# So...Exactly what good is that knife in your purse?



## Lisa (Mar 14, 2007)

I really am confused as to exactly what good it does to have a knife in your purse?  I came across yet another young woman that carries one in her purse "for protection"  

My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked?  In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.


----------



## exile (Mar 14, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I really am confused as to exactly what good it does to have a knife in your purse?  I came across yet another young woman that carries one in her purse "for protection"
> 
> My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked?  In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.



If you carry a knife for protection, then you'd better have it in your hand when you venture into an area where you may be vulnerable. I agree, leaving it in your purse, or bum bag, or pocket when you're picking up your car at the the top of that `deserted' parking garage at 11p.m. is not at all practical.

Under circumstances like those, I _always_ have my tactical folder in my left hand and a shuriken in my right. It makes no sense to carry a weapon if you're not in a position to bring it to bear for use the instant you see something menacing coming your way. But there's more to it than that...

If the young woman you mention, Lisa, is carrying a weapon that she isn't mentally geared to _use_&#8212;if she actually hasn't trained  herself to be willing to slash or stab an attacker severely enough to dissuade them from continuing the attack&#8212;then she's very possibly in a _lot_ more trouble having the knife on her person than she would otherwise have been. Because while she might not be ready to use it on someone else, there's an excellent chance her attacker has no such reservations. If she loses possession of the weapon, she could easily wind up getting stabbed with it herself.

And even if she decides in a kind of abstract way that she's willing to defend herself with one, a knife is a very ... _personal_ kind of weapon. You can't inflict damage remotely, the way you can with a firearm, or even a baseball bat or motorcycle chain. You are going to feel that knife going into your attacker's body, should you actually use it in self-defense. When it comes to the point, will she actually be willing to do that?

My take on it: she's very possibly making a big mistake carrying that weapon with her, for just these reasons...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 14, 2007)

Lisa said:


> My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked?


 None.  The same applies to knives carried down in the pockets where you have to dig them out and then orient them in the hand so you can open them.



Lisa said:


> In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.


 You answered your own question.  If you carry any weapon/tool for self-defense (pistol, knife, impact-tool, OC) it MUST be carried in such a manner that you will be able to access it quickly, consistently, and reliably under stress.  If you can't, then it's going to be worthless.


----------



## tradrockrat (Mar 14, 2007)

A weapon is only a weapon if you know how to use it as one.

An untrained person pulls a knife on me, they just gave me a weapon.  That sounds a little macho, but I don't mean it that way, I just mean that I have a LOT of training with knives and am comfortable with them. I know how to use them, I know disarms, etc etc.  If a woman pulls one out of a purse or a guy pulls one out of his pocket and they don't know what they're doing, the odds are pretty good that I'll be holding that knife soon.

JMHO.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 14, 2007)

tradrockrat said:


> A weapon is only a weapon if you know how to use it as one.



True, and if you can get to it, but...

Perhaps the benefit to the weapon in the purse has little to do with it's function against someone, which, lets face it, is rare.  But rather has to do with providing them a "feeling" of security.

Chances are they are never going to need it, and even if they did they probably wouldn't be able to use it, but if it makes them feel more secure is that not a benefit?


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Chances are they are never going to need it, *and even if they did they probably wouldn't be able to use it, but if it makes them feel more secure is that not a benefit?*


If they're incapable of using it either because of inaccessability, lack of training, or lack of mindset, then I would call that a false sense of security and that is *not* a good thing.

There is much to be said for confidence in one's abilities when that confidence is merited. However feeling "secure" simply because "I train in system XYZ" or because "I carry ___" is not conducive to effective self-defense.

As I've said before, a proper combative mindset is the most important factor...much more important than your technique or your choice of tools.


----------



## exile (Mar 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Chances are they are never going to need it, and even if they did they probably wouldn't be able to use it, but if it makes them feel more secure is that not a benefit?



There's not much benefit in feeling secure because you have a tool you're incapable of using. It's like someone painting a fire extinguisher on the wall in their kitchen and then feeling secure because if a fire starts, they'll be able to put it out. 

The big cost is that you are making a weapon available to someone who might not otherwise have had one, and who may be angry enough seeing his victim with it that he uses it against her. Unless she both has the necessary how-to knowledge and the mental toughness to be able to push the blade into his skin, and past it, deep into muscle, fat layers and blood vesselsand to accept the consequences that if she uses the weapon effectively her attacker may bleed to deathshe's not doing herself any favor carrying it. And that toughness is not something that you can just make up your mind you're going to possess and voilà, there it is. 

Of all the weapons someone can carry for self-defense, I think knives are among the least practical, not because they aren't effectiveoh yes, they are effective!but because to actually use them effectively you have to be willing to _feel_ yourself deliver a potentially lethal cutting or stabbing injury to the attacker. And that's way too much for most people I suspect, and not just women.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 14, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I really am confused as to exactly what good it does to have a knife in your purse? I came across yet another young woman that carries one in her purse "for protection"
> 
> My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked? In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.



There you go, stealing my thunder again! 

I always talk about this at self-defense classes.  We go through purses to see what commonly carried items can be used as a weapon and how ... but one requires the time and freedom to access these items when push comes to smack.

I advocate carrying blades _on one's person_ ... and  having a few extra stashed in various locales.  Of course, practice and rehearsal is required to adequate and timely access.

Ever see the movie Taxi Driver? 



Andrew Green said:


> True, and if you can get to it, but...
> 
> Perhaps the benefit to the weapon in the purse has little to do with it's function against someone, which, lets face it, is rare.  But rather has to do with providing them a "feeling" of security.
> 
> Chances are they are never going to need it, and even if they did they probably wouldn't be able to use it, but if it makes them feel more secure is that not a benefit?



No, it is not a benefit, IMNSHO.  That is called false security and is the dope of the sheeple.


----------



## Drac (Mar 15, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> True, and if you can get to it


 
Yep...


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 15, 2007)

All good points, there's no use in carrying a knife unless you know how to use it and have it handy, and who has a knife handy?  If you have a knife "handy" walking round the streets isn't that asking for trouble?   Women who do this are silly, a possible danger to themselves and need educating.

I use to carry a knife with me all the time, basically because it was so handy for gardening, opening boxes, cleaning my nails (I'm so darn feminine) and scraping dirt off things, but it would never occur to me to use it for a weapon, the act of picking up a knife to do so would feel wrong because I have no training with it.


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2007)

I'm certainly not against someone carrying a weapon.  However, I feel that they should know how to use it.  If you do not know how to retain the weapon, you may as well hand it over to them.  Second, being able to access it quickly is very important.  It doesn't matter if it gives them extra confidence or not, the fact remains, if they have to spend time digging for it, thats akin to asking the bad guy to hold off on his assault while you dig out a weapon or put the things you may be carrying down, so you can be able to defend yourself.

Mike


----------



## Lisa (Mar 15, 2007)

One of my daughter's friends carries a knife.  Her Dad bought it for her for christmas.

I asked her what that was for, she stated "just in case"

When I asked her how she intended to get that out of that purse in a high stress situation (see she had to rummage through her purse to find it for me when I needed to cut something, took her about 30 seconds) she kinda looked at me realising the reality of what I was saying.

So I continued...on top of the fact that it took you 30 seconds to find it, remember your attacker will be trying to subdue you, he will probably have your arms.

"Guess it is kinda useless"

Yup.  I told her she would be better off listening to that tiny voice in her head telling her that the situation she is getting herself into is a bad one and to get out any way possible BEFORE it escalates.  Common sense things go a much longer way then a knife in a purse, IMHO.


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 15, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> There is much to be said for confidence in one's abilities when that confidence is merited. However feeling "secure" simply because "I train in system XYZ" or because "I carry ___" is not conducive to effective self-defense.


 
Everyone seems to agree that the knife carried in the purse is a mistake. It's the quote above that caught my attention. I was just talking to someone about this the other day. A person's martial arts training or what weapon they carry isn't what gives them confidence in their ability to defend themselves, it's their *mindset*. I knew a "90lb weakling" who had no martial arts training and also had no qualms about taking on half a dozen Asian bangers if they called him a *****. And he won pretty much every fight he got into! He also carried a knife, but never used it in a fight. He used it more to scare off potential aggressors. I'm rambling, but I guess my point is that this chick with the knife in her purse could defend herself using instincts alone (go for the eyes, groin, all that good stuff) if she didn't freeze up and had the confidence that she wasn't walking around waiting to be a victim, but a victor.
Just my two cents...


