# The Equalizer - What role do weapons serve?



## Taipan (Jan 10, 2021)

*Hello everyone!*

*Here I a post from my blog. I don't get much traffic so I thought I'd share it with you! What are your thoughts?*

*www.totalcombatives.com*

*The Equalizer*

What role do weapons play to a warrior?


Have you given much thought to using weapons to your advantage?


Weapons are not anything in themselves. Every weapon from guns to swords are harmless unless they are being used by someone who knows how to utilize those weapons.

The deeper the warrior's skill, the more dangerous the weapon becomes.


Weapons are simply tools in a warrior's arsenal. They are force multipliers. Weapons amplify the force a warrior can use against a threat. They are the great equalizer. A weapon can level the playing field against a bigger and stronger foe.

A warrior understands this and uses it to his advantage.


It is important to use weapons if they are available to you. The weapons available to a warrior vary depending on local laws and the resources available to him. Not everyone can legally carry a gun or knife, but there are always other options. Even a pen can be a great equalizer.


Let’s look at some weapons that you can use to your advantage. Please note that I am listing practical weapons that are available on a daily basis. This will rule out many traditional weapons like swords.


Propulsion weapons

• Gun

• Pepper ball gun


Sharp weapons

• Knife

• Broken glass


Impact weapons

• Tonfa

• Expandable baton

• Tire beater

• Baseball bat

• Stick

• Lead pipe

• Large flashlight


Kubaton weapons

• Stick

• Pen

• Pencil

• Small flashlight


Other weapons

• Pepper spray

• Taser

• Stun gun


Weapons of opportunity

• Rock

• Broken glass

• Stick

• Chair

• Jacket

• Belt

• Fire extinguisher


Anything can be used as a weapon!


Here is a video of myself demonstrating just a few of the hundreds of options out there;

https://youtu.be/LBJujGcRRFE


*What are some weapons you could learn to use?*

As warriors we need to be versatile and creative as we train.


How can you add weapons training to your everyday routine?


What weapon(s) are you going to train with?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 10, 2021)

Taipan said:


> What weapon(s) are you going to train with?


You miss the most common street fight weapon.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 10, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You miss the most common street fight weapon.



Lol!

So I did!


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 10, 2021)

Ok my thoughts.
I dont click on blog links but I did watch the video.
Your post really doesn't have any point or a purpose for being written. All you really said was weapons are force multipliers. Thats kind of common sense so I as the reader gained nothing from reading it.  If you want to be a blogger you might want to watch some how to write videos on you tube or take some classes.
As for your video, well....you may think it looks great and might be of interest to absolute beginners but for those who have trained a bit, it sceams of self taught mumbo jumbo that certainly shouldn't be classified as combatives.
Don't take this too hard. We all start somewhere. Keep training, keep growing and if you want to be a legitimate combative guy then seek out legitimate teachers. 
Good luck.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 10, 2021)

Ok point taken!

Maybe the purpose isn't clear. I just want to break the ground so to speak on the topic of weapons. The fact that there are endless options, and the fact that everyone should train with them.

As for being "self taught". I have trained in empty hand systems my whole life. I have not had the privilege of formal weapons training (Other than Nunchucks).

But I don't claim to be a "weapons master". The point I am trying to make in the video is that there are a lot of options, and if you master the fundamentals you can use anything as a weapon.

I have sparred quite a bit with swords and knives, but as for "freestyle"... well, that I have never learned. But who would sword twirl in a fight anyway?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 10, 2021)

Taipan said:


> Ok point taken!
> 
> Maybe the purpose isn't clear. I just want to break the ground so to speak on the topic of weapons. The fact that there are endless options, and the fact that everyone should train with them.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate your enthusiasm, I was there myself once too.  
But from just conversing with you for the 5 minutes and watching a single video I can see your making some serious mistakes in your training and assumptions.
Think about this...if you take yourself serious as a combatives instructor you have the responsibility to teach the most effective and PROVEN responses to violence.  If someone gets hurt or worse because of what you taught them how will you feel.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 10, 2021)

No, I agree 100%.

It is very serious. That is why I am very careful with what I teach. All of the information I posted is practical knowledge for those new to martial arts. Would you argue with anything I said? 

I asked for open critic in that area. Rank and your training background mean nothing. It is the person's dedication and the techniques that they focus on that matters.

Your profile itself says that you don't know what you would call your own style. Is that because you've never reached a rank that is high enough to esteem in a style? I think not. It is because you value your own dedication above the standards of others.

I mean no disrespect. I am sure there is much that I could learn from you. I came here to get helpful insight to my material, not challenges to my background that you know nothing of. 

We are fellow journey men on the path of martial arts. We will both reach the summit faster if we are not pushing the other off the path.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 10, 2021)

P.s. I noticed the link to your website isn't working


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 10, 2021)

@Taipan

I will give you some advice.....stop pushing your site.  Put the link in your signature...but on here just participate in the conservation normally as you would with other colleagues.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 10, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You miss the most common street fight weapon.



I never leave home without a chick with a brick.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 11, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You miss the most common street fight weapon.




It makes me happy that i think you are chinese and went to the brick after what i heard about the chinese and bricks. 


But amusingly enough bricks arent actually that common. The broken/loose ones tend to be removes/repaired pretty quick or might not be of any combtive value or would require comrpised postion or more effort than expected to get.


----------



## Buka (Jan 11, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I never leave home without a chick with a brick.



Oh sure, make coffee come out my nose. That might be the line of the year, right there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 11, 2021)

Rat said:


> i heard about the chinese and bricks.


I think you are right! The brick is in Chinese culture but may not be in American culture.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 11, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> @Taipan
> 
> I will give you some advice.....stop pushing your site.  Put the link in your signature...but on here just participate in the conservation normally as you would with other colleagues.




Point taken. thank you.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 11, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I never leave home without a chick with a brick.


 as a side note back when I was in school a girl beat the living hell out of another girl with a soft purse and a can of hair spray inside. She might have beat the victim with the her own purse cause the aggressor wasn't the hair spay type. One went to the hospital the other went to prison.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 11, 2021)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I think you are right! The brick is in Chinese culture but may not be in American culture.


Soup cans they walk around with soup cans. You can't throw a brick cause its too heavy. But you can throw a soup can. And when they get caught they say oh this is soup,its soup ,soup for my family






for the best impact you have to set the play back speed at 0.5


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 12, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> Soup cans they walk around with soup cans. You can't throw a brick cause its too heavy. But you can throw a soup can. And when they get caught they say oh this is soup,its soup ,soup for my family
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hes not wrong.

using a bag of something as a weapon as well isnt new.  Its why bike locks are a go to weapon, you cant disarm someone of a bike lock if they are using it for their bike, at least tradtionally.     Just load a bag up with innocent objects until you can swing it with some umpth and hurt somone and done, weapon. 


Reminds me of the person shown giving out pepsi and like mineutes  later you see pepsi cans being throw at police/the other side.


----------



## dunc (Jan 12, 2021)

Taipan said:


> No, I agree 100%.
> 
> It is very serious. That is why I am very careful with what I teach. All of the information I posted is practical knowledge for those new to martial arts. Would you argue with anything I said?
> 
> ...



Hi
I very much like the concept of martial arts being complete. ie fully integrated striking, grappling, weapons, groundwork, self defence etc
So I feel that your objective is laudable
There are certainly styles out there that have a more integrated approach than say TKD. Some do a better job in this regard than others and some are more contemporary than others. In my view none fully nail it for modern applications, but many would disagree with me
My main reflection from looking at your site, youtube channel and watching a couple of your videos is that you're focusing a fair bit on weapons, but clearly don't have any training in them. Which seems a bit off, particularly if you're presenting yourself as an instructor in these areas and offering online instruction in return for money
My advice is to only teach subjects that you have a fairly high level of instruction and mastery in
I hope this helps and I'm only offering advice/feedback as a total stranger so please don't take this the wrong way


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2021)

Rat said:


> It makes me happy that i think you are chinese and went to the brick after what i heard about the chinese and bricks.
> 
> 
> But amusingly enough bricks arent actually that common. The broken/loose ones tend to be removes/repaired pretty quick or might not be of any combtive value or would require comrpised postion or more effort than expected to get.


that is true now, when i was growing up you were never more than 20ft from at least a half brick,


----------



## Taipan (Jan 12, 2021)

dunc said:


> Hi
> I very much like the concept of martial arts being complete. ie fully integrated striking, grappling, weapons, groundwork, self defence etc
> So I feel that your objective is laudable
> There are certainly styles out there that have a more integrated approach than say TKD. Some do a better job in this regard than others and some are more contemporary than others. In my view none fully nail it for modern applications, but many would disagree with me
> ...



