# Close Quarter Knife Throws



## Christopher Adamchek

Some various practical close quarter knife throws ive been working on lately.  Ive trained this while sparring with polypropylene knives, but wanted to show them sticking.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Why would you voluntarily disarm yourself?


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

It wouldnt be the most common thing but 

- if i have more than one knife on me (as i tend to)
  theres actually a Filipino saying on having 3 knifes "1 to throw, 1 to use, 1 to give to a friend"
- could give a shock scare to your opponent and an opening for escape that might not have been had other wise 
- opponent is just out of range after a swing, or they know they will be on my swing, ill let if fly then close the gap and take advantage of the thrown knife continue the attack and maybe try to reclaim my weapon or take theirs if they have one


----------



## Flying Crane

I’m gonna guess that there may be some serious legal and criminal ramifications for sticking someone with a throwing knife.  It does rather imply that the fellow was out of reach and therefor more difficult to justify self defense.

Throwing knives are fun, so play away; you don’t need further justification than that. But justifying what you are doing under the guise of self defense may not be the best presentation.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

@Flying Crane - it would be a serious legal matter, throwing knives is really fun but my justification isnt under the guise of self-defense

These throws can have an advantage in knife combat (legality aside) be that in the street or just training with others


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> I’m gonna guess that there may be some serious legal and criminal ramifications for sticking someone with a throwing knife.  It does rather imply that the fellow was out of reach and therefor more difficult to justify self defense.
> 
> Throwing knives are fun, so play away; you don’t need further justification than that. But justifying what you are doing under the guise of self defense may not be the best presentation.



Not how that works.


----------



## dvcochran

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Some various practical close quarter knife throws ive been working on lately.  Ive trained this while sparring with polypropylene knives, but wanted to show them sticking.


Why would you ever want to give up your blade? You are already so close. One word. Kali.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Christopher Adamchek said:


> It wouldnt be the most common thing but
> 
> - if i have more than one knife on me (as i tend to)
> theres actually a Filipino saying on having 3 knifes "1 to throw, 1 to use, 1 to give to a friend"
> - could give a shock scare to your opponent and an opening for escape that might not have been had other wise
> - opponent is just out of range after a swing, or they know they will be on my swing, ill let if fly then close the gap and take advantage of the thrown knife continue the attack and maybe try to reclaim my weapon or take theirs if they have one


I've heard two similar supposedly Filipino phrases, but neither involve giving up the blade. The first is "carry 6 knives. 2 for you, 2 for your friend, 2 for his friend." The second is the same as the first, but halve the numbers.


----------



## Flying Crane

Christopher Adamchek said:


> @Flying Crane - it would be a serious legal matter, throwing knives is really fun but my justification isnt under the guise of self-defense
> 
> These throws can have an advantage in knife combat (legality aside) be that in the street or just training with others


Your previous post gave the impression you were looking at this from a self defense application point of view.  If that is not the case, thank you for the clarification.


----------



## CB Jones

Flying Crane said:


> I’m gonna guess that there may be some serious legal and criminal ramifications for sticking someone with a throwing knife.  It does rather imply that the fellow was out of reach and therefor more difficult to justify self defense.
> 
> Throwing knives are fun, so play away; you don’t need further justification than that. But justifying what you are doing under the guise of self defense may not be the best presentation.



I dont see how there could be legal ramifications there is no requirement to be within reach to use deadly force.  People utilize guns from outside of reach in self defense.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

CB Jones said:


> I dont see how there could be legal ramifications there is no requirement to be within reach to use deadly force.  People utilize guns from outside of reach in self defense.


I think that would depend on where you live. If you live somewhere with a duty to flee, then throwing a knife could suggest that you had the ability to flee.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> I dont see how there could be legal ramifications there is no requirement to be within reach to use deadly force.  People utilize guns from outside of reach in self defense.


It would depend on whether the attacker is armed or not.  But if he is not armed and is outside of reach it may be more difficult to justify sticking someone in the leg with a throwing knife.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> It would depend on whether the attacker is armed or not.  But if he is not armed and is outside of reach it may be more difficult to justify sticking someone in the leg with a throwing knife.



It doesn't really work that way either.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I think that would depend on where you live. If you live somewhere with a duty to flee, then throwing a knife could suggest that you had the ability to flee.



21 foot rule?

Anyway the dude is slashing then throwing. One backwards step does not a disengagement make.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Why would you ever want to give up your blade? You are already so close. One word. Kali.



It would be sexy for knife and gun.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> 21 foot rule?
> 
> Anyway the dude is slashing then throwing. One backwards step does not a disengagement make.


Just for reference, this is the relevant part of the law in my state 


> 2.  A  person  may  not  use deadly physical force upon another person
> under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
> (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is  using  or
> about  to  use  deadly  physical  force. Even in such case, however, the
> actor may not use deadly physical force if he or  she  knows  that  with
> complete  personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
> necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is  under  no
> duty to retreat if he or she is:
> (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
> (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
> officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
> section 35.30; or
> (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
> or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape,  forcible  criminal
> sexual act or robbery; or
> (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
> or  attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
> the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
> section 35.20.



With that said, there's a bit of leeway in there. Mainly in whether or not the person can fully retreat safely. To me, in a situation where you disengage and throw a knife, you're not yet fully safe. A good lawyer though could probably convince a jury otherwise. And I would bet that part of that argument would be that the person either A: felt safe enough to throw away his weapon, therefore should have felt safe enough to run, B: had already proven that he was capable of creating space and therefore was capable of fully disengaging and leaving without continued use of a deadly weapon.

Unfortunately I've seen people argue more idiotic things then that a person with the ability to throw a weapon could have run away.

As a parallel, there have been a few times where someone shot someone five feet away, when the other guy had a knife and was aggressive. Plenty of people around me said that the 21 feet thing was false, even if I showed them proof. With a jury of my peers, those are the people that would decide if I was justified to throw my knife at the guy.


----------



## CB Jones

Let me clarify then...

If you can justify deadly force...it does not matter if you throw it or keep it in your hand.

There is no requirement to be within in arms reach in any state.


----------



## Flying Crane

CB Jones said:


> Let me clarify then...
> 
> If you can justify deadly force...it does not matter if you throw it or keep it in your hand.
> 
> There is no requirement to be within in arms reach in any state.


Like most things in life, it depends.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Christopher Adamchek said:


> - if i have more than one knife on me (as i tend to.


You can throw the Baoding ball and cause as much damage as your throwing knife.