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 15, 2007)

Shaderon said:
			
		

> All good points, there's no use in carrying a knife unless you know how to use it and have it handy, and who has a knife handy?


 Um...lot's of people???



			
				Shaderon said:
			
		

> If you have a knife "handy" walking round the streets isn't that asking for trouble?


 Nope, it's being prepared (presuming that "having it handy" means being accessible as we've already discussed).  I realize that you're from England and as a result are very restricted in your freedom to defend yourselves (and *going out on a limb here*, somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of people that walk around armed 24/7).  However, in places where carrying weapons for self-defense is legal, I think it makes perfect sense to do so.




			
				Shaderon said:
			
		

> Women who do this are silly, a possible danger to themselves and need educating.


Are you referring to the practice of carrying a weapon you can't deploy (like in the purse) or carrying a weapon in general?



Lisa said:


> Yup. I told her she would be better off listening to that tiny voice in her head telling her that the situation she is getting herself into is a bad one and to get out any way possible BEFORE it escalates. Common sense things go a much longer way then a knife in a purse, IMHO.


I definately agree that awareness is critical and that it's bi-product, avoidance is the most desirable outcome. However, there are times when we can't avoid engaging.  If you could avoid every dangerous situation, we'd all be wasting our time training for those dangerous situations.

As I said before, if you can't access your tool of choice quickly then it is worthless. However, rather than telling people "don't carry that 'cause you don't know how to use it," (discouraging them from maximizing their options) wouldn't it be better to point them in the right direction to get the training they need to be effective?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 15, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> Um...lot's of people???
> 
> Nope, it's being prepared (presuming that "having it handy" means being accessible as we've already discussed).  I realize that you're from England and as a result are very restricted in your freedom to defend yourselves (and *going out on a limb here*, somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of people that walk around armed 24/7).  However, in places where carrying weapons for self-defense is legal, I think it makes perfect sense to do so.
> 
> ...


artyon:


----------



## Lisa (Mar 15, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> As I said before, if you can't access your tool of choice quickly then it is worthless. However, rather than telling people "don't carry that 'cause you don't know how to use it," (discouraging them from maximizing their options) wouldn't it be better to point them in the right direction to get the training they need to be effective?



You are very right, Matt.  Unfortunately the reality is that people go to one or two seminars and think they know what they are doing.  Or take martial arts and think that is all there is to self defense.  Its also a lot harder to get yourself to classes to learn self defense when your parent's don't think there a need for it, but will give you a weapon for your purse as a christmas present.


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 15, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> Nope, it's being prepared (presuming that "having it handy" means being accessible as we've already discussed). I realize that you're from England and as a result are very restricted in your freedom to defend yourselves (and *going out on a limb here*, somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of people that walk around armed 24/7). However, in places where carrying weapons for self-defense is legal, I think it makes perfect sense to do so.


 
Yes it's a highly uncomfortable feeling for me to go to a country where they carry guns, I know they know what they are doing with them, but it doesn't stop me feeling uncomfortable about it.   I realise things are different in the US but that's the way it is here, people can be arrested for going out in public with a knife about thier person with a blade longer than a certain length here.




Kenpotex said:


> Are you referring to the practice of carrying a weapon you can't deploy (like in the purse) or carrying a weapon in general?


I mean carring a knife, intending to use if for self defence with no knowledge of how to, and having it in a bag where they have to "dig" for it.  It ties up your attention while your attacker gets more time to subdue you




Kenpotex said:


> However, rather than telling people "don't carry that 'cause you don't know how to use it," (discouraging them from maximizing their options) wouldn't it be better to point them in the right direction to get the training they need to be effective?


 
But as was said earlier by a couple of people, if you pull a knife on someone who knows how to use it, and lets face it the criminals have more chance of that then non criminals who haven't been formally trained, then you are giving your attacker a weapon and asking them to stick it in you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I really am confused as to exactly what good it does to have a knife in your purse? I came across yet another young woman that carries one in her purse "for protection"
> 
> My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked? In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.


excluding proficiency issues, the knife is fine if you walk aroung with your hand in your purse.
Sean


----------



## exile (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> You are very right, Matt.  Unfortunately the reality is that people go to one or two seminars and think they know what they are doing.  Or take martial arts and think that is all there is to self defense.  Its also a lot harder to get yourself to classes to learn self defense when your parent's don't think there a need for it, but will give you a weapon for your purse as a christmas present.



I think this is a general problem with people's MA training which the case you've brought up just happens to throw in particularly strong relief. I get the sense that a lot of people focus on the _process_ of training, to the extent of believing that simply by training and mastering the technical sideyou're going to be able to apply the skills you've learnedas though you were a kind of wind-up toy and going to classes, seminars and the like winds up that spring so that if it ever comes to the point, you're ready to act. But there's something else that's needed, which is something like _will_. You have to be mentally geared to deliver violent force to your assailant, to damage them to the point where they're immobile enough for you to get away from them. And it's not at all obvious to me that a high degree of technical competence is going to give you that will, that sense that when the die is cast, then you act to save yourself by damaging your attacker, possibly severely, without hesitation or compunction. 

A knife multiplies all this problem by a lot. Because people aren't generally trained to use a knife, and even if you are, you need the ability toas David Grossman would put itdesensitize yourself to its use.  That requires something beyond just technical ability...


----------



## frank raud (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I really am confused as to exactly what good it does to have a knife in your purse? I came across yet another young woman that carries one in her purse "for protection"
> 
> My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked? In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.


 
It's a talisman, much like wearing a St Christopher medal. While I don't suggest walking into a parking lot with a knife in one hand and a shuriken in the other, weapons access is key to the use of a weapon.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 15, 2007)

frank raud said:


> It's a talisman, much like wearing a St Christopher medal. While I don't suggest walking into a parking lot with a knife in one hand and a shuriken in the other, weapons access is key to the use of a weapon.


 
I have to agree absolutely here.  If it is not readily accessible then it really is not functional.  However having it probably gives them some confidence even if it may be false.


----------



## LawDog (Mar 15, 2007)

If you need your eyes to locate it or have to search for it then it's of no use.


----------



## Lisa (Mar 15, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I have to agree absolutely here.  If it is not readily accessible then it really is not functional.  However having it probably gives them some confidence even if it may be false.



That false confidence can allow one to feel that they have a handle on situations when in truth they don't.  Instead of listening to that voice in their head, they feel they have that extra security.

I have nothing against young women having knives in their purse, or anyone for that matter.  Its the purpose of having that knife in their purse that worries me.  I carry one.  It has come in handy when needing to cut something, I have used it as a screw driver, to jimmy things, they are very useful.  What I don't do is feel that I will be able to whip it out if ever faced with a dangerous situation and "protect" myself.


----------



## green meanie (Mar 15, 2007)

I think she should carry a brick in her purse for protection. A good wind up and swing with that should knock the hell out of any attacker.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2007)

So many good points made in this thread that I don't really have much in the way to add.  So I tired to apply a little 'rep' to those whose words particularly impressed me ... but it seems I've been in too generous a mood today and have been something of a tart when it comes to 'spreading the love' :blush:.

Sorry chaps and chapesses, I guess that this meagre applause will have to do as reward for your insights.

:rei:


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 15, 2007)

I don't know... Like Andrew, I see a couple of different ways to look at this.  Obviously, it makes very little sense for someone who doesn't understand how to use a weapon appropriately to be arming themselves with it.  That point has already been made rather eloquently upthread. 

Having said that, how many threads have we seen where we have discussed the importance of not walking the streets looking like a victim?  My only point here is that if carrying that blade in her purse helps her to walk the streets with a little more confidence, perhaps she'll not appear to be such a victimizable target to predators.  However, with that in mind, she'll still need to keep aware of her surroundings, avoid dangerous circumstances and areas, and keep up to speed on her run-jutsu, all tempered with a healthy and reasonable understanding that carrying a blade in her purse makes her no better equipped to deal with conflict than being without it.  But, if it makes her feel better, and she's not deluding herself, why the hell not, I say.  As far as I can reckon, if someone really wants to attack her, they've very likely brought whatever tools they feel are necessary to the party anyway.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2007)

Excellent summation of my thoughts, *Flatlander*; that's almost exactly the post I pondered putting out but then settled for shameless flattery of my fellows instead :lol:


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2007)

I don't know, I'm still a bit confused by the comments of feeling safe.  I mean, while she may be carrying a weapon, be it a gun, knife, or mace, isn't that giving the person a false sense of security, especially if the weapon is not easily accessable?

Mike


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2007)

Hi *MJS*

I think that the core point is that most assailants are after an easy time and will far rather go after someone who looks nervous and unsure than someone who walks with confidence.