Thanks for the feed back!

I hear you 100%.

It is not my goal to focus on weapons. The reason that has been my focus for now is because I am getting a feel for filming and editing. I so the videos have been more a test of that. I see your point, and I thinl it is time I focus on my original intention.

My goal?

Exactly the way you worded it. A Total Combatives system.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2021)

Taipan said:


> Thanks for the feed back!
> 
> I hear you 100%.
> 
> ...


Okay.  I have to ask.  I normally wouldn't ask or even care about this, but it's relevant because you're trying to sell a package and your goal is, as you say, to create a total combatives system.  What makes you think you have the knowledge or skill to do this?  I mean, you admit to not knowing much about weapons, but have a weapons video.  Are you keeping something to yourself?  I just don't get it.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 12, 2021)

Steve said:


> Okay.  I have to ask.  I normally wouldn't ask or even care about this, but it's relevant because you're trying to sell a package and your goal is, as you say, to create a total combatives system.  What makes you think you have the knowledge or skill to do this?  I mean, you admit to not knowing much about weapons, but have a weapons video.  Are you keeping something to yourself?  I just don't get it.




I have officially studied hand to hand combat, mordern knife and gun combatives, and ground fighting. That is what is what I teach.

And I have had formal training in nunchaku and ropedart


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Jan 14, 2021)

Taipan said:


> I have officially studied hand to hand combat, mordern knife and gun combatives, and ground fighting. That is what is what I teach.
> 
> And I have had formal training in nunchaku and ropedart



Out of curiosity, what do "officially study" and "formal training" mean?


----------



## Taipan (Jan 15, 2021)

Under strict teachers and guidelines. For instance in Taekwondo I studied under a 5 dan and spent years in diligent training. That I also hold "official" rank. Tgat is what I would classify as "official study" or formsl training.

What I would not classify as such would be my training in Kali. Although I have trained in Kali for a couple of years, I have not learned in an official settimg with a consistent teacher. So, although I have greatly benefited from Kali. I would not count it "official" or "formal".

I hope that helps.


----------



## dunc (Jan 15, 2021)

Hi
What does your formal training in hand to hand combat and ground fighting comprise of?
I ask because I'm not sure that TKD covers either of these fully
Thanks
D


----------



## Taipan (Jan 15, 2021)

dunc said:


> Hi
> What does your formal training in hand to hand combat and ground fighting comprise of?
> I ask because I'm not sure that TKD covers either of these fully
> Thanks
> D



Ok, understood.

For hand to hand I have trained in both ITF and Wtf Taekwondo, Shotokan and Kanzen Karate, and Muay Thai. I've also train in hand to hand techniques from Kali.

As for ground fighting it's all Jui jitsu and Krav Maga.


----------



## dunc (Jan 15, 2021)

That's great!
You have trained in MT, Kali, BJJ and Krav to the level where you can teach?


----------



## Taipan (Jan 15, 2021)

dunc said:


> That's great!
> You have trained in MT, Kali, BJJ and Krav to the level where you can teach?


MT yes. Considering the fact that I am not teaching Kali, BJJ or Krav Maga, I not not need to be instructor level in those to teach hand to hand combat. I do borrow form the styles yes. But I am not pretending to be a master of those systems and giving out rank in those systems. I think they have aspects that fill in the weak spots of the styles I am at instructor level in. And example would be BJJ,  I am not teaching BJJ, but I am teaching mixed martial arts. Therefore since Taekwondo, Muay Thai, and Karate lack extensive ground work and I gave trained in BJJ I will add the BKJ techniques I am proficient in to the curriculum and fill in those areas that need to be complete.

When you think about it, lots of instructors in various styles do this to some extent. Maybe its subtle changes in a block or self-defense technique. 

There is no problem with pulling from other styles if you are not an instructor in that style. The problem arises when you get these guys that have no training or never even reach the rank of instructor in ANY style that go and take Aikido for a couple of months and then think they can teach Their own ground fighting system.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 15, 2021)

Taipan said:


> *Hello everyone!*
> 
> *Here I a post from my blog. I don't get much traffic so I thought I'd share it with you! What are your thoughts?*
> 
> ...


Your website has some nice design but the black writing doesn’t pair well with the dark red wallpaper. I would try going more in depth in your blog posts, and making the writing a bit bigger so people can read it.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 15, 2021)

Ivan said:


> Your website has some nice design but the black writing doesn’t pair well with the dark red wallpaper. I would try going more in depth in your blog posts, and making the writing a bit bigger so people can read it.



Thanks Ivan!

I'll definitely look into that!


----------



## Tenshin (Jan 15, 2021)

Why do you twirl every weapon? 
I watched most of the videos, I think in some areas needs more practice such as Kenjutsu. I do not think what you said about Musashi is completely accurate in your interpretation unless you study the Ryuha among other things when reading texts from those time periods.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 15, 2021)

As for the twirling...

I have engaged in sword sparring, knife sparring, staff sparring, and a couple of the other weapins, but I've never been good at shadow fencing.

Not having anyone to exchange blows with I simply twirled them around.

It's a sorry excuse I know.

I'd love to study Kenjutsu! Just don't have a local school.


----------



## Tenshin (Jan 15, 2021)

Taipan said:


> As for the twirling...
> 
> I have engaged in sword sparring, knife sparring, staff sparring, and a couple of the other weapins, but I've never been good at shadow fencing.
> 
> ...



I am not sure exactly where you live, but a lot of people are doing zoom classes, a lot of people are having good results with them. It might give you a better understanding of the Japanese sword.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 15, 2021)

Tenshin said:


> I am not sure exactly where you live, but a lot of people are doing zoom classes, a lot of people are having good results with them. It might give you a better understanding of the Japanese sword.


Northern Missouri.

I'll look into it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 16, 2021)

Taipan said:


> *Hello everyone!*
> 
> *Here I a post from my blog. I don't get much traffic so I thought I'd share it with you! What are your thoughts?*
> 
> ...



Put the weapons down. You have a little skill with the rope-dart, and you can do some tricks with nunchaku, but everything else was, simply, terrible. Take the video down, and do not represent yourself as being in a position to teach these weapons.


----------



## Tenshin (Jan 16, 2021)

Taipan said:


> Northern Missouri.
> 
> I'll look into it.


I really do not know how far that is from you.
WARRENSBURG, MISSOURI

Most Koryu guys know who is who in the area even people outside our areas it just goes with part of joining a koryu.  There are some Bujinkan guys, Fma guys, and may be some Chinese artists all can teach properly. Then there are zoom classes though not ideal compared to a live teacher they will provide feedback. The other weapons like rope dart, nunchaku I am not qualified to judge since I do not train them but sword and bo staff I think needs more training. I think the price is high comparing to say
If we are discussing weapon only based training
Buy full course - Iaido online
JOIN

I think Defense lab is only $10 
Sami is like $70 a year
Evolve and Tiger Muay Thai is $10
Old school grappling is $5
Catch ninja and Zog $10
Wing chun online $10
Adam Mitchell's Budo hall $100 lifetime

What I am saying is all these guys are top of the game and offer a lot of material and a lesser price so as a consumer why should I choose your program over theirs? It is something to think about.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 16, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Put the weapons down. You have a little skill with the rope-dart, and you can do some tricks with nunchaku, but everything else was, simply, terrible. Take the video down, and do not represent yourself as being in a position to teach these weapons.


I don't represent myself as someone who can teach those weapons. I DO teach Nunchaku and rope dart. I do not teach anything else. 

If you paid attention to the YouTube series or why the video is in the article, you will notice that I am merely taking about the basic weapons out there.

I have also had people ask me if I teach sword to which I tell them that I don't.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 16, 2021)

Tenshin said:


> I really do not know how far that is from you.
> WARRENSBURG, MISSOURI
> 
> Most Koryu guys know who is who in the area even people outside our areas it just goes with part of joining a koryu.  There are some Bujinkan guys, Fma guys, and may be some Chinese artists all can teach properly. Then there are zoom classes though not ideal compared to a live teacher they will provide feedback. The other weapons like rope dart, nunchaku I am not qualified to judge since I do not train them but sword and bo staff I think needs more training. I think the price is high comparing to say
> ...



Thanks!

I'll check into those!