- It's 100% legal to carry.
- You can also hold in your hand to punch.
- If you play baseball, you are already 1/2 way there.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

CB Jones said:


> Let me clarify then...
> 
> If you can justify deadly force...it does not matter if you throw it or keep it in your hand.
> 
> There is no requirement to be within in arms reach in any state.


In general you're right, but what that justification is depends on the state/country. And even if you're justified, in america, you'll have to convince a bunch of people with no legal training or real knowledge that you were justified to throw your knife at the guy.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Just for reference, this is the relevant part of the law in my state
> 
> 
> With that said, there's a bit of leeway in there. Mainly in whether or not the person can fully retreat safely. To me, in a situation where you disengage and throw a knife, you're not yet fully safe. A good lawyer though could probably convince a jury otherwise. And I would bet that part of that argument would be that the person either A: felt safe enough to throw away his weapon, therefore should have felt safe enough to run, B: had already proven that he was capable of creating space and therefore was capable of fully disengaging and leaving without continued use of a deadly weapon.
> 
> Unfortunately I've seen people argue more idiotic things then that a person with the ability to throw a weapon could have run away.
> 
> As a parallel, there have been a few times where someone shot someone five feet away, when the other guy had a knife and was aggressive. Plenty of people around me said that the 21 feet thing was false, even if I showed them proof. With a jury of my peers, those are the people that would decide if I was justified to throw my knife at the guy.



Yeah I was wondering if the 21 foot rule discrepancy would come up. 

Bear in mind it is closer to the 21cm rule in this case.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah I was wondering if the 21 foot rule discrepancy would come up.
> 
> Bear in mind it is closer to the 21cm rule in this case.


Yeah, absolutely. You are no means safe just because you got a foot away from the dude.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Don't say things are legal to carry if you're not an attorney giving legal advice. If a cop decides your benwa balls are a weapon, you'll be so charged.


----------



## dunc

Can a knife thrown anywhere other than the face really do any meaningful damage?


----------



## lklawson

Flying Crane said:


> I’m gonna guess that there may be some serious legal and criminal ramifications for sticking someone with a throwing knife.  It does rather imply that the fellow was out of reach and therefor more difficult to justify self defense.


It's way more complex than that.  There are lots of times when a bit of distance doesn't mean there is no justifiable threat.  That could be anything from the aggressor having a distance weapon of his own to going through the invocation of (what is now called) the Tueller Principle and lots of stuff in between.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

kempodisciple said:


> I've heard two similar supposedly Filipino phrases, but neither involve giving up the blade. The first is "carry 6 knives. 2 for you, 2 for your friend, 2 for his friend." The second is the same as the first, but halve the numbers.


Throwing knives used to be standard U.S. military training from pre-Civil War going up through WWI and sometimes later.  There's one story I read dating from the Indian Wars on the frontier where the blue-coated soldiers would go out of the Fort every morning and practice throwing their knives into the exterior wooden palisades.  In part this was to hone their skill and in part this was because they knew the tribes were surveilling them and it was thought that the exhibition of skill would help to discourage attacks.

Thrown weapons have a long history with mankind and are inclusive of single combat, dueling, and group combat, both pre and post firearms.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

kempodisciple said:


> I think that would depend on where you live. If you live somewhere with a duty to flee, then throwing a knife could suggest that you had the ability to flee.


Not necessarily.  The Duty to Retreat is not usually viewed as so black and white in most places in the U.S.  If someone is in the process of attacking you, regardless of the weapon, there really isn't usually a Duty to Retreat at that point.  It's too late.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can throw the Baoding ball and cause as much damage as your throwing knife.


Which is why most knives are short, blunt, and round...

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

kempodisciple said:


> In general you're right, but what that justification is depends on the state/country. And even if you're justified, in america, you'll have to convince a bunch of people with no legal training or real knowledge that you were justified to throw your knife at the guy.


Not necessarily.  There are usually a number of steps before it gets to a jury trial.  Most places there is an individual or office with Prosecutor Discretion who/which often choose not to pursue charges if it appears after initial police investigation to be a justifiable use of force.

I hate to say it, but many people on this forum need to read some books by people like Mas Ayoob and Andrew Branca.  There is a lot of misunderstanding and lack of understanding of use of force law and deadly force law that I see frequently here.

Here's a lot of great free stuff from Andrew Branca (lawyer specializing in self defense):
Search - CCW Safe - CCW Safe National | CCW Safe Weapon Liability | CCW Safe Defense Attorneys
Blog – Law of Self Defense

Peace favor your sword,
Kirkk


----------



## lklawson

dunc said:


> Can a knife thrown anywhere other than the face really do any meaningful damage?


Yes.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Martial D

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Some various practical close quarter knife throws ive been working on lately.  Ive trained this while sparring with polypropylene knives, but wanted to show them sticking.



Cool and all but it doesn't seem too practical. You are in effect disarming yourself while arming your opponent, while at the same time  sacrificing the one advantage of throwing ,which is distance.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

Martial D said:


> Cool and all but it doesn't seem too practical. You are in effect disarming yourself while arming your opponent, while at the same time sacrificing the one advantage of throwing ,which is distance.



This wouldnt be a "go to" but there is practicality in it

I am disarming my self (if i only have 1 knife) but this can create an opening for escape or startle them before my next attack. 

If they want to pull it out and use it i guess they could, I could go for the same thing, or push it in as they try to pull it out.

This 1-2ft distance in the fight isnt necessarily an advantage, actually could be a hindrance if they have better foot work and are able to stay our of range of my attacks, and this could close that gap.


----------



## Flying Crane

lklawson said:


> It's way more complex than that.  There are lots of times when a bit of distance doesn't mean there is no justifiable threat.  That could be anything from the aggressor having a distance weapon of his own to going through the invocation of (what is now called) the Tueller Principle and lots of stuff in between.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Yup.  It gets complicated, in both directions.


----------



## Martial D

Christopher Adamchek said:


> This wouldnt be a "go to" but there is practicality in it
> 
> I am disarming my self (if i only have 1 knife) but this can create an opening for escape or startle them before my next attack.
> 
> If they want to pull it out and use it i guess they could, I could go for the same thing, or push it in as they try to pull it out.
> 
> This 1-2ft distance in the fight isnt necessarily an advantage, actually could be a hindrance if they have better foot work and are able to stay our of range of my attacks, and this could close that gap.



Ehh..ok.

You do you.