That's why the actually useless but psychologically helpful 'weapon' carry can actually help to protect.


----------



## frank raud (Mar 15, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Hi *MJS*
> 
> I think that the core point is that most assailants are after an easy time and will far rather go after someone who looks nervous and unsure than someone who walks with confidence.
> 
> That's why the actually useless but psychologically helpful 'weapon' carry can actually help to protect.


 
Perhaps, but do you want to bet your life on that idea?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2007)

I don't see that this is actually a contentious idea.

Be a sheep but walk like a lion ... might get eaten anyway but perhaps not.

Be a sheep and walk like a sheep ... yumm ... dinners ready.

The core point is that if you can't defend yourself anyway, surely it's better to alleviate the fear and hope for the best? Because if it's going to happen then it will but there's little point dying every day.


----------



## MJS (Mar 15, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Hi *MJS*
> 
> I think that the core point is that most assailants are after an easy time and will far rather go after someone who looks nervous and unsure than someone who walks with confidence.
> 
> That's why the actually useless but psychologically helpful 'weapon' carry can actually help to protect.


 

True, and I realize that, but like Frank said in his post, while she may feel confident, whats going to happen if she's attacked and can't access the weapon?  I'd think that the confidence is going to go right out the window in that case.

Mike


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 15, 2007)

No argument at all there and obviously the best choice is to actually learn how to defend yourself (at least a little) but experience has taught me that 'looking the part', which is what confidence gives you, is 9/10 of the battle.


----------



## Amazon (Mar 15, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I really am confused as to exactly what good it does to have a knife in your purse?  I came across yet another young woman that carries one in her purse "for protection"
> 
> My question is what good is a weapon that is inside your purse going to do you when you are attacked?  In all honesty, how easy is it for someone who is being attacked to get that weapon out of their purse, let alone a young female with little or no self defense training.



I would agree with this.  I myself have been known to carry a self defense knife, but it was clipped to my purse strap for quick grabbing and I was also trained to grab it and flip it open with one hand.

It seems like having a knife insdie your purse would be more of a distraction (trying to look for it), unless you were going into a situation you suspected might be unsafe ahead of time and took it out to carry in your hand.

Not to mention that many people who carry a knife like this, don't know the basics about how to make it effective.  For instance, you should have it sharp enough to cut skin, but not too sharp.  A really sharp knife can do a lot of damage before the person getting cut even feels it - which is not the point.  The point is for them to feel pain as soon as possible, and let you go.

This is the same reason the anyone carying a knife like this should be trained to slice across skin rather than stab.  Stabbing can have the same effect as a knife that is too sharp.  The end goal is to cause immediate pain so that you can run.


----------



## Amazon (Mar 15, 2007)

exile said:


> Because while she might not be ready to use it on someone else, there's an excellent chance her attacker has no such reservations. If she loses possession of the weapon, she could easily wind up getting stabbed with it herself.



I totally agree.  It is very important that the correct type of knife - one with a good grip that fits well with the hand of the individual - should be chosen, and one should practice gripping it quickly regularly.



> And even if she decides in a kind of abstract way that she's willing to defend herself with one, a knife is a very ... _personal_ kind of weapon. You can't inflict damage remotely, the way you can with a firearm, or even a baseball bat or motorcycle chain. You are going to feel that knife going into your attacker's body, should you actually use it in self-defense. When it comes to the point, will she actually be willing to do that?
> 
> My take on it: she's very possibly making a big mistake carrying that weapon with her, for just these reasons...



On the opposite side of the coin there is also the possibility that three could be overuse due to ignorance as well.  As far as I know many area have laws against the use of excessive force in self defense or preventing a crime.

For instance if you are attacked by an unarmed attacker, but you are armed and could get away with a slash and run but instead you freak out and stab the attacker to death - you could face penalties for that.


----------



## exile (Mar 15, 2007)

Amazon said:


> On the opposite side of the coin there is also the possibility that three could be overuse due to ignorance as well.  As far as I know many area have laws against the use of excessive force in self defense or preventing a crime.
> 
> For instance if you are attacked by an unarmed attacker, but you are armed and could get away with a slash and run but instead you freak out and stab the attacker to death - you could face penalties for that.



No question, you have to understand the law, and also have a sense of realism about how much damage, in any particular situation, is _minimally_ necessary to inflict on an attacker to ensure your safe exit from the situation.

My concern is that someone who flashes a knife at an attacker but lacks the will to use it in this minimally necessary way is in an _extremely_ vulnerable position. Jamming a knife into an attacker's arm, without severing a major vein, or delivering a slash across the face, very painful and extremely bloody but unlikely to be fatal, is probably going to be more than enough to take the attacker out of play... but there has to be that _willingness_ to cross the `blood threshhold', as it was once referred to by an acquaintance of mine. 

A cool, even cold, head, is crucial if you're going to be able to do that, and thereby, very possibly, save yourself (withas you very correctly point out, Ninjamomthe minimal damage possible to the attacker). But pulling out a knife and then making it clear, by a dozen different cues, that you aren't ready to cross the blood threshhold is very likely going to be, well, a red flag for the attacker, whose followup behavior to the visible knife will in all likelihood depend on whether he sees, on the one hand, a pitiless resolve to shove that knife into him if necessary, or, on the other, a panicky realization that the victim doesn't really have a clue what to do with this thing, or the commitment to do it. And if he sees the latter, and realizes that in effect the knife is his for the taking... it's not gonna be good.


----------



## Amazon (Mar 15, 2007)

exile said:


> No question, you have to understand the law, and also have a sense of realism about how much damage, in any particular situation, is _minimally_ necessary to inflict on an attacker to ensure your safe exit from the situation.
> 
> My concern is that someone who flashes a knife at an attacker but lacks the will to use it in this minimally necessary way is in an _extremely_ vulnerable position. Jamming a knife into an attacker's arm, without severing a major vein, or delivering a slash across the face, very painful and extremely bloody but unlikely to be fatal, is probably going to be more than enough to take the attacker out of play... but there has to be that _willingness_ to cross the `blood threshhold', as it was once referred to by an acquaintance of mine.
> 
> A cool, even cold, head, is crucial if you're going to be able to do that, and thereby, very possibly, save yourself (withas you very correctly point out, Ninjamomthe minimal damage possible to the attacker). But pulling out a knife and then making it clear, by a dozen different cues, that you aren't ready to cross the blood threshhold is very likely going to be, well, a red flag for the attacker, whose followup behavior to the visible knife will in all likelihood depend on whether he sees, on the one hand, a pitiless resolve to shove that knife into him if necessary, or, on the other, a panicky realization that the victim doesn't really have a clue what to do with this thing, or the commitment to do it. And if he sees the latter, and realizes that in effect the knife is his for the taking... it's not gonna be good.



Very true, and I agree.  I was just exploring the other side of the coin too, that there are people who would react vulnerably and that there are also people that would over react.  Which is even more evidence that one should be prepared for the situation so that when it happens everything isn't left up to reaction alone.


----------



## exile (Mar 16, 2007)

Amazon said:


> Very true, and I agree.  I was just exploring the other side of the coin too, that there are people who would react vulnerably and that there are also people that would over react.  Which is even more evidence that one should be prepared for the situation so that when it happens everything isn't left up to reaction alone.



No questionpanic and overreaction are pretty common companions. What you're raising is the whole question of preparation. How _should_ someone who carries a knife for self-protection prepare for possible use of that knife, in the best case? Are there knife-fighting classes available, and if so, is that what we're looking for? Or something like traditional MA classes in weapons of various kinds? But any such class has to be psychologically realistic to a certain degree; if it isn't, then old attitudes, inhibitions and so on will kick in at the critical moment in the event of a real confrontation. 

The whole issue requires a lot more thought and preparation than simply popping a blade into one's pocket (or purse) and thinking that by doing this you've enhanced your safety in a dangerous situation. Someone mentioned the talismanic view of objects like knives as almost magical sources of protection; this might, at bottom, be the case with Lisa's acquaintance in the OP, and if so, it's a very dangerous view of things, for all the excellent reasons given earlier in the thread.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 16, 2007)

MJS said:


> True, and I realize that, but like Frank said in his post, while she may feel confident, whats going to happen if she's attacked and can't access the weapon?  I'd think that the confidence is going to go right out the window in that case.
> 
> Mike


Absolutely.  But, what happens when she's attacked without the knife?  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  As has already been shared, nothing will take the place of diligent training, awareness, and common sense.  All I was suggesting was that, if she's able to walk with confidence, that may improve her statistics.