----------



## jobo (Jan 16, 2021)

Taipan said:


> I don't represent myself as someone who can teach those weapons. I DO teach Nunchaku and rope dart. I do not teach anything else.
> 
> If you paid attention to the YouTube series or why the video is in the article, you will notice that I am merely taking about the basic weapons out there.
> 
> I have also had people ask me if I teach sword to which I tell them that I don't.


i think people are being hard on you, they seem to have a down on people who invent their own style and combatives in general,


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 16, 2021)

jobo said:


> i think people are being hard on you, they seem to have a down on people who invent their own style and combatives in general,


I would consider myself a combatives guy and I don't seem to get much crap for it.
I also have two of my own styles, one is traditional and one is combatives. I dont feel I get crap for it.
So maybe it's not about what someone does but how qualified that person is when they claim to be something.


----------



## jobo (Jan 16, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> I would consider myself a combatives guy and I don't seem to get much crap for it.
> I also have two of my own styles, one is traditional and one is combatives. I dont feel I get crap for it.
> So maybe it's not about what someone does but how qualified that person is when they claim to be something.


genuine  question, in what way are you more qualified than him to teach combatives ?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 16, 2021)

jobo said:


> genuine  question, in what way are you more qualified than him to teach combatives ?


I dont know him, I can't say.  
But to use the word combatives for what you do or teach gives the general MA population a particular image of what you do. If I say I train in karate that illicits a different image than kung fu. While the term combatives may not be a style in and of itself,, it does have a particular image and expectation associated with it.  My post was not passing judgment as much as stating that members here seem to feel his posts and content are not matching with the label of being a combatives instructor.


----------



## Tenshin (Jan 16, 2021)

Combatives to some people is a general term but to others a very specific meaning, I think it is like saying Grappling or Submission Grappling. 
 When I think of Combatives I think of guys doing Defendu, Defense lab, Keysi, Urban combatives, Sami those type of RBSD groups.

Most guys teaching Combatives deal in law enforcement, military, security work, or some sort of reality base experience. 
Usually if you are offering a course in teaching this, you will speak about your background, credentials, affiliation, rank, what makes your course and system better or different 
than the other guys, all this is marketing and branding. 


Frankly if someone wants to create their own system, art I have no problem as it stands on its own merit in regards to success or failure,
but Martial artists that are experience are going to scrutinize what is being offered.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 16, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> I would consider myself a combatives guy and I don't seem to get much crap for it.
> I also have two of my own styles, one is traditional and one is combatives. I dont feel I get crap for it.
> So maybe it's not about what someone does but how qualified that person is when they claim to be something.


I'm iterested in your two styles. What are they and what are YOUR qualifications?


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Jan 16, 2021)

Just to chime in, every experience I've had with "combatives" has been a military system. I've trained as a first level instructor of MACP (Modern Army Combatives Program- US Army), Security Forces Combatives (USAF), and SERE Combatives (also USAF). Now, I'm pretty critical of how the military generally implements combatives programs, because more often than not you get a few days of training, and then an annual refresher... And that's it. Any experienced martial artists knows that that is not enough to develop true proficiency, let alone muscle memory.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in the fight of whether or not you want to create a system of combatives, but know that they are usually associated with the military, and are usually pitched as one-shot or otherwise short-term training solutions.

Edit: I'm a MACP instructor (or was... That certificate may be expired. Not sure how the Army does things). I am NOT a SERE or Security Forces Combatives instructor.


----------



## jobo (Jan 16, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont know him, I can't say.
> But to use the word combatives for what you do or teach gives the general MA population a particular image of what you do. If I say I train in karate that illicits a different image than kung fu. While the term combatives may not be a style in and of itself,, it does have a particular image and expectation associated with it.  My post was not passing judgment as much as stating that members here seem to feel his posts and content are not matching with the label of being a combatives instructor.


that really didnt answer my question.

so what does a combatives instructor label require ?


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 16, 2021)

So I watched some of your nunchaku videos which left me a little confused

You claim to be a combatives style....but your nunchaku videos seem to be more about tricks and flash other than how to actaully use them in combat.

I would expect a combatives site to focus more on using heavier hardwood nunchaku along with using the lower or mid grip.  Plus more instruction on the actual use of them in fighting instead of the flashy handrolls and transitions.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 16, 2021)

jobo said:


> that really didnt answer my question.
> 
> so what does a combatives instructor label require ?


 Jobo im not going to get pulled into a straw man argument.   that seems to be your MO
any one can claim anything they like.  call your self a 15th degree black belt Grand Poohbah of the Order of the Water Buffalo.
but i did answer your question on what makes me more qualified... and i quote
"_I dont know"_


----------



## Taipan (Jan 16, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> So I watched some of your nunchaku videos which left me a little confused
> 
> You claim to be a combatives style....but your nunchaku videos seem to be more about tricks and flash other than how to actaully use them in combat.
> 
> I would expect a combatives site to focus more on using heavier hardwood nunchaku along with using the lower or mid grip.  Plus more instruction on the actual use of them in fighting instead of the flashy handrolls and transitions.



I am a practitioner of American Nunchaku as found by Grandmaster Burke. The Nunchuck  I teach is not part of the Total Combatives curriculum, but is the curriculum of the American Nunchaku style.

I do agree that the techniques are for flow and not for fighting.

I teach rope dart and Nunchucks separately from my other curriculum.


----------



## jobo (Jan 16, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> Jobo im not going to get pulled into a straw man argument.   that seems to be your MO
> any one can claim anything they like.  call your self a 15th degree black belt Grand Poohbah of the Order of the Water Buffalo.
> but i did answer your question on what makes me more qualified... and i quote
> "_I dont know"_


i dont know isnt answering a question, i tried that in a french exam, it didnt go down well, unless the question is ,, do you know? which it wasnt,

so i think people are unnecessarily giving him a hard time, you disagreed,  why are you disagreeing? 
.nb i dont know isnt a reasonable answer


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 16, 2021)

jobo said:


> i dont know isnt answering a question, i tried that in a french exam, it didnt go down well, unless the question is ,, do you know? which it wasnt,
> 
> so i think people are unnecessarily giving him a hard time, you disagreed,  why are you disagreeing?
> .nb i dont know isnt a reasonable answer


I dont know,  could have been a good answer if you said it in a perfect French accent. 
Let me rephrase then. You asked " what makes me more qualified to teach combatives?"  I didn't say I was.  But as was pointed out in another thread, I am not asking for feedback or a critique on my blog and web page.
I think the only reason he IS getting a hard time is exactly because he asked for it.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 16, 2021)

Taipan said:


> I am a practitioner of American Nunchaku as found by Grandmaster Burke. The Nunchuck  I teach is not part of the Total Combatives curriculum, but is the curriculum of the American Nunchaku style.
> 
> I do agree that the techniques are for flow and not for fighting.
> 
> I teach rope dart and Nunchucks separately from my other curriculum.



Ok do you see how this is confusing and even misleading.

You market yourself as a combatives course with weapons training but the weapons you are trained in (nunchaku and rope dart) arent part of the combatives course.  But in your videos you show yourself training with them.

The nunchaku and rope dart videos have a section on your combatives channel and even have your total combatives logo on them.  Yet, the rechniques are not suited for use in combat and are a separate course....


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 16, 2021)

Also, if you are going to charge people for this course...I would suggest you provide a good biography and resume of you and your training.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 16, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> Ok do you see how this is confusing and even misleading.
> 
> You market yourself as a combatives course with weapons training but the weapons you are trained in (nunchaku and rope dart) arent part of the combatives course.  But in your videos you show yourself training with them.
> 
> The nunchaku and rope dart videos have a section on your combatives channel and even have your total combatives logo on them.  Yet, the rechniques are not suited for use in combat and are a separate course....



They are on the channel and have the logo because they are taught by the same instructor and in the same school as the other course. They are optional free courses for my students that have interests in those weapons. 

And tgere is weapons training in the combatives course, but traditional weapons are not involved. Those would be gun, knife, mace, and expandable baton.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 16, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> Also, if you are going to charge people for this course...I would suggest you provide a good biography and resume of you and your training.


Thanks!

I plan to soon.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 16, 2021)

Taipan said:


> They are on the channel and have the logo because they are taught by the same instructor and in the same school as the other course. They are optional free courses for my students that have interests in those weapons.
> 
> And tgere is weapons training in the combatives course, but traditional weapons are not involved. Those would be gun, knife, mace, and expandable baton.



I would separate the two then so there isn't any confusion.

One channel for combatives and the other channel for nunchaku and rope dart courses.  You can always provide a link to the other on each site.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 17, 2021)

Comment withdrawn


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 17, 2021)

Taipan said:


> I am a practitioner of American Nunchaku as found by Grandmaster Burke. The Nunchuck  I teach is not part of the Total Combatives curriculum, but is the curriculum of the American Nunchaku style.
> 
> I do agree that the techniques are for flow and not for fighting.
> 
> I teach rope dart and Nunchucks separately from my other curriculum.