----------



## jobo

I'm a bit.......? about it, throwing from that distance makes no sense and there's not enough energy to actually stick in someone to any depth, a bit of softwood is one thing, but that just going to bounce off someone, maybe they will have a small cut probably not if they have a jacket onfrits not going to penetrate  the abs and certainly not a rib cage ,,now if you can hit them in the heart from 20 foot  with a bowie knife traveling at 50 mph, then I'd be impressed


----------



## Dirty Dog

dunc said:


> Can a knife thrown anywhere other than the face really do any meaningful damage?



The face would be one of the least useful places to strike with a thrown knife. Or one held in the hand.

But, since people are quoting old sayings, I'll add...
The man who throws his knife in a fight...
Loses his knife.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

jobo said:


> I'm a bit.......? about it, throwing from that distance makes no sense and there's not enough energy to actually stick in someone to any depth, a bit of softwood is one thing, but that just going to bounce off someone, maybe they will have a small cut probably not if they have a jacket onfrits not going to penetrate the abs and certainly not a rib cage ,,now if you can hit them in the heart from 20 foot with a bowie knife traveling at 50 mph, then I'd be impressed



Im not here to impress you

there are plenty of youtube videos that demonstrate different knives being thrown at animal meats, i have have similar force but at close range - longer range would also telegraph the throw and give them time to avoid it 

people also dont wear jackets all year round and i wouldnt preferentially aim where someone has a jacket if they did

and penetration isnt necessarily my primary objective with the technique


----------



## dunc

lklawson said:


> Yes.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I’d love to see some sort of evidence for this

Mostly we see knives being thrown with a lot of energy into static flat surfaces, and even then not really going in deep

When you add curved surfaces that are mobile and wearing clothing I’m guessing that it’ll take a large knife thrown with a lot of force at a short distance to do much damage, which I suspect isn’t particularly effective


----------



## jobo

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Im not here to impress you
> 
> there are plenty of youtube videos that demonstrate different knives being thrown at animal meats, i have have similar force but at close range - longer range would also telegraph the throw and give them time to avoid it
> 
> people also dont wear jackets all year round and i wouldnt preferentially aim where someone has a jacket if they did
> 
> and penetration isnt necessarily my primary objective with the technique


really you are throwing a knife at someone WITHOUT the primary objective of the knife penetrating them, you may as well throw metal balls at them


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

@jobo - as i stated it doesnt have to be the primary objective, there are multiple ways these techniques are advantageous


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Christopher Adamchek said:


>


Your throwing distance seems to be very short.

I always make my own throwing knife. I always carry 3 throwing knifes with me (where firearm is not allowed). When I trained my knife throwing, I would

- walk away from my target for 10 to 12 steps.
- turn around,
- drop down, and
- throw my knife.

I like to throw my knife when I turn around. This way I have less time to aim, and I have to make a quick decision. I also like to drop down to make my own target smaller.


----------



## Dirty Dog

dunc said:


> I’d love to see some sort of evidence for this
> 
> Mostly we see knives being thrown with a lot of energy into static flat surfaces, and even then not really going in deep
> 
> When you add curved surfaces that are mobile and wearing clothing I’m guessing that it’ll take a large knife thrown with a lot of force at a short distance to do much damage, which I suspect isn’t particularly effective



As I said, if I were silly enough to throw my knife in a fight, the face would be a pretty silly target. The parts the knife can cut are not likely at ALL to be debilitating.
The most rational target for a thrown knife is the abdomen. If you do manage to hit point first, it'll have the best penetration, and on targets with the least bony protection.
It's still extremely unlikely to be rapidly debilitating or fatal, but it's the most likely place it'll actually penetrate.


----------



## jobo

Christopher Adamchek said:


> @jobo - as i stated it doesnt have to be the primary objective, there are multiple ways these techniques are advantageous


advantageous to getting stabbed with your own knife perhaps, I'm at a loss to see any benefit for a knife throw that not intended to penetrate the recipient to any notable degree or more likely at all, perhaps you could give a few advantages as you see them ?


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> advantageous to getting stabbed with your own knife perhaps, I'm at a loss to see any benefit for a knife throw that not intended to penetrate the recipient to any notable degree or more likely at all, perhaps you could give a few advantages as you see them ?



While they're bending over to pick up your knife (unless you're suggesting they're going to just catch it...), you can punt them across the room.


----------



## Flying Crane

dunc said:


> I’d love to see some sort of evidence for this
> 
> Mostly we see knives being thrown with a lot of energy into static flat surfaces, and even then not really going in deep
> 
> When you add curved surfaces that are mobile and wearing clothing I’m guessing that it’ll take a large knife thrown with a lot of force at a short distance to do much damage, which I suspect isn’t particularly effective


I suspect the Hollywood image of the hero throwing a knife that imbeds to the grip right in the center of the bad guy’s chest, resulting in an instant, silent, and bloodless death, is a myth. 

If a thrown knife hits with the point on bare skin or a light shirt, even if it does not stick it is going to rip open a wound.  Ouch, that.  If it does not hit with the point it can still injure and distract, which can also be useful.

If a knife can be thrown hard enough to stick into a board or a log or a sheet of 1/4 inch plywood, that same throw would really injure if it hit a person.  A throw like that is unlikely to sink deeper than maybe 1/4 inch into the wood, but would go deeper into flesh.  The amount of real damage would depend on the body part struck, whether there is an organ or a main vein or artery, etc, but it’s gonna hurt and bleed and tear open wounds that I suspect would cause most people to re-think the whole engagement, even if not life-threatening.

Yes, people do wear heavy jackets in some places, at some times of the year.  So like most things, it depends.  A throwing knife may be pretty pointless in some places, at some times, under some circumstances.  Nobody claimed it is a perfect tool for every situation.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> While they're bending over to pick up your knife (unless you're suggesting they're going to just catch it...), you can punt them across the room.


but its stuck in the folds of his jacket or maybe just maybe in his belly fat that makes it very handy to pull out and stick it in you,


----------



## Dirty Dog

Flying Crane said:


> I suspect the Hollywood image of the hero throwing a knife that imbeds to the grip right in the center of the bad guy’s chest, resulting in an instant, silent, and bloodless death, is a myth.



Unless the blade is really narrow, or it is parallel to the ribs, it's not likely to penetrate far at all. Because ribs.


