and I don't believe that anyone can give you anymore of a narrower answer on what the best type of defense strategies are -- other than what I said before:



Sure&#8230; what you need to do is to get an understanding of the context&#8230; which you touch upon a bit later&#8230; and, when you do that, then you can start to answer what type of answers that can be given.



new.era.player said:


> I will refer to Murphy's Laws:



Ha, cute. I like that one&#8230; 



new.era.player said:


> In any real physical altercation, there are so many different variables and possibilities. There is no plan that will work every time.
> Let's take it back to medieval times... Even if you had a sword, shield and a full suit of armor -- you could still get killed by something so small as a rock thrown from a slingshot, so you could most certainly get killed by a man wearing cloths but wielding a dagger, especially if he's keen on keeping it concealed until he uses it and you don't see it coming.



Hmm&#8230; I get where you're coming from, but the specifics aren't quite as you present here&#8230;particularly in regards to historical ideas.



new.era.player said:


> If I'm coming at you with a knife and my intent is to actually hurt and/or kill you, I will do everything that I possibly can to make sure you don't have the opportunity to defend yourself and I will do my best to make sure you don't know what's coming until it's too late.



Yep. Most knife assaults are ambushes. Very true.



new.era.player said:


> So let's say you actually see it coming and have enough time to react... Again, in my opinion there are too many variables and possibilities to say which technique or defense strategy would be the best. All I can really say is again&#8230;



Not really&#8230; there are a fairly short list of principles and tactical methods&#8230; which have many, many technical applications.



new.era.player said:


> Even if you maintained an out-of-reach distance (such as the 21 foot rule) and had a drawn firearm in your possession, aimed at the ready and on your target, and loaded with good ammunition; even then, there are enough variables and possibilities where you can still get killed by something so simple as a little man with a dagger. Firearms jam, and that's just 1 variable or possibility.



Sure.



new.era.player said:


> Sorry I can't be much more help than that; I'm only a white belt.



Not a problem. I like the way you think.



Dirty Dog said:


> Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the actual topic being discussed. All it shows is that an attacker (who gets to move first) can close ground quickly. To which I (and most people) respond with a resounding chorus of "Thank you Captain Obvious".
> You attack me. I draw a weapon to respond. The amount of time I have to draw that weapon is the same, regardless of whether I'm drawing a knife or a gun.
> Therefore, the idea that there is some Magical Mystical Mythical group of Chinese cops who use knives because they're "faster and more effective" than a gun, remains completely ludicrous.



While I definitely agree that the story of the Chinese police eschewing firearms as stated (including the reasoning) is rather far-fetched, I'm not sure I can agree with a degree of your arguments, DD. For one thing, bluntly, the idea that a knife can represent a greater (or more immediate) threat than a firearm is not "ludicrous"&#8230; but it does depend greatly on a range of factors, such as whether any of the weapons are already deployed (the knife, the gun, both, or neither&#8230, the distance both persons are from each other, the tactical methodology of both sides, and more. 

When it comes to "the amount of time I have to draw is the same", well, okay&#8230; but the amount of time it will take you to draw and apply the weapon is different&#8230; the mechanical actions of drawing and deploying are rather different (with the edge given to the blade, if you'll forgive the pun&#8230; ha!), and so on. Additionally, talking about the video showing that if an attacker moves first, they can close the distance quickly, being "obvious", well, you'd think so&#8230; but the mere presence of the Tueller Drill shows that it wasn't that obvious to all&#8230; and, more importantly, aren't you basically saying that the video is actually showing how an actual assault can be successful quite easily? In which case, yeah, it's demonstrating exactly what Paul wanted it to&#8230; 



Dirty Dog said:


> The time required to deploy a knife vs a gun is the same. Any difference will be such a small fraction of a second as to be totally irrelevant.



No, it's really not (either the same, or the difference being "totally irrelevant"&#8230; when it comes to these things, a fraction of a second can be the most important difference there can be).



Dirty Dog said:


> The suggestion that a knife is somehow more effective than a gun at close range is idiotic.



It's really not idiotic. It's reality.



Dirty Dog said:


> The gun is the more dangerous. At any range.



It's really not. Like all weapons, it has it's optimal distance&#8230; and, if you're in the optimal distance for a knife, but not a gun, guess who has the advantage?