Taipan said:


> They are on the channel and have the logo because they are taught by the same instructor and in the same school as the other course. They are optional free courses for my students that have interests in those weapons.
> 
> And tgere is weapons training in the combatives course, but traditional weapons are not involved. Those would be gun, knife, mace, and expandable baton.



I’d agree with C.B. Jones that you need to make a distinction on your site between weapon training you are offering for combatives vs performance based weapon twirling. The former should be based on effectiveness in fighting. The latter is essentially the equivalent of majorette baton twirling, just more socially acceptable for guys. (That’s not really a criticism. Baton twirling is fun and involves genuine skill and guys should be able to be majorettes. It’s just important not to confuse it with actual weapon usage.)

I haven’t seen any of your material on firearms or mace. For all I know you are totally knowledgeable in those areas. However the weapon use you show in the video does not reflect understanding of effective combative use of those weapons. 

Obviously, weapons are a major force multiplier, so even a completely untrained person _could_ potentially inflict injury or even death just by waving their weapon around randomly. By “effective combative use”, I mean the ability to deploy a weapon, inflict the maximum damage with the minimum effort, while making it as hard as possible for an armed opponent to effectively attack you with their own weapon. I know you are limited in the specifics of what you can show by demonstrating solo, but your grips, your body mechanics, your stances, the paths of your swings,  etc, are not in line with that sort of combative use.


----------



## Taipan (Jan 17, 2021)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I’d agree with C.B. Jones that you need to make a distinction on your site between weapon training you are offering for combatives vs performance based weapon twirling. The former should be based on effectiveness in fighting. The latter is essentially the equivalent of majorette baton twirling, just more socially acceptable for guys. (That’s not really a criticism. Baton twirling is fun and involves genuine skill and guys should be able to be majorettes. It’s just important not to confuse it with actual weapon usage.)
> 
> I haven’t seen any of your material on firearms or mace. For all I know you are totally knowledgeable in those areas. However the weapon use you show in the video does not reflect understanding of effective combative use of those weapons.
> 
> Obviously, weapons are a major force multiplier, so even a completely untrained person _could_ potentially inflict injury or even death just by waving their weapon around randomly. By “effective combative use”, I mean the ability to deploy a weapon, inflict the maximum damage with the minimum effort, while making it as hard as possible for an armed opponent to effectively attack you with their own weapon. I know you are limited in the specifics of what you can show by demonstrating solo, but your grips, your body mechanics, your stances, the paths of your swings,  etc, are not in line with that sort of combative use.


I would agree with the last statment.

Not sure if I like the baton twirling comparison though! Lol!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 17, 2021)

Taipan said:


> I would agree with the last statment.
> 
> Not sure if I like the baton twirling comparison though! Lol!


That’s just societal programming. Twirling stuff is fun, whether it’s majorette batons or antique weapons. When I was a kid, my little sister had a baton (don’t remember what for, she wasn’t a majorette) and it was fun trying to learn how to twirl it. When I got my first nunchaku, I learned the same Bruce Lee movie style twirling as everybody else, and it was fun in the same kind of way.


----------



## Buka (Jan 20, 2021)

Other than throwing stars, I think chucks are the most over glorified tactical weapon of any kind in Combat Arts. They were kind of fun to play with back in the day, though.

Illegal here.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 21, 2021)

Taipan said:


> What role do weapons play to a warrior?



I haven't bothered to look at the videos, and from the informed comments of others here, glad I didn't.  My experience is that these usually appeal to young, inexperienced, wanna be's who can be easily impressed.

But this first line of the post is worth exploring.  One answer is that weapons increase the lethality and range of one's hand movements.  Sometimes they follow the same hand motions as empty hand techniques, sometimes the motions are unique to the weapon.  Usually, though, they do follow the same biomechanical principles.

Weapons can be defensive or offensive in design.  Blades, while can be used defensively by a skilled user, are primarily offensive in nature.  "The sword is not a tool to defend oneself with; it's purpose is to defeat the enemy." (paraphrasing from memory.)  Bricks and rocks are limited in their defensive attributes.  (Though as threats, can forestall possible attack.)

Pikes and long spears are standoff defensive weapons by design.  Pepper spray and shields are also mainly defensive in nature, as is the _jutte_ and to a lesser extent, the _sai_.  I would say wood staffs such as the _bo, _as well as kali/escrima sticks, can be used for both.

Another role:  A number of weapons, due to their mass, develop strength, especially in the arms.  Due to required momentum generation they also strengthen the torso and develop sound biomechanics.

I have found that working with weapons improves one's concentration and penalizes carelessness.  I have never kicked or elbowed myself, but do admit to ripping my side and banging my knee while using weapons.  I know one fellow who shish-ka-bobbed himself with a sword.  Weapons are dangerous and teach/deserve respect for their capabilities.  They are seldom forgiving.

These are simply a few random thoughts on the subject that, hopefully, can turn this thread into something useful.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Jan 22, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I haven't bothered to look at the videos, and from the informed comments of others here, glad I didn't.  My experience is that these usually appeal to young, inexperienced, wanna be's who can be easily impressed.
> 
> But this first line of the post is worth exploring.  One answer is that weapons increase the lethality and range of one's hand movements.  Sometimes they follow the same hand motions as empty hand techniques, sometimes the motions are unique to the weapon.  Usually, though, they do follow the same biomechanical principles.
> 
> ...



I notice firearms are absent from your post, though pepper spray, another modern weapon, is included. How would you classify a firearm?


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 22, 2021)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> I notice firearms are absent from your post, though pepper spray, another modern weapon, is included. How would you classify a firearm?



For this discussion, I define defensive as stopping an _attack_ in progress and offensive as stopping the attack_er_, rendering him incapable of further attack.  (of course, accomplishing the second also takes care of the first)

Most all long range weapons are offensive, meant to take someone down and out.  Death is the expected outcome.  One doesn't execute a _kesa giri _with a katana, or fire an army colt .45 just hoping to just wound an opponent and persuade him to go home.  When drawing such weapons, we must assume the intent is to kill.

With defensive weapons, like pepper spray, the intent is to just persuade the attacker to go away, or give you time to get away.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 22, 2021)

If you're using a weapon as an equalizer, you're doing it wrong. You don't ever want the fight to be equal...


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Jan 22, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> If you're using a weapon as an equalizer, you're doing it wrong. You don't ever want the fight to be equal...



Facts. A US military officer once said that if our people are ever in a fair fight, their leadership has failed them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 23, 2021)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Facts. A US military officer once said that if our people are ever in a fair fight, their leadership has failed them.



Fair fights are for tournaments. The proper answer to a real fight is overwhelming force.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> I haven't bothered to look at the videos, and from the informed comments of others here, glad I didn't.  My experience is that these usually appeal to young, inexperienced, wanna be's who can be easily impressed.
> 
> But this first line of the post is worth exploring.  One answer is that weapons increase the lethality and range of one's hand movements.  Sometimes they follow the same hand motions as empty hand techniques, sometimes the motions are unique to the weapon.  Usually, though, they do follow the same biomechanical principles.
> 
> ...


I’ve been practicing with sharp swords for years.  Never have I come close to shish- kebabing myself.  How does one do that?

I did manage to run a spearhead through my own T-shirt one time.  Thankfully it was hanging away from my torso at the time.  

But you make good observations here, particularly the comment on penalizing carelessness.  Having practiced with sharps, I am very aware of everything that I am doing.  It makes you very aware.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 23, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve been practicing with sharp swords for years. Never have I come close to shish- kebabing myself. How does one do that?



Using a right, single hand, reverse grip (so the end of the tsuka - grip, is facing forward) and stabbing to the rear along the right side. 

He was an experienced  black belt, but....as the saying goes - even monkeys fall out of trees.  I didn't see it myself, but heard about it from those who were at the dojo that night.  It was a clean stab with a foot of blade sticking out the back.  Luckily, it only went thru the fleshy part of his side.  He went to the hospital still impaled.  Sorry I missed that!

While many iaido schools train with dulled aluminum blades (iaito), ours always used live blades (shinken).  In my 3 years of training twice a week, every week, I never saw anyone cut.  Situational awareness and discipline required!  No cowboys allowed in that dojo, run by one of the very top guys (from Japan) in the USA.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Jan 23, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> For this discussion, I define defensive as stopping an _attack_ in progress and offensive as stopping the attack_er_, rendering him incapable of further attack.  (of course, accomplishing the second also takes care of the first)
> 
> Most all long range weapons are offensive, meant to take someone down and out.  Death is the expected outcome.  One doesn't execute a _kesa giri _with a katana, or fire an army colt .45 just hoping to just wound an opponent and persuade him to go home.  When drawing such weapons, we must assume the intent is to kill.
> 
> With defensive weapons, like pepper spray, the intent is to just persuade the attacker to go away, or give you time to get away.