----------



## jobo

Flying Crane said:


> I suspect the Hollywood image of the hero throwing a knife that imbeds to the grip right in the center of the bad guy’s chest, resulting in an instant, silent, and bloodless death, is a myth.
> 
> If a thrown knife hits with the point on bare skin or a light shirt, even if it does not stick it is going to rip open a wound.  Ouch, that.  If it does not hit with the point it can still injure and distract, which can also be useful.
> 
> If a knife can be thrown hard enough to stick into a board or a log or a sheet of 1/4 inch plywood, that same throw would really injure if it hit a person.  A throw like that is unlikely to sink deeper than maybe 1/4 inch into the wood, but would go deeper into flesh.  The amount of real damage would depend on the body part struck, whether there is an organ or a main vein or artery, etc, but it’s gonna hurt and bleed and tear open wounds that I suspect would cause most people to re-think the whole engagement, even if not life-threatening.
> 
> Yes, people do wear heavy jackets in some places, at some times of the year.  So like most things, it depends.  A throwing knife may be pretty pointless in some places, at some times, under some circumstances.  Nobody claimed it is a perfect tool for every situation.


well no flesh is yielding and will absord the energy and bounce it off and bone is hard and will bounce it of,  a knife throw like shown in the vid will not go through the abdominal wall, even less so if the guy is fat


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In CMA, people train to throw object look like a shuttle. It's solid steel with points on both ends. This way even it may spin in the air, but it doesn't matter which end will hit on the target. It usually weight form 1/2 lb to 1 lb.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> well no flesh is yielding and will absord the energy and bounce it off and bone is hard and will bounce it of,  a knife throw like shown in the vid will not go through the abdominal wall, even less so if the guy is fat



Show us a video of a knife bouncing off your flesh. Bone will redirect it, yes. But it is NOT going to bounce off flesh. That's ridiculous.
Although, again, I do not advocate throwing the knife at all. Especially at that range. I'd just take a tiny step forward and stab them instead.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

I see the use in throwing a weapon if its either partially on your person for throwing, or  if you need to run away, maybe if someone going for something ranged and you throw it at them also.     Not idea but when is anything in actually fighting someone ideal.

Some HEMA  treatises put it as a means to escape or distract a archer/crossbow man or someone going to throw something at you. (granted one of them makes the assumption you can take either a dead enemies weapon or a dead allies  off the ground i think)

edit: second hand citations for those treatises, not my personal readings of them


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> I see the use in throwing a weapon if its either partially on your person for throwing, or  if you need to run away, maybe if someone going for something ranged and you throw it at them also.     Not idea but when is anything in actually fighting someone ideal.
> 
> Some HEMA  treatises put it as a means to escape or distract a archer/crossbow man or someone going to throw something at you. (granted one of them makes the assumption you can take either a dead enemies weapon or a dead allies  off the ground i think)
> 
> edit: second hand citations for those treatises, not my personal readings of them



Vikings were mad keen for a sneaky axe throw.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> Show us a video of a knife bouncing off your flesh. Bone will redirect it, yes. But it is NOT going to bounce off flesh. That's ridiculous.
> Although, again, I do not advocate throwing the knife at all. Especially at that range. I'd just take a tiny step forward and stab them instead.


if it's not going to penetrate deeply, which you see to agree with it will bounce out off your very bouncy ab muscle, it has to be one or the other, it wont stay put like it does in a wooden door with only a quarter inch of penetration


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Vikings were mad keen for a sneaky axe throw.



On what evidence do you base this assertion? The TV show "Vikings" is not a credible reference, just FYI...



jobo said:


> if it's not going to penetrate deeply, which you see to agree with it will bounce out



Where did I say it wouldn't penetrate deeply? If it's aimed at the abdomen, there's every reason to believe that it will, in fact, penetrate reasonably deep. It certainly will NOT bounce off.
But hey. It's your claim. Support it. You like YouTube. Post a video of a knife bouncing off your abs of steel.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Vikings were mad keen for a sneaky axe throw.



'Vikings' are still chucking those axes.... Axe Throwing - Gränsfors Bruk


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> 'Vikings' are still chucking those axes.... Axe Throwing - Gränsfors Bruk



So are hipsters.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> On what evidence do you base this assertion? The TV show "Vikings" is not a credible reference, just FYI...



I thought the tv show vikings did a legitimate job of shoe horning in a decent bit of viking history.

Anyway it is in the sagas.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Dirty Dog said:


> On what evidence do you base this assertion? The TV show "Vikings" is not a credible reference, just FYI...


I don't think it's common, but it did happen. In Olaf's saga, there's a guy named spjall who was well-known as an accomplished axe-thrower. The hardar saga also supposedly makes a reference to it, but I've only read a summary of that story, and I remember not fully understanding that chapter's summary.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I don't think it's common, but it did happen. In Olaf's saga, there's a guy named spjall who was well-known as an accomplished axe-thrower. The hardar saga also supposedly makes a reference to it, but when I originally read that story, I remember not being able to understand the statement, and it didn't seem like axe-throwing was a first choice.



He got shanked or something. And hit the throw as a last ditch. 

I could see the knife throw the same way. Either as a hail Mary or a transition in to something else.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

kempodisciple said:


> I don't think it's common, but it did happen. In Olaf's saga, there's a guy named spjall who was well-known as an accomplished axe-thrower. The hardar saga also supposedly makes a reference to it, but I've only read a summary of that story, and I remember not fully understanding that chapter's summary.


Quick google search of the saga, Harðar saga og Hólmverja - Icelandic Saga Database
It's chapter 33, and I still don't really get it. I get the feeling part of it got lost somewhere, or there's a translation issue, but I'd have to research it more to know.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

kempodisciple said:


> Quick google search of the saga, Harðar saga og Hólmverja - Icelandic Saga Database
> It's chapter 33, and I still don't really get it. I get the feeling part of it got lost somewhere, or there's a translation issue, but I'd have to research it more to know.


Here is a more definitive source, from olaf's saga. Around page 195 they make a direct reference to spjall being known for axe-throwing.
Olaf's Saga


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> He got shanked or something. And hit the throw as a last ditch.
> 
> I could see the knife throw the same way. Either as a hail Mary or a transition in to something else.


Yeah, reading it through that's how it reads. Still a bit tough for me to tell from the translation I found (Post 60)


----------



## Deleted member 39746

drop bear said:


> Vikings were mad keen for a sneaky axe throw.



So where the native americans.       Pretty sure the standard tactic was to have a backup and throw it or just rush who ever you threw it at and wrestle them. (unless you plan to run away but thats a cowards course of action! )

I would dispute how sneaky it was though.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Rat said:


> So where the native americans.       Pretty sure the standard tactic was to have a backup and throw it or just rush who ever you threw it at and wrestle them. (unless you plan to run away but thats a cowards course of action! )
> 
> I would dispute how sneaky it was though.