----------



## zDom (Mar 16, 2007)

Amazon said:


> Stabbing can have the same effect as a knife that is too sharp.



Just to confirm the veracity of this with personal experience:

I was stabbed in the chest at age 16 (lucky for me, it was through the window of my car as I sped off, so the hole in my shirt was almost dead center over my heart, but the wound ended up being under my left arm on the OUTSIDE of the ribs; a puncture about 4" deep but parallel to the surface of the skin)

Anyway the point is: I knew the guy had a knife but I wasn't sure if I had been stabbed or just punched in the chest. It was night, so it wasn't until we pulled into a parking lot to look and saw all the blood that we were sure.

It didn't even hurt any more than a punch &#8212; cleaning it out hurt MUCH worse (peroxide! ouch!). Of course, the NEXT day it hurt a LOT.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 16, 2007)

Shaderon said:


> But as was said earlier by a couple of people, if you pull a knife on someone who knows how to use it, and lets face it the criminals have more chance of that then non criminals who haven't been formally trained, then you are giving your attacker a weapon and asking them to stick it in you.


 There is a difference between knowing how to stab someone and being able to disarm someone armed with a knife. Anyone who has trained disarms against someone who has any skill with the knife at all and who is attacking with realistic energy will probably agree that it is very difficult to disarm someonen w/o being injured yourself. I don't really put a lot of stock in the theory that you shouldn't carry a weapon because "it may be used against you." For the purposes of self-defense, if you're going to use a weapon, the first time the bad-guy knows you have it should be when you're already using it on him. Brandishing it in the hopes of scaring him is foolish.



			
				Amazon said:
			
		

> Not to mention that many people who carry a knife like this, don't know the basics about how to make it effective. *For instance, you should have it sharp enough to cut skin, but not too sharp. A really sharp knife can do a lot of damage before the person getting cut even feels it - which is not the point. The point is for them to feel pain as soon as possible, and let you go.*


I disagree...the "point" when applying any type of force is to neutralize the threat. You can't rely on inflicting pain as a way of achieving this goal. Carrying a knife that is "sharp but not too sharp" would be foolish because you're not able to use the tool to it's full potential.



			
				Amazon said:
			
		

> This is the same reason the *anyone carying a knife like this should be trained to slice across skin rather than stab*. Stabbing can have the same effect as a knife that is too sharp. *The end goal is to cause immediate pain so that you can run*.


 Again, I disagree. The goal is to neutralize the threat. This is best accomplished by thrusting to vital targets (neck/throat, heart, lungs, groin, major arteries) to shut them down. Slashing may cause pain (if they're not "doped up") and may cause some blood loss, but you can't count on pain and/or the mere sight of blood to act as a deterrant to further aggression on their part.



			
				Amazon said:
			
		

> For instance if you are attacked by an unarmed attacker, but you are armed and could get away with a slash and run but instead you freak out and stab the attacker to death - you could face penalties for that.


Wrong...deadly force is deadly force. A knife is a deadly force tool, there is no way to use it in a "less-lethal" capacity (from a legal standpoint). If you are justified in slashing them, you are justified in stabbing them, shooting them, or slamming their head to the pavement and stomping on their throat...simple as that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 18, 2007)

frank raud said:


> Perhaps, but do you want to bet your life on that idea?


Its what we all gotta do.:ultracool


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2007)

Flatlander said:


> Absolutely. But, what happens when she's attacked without the knife? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. As has already been shared, nothing will take the place of diligent training, awareness, and common sense. All I was suggesting was that, if she's able to walk with confidence, that may improve her statistics.


 
I agree, there really doesn't seem like there is a happy medium.  Like I said, I'm all for someone carrying something.  I'm not anti-gun or anti weapon, I just think that if someone is going to take the time to carry something, they should a) be able to know how to effectively use it and b) be able to access it quickly.

Mike


----------



## Amazon (Mar 19, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> I disagree...the "point" when applying any type of force is to neutralize the threat. You can't rely on inflicting pain as a way of achieving this goal. Carrying a knife that is "sharp but not too sharp" would be foolish because you're not able to use the tool to it's full potential.


 
Agreed - the point is to get someone to let you go or to get loose enough to get away.  However you have to hit one of a few extrememly lethal targets to drop a person right then and there.  The only other way to get them to let you go is to ause enough pain to make them do so and - as covered above and testified to by someone who has been stabbed - stabbing will not necessarily do that.  Nor will a cut with a super sharp knife.

Also, a knife can be sharp enough to do all of the damage needed to human tissues without being super sharp to the point where it can cut with no pain.  You don't have to be able to slice through a brick to get the job done.



> Again, I disagree. The goal is to neutralize the threat. This is best accomplished by thrusting to vital targets (neck/throat, heart, lungs, groin, major arteries) to shut them down. Slashing may cause pain (if they're not "doped up") and may cause some blood loss, but you can't count on pain and/or the mere sight of blood to act as a deterrant to further aggression on their part.


 
Again, stabbing vital targets does not mean that the person will let you go right away as it most likly won't have an effect for many minutes - enough time for them to do plenty of damage to you.



> Wrong...deadly force is deadly force. A knife is a deadly force tool, there is no way to use it in a "less-lethal" capacity (from a legal standpoint). If you are justified in slashing them, you are justified in stabbing them, shooting them, or slamming their head to the pavement and stomping on their throat...simple as that.


 
Wrong - someone ending up dead and someone not ending up dead is a huge distinction.  Also, many states have excessive force laws that will hold you accountable if you use more than the amount of force necessary to get away.

This is also a stong principal in Kenpo - match your attack level to the threat.  If it's just a drunk guy looking for trouble you don't need to kill him - just deal with the threat to only the extent necessary.  Upper belt levels in many arts have the power to kill someone easily - but it's not necessary in every situation.

No matter what the weapon is, it is not reasonable to say that just because you need to use it you therefore need to kill someone.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 20, 2007)

Amazon said:


> Agreed - the point is to get someone to let you go or to get loose enough to get away. However you have to hit one of a few extrememly lethal targets to drop a person right then and there. The only other way to get them to let you go is to ause enough pain to make them do so and - as covered above and testified to by someone who has been stabbed - stabbing will not necessarily do that. Nor will a cut with a super sharp knife.
> 
> Also, a knife can be sharp enough to do all of the damage needed to human tissues without being super sharp to the point where it can cut with no pain. You don't have to be able to slice through a brick to get the job done.
> 
> Again, *stabbing vital targets does not mean that the person will let you go right away as it most likly won't have an effect for many minutes - enough time for them to do plenty of damage to you.*


So the knife has to be sharp but not too sharp? How do we determine that the knife meets that criterion? 

I'm not saying that slashing/cutting type attacks never have a place, I'm saying that I don't feel that they're the most effective method for rapidly ending a threat. You can't rely on pain as a means of "stopping" someone. What happens when either their adrenalized state, or the fact that they're under the influence of a drug affects their pain threshold? 

You say stabbing vital targets won't make them let me go or stop attacking? I would submit that if I ram my knife into their groin or kidney, or thrust into the neck and rip through the carotid artery and trachea that I will deter them a heck of a lot quicker than if I just give them a boo-boo on the arm.




Amazon said:


> Wrong - someone ending up dead and someone not ending up dead is a huge distinction. Also, many states have excessive force laws that will hold you accountable if you use more than the amount of force necessary to get away.
> 
> This is also a stong principal in Kenpo - match your attack level to the threat. If it's just a drunk guy looking for trouble you don't need to kill him - just deal with the threat to only the extent necessary. Upper belt levels in many arts have the power to kill someone easily - but it's not necessary in every situation.
> 
> No matter what the weapon is, it is not reasonable to say that just because you need to use it you therefore need to kill someone.


Not wrong...

As I said before, deadly force is deadly force. The language of the statutes vary from place to place but deadly force is usually defined as "actions that have a high probability of causing death or serious physical injury." The sticky part is that your actions can be considered deadly force *even if death does not actually occur*. In other words, deadly force is determined based on the _likelihood_ of the method or tool to cause the death or serious physical injury, not on whether the death or serious physical injury is the end result of your actions.

In most places, to be justified in using deadly force for self-defense, you must be able to reasonably articulate that you were in fear of death or serious physical injury. If this is the case and deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter what _type_ of deadly force you use (knife, gun, empty-hand strikes to vital targets, etc.). 
If deadly force is not justified then you cannot use a deadly force tool...period. 