I'm not sure I agree... I draw a subtle distinction between "intending to kill" and "willing to kill." In the one real fight I've been in, I grabbed a gun when my opponent grabbed a blade. In doing so, I recognized that I may have to shoot my opponent in order to protect myself and his original target, but I did not want to, and if I did have to (thankfully I didn't), I certainly didn't want him to die.

That's why the term "shoot to stop" exists. Outside of certain elite military units (e.g. SAS, SEALs), very few agencies actually shoot to kill. Rather, they shoot for center mass because it's an effective way to stop an aggressive action, and because, if the situation has escalated to that point, death is an acceptable outcome, if not necessarily desired.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

hoshin1600 said:


> I dont know,  could have been a good answer if you said it in a perfect French accent.
> Let me rephrase then. You asked " what makes me more qualified to teach combatives?"  I didn't say I was.  But as was pointed out in another thread, I am not asking for feedback or a critique on my blog and web page.
> I think the only reason he IS getting a hard time is exactly because he asked for it.


One of the cardinal rules is to never ask a question, unless you're prepared to hear the answer.  Perfect case in point.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Put the weapons down. You have a little skill with the rope-dart, and you can do some tricks with nunchaku, but everything else was, simply, terrible. Take the video down, and do not represent yourself as being in a position to teach these weapons.


This is unnecessarily rude, and isn't very friendly.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Facts. A US military officer once said that if our people are ever in a fair fight, their leadership has failed them.


Which one?  That's a good quote.  Wondering if it's apocryphal or if someone actually said it.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Fair fights are for tournaments. The proper answer to a real fight is overwhelming force.


This begs the question, if you are using overwhelming force, at what point is it no longer self defense?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2021)

Steve said:


> This begs the question, if you are using overwhelming force, at what point is it no longer self defense?


Pretty much at the point where they no longer pose a threat. Overwhelming force isn't really an issue, IMO. I can use overwhelming force without ever having to injure someone if I outclass them enough. If I don't, that "overwhelming force" is just using everything that's necessary to survive, trying not to give up an opening they can use. You keep going until the threat is ended.

I think the distinction being made (carried from a military-oriented comment) was that you're looking for something to make it unfair in your favor, whatever that might be. I don't think the concept is foreign to competition, though rules and classing make an attempt to create fair-ish fights.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Feb 17, 2021)

Steve said:


> Which one?  That's a good quote.  Wondering if it's apocryphal or if someone actually said it.



Not one any of us would likely know. My dad worked for defense suppliers for a long time, and, in a meeting he attended, he heard some officer say that. He later told me about it when we were discussing a lot of the concepts in this thread, but in the context of armed conflict and asymmetric warfare, as opposed to small-scale/individual combat.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 17, 2021)

Steve said:


> This begs the question, if you are using overwhelming force, at what point is it no longer self defense?



Valid question. And very difficult to really answer, given the infinite variety of circumstances. In general, I'd say 'when the attacker stops being a threat.'


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Pretty much at the point where they no longer pose a threat. Overwhelming force isn't really an issue, IMO. I can use overwhelming force without ever having to injure someone if I outclass them enough. If I don't, that "overwhelming force" is just using everything that's necessary to survive, trying not to give up an opening they can use. You keep going until the threat is ended.
> 
> I think the distinction being made (carried from a military-oriented comment) was that you're looking for something to make it unfair in your favor, whatever that might be. I don't think the concept is foreign to competition, though rules and classing make an attempt to create fair-ish fights.


Makes sense, and I really appreciate the thoughtful answer.  I can totally see your point where there are no weapons, or even where non-lethal weapons, are involved.  In the case of most weapons, sharp ones, pointy ones, or ones that fire projectiles, overwhelming force is often pretty definitive, regardless of whether you are exercising sound judgement or not.

What prompted the question is actually something I heard about in the news just this morning.  For the second time in a week, the Seattle PD shot and killed someone, and when I read the term "overwhelming force" it reminded me of how cops approach situations.  And I have to say, sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes, it just seems like cops were the wrong tool for the job.

First time, last week (2/9/21) a guy shoots two people, killing one of them, and then later points the gun at the cops who shoot him.

This time, just last night, a guy was "in distress" (the phrase used in multiple articles), was walking down a deserted street (for those that don't know, the Seattle waterfront right now is pretty well deserted after dark, particularly in that area south of the ferry terminal) carrying a kitchen knife he had used to cut himself.  They don't say he was a threat to others, though clearly he was a threat to himself.  According to the articles I've read, the cops tried to use non-lethal force and that "didn't work".  The man then "came at them" so they shot him and killed him.

Police: Officers fatally shoot man armed with knife near Seattle Waterfront

My point in bringing these two up is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. These are two very different situations, where in one a person ended up dead because cops got involved, not in spite of it.  In other words, the cops engineered a "self defense" situation where they then used overwhelming force with a predictable outcome.  

In my opinion, if your version of overwhelming force includes a gun, once you feel threatened, you will probably end up killing someone or being killed yourself. This is true whether you are right or wrong.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 17, 2021)

Steve said:


> This begs the question, if you are using overwhelming force, at what point is it no longer self defense?



At the point when the threat has stopped.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 17, 2021)

Steve said:


> Makes sense, and I really appreciate the thoughtful answer.  I can totally see your point where there are no weapons, or even where non-lethal weapons, are involved.  In the case of most weapons, sharp ones, pointy ones, or ones that fire projectiles, overwhelming force is often pretty definitive, regardless of whether you are exercising sound judgement or not.



Not necessarily. I've seen a couple studies (of the records search kind) that showed drawing a gun could end a confrontation without a shot ever being fired roughly 75% of the time. Likely because if it's obvious you've got overwhelming force, the other side probably has the sense to realize it. At which point self-preservation encourages them to stop.



> What prompted the question is actually something I heard about in the news just this morning.  For the second time in a week, the Seattle PD shot and killed someone, and when I read the term "overwhelming force" it reminded me of how cops approach situations.  And I have to say, sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes, it just seems like cops were the wrong tool for the job.



That's because sometimes they are. In an ideal world, calls involving mental health issues would be handled by someone actually trained to deal with mental health emergencies. Some police forces are making some moves in this direction, but it's a long way from being fully implemented even in those areas.



> My point in bringing these two up is that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. These are two very different situations, where in one a person ended up dead because cops got involved, not in spite of it.  In other words, the cops engineered a "self defense" situation where they then used overwhelming force with a predictable outcome.



Saying they "engineered" the situation makes it sound as if their goal was to kill this man. I really doubt that's true. 



> In my opinion, if your version of overwhelming force includes a gun, once you feel threatened, you will probably end up killing someone or being killed yourself. This is true whether you are right or wrong.



That assumes that your version of overwhelming force has no options other than shooting someone. That's an unwarranted assumption. A gun is absolutely an option in my response to a threat. It has been for lots and lots of years. But it's not the only option, and I haven't had to shoot anyone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2021)

Steve said:


> Makes sense, and I really appreciate the thoughtful answer.  I can totally see your point where there are no weapons, or even where non-lethal weapons, are involved.  In the case of most weapons, sharp ones, pointy ones, or ones that fire projectiles, overwhelming force is often pretty definitive, regardless of whether you are exercising sound judgement or not.
> 
> What prompted the question is actually something I heard about in the news just this morning.  For the second time in a week, the Seattle PD shot and killed someone, and when I read the term "overwhelming force" it reminded me of how cops approach situations.  And I have to say, sometimes it makes sense, and sometimes, it just seems like cops were the wrong tool for the job.
> 
> ...


One of the problems for cops is that they - from discussions I’ve had with quite a few - are trained to focus on eliminating threats. This seems to sometimes translate to eliminating threats that are not imminent.

This is part of the problem in asking people to deal with mental health issues, when their training is oriented at dealing with intentional threats.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Feb 17, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> One of the problems for cops is that they - from discussions I’ve had with quite a few - are trained to focus on eliminating threats. This seems to sometimes translate to eliminating threats that are not imminent.
> 
> This is part of the problem in asking people to deal with mental health issues, when their training is oriented at dealing with intentional threats.



The other issue is that, mental illness or no, a guy with a knife isa guy with a knife... The knife isn't suddenly any less deadly because the guy who holds it isn't fully aware of his actions.