Dirty Dog said:


> Unless you'd like to quibble by saying things like "oh yeah? whut if you get shot in the arm with a 22 and stabbed in the belly with a sword" or some other equally silly comparison.
> Put an average size knife into a body in a particular place, at a particular angle. Now put a commonly carried round into the body at the same place, at the same angle. The bullet will pretty much always be a far worse injury.



Well, to follow your hypothetical, I'd suggest that the difficulty with accuracy of a small ballistic projectile versus a wide-arc slash shows that the knife/blade would be more likely to actually injure the opponent&#8230; so it's really not a "silly comparison"&#8230; it's honestly a fairly realistic appraisal (minus the sword aspect, of course) of one more reason that, in close proximity, the edge goes to the blade. To be blunt, your idea of having a blade or ballistic projectile hit the same spot, at the same angle, is much more the "silly comparison"&#8230; as it denies the very properties of the weapons themselves.



Paul_D said:


> If you are just going to resort to personal attacks and childish name calling then I see no point in attempting to have a sensible discussion.  There are plenty of other MA forums I can go to for that.  I came here to get away from that.



To be honest, Paul, I don't think DD was calling you names, nor using a personal attack&#8230; he was more expressing that he felt that most here would already be aware of such tactical advantages given to the attacker&#8230; of course, I'm not sure how agreeing that your appraisal is correct, and then arguing against it really works&#8230;


----------



## Tgace (Oct 24, 2014)

Paul_D said:


> The 21 foot rule would seem to suggest it might not be as straight forward as just dismissing it as ludicrous.
> 
> 
> Knife vs Gun - The 21 Foot Rule - Great Demonstration - YouTube




IMO, non-LE folks tend to misunderstand what Sgt. Tueller was truly getting at:

TDA Training: Of Knives, Guns and 21 feet (guest post by tgace)

People have run off into the weeds with what Tueller was trying to say IMO. He wasn't trying to say "knifes are more dangerous than guns"...

I believe that the handgun is the best personal defensive weapon available. It gives the most people the most options at the most ranges and gives the best opportunity to defend oneself without getting injured (note..best "opportunity"...not "assured"). A person who KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING at close range with a handgun is just as deadly as a person with a knife. Many of the people who seem to disagree with that appear to come from countries where access to firearms is severely restricted and thence have little practical "hands on experience" to base their opinions on. And probably have some sort of "since I cant have one Ill tell myself a knife is better anyway" mentality. 

Of course that's not to say that knives are somehow "less deadly" than a firearm. That would be silly

PS-Slashing attacks with a knife are a bad argument regarding lethality IMO because lethality on any mammal is truly an issue of penetration. Stabs from a blade or a bullet penetrating organs or nervous systems are what kill most effectively. As a FMA practitioner (of sorts these days), I've seen all sorts of claims about "biomechanical cutting" and "disembowling" techniques with knife sized blades. Sorry, but I don't buy them. Slashes will definitely "**** you up", and may eventually even kill you, but they are lower percentage techniques vs. stabs.

Say what you will about Marc MacYoung, but what he says here has a LOT of truth regarding knives: 

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html


----------



## Instructor (Oct 24, 2014)

A knifes advantage over a gun I think is that it never runs out of ammo and even a child can hit something with it.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 24, 2014)

Instructor said:


> A knifes advantage over a gun I think is that it never runs out of ammo and even a child can hit something with it.


A knife needs physical strength and ability to wield. Ever try to actually stab or cut a large slab of meat? Knives are not light sabers....you have to close with, engage and destroy your enemy with a piece of metal in your hand. While its not a Herculean athletic event, there is a significant physical component to killing someone with a knife.

My 10 yo can pull a trigger and hit a target quite easily. Certainly there is a training component to effective gun use, but simple familiarization and wise deployment of a pistol would be better sense for a weaker/aged/infirm individual vs trying to kill someone with a blade.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 24, 2014)

Of course I always carry a knife..one small enough for utility yet large enough to be used as a defense option.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 24, 2014)

So are we discussing gun verses knife here or the inherent advantage somone has by ambushing somone else?

And that counter ambush is a skill that is parallel to a weapon skill.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> So are we discussing gun verses knife here or the inherent advantage somone has by ambushing somone else?
> 
> And that counter ambush is a skill that is parallel to a weapon skill.


Not only is ambush inherently advantageous, simple "initiative" puts one ahead in the OODA loop. Cops face that all the time....if the BG knows he is going to attack and the cop thinks its a normal traffic stop, the BG has already skipped ahead in the process.


----------