To borrow your example of "a drunk guy looking for trouble," if you _did not_ feel that you were in danger of being killed or seriously injured, you *would not* be justified in using deadly force to deal with the situation. That means that if you were to use a knife on him even if it were _just_ to inflict pain, you would have used deadly force and would be guilty of using excessive force. If however, you _did_ feel that you were in serious danger--enough to warrant the use of a deadly force tool or methodology--you would be justified in killing him (and no...I'm not saying to perform a "coup de grace" on the guy... ). 

I never said that you should kill everyone who bothers you, "matching the attack level to the threat" is generally sound advice. However, that prinicple does not apply when we're dealing with weapons...If you're not justified in killing the person, DON'T USE A WEAPON. Saying that there are situations where it would be permissible to slash someone but not stab them would be like saying there are times when you could shoot someone in the leg but not shoot them in the head...it doesn't work that way.


----------



## XOPC (Mar 25, 2007)

Actually there was a case in Russian not long ago, when a guy tried to rape a young girl in his car (he was a taxi driver), and during the struggle she took the knife out of her purse and stabbed him into the hip. She accidentally cut the artery and the bastard died in a matter of minutes. What I am saying is that depending on the situation it might turn out to be quite useful.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 25, 2007)

not haveing read allof this thread I will ask what good is a gun or knife in your purse if you do not know how to use them or can not get them out and into use at a moments knowtice.  Also having one or the other in your purse is not good if the purse is lost or stolen.
No I don't carry a purse often  but I have my wife alway carry something in her purse for protection and I know she will use whatever is there if need be


----------



## dubljay (Mar 25, 2007)

Like tshadowchaser I have not read through all posts in their entirety.  What I have read seems to fall along the lines that it's worthless if it's not easily accessible, a danger to yourself if you don't know how to use it.

One thing I haven't seen is this, and again I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if someone has already brought this up.

It's all well and good if you can get to the weapon, and even better if you're trained to use it.  Here's the kicker though; you have it, you know how to use it, are you ready to use it?  Are you fully prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person?  If you can't honestly answer yes, then in my opinion it doesnt matter how quickly you can get it into your hand, or how skilled you may be with it, if you are not 100% prepared to use whatever weapon you are wielding then it is 100% useless.  

A difficult question to address unless you are actually faced with a situation where you have to use a weapon (or any SD skill).  I realize that there are too many variables and the what if's could go on till my grandchildren's great grand kids are all 90 years old.  

Given some experiences I've had before I can honestly answer that question; whatever it takes if it means me or some one I care about over some dirt bag guess who gets it?

I could be looked down upon for that mind set I suppose, but cross that line with me and be prepared to reap what you sew.  

In any self defense situation regardless of who does or does not have a weapon the slightest bit of hesitation will cost you.  You have fractions of a second to make a decision that will impact you for the rest of you life.  

In regards to guns it's often said that you never point a gun at someone unless you are fully committed to shooting that person.  No wiser words.  If you pull a weapon be fully 100% prepared to use it because if you aren't then it's more of a danger to yourself than you might realize.

Just my thoughts

-Josh


----------



## MJS (Mar 25, 2007)

dubljay said:


> In any self defense situation regardless of who does or does not have a weapon the slightest bit of hesitation will cost you. You have fractions of a second to make a decision that will impact you for the rest of you life.
> 
> In regards to guns it's often said that you never point a gun at someone unless you are fully committed to shooting that person. No wiser words. If you pull a weapon be fully 100% prepared to use it because if you aren't then it's more of a danger to yourself than you might realize.
> 
> ...


 
Two very good points IMO.   I think that this is certainly worthy of discussion, due to the fact that while some may carry a weapon, there is a big difference between practice and actually being able to use it.  Are you going to be able to pull that trigger or thrust that knife into someone?  Split second decisions and as it was said, the choice can have a pretty heavy impact.

Mike


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

dubljay said:


> One thing I haven't seen is this, and again I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if someone has already brought this up.
> 
> It's all well and good if you can get to the weapon, and even better if you're trained to use it.  Here's the kicker though; you have it, you know how to use it, are you ready to use it?  Are you fully prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person?  If you can't honestly answer yes, then in my opinion it doesnt matter how quickly you can get it into your hand, or how skilled you may be with it, if you are not 100% prepared to use whatever weapon you are wielding then it is 100% useless.



This is exactly the point I raised early on in this thread, with particular reference to the problem posed by the knife which the OP specifically asks about. My take on this was that knives pose special problems, compared with e.g. sticks or bats on the one hand, and guns on the other, because with a knife, you can actually feel the blade going into the attacker's body. You can feel the skin splitting, resistance from the muscle layer, contact with bone. Neither bats (personal and deadly but non-penetrating) nor guns (penetrating but relatively impersonal: you have no physical sensation yourself linked to the round you've fired entering the attacker's body) call upon what we used to call your stomach for the counterattackyour ability to overcome the visceral distress you feel (if you're a normal person) stabbing someone to the bone with a knife. 

My point was that it's unlikely that the average person can do this unaided, so to speak. You need to practice and desensitize yourself to that instinctive reluctance to actually ram a knife into someone else's body. If you're not willing to do that, then, as I suggested earlier, the odds are you won't be able to actually carry out the actand that knife will very possibly be turned against youvery much _worse_ than useless, eh?


----------



## Lisa (Mar 25, 2007)

exile said:


> *My point was that it's unlikely that the average person can do this unaided, so to speak. You need to practice and desensitize yourself to that instinctive reluctance to actually ram a knife into someone else's body.* If you're not willing to do that, then, as I suggested earlier, the odds are you won't be able to actually carry out the actand that knife will very possibly be turned against youvery much _worse_ than useless, eh?



The bold is for my emphasis.

Good points, exile and others.

But I have a question.

Is this always the case?  What about acting on impulse?  That moment that comes that it is either you or them.  That you HAVE to do something otherwise you will perile?  I believe you can train for that, but I also believe that in some cases, it is a matter of survival and people can do it without training.  It is a matter of fight or flight.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

Lisa said:


> The bold is for my emphasis.
> 
> Good points, exile and others.
> 
> ...



I agree, Lisa. I think there will always be a percentage of attack victims who go into complete R-brain red zone and react... well, like a crocodile defending itself. My concern is really for those who don't. 

You remember in the first _Pirates of the Caribbean_ movie, where Elizabeth, abducted on the _Black Pearl,_ purloins a knife during her `dinner' with Barbosa and at the `opportune moment' (as Jack Sparrow would say) stabs him with it? That scene made a big impression on me, because there seemed to be something very unrealistic about it (yes, I know it's _Pirates of the Caribbean_ I'm talking about, so realism isn't exactly a major theme, but `hear me out' :wink1. Elizabeth hasn't had what you'd call a particularly hard life, or had much firsthand involvement with survival in terrifically violent situations, to put it mildly. And she's not actually facing a mortal threat at that point in the movie, though things don't look great. But she stabs Barbosa (to no avail, of course, but she doesn't know that) with almost cold casualness... sort of like, `Ahagotcha!' That always has seemed a false step to me, somehow. Studies of violence, like David Grossman's _On Killing_, present very strong evidence that even in the most dangerous firefight situations, soldiers are reluctant to kill enemies whom they `know' full well are ready to kill them. And here is this sheltered teenager ready to stab someone less than a foot away with a long  knife as far as she can drive it into him. 

I'm pretty sure that at her age, and in her situation, I would have a very hard time doing that, and I suspect that's true for a lot of other people on the board. She might be one of the exceptional cases you're talking about, but somehow I think many people (including screenwriters) don't realize how hard it would be to do that. That's why I think your friend is really making a serious error in carrying a knife unless she has good reason to believe she's going to be one of the (I suspect relatively few) people who _can_ resolve to use it with no hesitation in the necessary `flash'. Because even a little bit of hesitation, as various previous posters have noticed, can be a fatal error...


----------



## dubljay (Mar 25, 2007)

I agree with Exile on this one.  There will always be a small percentage that just reacts.  But that's a big gamble.  Think about your own training for a minute.  From my experiences most MA universally have a general 'if a weapon is involved the rules have changed' kind of thing.  From your training perspective if an attacker pulls a weapon you're going to react differently than if they didn't.  Now we are looking at the flip side of the situation.  You bring the weapon, What kind of reaction is your attacker going to have?  Fight or flight?  Here's the thing though, in order to actually select you as a victim the way I see it is the attacker has already dehumanized you, you arent a person your his/her next hit, drink, rush, or whatever drives them to do it.  This right here is a massive advantage over you.  Should a struggle ensue do you think they will hesitate to cut you?  You bet they wont.  So still if you bring it be prepared to use it because I'm willing to bet if you hesitate in the slightest you may lose more than you bargained for.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 25, 2007)

Some very good points being made here everyone :tup:.