Also, and @Kemposhot can speak to this, most cops get minimal unarmed training, which means that, unless they can stop a threat with less-lethal weapons like a TASER, they're more likely to opt in favor of lethal force (which, coincidentally, the average patrolman doesn't get enough training with, either).


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's because sometimes they are. In an ideal world, calls involving mental health issues would be handled by someone actually trained to deal with mental health emergencies. Some police forces are making some moves in this direction, but it's a long way from being fully implemented even in those areas.


whoa. Be careful.  That's anti cop speech. 



> Saying they "engineered" the situation makes it sound as if their goal was to kill this man. I really doubt that's true.


not exactly.  It means they created it by virtue of being a hammer. They approached a person in distress who was a danger to himself, tazed him (or something like that) and then, shockingly, felt threatened by the guy. They saw something and treated it like a nail.  The end result was sadly predictable. 



> That assumes that your version of overwhelming force has no options other than shooting someone. That's an unwarranted assumption. A gun is absolutely an option in my response to a threat. It has been for lots and lots of years. But it's not the only option, and I haven't had to shoot anyone.


 curious, have you pulled it out and pointed it at someone?


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

To be clear, my point is simply that whether good judgement is exercised or not, whether there is real threat or self created threat, or actually no threat at all, if a weapon is involved and someone wielding that weapon FEELS threatened (ie, is afraid), the result is predictable.  In the two cases that happened to occur here within a week, one situation appears well justified and the other really seems avoidable. Ultimately, the end result is the same.

So the idea of overwhelming force until the person is no longer a threat just hits me differently than it does you, clearly.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> One of the problems for cops is that they - from discussions I’ve had with quite a few - are trained to focus on eliminating threats. This seems to sometimes translate to eliminating threats that are not imminent.
> 
> This is part of the problem in asking people to deal with mental health issues, when their training is oriented at dealing with intentional threats.


that's exactly the rationale behind "defunding the police" in order to fund people better prepared and better trained.  But cops seem to take that sort of thing personally.  FWIW, I think you and dd are very reasonable, but in some places, what you're saying will be perceived as anti-cop.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Feb 17, 2021)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Also, and @Kemposhot can speak to this, most cops get minimal unarmed training, which means that, unless they can stop a threat with less-lethal weapons like a TASER, they're more likely to opt in favor of lethal force (which, coincidentally, the average patrolman doesn't get enough training with, either).



But they make up for this by knowing genderless pronouns and learning how to show empathy to felons who are victims of society.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2021)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> The other issue is that, mental illness or no, a guy with a knife isa guy with a knife... The knife isn't suddenly any less deadly because the guy who holds it isn't fully aware of his actions.
> 
> Also, and @Kemposhot can speak to this, most cops get minimal unarmed training, which means that, unless they can stop a threat with less-lethal weapons like a TASER, they're more likely to opt in favor of lethal force (which, coincidentally, the average patrolman doesn't get enough training with, either).


Agreed. And we don't have specific details on what transpired here. It's possible the cops were containing the situation and trying to talk him down, and he suddenly charged with the knife. In a case like that, he quickly becomes an imminent threat to the officers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> But they make up for this by knowing genderless pronouns and learning how to show empathy to felons who are victims of society.


I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, nor how it pertains to the post you quoted.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Feb 18, 2021)

There are definitely valid, non-political topics within the usefulness of weapons/guns, but as a reminder try to stay away from the political aspects of those discussions.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And we don't have specific details on what transpired here. It's possible the cops were containing the situation and trying to talk him down, and he suddenly charged with the knife. In a case like that, he quickly becomes an imminent threat to the officers.


The full story will come out, but this guy was by himself, threatening only himself.  This is consistent among all accounts so far, including from the police.  The Port of Seattle police apparently tried some kind of non-lethal force.  The guy became more agitated and then he ended up being shot several times by more than one cop.

To be very clear, my point isn't that cops are bad or cops are good.  I get that they are doing a job and want to get home.  I am very simply making a point that when "overwhelming force" comes to bear, the results can quickly escalate beyond what is reasonable or necessary.  And, I believe, "overwhelming force" can actually _cause_ the situation to escalate. 

@Dirty Dog suggested the following:  


Dirty Dog said:


> Not necessarily. I've seen a couple studies (of the records search kind) that showed drawing a gun could end a confrontation without a shot ever being fired roughly 75% of the time. Likely because if it's obvious you've got overwhelming force, the other side probably has the sense to realize it. At which point self-preservation encourages them to stop.


I'm not sure how reliable this is, but it raises a question I have for those of us who are not professionally violent (i.e., not a cop, bouncer, mob enforcer, soldier of fortune, etc).  I'm curious if anyone here has ever actually, in real life, personally (i.e., you and not someone you know or your teacher), brandished a weapon along the lines of a knife or gun (i.e., more serious than a stick, or something generally considered to be "non-lethal" such as pepper spray).   And if so, did you actually use the weapon?  Did the person run away in terror as described above?


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> There are definitely valid, non-political topics within the usefulness of weapons/guns, but as a reminder try to stay away from the political aspects of those discussions.


Yeah, @Dirty Dog and @gpseymour.  Watch that 'defund the police' stuff.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And we don't have specific details on what transpired here. It's possible the cops were containing the situation and trying to talk him down, and he suddenly charged with the knife. In a case like that, he quickly becomes an imminent threat to the officers.


I mean, they did taze him first.  I think, based on what we're hearing now, it's pretty likely he acted unpredictably and was potentially a danger to the cops, after they "unsuccessfully applied non-lethal force" that "didn't work."  For what it's worth, I've shared what we know from the reports.  

The salient point here has to do with skills, preparation, problem solving, and intended or predictable outcomes.  Cops do what they do and know what they know.  Just like all of us.  Not that we all have the same training; rather, that our reactions in a crisis are a product of what we know and what we can do.  We all have training and experiences that lead us to react in situation.  While some cops have specialized training, the way cops handle situations is within a predictable spectrum.  

A question is, for folks with a gun, is there a similar escalation that some (most?) folks are even less prepared to de-escalate than cops.  Or, looking at it from another perspective, is it fair to say that this guy felt threatened by the cops who brought overwhelming force to bear?  Probably.  Does that matter?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> whoa. Be careful.  That's anti cop speech.



Not really. Or at least, our son the cop doesn't think so. He'd be delighted to let someone trained in psych deal with psych calls. He'd likely be there are backup (which makes sense, given the potentials...) but having someone who knows what they're doing take lead would be fine with him.



> curious, have you pulled it out and pointed it at someone?



Yes. Once. The kid I mentioned above was out seeing friends in our neck of the woods, and decided he was too tired to drive back home. But he forgot to text me and let me know he was coming. So... 0200-ish my Rowdy perks up and woofs. Then I hear the front door. I grabbed the bedside gun and stepped to the doorway, where I would be able to see the hall. Flashed the light. Recognized our son.  
Other than that, there have been a couple times when I've had my hand on the grip (it sits at 4 o'clock, right behind my hip) prepared to draw, but did not have to.
In one case, a guy followed me to work, pissed off because I passed him. I didn't cut him off or anything, I just passed him. I was no doubt speeding. I generally do, but we're talking less than 10 MPH above the limit on a lightly traveled 4-lane divided highway. He accosted me in the parking lot and was screaming and carrying on, and making verbal threats, but did not approach. Another staff member parked, saw/heard, went in, and called security. They came out. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.
In the other, Sue and I were driving home from visiting kids and stopped at a Loves to get gas and Subway. We're sitting there eat, and Sue tells me to look over my shoulder. Homeless guy is looking in the window, staring at a 8-10 year old girl, masturbating. I went out the door with one hand behind my hip and my cell phone on the other. Snapped his face. Dialed 911 and spoke loudly. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.


  

And no, our son was never in any danger. The booger picker doesn't touch the boom stick until you've identified a target and are ready to shoot.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Not really. Or at least, our son the cop doesn't think so. He'd be delighted to let someone trained in psych deal with psych calls. He'd likely be there are backup (which makes sense, given the potentials...) but having someone who knows what they're doing take lead would be fine with him.


It was a joke, big guy.  I think it's great that the overton window is moving in the right direction on this topic. Genuinely, I don't see this as being controversial, but the topic has been overtly politicized over the last few years, which has made practical discussion dicey.  Simply put, cops who recognize what they are good at and what they aren't is a great thing. 


> Yes. Once. The kid I mentioned above was out seeing friends in our neck of the woods, and decided he was too tired to drive back home. But he forgot to text me and let me know he was coming. So... 0200-ish my Rowdy perks up and woofs. Then I hear the front door. I grabbed the bedside gun and stepped to the doorway, where I would be able to see the hall. Flashed the light. Recognized our son.
> Other than that, there have been a couple times when I've had my hand on the grip (it sits at 4 o'clock, right behind my hip) prepared to draw, but did not have to.