No clue about native americans, but for Vikings I havent seen any evidence that this was a tactic they used.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Anyway it is in the sagas.





drop bear said:


> He got shanked or something. And hit the throw as a last ditch.
> 
> I could see the knife throw the same way. Either as a hail Mary or a transition in to something else.



So I take it you're retracting the "mad keen" claim, since that would require axe throwing to be a whole lot more common than one guy who did it as a last resort.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> So I take it you're retracting the "mad keen" claim, since that would require axe throwing to be a whole lot more common than one guy who did it as a last resort.



Nope. Standing by that.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> On what evidence do you base this assertion? The TV show "Vikings" is not a credible reference, just FYI...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say it wouldn't penetrate deeply? If it's aimed at the abdomen, there's every reason to believe that it will, in fact, penetrate reasonably deep. It certainly will NOT bounce off.
> But hey. It's your claim. Support it. You like YouTube. Post a video of a knife bouncing off your abs of steel.


I can't prove a negative, you post a vid of it skewering someone


----------



## Deleted member 39746

kempodisciple said:


> No clue about native americans, but for Vikings I havent seen any evidence that this was a tactic they used.



As in not just a opportunistic attack?    It would kind of be like throwing your spear at someone when they don't expect you to.

I wouldn't dispute some did throw their weapons for what ever apparent reason.


As for NA's, its pretty commonly cited and i think some still keep tomahawk throwing as a tradition. Think most had knives they could use if they threw their axe anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Carrying knives with the express purpose of throwing them in a self defense situation is delusional and stupid. If a person walks around so equipped, they are in need of mental health assistance.


----------



## Martial D

Bill Mattocks said:


> Carrying knives with the express purpose of throwing them in a self defense situation is delusional and stupid. If a person walks around so equipped, they are in need of mental health assistance.



I don't know about mental assistance, but I can't see any of them being accepted to mensa....


----------



## lklawson

dunc said:


> I’d love to see some sort of evidence for this


I'd love to see evidence that it isn't.



> Mostly we see knives being thrown with a lot of energy into static flat surfaces, and even then not really going in deep
> 
> When you add curved surfaces that are mobile and wearing clothing I’m guessing that it’ll take a large knife thrown with a lot of force at a short distance to do much damage, which I suspect isn’t particularly effective


There are a lot of places on the human body that are fairly close to the surface and/or are easily reached with a bare minimum of penetration.  The lungs can be perforated by as little as 3" of penetration on some people.  The kidneys even less on some folks.  Even beyond that, many muscles can be incapacitated with a minimum of penetration and joints can be easily damaged with minimum penetration as well.

I recommend this book:
Essential Anatomy for Healing and Martial Arts



















Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## wab25

This got me curious... So as long as no one else was going to poke around youtube, I did. I found this video, of a guy first testing knifes and axes with ballistic gel... then at the end, he puts racks of ribs over the gel, and retests a few of knives and one axe. Lets just say, I don't want someone throwing a KaBar at my chest...


----------



## CB Jones

lklawson said:


> The lungs can be perforated by as little as 3" of penetration on some people.



But fitting a thrown knife between ribs would be very difficult


----------



## lklawson

Dirty Dog said:


> Unless the blade is really narrow, or it is parallel to the ribs, it's not likely to penetrate far at all. Because ribs.


I've done a fair amount of "test cutting" on meat and various non-meat ("protective" items such as heavy clothing and jackets).  Skin and heavy cloth will sometimes, imperfectly, somewhat protect against cuts.  The edge geometry and sharpness can make a difference.  

With thrusts, on the other hand, if the blade is even moderately sharp and pointy, it just goes in, often almost like there's nothing there.  Unless the point actually hits a rib and digs into the bone, it will frequently be "funneled" between the ribs.  When I first started doing tests I marveled at how easily the thrusts penetrated with minimal effort.  The scariest thrusts were with rapier blades & stiletto blades because it felt like stabbing air and large/sharp bowie blades because of the gigantic wound channel.

Anyone who is really interested in knowing how this stuff actually performs would do well to go to the butcher counter and get a few sides of skin-on pork ribs, or at least just ribs.  Hang them from a frame or tree branch and do cuts and thrusts.  You will respect your blades (or sharpen them).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Danny T

Knife throwing is fun.
Knife throwing in a self defensive situation is a very low percentage action as to causing immediate incapacitating damage. Can it happen, absolutely, but is a low percentage action. Can be ok as to a momentary diversion for creating distance/escaping or to rush in from behind. If creating distance/escaping you have now given up your weapon unless you have another. If used as a diversion to enter in on you have again given up your weapon unless you have already or are in the process of deploying another weapon you are not weapon less and have a low percentage of deploying another.


----------



## lklawson

CB Jones said:


> But fitting a thrown knife between ribs would be very difficult


Look at that pic again.  At least 30% of the area is is not covered by ribs.  And my experience in test cutting with meat indicates that points will sometimes skate off of ribs and go home anyway.  And that's not counting when it is forceful enough to splinter off of the edge of a rib or just break it.

Understand that I'm not arguing for throwing the knife.  I don't really like it.  But I am saying that it's not as stupidly ineffective as a lot of people seem to think.

A bigger concern to me is how freaking long it takes even a mortal wound to become "mortal."  A few minutes bleeding out is forever because *dying ain't dead!*  Add to the fact that even an effective wound doesn't necessarily incapacitate the opponent.  Damage the bicep or shoulder joint of one arm incapacitates that arm ...but not the other.  ...or the legs.  The human body has a lot of redundancy built in and, even when mortally wounded, can take a frighteningly long time to die.  Ayoob once wrote about a cop who shot a bad guy at point blank range with 00 shot and thought he missed because the dude ran away.  Nope.  Perp was "dead man walking" and they eventually found him with several of those .33 caliber pellets in his chest.  But that was plenty of time for the perp to shoot back had he been so inclined.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

drop bear said:


> He got shanked or something. And hit the throw as a last ditch.
> 
> I could see the knife throw the same way. Either as a hail Mary or a transition in to something else.


The thrown weapon is a dirt common staple of melee fighting and always has been, inclusive of military engagements, duels, personal combat, and personal self defense.

Atlat'l, javalins, pilum, thrown darts (the Romans love'd 'em), francisca, throwing clubs (yes, clubs!), chackram,  musede, hunga munga, tomahawks (yes, 'hawks), spikes, "stars," shuriken, knives, Kylie, even freaking rocks (sling stones, anyone?).