My earlier wade into this pool was to say that the psychological effects of carrying a weapon, regardless of whether you can use it or not, in and of themselves are valuable because the confidence you move with has an impact on whether you're targeted as a victim in the first place.

However, there is the flip side to this, as has been discussed because if you become so confident that you do not allow for the possibility that danger will arise then, if it does, you will indeed be worse off because of the shock factor.

Likewise, *dubljay* and *exile* have rightly argued that if you are targeted then if you are not prepared to use what you are carrying then the old truism about providing a weapon for your attacker comes into play.

It is this 'trap' that I think, along with an over-exagerated media depiction of the actual threat level, that is in part responsible for the spiral of violence we are seeing.  By which I mean that if all become convinced that the mere *threat* of violent reprisal will not deter an assailant, then why bother waiting to see if deterrence works and just kill or be killed?  Another thread here has touched on the rise of neo-barbarism and I'm starting to think that this mindset is part of it.

I don't know if we can pull back from the brink of this decline of 'civilised' response to threats but I pray so.  I know that for myself I have made the conscious decision that I shall never take anothers life, regardless of the threat to my own ... but that's a whole other thread, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

dubljay said:


> Here's the thing though, in order to actually select you as a victim the way I see it is the attacker has already dehumanized you, you aren&#8217;t a person your his/her next hit, drink, rush, or whatever drives them to do it.  This right here is a massive advantage over you.  Should a struggle ensue do you think they will hesitate to cut you?  You bet they wont.  So still if you bring it be prepared to use it because I'm willing to bet if you hesitate in the slightest you may lose more than you bargained for.



This is the big bottom line, and dubljay is right on target (out of rep, dj, or I'd rep your post). See, my real concern is that people may be a bit disconnected from what their own probable reactions are. They have _seen_, on television and in movies, many profoundly unrealistic episodes where the potential victim heroically turns the table on the nasty sadistic hate-object villain by using a knife, or a gun, or some heavy object on them... and the message that gets expressed from this barrage of predictable feelgood screenwriting is, `This is what you will be able to do too, if it ever happens... there's a hero in all of us [ad nauseum].' But while it's true that the nasty sadists in real life are probably just as willing to cut you as the show depicts, I'm very skeptical that most people can overcome that fundamental hesitation to ram a knife into living flesh, or at least, overcome it  _in time_. 

I'm also concerned that the very small percentage of people who receive actual training in _how_ to use the weapons they carry may well fail to understand that technical ability doesn't equate to the moral commitment to _use_ that training. David Grossman's extensive research shows that soldiers, trained to shoot accurately, will often fail to fire their weapons at critical times in battle. They're good at it, they're accurate on the target range... but in case after case he examines, they cannot bring themselves to do it at critical moments. Knowing _how_ does not equate to knowing you _will_. I'm concerned that people think weapons training will give you the will to use the weapon you've trained... but by itself, it doesn't.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 25, 2007)

exile said:


> This is the big bottom line, and dubljay is right on target (out of rep, dj, or I'd rep your post). See, my real concern is that people may be a bit disconnected from what their own probable reactions are. They have _seen_, on television and in movies, many profoundly unrealistic episodes where the potential victim heroically turns the table on the nasty sadistic hate-object villain by using a knife, or a gun, or some heavy object on them... and the message that gets expressed from this barrage of predictable feelgood screenwriting is, `This is what you will be able to do too, if it ever happens... there's a hero in all of us [ad nauseum].' But while it's true that the nasty sadists in real life are probably just as willing to cut you as the show depicts, I'm very skeptical that most people can overcome that fundamental hesitation to ram a knife into living flesh, or at least, overcome it  _in time_.
> 
> I'm also concerned that the very small percentage of people who receive actual training in _how_ to use the weapons they carry may well fail to understand that technical ability doesn't equate to the moral commitment to _use_ that training. David Grossman's extensive research shows that soldiers, trained to shoot accurately, will often fail to fire their weapons at critical times in battle. They're good at it, they're accurate on the target range... but in case after case he examines, they cannot bring themselves to do it at critical moments. Knowing _how_ does not equate to knowing you _will_. I'm concerned that people think weapons training will give you the will to use the weapon you've trained... but by itself, it doesn't.



This is, I think, a very key point - the more "up close and personal" a weapon is - a knife, compared to a gun, for example - the harder it is to actually use it.  Shooting someone from 20 feet is much more impersonal than sticking a knife into someone at arm's length or closer.  Using hands, feet, elbows, knees, etc. is much easier to practice because the target is generally not destroyed - the attack can be stopped short of the target, or it can be practiced on a heavy bag, target pad, or similar item, giving the practitioner the feel for hitting something solid - and there is rarely significant blood visible when attacking with body parts, unlike using a knife on someone... I know I can hit someone with a hand, foot, etc., and they will (most likely) survive, which takes away the moral concern of killing somoene who is trying to rob, rape, or otherwise misuse (but not kill) me - but I also know that if I use a knife on someone, no matter my intentions or theirs, the only way to ensure that the person can't take the knife away from me is to seriously incapacitate them - and I also know that winning a knife fight can still lead to death from blood loss.  This could easily create a fatal hesitation.


----------



## dubljay (Mar 25, 2007)

A stray thought occurred to me just a while ago on this topic.  I think someone mentioned the weapon could be a person's talisman.  Something used to inspire confidence in their ability.  Granted appearing confident and alert is going to reduce the likelihood of your being selected as a target to begin with but carry this confidence too far and you could be asking for trouble.  If all the dirt bag wants is your wallet are you more inclined to fight back because you have the knife?  Are you willing to escalate the situation instead of handing over your wallet?  I realize there are other situations that arise, rape, flat out assault and what not will garner a different response, and in those situations its already crossed the point of no return, it's already them or you.  

The question is are you more likely to make an intelligent response while carrying a weapon, especially if you use it more as a confidence booster than an actual tool of self defense?  

Further implications go on to intent.  Your carrying a weapon changes all the rules when it comes to the law.  I think we're all familiar with SGM Parker's quote 'I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6' and I agree completely.  When carrying a weapon you have to be prepared for all the consequences, some of which will be legal. 

Just more rambling take it with a grain of salt

-Josh


----------



## exile (Mar 25, 2007)

Kacey said:


> This is, I think, a very key point - the more "up close and personal" a weapon is - a knife, compared to a gun, for example - the harder it is to actually use it.  Shooting someone from 20 feet is much more impersonal than sticking a knife into someone at arm's length or closer.  Using hands, feet, elbows, knees, etc. is much easier to practice because the target is generally not destroyed - the attack can be stopped short of the target, or it can be practiced on a heavy bag, target pad, or similar item, giving the practitioner the feel for hitting something solid - and there is rarely significant blood visible when attacking with body parts, unlike using a knife on someone... I know I can hit someone with a hand, foot, etc., and they will (most likely) survive, which takes away the moral concern of killing somoene who is trying to rob, rape, or otherwise misuse (but not kill) me - but I also know that if I use a knife on someone, no matter my intentions or theirs, the only way to ensure that the person can't take the knife away from me is to seriously incapacitate them - and I also know that winning a knife fight can still lead to death from blood loss.  This could easily create a fatal hesitation.



Exactly, Kacey, this is the gist of what I've been trying to get at in this thread... the fact is, a knife is a really _horrible_ weapon, in terms of our normal human reactionseither to have used on you or to use on someone else. Most people, I suspect, aren't ready to handle the physical sensations of actually stabbing someone else, or even slashing them badly. We think of ourselve doing that and in our minds we instinctively close our eyes and turn away from the scene. In line with what Kacey says, this isn't a reaction I have when I visualize myself striking someone with a palm-heel strike, knife-hand to the throat, or even a shuriken or baseball bat. But there's something about a knife...


----------



## Cirdan (Mar 26, 2007)

dubljay said:


> It's all well and good if you can get to the weapon, and even better if you're trained to use it. Here's the kicker though; you have it, you know how to use it, are you ready to use it? Are you fully prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person? If you can't honestly answer yes, then in my opinion it doesn&#8217;t matter how quickly you can get it into your hand, or how skilled you may be with it, if you are not 100% prepared to use whatever weapon you are wielding then it is 100% useless.


 
Can a person really be fully prepared for this? I think not. There is no way to know if you are able to stab your knife into another human being without actually having done so. I guess you could do like Mohamed Atta`s "muscle hijackers" and practice on horses and camels but it will still not be the same.