Okay. So, just to be clear, the one time you drew your weapon and pointed it at someone, it was your son.  I'm glad that didn't turn out to be a tragic story. 





> In one case, a guy followed me to work, pissed off because I passed him. I didn't cut him off or anything, I just passed him. I was no doubt speeding. I generally do, but we're talking less than 10 MPH above the limit on a lightly traveled 4-lane divided highway. He accosted me in the parking lot and was screaming and carrying on, and making verbal threats, but did not approach. Another staff member parked, saw/heard, went in, and called security. They came out. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.
> 
> In the other, Sue and I were driving home from visiting kids and stopped at a Loves to get gas and Subway. We're sitting there eat, and Sue tells me to look over my shoulder. Homeless guy is looking in the window, staring at a 8-10 year old girl, masturbating. I went out the door with one hand behind my hip and my cell phone on the other. Snapped his face. Dialed 911 and spoke loudly. He bolted. I took my hand off my gun.
> 
> ...


Cute dog.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> It was a joke, big guy.  I think it's great that the overton window is moving in the right direction on this topic. Genuinely, I don't see this as being controversial, but the topic has been overtly politicized over the last few years, which has made practical discussion dicey.  Simply put, cops who recognize what they are good at and what they aren't is a great thing.



Agreed, and it would be nice if people would stop trying to turn everything into clickbait.



> Okay. So, just to be clear, the one time you drew your weapon and pointed it at someone, it was your son.  I'm glad that didn't turn out to be a tragic story.



There was never any chance of that. It was pointed because that was necessary to use the light.



> Cute dog.



He's a good boi!

[Edit to add] If I had been carrying when I lost my eye, I would absolutely have been willing to use it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> The full story will come out, but this guy was by himself, threatening only himself.  This is consistent among all accounts so far, including from the police.  The Port of Seattle police apparently tried some kind of non-lethal force.  The guy became more agitated and then he ended up being shot several times by more than one cop.
> 
> To be very clear, my point isn't that cops are bad or cops are good.  I get that they are doing a job and want to get home.  I am very simply making a point that when "overwhelming force" comes to bear, the results can quickly escalate beyond what is reasonable or necessary.  And, I believe, "overwhelming force" can actually _cause_ the situation to escalate.
> 
> ...


I’ll give an anecdote from the other side. My dad had a gun pulled on him once. It absolutely stopped him in his tracks without being fired. Thankfully, the guy didn’t know how the gun worked (stolen from my dad’s car) and was unable to fire.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Feb 18, 2021)

I've pulled my weapon once when threatened by a dude with a blade, but, by that point, I was barricaded in a room with the police on the phone, waiting for the police to arrive, so there was no opportunity for it to act as a deterrent.

In another situation, I was on vacation, and bringing my bags out to my car. The people in the cabin next to mine had a dog that had already snarled at me and chased me once that day. So, I close my trunk, go to walk down the steep staircase down the hill to my cabin, and, at the bottom of the steps, their dog is snarling at me. I call out to the owners:

"Excuse me, can you please control your dog?"

They say "what?" and laugh it off. Dog continues to snarl. I reach behind me and grip my concealed pistol in its holster (5 o'clock position). Owners see this, and their attitude immediately changes.

"MOLLY, COME NOW MOLLY!" Dog returns to owners, I return to my cabin without further incident.

Now, understand, I'm a dog lover... I had precisely zero desire to shoot this family's dog on vacation. However, I also had precisely zero desire to get stitches and/or a rabies shot. My assuming of a posture that communicated my ability to escalate force caused them to modify their behavior. Not the exact same as drawing on somebody, but I can absolutely see that staring down the barrel of a weapon will make you question your life choices real fast.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I’ll give an anecdote from the other side. My dad had a gun pulled on him once. It absolutely stopped him in his tracks without being fired. Thankfully, the guy didn’t know how the gun worked (stolen from my dad’s car) and was unable to fire.


I've had knives pulled on me several times.  I survived all of those times without being stabbed, and both I and the other guy lived to tell the tale. I think both I and the other guy lived, to be honest, because I didn't have a gun and respond with overwhelming force.  Said the other way, I think if I had a gun, either I would have been killed by him or someone else, or I would have killed the guy.  I really do believe that.  Whether it was in West Berlin at the tail end of the cold war, when I worked daily with people who were abusing drugs or alcohol, often homeless and disabled, when I was asked to break up fights outside of the McD's I worked at in high school, or while going to school in the CD in Seattle in the 80s, when gang activity was high and weapons were common.  In each of these contexts, I've been threatened with weapons.    That's kind of what I'm getting at, as a bit of a thought exercise.

If I had responded to the threat with overwhelming force, would that have changed the outcome?  And if so, would it have changed the outcome for the better or otherwise?  I mean, I was pretty young.  If I had been carrying a gun, which would have been easy to do at the time, I think I probably would have shot the dudes.  I know I would have in one case.  Might have killed him... or someone else on accident.  What would that have done to me?  It's this idea of "overwhelming force" that just... I don't know guys.  I don't like it.  Doesn't feel right to me.  Feels like an attitude that is more harmful than helpful.

And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about warzones or cops or stuff like that.  I'm talking about regular people doing regular things.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> I've had knives pulled on me several times.  I survived all of those times without being stabbed, and both I and the other guy lived to tell the tale. I think both I and the other guy lived, to be honest, because I didn't have a gun and respond with overwhelming force.  Said the other way, I think if I had a gun, either I would have been killed by him or someone else, or I would have killed the guy.  I really do believe that.  Whether it was in West Berlin at the tail end of the cold war, when I worked daily with people who were abusing drugs or alcohol, often homeless and disabled, when I was asked to break up fights outside of the McD's I worked at in high school, or while going to school in the CD in Seattle in the 80s, when gang activity was high and weapons were common.  In each of these contexts, I've been threatened with weapons.    That's kind of what I'm getting at, as a bit of a thought exercise.
> 
> If I had responded to the threat with overwhelming force, would that have changed the outcome?  And if so, would it have changed the outcome for the better or otherwise?  I mean, I was pretty young.  If I had been carrying a gun, which would have been easy to do at the time, I think I probably would have shot the dudes.  I know I would have in one case.  Might have killed him... or someone else on accident.  What would that have done to me?  It's this idea of "overwhelming force" that just... I don't know guys.  I don't like it.  Doesn't feel right to me.  Feels like an attitude that is more harmful than helpful.
> 
> And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about warzones or cops or stuff like that.  I'm talking about regular people doing regular things.



You bring up a good point, and it's ultimately a matter of morality that has to be addressed by the individual. However, I will posit a hypothetical to you: let's say one of those guys wielding a blade didn't back off, and instead inflicted a lethal wound on you. Would you still agree, as you lay there bleeding out, that it was better that you didn't have a weapon. I ask because a lot of defensive tactics doctrine relies on acting violently enough, quickly enough, to prevent the violent act from occurring. In hindsight, that was unnecessary in the scenario you described, but it could have easily gone the other way.

I know that I'm glad I didn't shoot the guy who pulled a blade on me, but I also know that, had he breached the room I retreated to, I would have. I made a decision that night that I was going to see my friends and family again, and I am comfortable with that decision.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> You bring up a good point, and it's ultimately a matter of morality that has to be addressed by the individual. However, I will posit a hypothetical to you: let's say one of those guys wielding a blade didn't back off, and instead inflicted a lethal wound on you. Would you still agree, as you lay there bleeding out, that it was better that you didn't have a weapon. I ask because a lot of defensive tactics doctrine relies on acting violently enough, quickly enough, to prevent the violent act from occurring. In hindsight, that was unnecessary in the scenario you described, but it could have easily gone the other way.
> 
> I know that I'm glad I didn't shoot the guy who pulled a blade on me, but I also know that, had he breached the room I retreated to, I would have. I made a decision that night that I was going to see my friends and family again, and I am comfortable with that decision.


Several of them didn't back off.  I didn't roll over on my back and show my belly, for Pete's sake.   Every one of them played out differently.  The point, though, is that in none of those situations did I react with overwhelming force.  Instead, I reacted with appropriate force in order to keep myself and others safe, without doing more damage to the other guy than necessary.  AND, if I had a gun, I'm not sure that would have been possible.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> Several of them didn't back off.  I didn't roll over on my back and show my belly, for Pete's sake.   Every one of them played out differently.  The point, though, is that in none of those situations did I react with overwhelming force.  Instead, I reacted with appropriate force in order to keep myself and others safe, without doing more damage to the other guy than necessary.  AND, if I had a gun, I'm not sure that would have been possible.