Anyone claiming that thrown melee weapons have no place, at least historically speaking, is simply being deliberately ignorant.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

kempodisciple said:


> No clue about native americans,


I have two definitive sources for it, including a first person account of judicial combat (essentially a duel) where it happened and a written book by a native who recorded a passed down oral tradition.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo

wab25 said:


> This got me curious... So as long as no one else was going to poke around youtube, I did. I found this video, of a guy first testing knifes and axes with ballistic gel... then at the end, he puts racks of ribs over the gel, and retests a few of knives and one axe. Lets just say, I don't want someone throwing a KaBar at my chest...


well yea, the small knife like the one in the op hardly sticks in and it was thrown over arm, an under arm flick as demonstrated wouldby  even manage that


----------



## lklawson

wab25 said:


> This got me curious... So as long as no one else was going to poke around youtube, I did. I found this video, of a guy first testing knifes and axes with ballistic gel... then at the end, he puts racks of ribs over the gel, and retests a few of knives and one axe. Lets just say, I don't want someone throwing a KaBar at my chest...


This mimics my experience test cutting.  Ribs make a difference.  Blade shape and sharpness makes a difference.  But ribs are very often penetrated anyway.  Ribs aren't magic armor against a thrust (or a thrown blade).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Danny T said:


> Knife throwing is fun.
> Knife throwing in a self defensive situation is a very low percentage action as to causing immediate incapacitating damage.


Even a full load of buck to the chest isn't guaranteed to cause immediate incapacitating damage.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo

Danny T said:


> Knife throwing is fun.
> Knife throwing in a self defensive situation is a very low percentage action as to causing immediate incapacitating damage. Can it happen, absolutely, but is a low percentage action. Can be ok as to a momentary diversion for creating distance/escaping or to rush in from behind. If creating distance/escaping you have now given up your weapon unless you have another. If used as a diversion to enter in on you have again given up your weapon unless you have already or are in the process of deploying another weapon you are not weapon less and have a low percentage of deploying another.


low ° percentage not least because throwing over hand where you might actually develop enough force is extremely difficult to land the knife pointy end first.


----------



## CB Jones

lklawson said:


> Look at that pic again. At least 30% of the area is is not covered by ribs. And my experience in test cutting with meat indicates that points will sometimes skate off of ribs and go home anyway. And that's not counting when it is forceful enough to splinter off of the edge of a rib or just break it.



30% uncovered also means 70% covered add in you can't aim between the ribs.....just lessens your chances that throwing the knife will be effective.  I think there would be much better ways to utilize that weapon.


----------



## CB Jones

lklawson said:


> Even a full load of buck to the chest isn't guaranteed to cause immediate incapacitating damage.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I dunno...a load of buckshot is pretty devastating inside 20 yards.


----------



## lklawson

CB Jones said:


> I dunno...a load of buckshot is pretty devastating inside 20 yards.


And yet I referenced the case which Ayoob wrote about.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

CB Jones said:


> 30% uncovered also means 70% covered add in you can't aim between the ribs.....just lessens your chances that throwing the knife will be effective.


Like I said, blades will often glance off of a rib and funnel between them due to that, or will sometimes just flat penetrate or splinter the the edge of the rib.



> I think there would be much better ways to utilize that weapon.


It's not my favorite or my preference, personally.  That said, as I wrote earlier, there are enough thrown melee weapons, ranging from spears to spikes, historically speaking, that it was clearly effective enough to last thousands of years in pretty much every culture I've been able to find.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones

lklawson said:


> And yet I referenced the case which Ayoob wrote about.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Did you?  I missed that link.  But I find it hard to believe someone took that hit to the chest with no reaction


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> I can't prove a negative, you post a vid of it skewering someone



What negative? You made an affirmative statement - that the knife would bounce off. Your inability to just admit it was a stupid statement is no more surprising than your inability to support it. But it is sadder.


----------



## Dirty Dog

lklawson said:


> It's not my favorite or my preference, personally.  That said, as I wrote earlier, there are enough thrown melee weapons, ranging from spears to spikes, historically speaking, that it was clearly effective enough to last thousands of years in pretty much every culture I've been able to find.



Of note, however, is that those thrown weapons were designed from the start to BE thrown, and not from 2 feet away from the target.
Spears, javelins, arrows... all very effective ranged weapons. But nobody with any sense would advocate trying to use them as ranged weapons while standing within arms reach of the target.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Of note, however, is that those thrown weapons were designed from the start to BE thrown, and not from 2 feet away from the target.
> Spears, javelins, arrows... all very effective ranged weapons. But nobody with any sense would advocate trying to use them as ranged weapons while standing within arms reach of the target.


Well...if you've already got the arrow knocked and the guy rushes you, not much else to do with it. And yes, I'm just being difficult.


----------



## Dirty Dog

kempodisciple said:


> Well...if you've already got the arrow knocked and the guy rushes you, not much else to do with it. And yes, I'm just being difficult.



In the same vein... if the arrow is "knocked" you're not going to have much luck shooting it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Rat said:


> As in not just a opportunistic attack?    It would kind of be like throwing your spear at someone when they don't expect you to.
> 
> I wouldn't dispute some did throw their weapons for what ever apparent reason.
> 
> 
> As for NA's, its pretty commonly cited and i think some still keep tomahawk throwing as a tradition. Think most had knives they could use if they threw their axe anyway.


I'm not arguing that tomahawk throwing is a thing. I've even tried my hand at it (and failed miserably). But that doesn't mean that tactic was how they used it, no matter how logical a tactic it might seem. Kirk answered that part of it already though 

I'm still curious if vikings used that tactic, since they're my main interest, but I don't think there's anything out there now to prove that particular tactic was trained.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Dirty Dog said:


> In the same vein... if the arrow is "knocked" you're not going to have much luck shooting it.


True. depending on the bow it might be easier just trying to use it as a shield as you reach for a knife.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> What negative? You made an affirmative statement - that the knife would bounce off. Your inability to just admit it was a stupid statement is no more surprising than your inability to support it. But it is sadder.


no I said it WOUKDNT penetrate ( which only leaves it with option of bouncing off unless it has levitation powers)

you one the other hand said it would penitrate the abdominal wall, that's after changing your mind from saying it wouldn't, so the burden of proof is yours, as a vid has all ready been posted that ibdecated it wouldn't, it's saved you the bother of admitting you mistake


----------



## lklawson

While there are multiple reliable sources for throwing the tomahawk as part of various forms of combat for tribal indians, this is my favorite reference:

Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB
April 7, 1892

GLIMPSES OF THE PAST

Contributions to the History of Charlotte County and the Border Towns.

XI – THE LAST FIGHT WITH THE MOHAWKS.