----------



## MrE2Me2 (May 13, 2007)

To all,

  Ive have to agree with those that promote, Ready, Willing and Able if withdrawal is not an option.

  My ex trained very little and a long time ago so she would qualify as almost completely untrained.
  She also carried a very small lock blade that she used for a variety of things (but not self D).
  She unable to hurt others because she didnt practiceperiod.

  After she left me she started working the early morning shift which entailed a walk to work.
  She also bought and carried in her hand, a can of pepper spray so that she would be ready.
  Now she is ready to make some guy cry.
  One morning she was assaulted by a very large and very desperate knife wielding crack head.
  And he was very ready to take her money but not her life.

  He leapt out in front of her and demanded her valuables, so she tried to spray him in the face.
  Unfortunately, her can malfunctioned (or she made an error) and the can dribbled all over her hand.
  Now she has two problems to worry about; the guy is spooked and she has one less hand to stop him.

  Lucky for her this yoyo was not functioning on all cylinders. 
  He swiped haphazardly at her a couple of times as she circled away from the blade.
  Finally, realizing that he wasnt going to leave with out something, she tossed him her purse.
  He ran and she lived.

  Regards, MrE2Me2


----------



## shesulsa (May 13, 2007)

I read the subject and OP of this thread as an issue of deployment, and since this is in the General Self Defense forum, I took it as not necessarily knife-specific.

When observing training, we can see that when partners prepare to train weapons techniques, where is the (for the purpose of this argument) knife?  Likely, it's already in hand.  I haven't seen too many techniques performed where the weapon-wielder must draw the knife, gun, stick, etcetera.

In discussions like this one, you'll often see me type the following question: Anyone ever seen _Taxi Driver_? 

The point to that question, if you've never seen the movie, is the footage of the De Niro character repeatedly practicing drawing/ejecting his weapons.  And he does it over and over and over.

I heard an MMA stylist brag one time, "I can shoot your leg before you can deploy your knife."  *Good challenge.*  So can you deploy your knife/gun/stick/weapon of choice before you find yourself on the ground?


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 13, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I read the subject and OP of this thread as an issue of deployment, and since this is in the General Self Defense forum, I took it as not necessarily knife-specific.
> 
> When observing training, we can see that when partners prepare to train weapons techniques, where is the (for the purpose of this argument) knife? Likely, it's already in hand. I haven't seen too many techniques performed where the weapon-wielder must draw the knife, gun, stick, etcetera.
> 
> ...



So you mean practicing opening your knife while driving is not normal behaviour? Playing with it until the balance is second nature and you know exactly where it is based upon feel alone is not the thing to do? 

As to deploying my weapon of choice before hitting the ground, I have deployed a weapon many times in training on the ground. It works great when the other person just thinks it is a take down. It opens their mind to how they need to monitor the hands and also be checking the body of the opponent for weapons and not jsut trying to dominate them. I of course have done this with people knowing it was going to happen. It changes the dynamics a lot. Of course I cheated their as well. I had no problems deploying their weapon and using it against them even when I was playing the agressor. People need to understand, that the bad guy will do lots of things to hurt you. But also that it is not over on the first hit or if you go to the ground. There are still options and possibilities.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 15, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> ...So can you deploy your knife/gun/stick/weapon of choice before you find yourself on the ground?


 
Rich beat me to it but basically I was going to respond that I practice deploying my various weapons in a variety of scenarios, including being on the ground.

BTW...seeing the expression on someone's face when you suddenly drag a trainer (that they didn't know you had) across their throat while they were trying to arm-bar you is priceless


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 15, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> Rich beat me to it but basically I was going to respond that I practice deploying my various weapons in a variety of scenarios, including being on the ground.
> 
> BTW...seeing the expression on someone's face when you suddenly drag a trainer (that they didn't know you had) across their throat while they were trying to arm-bar you is priceless



Kenpo-Tex,

I may have posted before you, but I was not the first, and I most definitely did not beat you.  I was just in the right place at the right time. 

I agree it is a priceless moment when you surprise someone like that.


----------



## shesulsa (May 16, 2007)

I'd say deploying your weapon in any manner of pose is important to know - how about the bathroom?

Someone told me once that if I didn't feel as comfortable with my knife as I do with my toothbrush that I shouldn't carry it.  I thought that was an interesting statement - you don't have to think about how you hold your toothbrush (of course, it's a basic grip), you can manipulate it into a variety of angles and positions to reach all areas in your mouth ....


----------



## KenpoTex (May 16, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I'd say deploying your weapon in any manner of pose is important to know - how about the bathroom?
> 
> Someone told me once that if I didn't feel as comfortable with my knife as I do with my toothbrush that I shouldn't carry it. I thought that was an interesting statement - you don't have to think about how you hold your toothbrush (of course, it's a basic grip), you can manipulate it into a variety of angles and positions to reach all areas in your mouth ....



Many of us are used to carrying knives and using them for all manner of tasks. I could probably count on my fingers the number of days since I was about 7 that I _haven't_ carried one.  I've used a knife for everything from stripping wire to cutting an apple, from cleaning mud off my boots and opening my mail to skinning game. As a result, I'm so used to using a knife for a variety of tasks that making the transition to training to use it for SD was very easy.

This is the reason that whenever someone asks me about getting a knife to carry for SD, one of the first things I tell them is just to "play with it." Open it and close it as many ways as you can think of, practice drawing it from a variety of locations, sit there while you're watching t.v. and change grips, etc.  I think a lot of people are a little intimidated with the idea of using a knife for SD if they don't have a lot of experience with them.  You're basically asking them to take a tool that they are unfamiliar with and use it in a life or death type of situation.  By increasing your overall comfort level and familiarity with the tool, your confidence and proficiency in the SD realm will also increase.


----------



## qi-tah (May 31, 2007)

Just a thought (or two)

What about a screwdriver? At any given time i could probably lay my hands on my little phillips head sooner than i could my leatherman... no sheath to worry about, a stabbing weapon (not fond of the idea of slashing - too slow) and i bet it would hurt more going in than a knife! <ouch!> Don't know about the resistance of the skin to a screwdriver stab though... it might be a little tough.

On another tack, what's the creepiest stock-in-trade of the horror movie industry..? I'd venture that one of them would be the autopsy on someone who isn't dead yet. If you think about it, that's kinda what you are doing to someone else if you knife them. I used to work in a morturary and often felt the need to apologise to the bodies before i cut them open. I never got over that, and they were dead! Things would have to be very dire indeed before i'd prefer that terrible intimacy to the alternative...


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 31, 2007)

I am not going to go back and reread this whole thread at this time but would like to say this:

My wife carries a rather large knife in her purse most of the time and I have seen it come out of that purse ( which I could not find any thing in if I had to) rather quickly when she needed it to or wanted to use it. She knows how to get to it and have it out in a hartbeat. And yes if it comes out she damn well intends to cut someone


----------



## kidswarrior (May 31, 2007)

tshadowchaser said:


> I am not going to go back and reread this whole thread at this time but would like to say this:
> 
> My wife carries a rather large knife in her purse most of the time and I have seen it come out of that purse ( which I could not find any thing in if I had to) rather quickly when she needed it to or wanted to use it. She knows how to get to it and have it out in a hartbeat. And yes if it comes out she damn well intends to cut someone


 
So, Shadow, when she has her purse, I take it you're especially nice to her? No, Dear. Yes, Dear?  Know I would be.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread, just had that vision in my head and had to share.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 19, 2008)

*bump*  good thread


----------



## Lisa (Apr 19, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> I am not going to go back and reread this whole thread at this time but would like to say this:
> 
> My wife carries a rather large knife in her purse most of the time and I have seen it come out of that purse ( which I could not find any thing in if I had to) rather quickly when she needed it to or wanted to use it. She knows how to get to it and have it out in a hartbeat. And yes if it comes out she damn well intends to cut someone



and, I am making a bit of a presumption here but...I have the feeling that she has training with that knife, right?  She is trained and has practiced using that knife.

My original post was aimed at these teenage girls I know that carry them for "protection" and all I can imagine is by the time they need it, or realize they need it, it will be too late.

Its cases of "date rape" that come to my mind.  Here they are out with some "hot guy" that they really like, they have had a little too much to drink and he starts taking advantage of her.  By that point and time, how is she going to get that knife out of her purse as he forces himself on her?