Sure it is. Having a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. It seems like your idea of overwhelming force equates to lethal force. That's not at all true. All it means is you have more options.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure it is. Having a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. It seems like your idea of overwhelming force equates to lethal force. That's not at all true. All it means is you have more options.


I think it's an attitude.  Not saying it's wrong or right. 

My dad grew up in San Francisco in the late 1920s and early 1930s.  They lived in the projects, were really poor, and my dad ended up dropping out of high school.  He hung out with some tough dudes, and generally got into a lot of trouble.  I went to a school where fights were common, and I hung out with misfits.  I smoked stuff, drank stuff, and got into fights pretty often.  I skipped school regularly, and I also generally got into a lot of trouble.  But I never carried a knife or a gun, because of something my dad told me.  He said he never carried a knife (guns were pretty much unheard of at the time), because he said if he did, he'd surely end up using it.  I believe that to be true, or at least, I believe if I had carried a knife or a gun, I would have used it.  I don't know what happened to the guys I beat up, or the guys I ran away from, but I know I didn't permanently hurt or kill any of them.  If I had carried a weapon, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be true.  

The point isn't that you're wrong or I'm right.  It's that this idea of overwhelming force feels wrong to me, and I think there are other ways to look at self defense.  Another way to say "overwhelming force" is "disproportionate force", and responding out of proportion to the threat can be just as dangerous as the threat itself.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm pretty sure that if I had responded with "overwhelming force" in any of the situations I was in, things would have turned out worse, not better.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think it's an attitude.  Not saying it's wrong or right.
> 
> My dad grew up in San Francisco in the late 1920s and early 1930s.  They lived in the projects, were really poor, and my dad ended up dropping out of high school.  He hung out with some tough dudes, and generally got into a lot of trouble.  I went to a school where fights were common, and I hung out with misfits.  I smoked stuff, drank stuff, and got into fights pretty often.  I skipped school regularly, and I also generally got into a lot of trouble.  But I never carried a knife or a gun, because of something my dad told me.  He said he never carried a knife (guns were pretty much unheard of at the time), because he said if he did, he'd surely end up using it.  I believe that to be true, or at least, I believe if I had carried a knife or a gun, I would have used it.  I don't know what happened to the guys I beat up, or the guys I ran away from, but I know I didn't permanently hurt or kill any of them.  If I had carried a weapon, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be true.



If you don't think you could make the choice NOT to use a potentially lethal response, then you're right. You should not carry a weapon. Sounds like you and your father made the right decision.
Because I am armed, I feel a responsibility to do my best to avoid situations in which I might be forced to use my weapon. 



> The point isn't that you're wrong or I'm right.  It's that this idea of overwhelming force feels wrong to me, and I think there are other ways to look at self defense.  Another way to say "overwhelming force" is "disproportionate force", and responding out of proportion to the threat can be just as dangerous as the threat itself.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm pretty sure that if I had responded with "overwhelming force" in any of the situations I was in, things would have turned out worse, not better.



But overwhelming is not at all synonymous with disproportionate. It means enough to ensure you win.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> If you don't think you could make the choice NOT to use a potentially lethal response, then you're right. You should not carry a weapon. Sounds like you and your father made the right decision.
> Because I am armed, I feel a responsibility to do my best to avoid situations in which I might be forced to use my weapon.
> 
> 
> ...


I think you're missing the point. But that's okay. Not worth the effort.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 18, 2021)

Steve said:


> Another way to say "overwhelming force" is "disproportionate force", and responding out of proportion to the threat can be just as dangerous as the threat itself.



Disagree

Overwhelming and disproportionate are two different things.

Overwhelming force is enough force to overcome and overwhelm someone.

Disproportionate force is force disproportionate to what is needed to overcome and overwhelming someone.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree
> 
> Overwhelming and disproportionate are two different things.
> 
> ...


While there may be a difference semantically, there is no real difference practically.  When people carry weapons like guns and knives, they adopt a mindset that we've seen in this very thread, "It's going to be me or the other guy."   The two situations with officer involved shootings illustrates the point that the difference is moot, if the evaluative, decision making process leads directly to someone's death. 

I'm suggesting that there is actually a different mindset than "me or the other guy."


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 19, 2021)

Steve said:


> While there may be a difference semantically, there is no real difference practically.  When people carry weapons like guns and knives, they adopt a mindset that we've seen in this very thread, "It's going to be me or the other guy."   The two situations with officer involved shootings illustrates the point that the difference is moot, if the evaluative, decision making process leads directly to someone's death.
> 
> I'm suggesting that there is actually a different mindset than "me or the other guy."



Where did you see this "me or the other guy" attitude displayed? I don't recall seeing anything like that.
As a matter of fact, I recall saying explicitly that doing your best to avoid a situation that might involve killing someone is an even greater obligation for the person who chooses to be armed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 19, 2021)

Steve said:


> I've had knives pulled on me several times.  I survived all of those times without being stabbed, and both I and the other guy lived to tell the tale. I think both I and the other guy lived, to be honest, because I didn't have a gun and respond with overwhelming force.  Said the other way, I think if I had a gun, either I would have been killed by him or someone else, or I would have killed the guy.  I really do believe that.  Whether it was in West Berlin at the tail end of the cold war, when I worked daily with people who were abusing drugs or alcohol, often homeless and disabled, when I was asked to break up fights outside of the McD's I worked at in high school, or while going to school in the CD in Seattle in the 80s, when gang activity was high and weapons were common.  In each of these contexts, I've been threatened with weapons.    That's kind of what I'm getting at, as a bit of a thought exercise.
> 
> If I had responded to the threat with overwhelming force, would that have changed the outcome?  And if so, would it have changed the outcome for the better or otherwise?  I mean, I was pretty young.  If I had been carrying a gun, which would have been easy to do at the time, I think I probably would have shot the dudes.  I know I would have in one case.  Might have killed him... or someone else on accident.  What would that have done to me?  It's this idea of "overwhelming force" that just... I don't know guys.  I don't like it.  Doesn't feel right to me.  Feels like an attitude that is more harmful than helpful.
> 
> And just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not talking about warzones or cops or stuff like that.  I'm talking about regular people doing regular things.


You seem stuck on the ten “overwhelmingly force” being equivalent to deadly force.


----------



## Steve (Feb 19, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> You seem stuck on the ten “overwhelmingly force” being equivalent to deadly force.


I think it's that overwhelming force means something different depending upon the context of what weapons are brought to bear.  

Several cops with tasers and clubs is overwhelming force against a single person with a kitchen knife.  I think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 20, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think it's that overwhelming force means something different depending upon the context of what weapons are brought to bear.
> 
> Several cops with tasers and clubs is overwhelming force against a single person with a kitchen knife.  I think.


I'd agree, if they actually use that force. Of course, to use that club, the cop has to get within knife range. And I don't think they're well trained in using the clubs in concert, so it really becomes a 1v1 situation with others trying to help and probably not being able to do so well.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Feb 20, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> I'd agree, if they actually use that force. Of course, to use that club, the cop has to get within knife range. And I don't think they're well trained in using the clubs in concert, so it really becomes a 1v1 situation with others trying to help and probably not being able to do so well.



Can't speak for most agencies, but I was trained that, if they have a lethal weapon, at least one cop has a gun out. Now, if you have backup, and they want to transition to a TASER, that's another matter, but offhand I don't know any cop that thinks it's a good idea to close with a perp when either a gun or a TASER is a viable option.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 20, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think it's that overwhelming force means something different depending upon the context of what weapons are brought to bear.



Having the weapon available does not mean it will be brought to bear.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2021)

The primary goal of a self-defense situation, armed or unarmed, is survival/protection. However, the aftermath is something else to consider, especially when weapons are involved. Depending when and where you are, the law may be involved after an armed(knives, batons, firearms) altercation has taken place. The one who inflicted the most *visible* trauma *might *be judged more harshly, even if the trauma was inflicted defensively. That isn't to say weapons should never be used. However, situational justification of using a weapon doesn't automatically equate it being interpreted/ruled as legally justified. 

I always carry my knife, I know how sharp it is, how deep it cuts and what it can do to another person. If and when I draw that knife, I'm aware of how much more violent the situation can become, as well as increasing my chances of surviving that same situation. It's a double edge sword, the weapon helps me protect myself, but can make me *look* like the bad guy. Being aware of your weapon of choice, the laws in your area and some basic legal knowledge are invaluable.


----------