Mr. W. Wallace Brown give [sic] us the incidents of the following story, as told to him by an old Passamaquoddy woman named Mollie LaCoot.  Apart from its historic interest, it is worthy of record as showing a degree of magnanimity and self-restraint on the part of hostile savages for which we rarely give them credit.

Before the coming of the English, the chief village of the Passamaquoddy tribe was at Quun-os-quam-cook, now St. Andrews.  In a time of peace between the Six Nations and the Wabanaki, a Mohawk chief, named Hawk-u-mah-bis, or Snow-shoe-string, accompanied by his son, came to Quun-os-quam-cook; where they were hospitably received and treated as honored guests.

One day the son of the Mohawk chief and the son of the Passamaquoddy chief, while hunting together, killed a wah-be-ne-monks-wes, or white sable.  The boys got into a hot dispute over the possession of the game, as it was considered a great honor to kill such a rare animal; and in the quarrel which arose between them the young Mohawk was killed.

The chief of the Passamaquoddies, according to Indian custom, offered his son to the Mohawk chief, to take the place of the boy who had been killed; but the Mohawk would not be appeased, and left for home determined to return and take revenge.

He would seem to have fallen in with a company of his own people; for, as the tradition says, he had been gone only about ten days when, one morning at daybreak, the Mohawks appeared in large numbers, and the woods rang with their war cry, ‘Coo-way-mitt.’

The Passamaquoddies were greatly alarmed, for many of their best warriors were away hunting; so they sent out a man with the loo-good-we-mede-wegon, or flag of truce, (the use of which they had learned from the whites,) to propose that the matter should be settled by single combat.

‘We should not fight and destroy each other,’  they said; ‘for our nations are both becoming less in numbers each year, and if we keep on fighting thus the whites will soon out-number us.’

So they agreed to select a man from each tribe to fight the battle, each to be armed with a knife and a tomahawk.

The Mohawks chose their chief, who is described as tall and slender; and the Passamaquoddies chose a stout young Indian named Lux.

The fight took place early next morning, in an open field at Quun-os-quam-cook, in the presence of both the tribes.

At a given signal, the Mohawk threw his tomahawk.  The Passamaquoddy dodged it, and immediately threw his weapon, but failed to hit his antagonist.

Then, rushing upon each other, they clinched in a struggle for life.

They fell to the ground, the Mohawk on top; but the Passamaquoddy soon got the advantage, and plunged his knife into his enemy’s side, and presently sprang to his feet again, waving the scalp of the Mohawk chief.

The Passamaquoddies were wild with joy, and sang their song of victory; while the Mohawks quietly departed, chanting their death song as they went.

Lux, the Passamaquoddy champion, was a grandfather of the late Captain Lewy, after whom Lewy’s island is named.  The age of Capt. Lewy at the time of his death would mark the probable date of the occurrence as about one hundred and fifty years ago.​Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## wab25

CB Jones said:


> 30% uncovered also means 70% covered add in you can't aim between the ribs.....just lessens your chances that throwing the knife will be effective.


If you watch the video I posted... the problem doesn't seem to be one of penetration. The thrown knives go through the meat, through the rack of ribs and into the gel. (the Kabar went all the way through the meat, the ribs,the gel, and into the board behind the gel) The thrown ax seemed to cut through the ribs and then well into the gel. However, the video also shows that the problem is hitting the target, with the knife or ax, at the right part of the rotation. So, can it penetrate? Yes. Is it a reliable thing? Depends on the skill and ability of the thrower. I also note that the guy throwing in my video is using a different technique to throw than the OP. A different technique may indeed have different results. However, that is the problem of the operator, not the tool.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

@lklawson - I'm sorry you have to repeat yourself so much, but your comments have been extremely informative, thank you


----------



## CB Jones

lklawson said:


> Ayoob once wrote about a cop who shot a bad guy at point blank range with 00 shot and thought he missed because the dude ran away. Nope. Perp was "dead man walking" and they eventually found him with several of those .33 caliber pellets in his chest. But that was plenty of time for the perp to shoot back had he been so inclined.



If there was only several pellets found in him....then he did not take a full load of buckshot in the chest at point blank range.

Inside 5 yards you would have a spread pattern around the size of your fist with over 2,000 ft lbs of energy behind it plus the wading.  You hit someone in the chest with that.....they go down.....there is no question of "Did I hit him"


----------



## wab25

CB Jones said:


> Inside 5 yards you would have a spread pattern around the size of your fist with over 2,000 ft lbs of energy behind it plus the wading. You hit someone in the chest with that.....they go down.....there is no question of "Did I hit him"


Why doesn't the shooter go down, no question? Doesn't the shooter also get hit with over 2,000 ft lbs of energy? Does taking the energy in the shoulder make that much difference?


----------



## lklawson

CB Jones said:


> If there was only several pellets found in him....


Found *in his heart*.  He took the full load to the chest.  At least 3 (IIMS) went into the heart.  He still had enough adrenaline and oxyginated blood to go play hide and seek in the parking lot (the perp was one of two who stuck up a grocery store - Piggly Wiggly, IMS).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

wab25 said:


> Why doesn't the shooter go down, no question? Doesn't the shooter also get hit with over 2,000 ft lbs of energy? Does taking the energy in the shoulder make that much difference?


Newton still wins.  If the gun doesn't knock down the shooter it usually won't knock down the shootee.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones

lklawson said:


> Found *in his heart*.  He took the full load to the chest.  At least 3 (IIMS) went into the heart.  He still had enough adrenaline and oxyginated blood to go play hide and seek in the parking lot (the perp was one of two who stuck up a grocery store - Piggly Wiggly, IMS).
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Link or info on this case.

I would be interested in looking at this case.  From my experience, I have yet to see someone take a load of buckshot inside 10 yards and continue to be functional.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> no I said it WOUKDNT penetrate ( which only leaves it with option of bouncing off unless it has levitation powers)



Right. So support it. Show us a video of a thrown knife bouncing off your rock hard abs.



> you one the other hand said it would penitrate the abdominal wall, that's after changing your mind from saying it wouldn't, so



I never once said a thrown knife wouldn't penetrate the abdomen. Unlike you, I actually have a basis for my views.
I did say a thrown knife was very unlikely to significantly penetrate the HEAD, but it doesn't take a degree in physiology to know the difference between the head and the abdomen.



CB Jones said:


> If there was only several pellets found in him....then he did not take a full load of buckshot in the chest at point blank range.