Good self defense for young women is teaching them never to get into that situation in the first place.  Don't rely on a weapon that you a) don't have quick access to b) could be used against you and c) don't know how to use even if you could get to it in the first place.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 19, 2008)

Lisa said:


> Good self defense for young women is teaching them never to get into that situation in the first place. *Don't rely on a weapon that you a) don't have quick access to b) could be used against you and c) don't know how to use even if you could get to it in the first place*.


 
I think if you have "a" and "c" covered (you can deploy it cleanly and are trained with it), "b" is _much less likely_ to happen.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 19, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> I think if you have "a" and "c" covered (you can deploy it cleanly and are trained with it), "b" is _much less likely_ to happen.


Agreed.

The date rape scene adds an entire different element to things.  The comfort zone when on a date is alot closer than the random attacker in the parking garage or elsewhere.  The absolute best thing a young woman can do is train consistantly in a martial art.  Barring that she should attend a good quality sexual assault prevention course and then practice the skills she'll pick up there...and practice them some more...and practice them some more.  You're born with weapons already attached to your body and THEY take training to be able to use efficiently.  How much more training does a weapon that you have to add on take?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 19, 2008)

Eh, a push dagger hidden in the belt in the right rear area can go a long way in a date rape case...if someone is willing to use it. Date rape can be a quite complicated situation. It's one reason I prefer to recommend mace/pepper spray for many situations (perhaps not this particular one if they're already in close proximity) over a knife...people would be willing to mace someone who wouldn't be willing to knfie someone.


----------



## 7starmarc (Apr 20, 2008)

Just wondering if anyone happens to know. Where does rape (date or otherwise) come into play in the spectrum of violence (non-lethal vs. lethal)? Because if that young lady uses a knife to blunt amorous advances from a not-so-friendly suitor, does she risk being brought up on charges?


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 20, 2008)

7starmarc said:


> Just wondering if anyone happens to know. Where does rape (date or otherwise) come into play in the spectrum of violence (non-lethal vs. lethal)? Because if that young lady uses a knife to blunt amorous advances from a not-so-friendly suitor, does she risk being brought up on charges?


It's generally no different than any other question of self-defense.  Was the force in question reasonable relative to the threat present?  An attempt at date rape involves one or more forms of assault; the force to defend against them must be reasonable and proportionate to the particular attack.  A wrist grab is different from being pinned on a couch, which is different from being shown a gun or knife, and told to comply.  All can happen in a date rape scenario.


----------



## tellner (Apr 20, 2008)

7starmarc said:


> Just wondering if anyone happens to know. Where does rape (date or otherwise) come into play in the spectrum of violence (non-lethal vs. lethal)? Because if that young lady uses a knife to blunt amorous advances from a not-so-friendly suitor, does she risk being brought up on charges?


 
*grumble* *snarl* *growl* motherloving Internet Explorerer. only thing it does quickly is crash *grumble*

I had a long answer to your question. Now I've got to re-write the puppy after the damned browser crashed. 

Grrr

Anyhow, here's what I was writing when Micro$oft so rudely interrupted...

O Disclaimer

I'm not a lawyer. I'm certainly not your lawyer. If you are stupid enough to take legal advice from me you probably deserve to be in a Home for the Feeble-Minded. There are people who give legal advice for a living. They are called "Attorneys" in the US and "Barristers" or "Solicitors" in the UK depending on how close they get to courtrooms. 

There are some people who are not lawyers who give excellent advice on self defense. Massad Ayoob is one of the best. He gives a forty hour course on the legal and ethical aspects of the use of force in self defense that's half classroom and half range time. It is more thorough than what lawyers learn in law school. Take it. It will be the best self defense investment you will ever make.

I've used "he" for the rapist and "she" for the defender. Yes. Men rape men. Women rape women. Women rape men. The question was about men raping women, and that does cover the vast majority of such crimes in the normal course of things.

I General Thoughts on Self Defense and the Law

See above. I'm just a self defense and martial arts teacher who takes an interest in aspects of the subject outside how to hit and stab people. Go to the experts for more authoritative opinions. These are just my somewhat educated opinions

The Law in those parts of the world whose legal traditions come from English Common, Dutch Roman or Sharia Law holds that human life is important. You can't just go killing people without a really good reason. One of the really good reasons is to prevent people from doing terrible crimes against innocent people. Exactly which crimes are so horrific as to justify killing varies from place to place, but they almost always include murder, armed robbery, arson against an occupied building, a violent invasion of your home while you are in it, *rape, forcible sodomy* and kidnapping. 

If you _reasonably_ believe that you or an innocent third party is in _immediate_ and _otherwise unavoidable_ danger of becoming a victim of one of these crimes you are justified in using force including deadly force to prevent it from happening. 

As with everything else in the legal system it depends on the judge, the jury, how you present yourself, the officers who investigate the crime, the competence of your legal representation and the two most common types of luck - blind and dumb. But this is the theory and how the smart money bets.

So yes, sexual assaults are one of those things that justifies the use of deadly force under the law in much of the world.

II Story Hour - Disparity of Force

Another idea that's important to keep in mind is what they call "disparity of force". In English it translates to "what everyone's bringing to the party". If the attacker is bigger, stronger, better armed, known to the defender at the time to have a history of violence or special training, is enraged or on certain drugs the defender doesn't have to hold back as much as she or he might otherwise. 

In general women are considered to be at a disadvantage when they have to defend themselves against men. Men are on average taller, stronger, faster runners, more experienced in fighting and have more of the wonder chemical testosterone. 

The example we used to give in class was Grandma and Bubba.

Grandma has taken eighty five trips around that mean old Sun. She weighs exactly one pound sopping wet for each of those years. She's pretty spry and gets around surprisingly well with her walker.

Bubba's six foot three inch frame supports about 240 pounds of steroid-inflated muscle. He bucks hay bales for a living and pumps iron for fun. He *was* the front four on his high school football team. 

If Grandma gets confused and tries to hit Bubba with her walker he might be justified in holding her at arm's length until she gets tired.

If Bubba attacks Grandma and she shoots him so full of holes that small birds can nest in what used to be his chest cavity the police are going to take a look. They will say "Are you alright, ma'am? Do you need a ride home? Nice groups." 

III Rape

I'm not meaning to beat up on you, but there's a few dangerous misconceptions hiding in what you write. What if, you ask, a young woman uses a knife to "blunt amorous advances" from a "not-so-friendly suitor". When she tells him to stop and he continues he's not a "suitor". He's a rapist. If he doesn't immediately stop and apologize abjectly when she says "Get your mother****ing hands off me you son of a *****!" there's no doubt at all. He's a violent felon who is trying to commit a life threatening crime against her. It doesn't make it better if he knows her first name and has been in public with her a couple times. That makes it worse because of the betrayal of trust. 

Stopping someone like that with deadly force falls so far *inside* the bounds of self defense that it shouldn't even require mentioning. 

I won't argue the whole "rape is about power, not sex" thing. Rape is about the rapist sticking parts of his body into parts of a woman's body without permission. I couldn't care less about the motivations or what psychological profile he fits. Leave that to the priest and the psychiatrist. I'm concerned with "attempted rapist" and "defeated rapist" and I won't shed a tear if it means "dead rapist".

A suitor is trying to get into someone's heart or at least get an invitation into her pants. An amorous suitor is someone who loves her or thinks he loves her or wants her to love him and is trying to get into her pants. When a refusal is ignored you find out whether he's really a suitor or a just rapist who was just looking for a low-calorie way of getting his plugs cleaned. 

If he's "not-so-friendly" he's not a suitor. He's a rapist. 

According to volumes and volumes of research almost all rapes are committed by acquaintances. Most of them are preceeded by several minutes of conversation and increasingly personal boundary violations. Firm refusal early on can stop the situation before the rapist has invested too much in committing his crime on that particular woman at that particular time. Predators are looking for an easy dinner, not a fight. 

If it gets to the point where physical resistance is required a knife is an excellent tool and can be very effective. 

Legally there are some parameters, but they're pretty common sense.

"We were watching a movie together at the Octopusplex. He put his arm around me. I cut his throat," is probably a mistake 

"I was at a house party and went upstairs for a few minutes. He came in, locked the door, turned the volume on the TV way up and made a grab for my boobs. I hit him. He hit me and knocked me down. I got out my knife and tried to cut off his nadgers. He called me a psycho ***** and left. Then I called the police," is probably not going to cause a woman too much trouble. 

"Half a dozen drunken hockey players tried to hold me down and take turns. I kept cutting and stabbing until two of them were down and the rest were out of reach and running away. I put a tourniquet around the one bleeding from the femoral artery, then I called the police," might get her a spot in the textbooks under "justifiable use of deadly force".


----------