Not all shotgun shells are birdshot. Some only have "several" pellets in them. There are commercially available shotgun rounds with 3 pellets total. And even the classic 00 buckshot only has like 8 or somesuch.



wab25 said:


> Why doesn't the shooter go down, no question? Doesn't the shooter also get hit with over 2,000 ft lbs of energy? Does taking the energy in the shoulder make that much difference?



Because physics. The projectile(s) decelerate starting the instant they leave the muzzle. So impact force will always, 100% of the time, be less than recoil. In other words, if the recoil doesn't knock the shooter over, the impact certainly won't knock the target over (assuming we're talking about people - obviously it can knock over a paper target).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

lklawson said:


> While there are multiple reliable sources for throwing the tomahawk as part of various forms of combat for tribal indians, this is my favorite reference:
> 
> Saint Croix Courier, St. Stephen, NB
> April 7, 1892
> 
> GLIMPSES OF THE PAST
> 
> Contributions to the History of Charlotte County and the Border Towns.
> 
> XI – THE LAST FIGHT WITH THE MOHAWKS.
> 
> Mr. W. Wallace Brown give [sic] us the incidents of the following story, as told to him by an old Passamaquoddy woman named Mollie LaCoot.  Apart from its historic interest, it is worthy of record as showing a degree of magnanimity and self-restraint on the part of hostile savages for which we rarely give them credit.
> 
> Before the coming of the English, the chief village of the Passamaquoddy tribe was at Quun-os-quam-cook, now St. Andrews.  In a time of peace between the Six Nations and the Wabanaki, a Mohawk chief, named Hawk-u-mah-bis, or Snow-shoe-string, accompanied by his son, came to Quun-os-quam-cook; where they were hospitably received and treated as honored guests.
> 
> One day the son of the Mohawk chief and the son of the Passamaquoddy chief, while hunting together, killed a wah-be-ne-monks-wes, or white sable.  The boys got into a hot dispute over the possession of the game, as it was considered a great honor to kill such a rare animal; and in the quarrel which arose between them the young Mohawk was killed.
> 
> The chief of the Passamaquoddies, according to Indian custom, offered his son to the Mohawk chief, to take the place of the boy who had been killed; but the Mohawk would not be appeased, and left for home determined to return and take revenge.
> 
> He would seem to have fallen in with a company of his own people; for, as the tradition says, he had been gone only about ten days when, one morning at daybreak, the Mohawks appeared in large numbers, and the woods rang with their war cry, ‘Coo-way-mitt.’
> 
> The Passamaquoddies were greatly alarmed, for many of their best warriors were away hunting; so they sent out a man with the loo-good-we-mede-wegon, or flag of truce, (the use of which they had learned from the whites,) to propose that the matter should be settled by single combat.
> 
> ‘We should not fight and destroy each other,’  they said; ‘for our nations are both becoming less in numbers each year, and if we keep on fighting thus the whites will soon out-number us.’
> 
> So they agreed to select a man from each tribe to fight the battle, each to be armed with a knife and a tomahawk.
> 
> The Mohawks chose their chief, who is described as tall and slender; and the Passamaquoddies chose a stout young Indian named Lux.
> 
> The fight took place early next morning, in an open field at Quun-os-quam-cook, in the presence of both the tribes.
> 
> At a given signal, the Mohawk threw his tomahawk.  The Passamaquoddy dodged it, and immediately threw his weapon, but failed to hit his antagonist.
> 
> Then, rushing upon each other, they clinched in a struggle for life.
> 
> They fell to the ground, the Mohawk on top; but the Passamaquoddy soon got the advantage, and plunged his knife into his enemy’s side, and presently sprang to his feet again, waving the scalp of the Mohawk chief.
> 
> The Passamaquoddies were wild with joy, and sang their song of victory; while the Mohawks quietly departed, chanting their death song as they went.
> 
> Lux, the Passamaquoddy champion, was a grandfather of the late Captain Lewy, after whom Lewy’s island is named.  The age of Capt. Lewy at the time of his death would mark the probable date of the occurrence as about one hundred and fifty years ago.​Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


This is awesome, thank you!


----------



## CB Jones

Dirty Dog said:


> Not all shotgun shells are birdshot. Some only have "several" pellets in them. There are commercially available shotgun rounds with 3 pellets total. And even the classic 00 buckshot only has like 8 or somesuch.



But typically police carry 00 buckshot with 8 pellets and most carry tactical buckshot that has a tighter spread.  Again at "pointblank" range you are looking at a shot pattern the size of your fist or smaller. 



Dirty Dog said:


> Because physics. The projectile(s) decelerate starting the instant they leave the muzzle. So impact force will always, 100% of the time, be less than recoil. In other words, if the recoil doesn't knock the shooter over, the impact certainly won't knock the target over (assuming we're talking about people - obviously it can knock over a paper target).



You are also shooting from a shooters stance...braced for the recoil into your shoulder.

Try standing straight with the butt of the 12 gauge loosely against your chest and see if it knocks you down though....


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> Right. So support it. Show us a video of a thrown knife bouncing off your rock hard abs.
> 
> 
> 
> I never once said a thrown knife wouldn't penetrate the abdomen. Unlike you, I actually have a basis for my views.
> I did say a thrown knife was very unlikely to significantly penetrate the HEAD, but it doesn't take a degree in physiology to know the difference between the head and the abdomen.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all shotgun shells are birdshot. Some only have "several" pellets in them. There are commercially available shotgun rounds with 3 pellets total. And even the classic 00 buckshot only has like 8 or somesuch.
> 
> 
> 
> Because physics. The projectile(s) decelerate starting the instant they leave the muzzle. So impact force will always, 100% of the time, be less than recoil. In other words, if the recoil doesn't knock the shooter over, the impact certainly won't knock the target over (assuming we're talking about people - obviously it can knock over a paper target).


and why do you think I have no basis for my views  the fact your an ambulance driver doesn't give you a monopoly  on knowlege of human anatomy


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> and why do you think I have no basis for my views  the fact your an ambulance driver doesn't give you a monopoly  on knowlege of human anatomy



Well, because you think a knife thrown from inches away is going to bounce off a human abdomen. And that is stupid. So it seems that any basis for your views on this subject must come from fantasy novels or Hollywood movies. Certainly not from reality.


----------



## Tez3

Dirty Dog said:


> Show us a video of a thrown knife bouncing off your rock hard abs.




I will settle just for the rock hard abs...………..

I can seriously recommend Michael Stokes' photos if you want to see the best abs...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

lklawson said:


> The thrown weapon is a dirt common staple of melee fighting and always has been, inclusive of military engagements, duels, personal combat, and personal self defense.
> 
> Atlat'l, javalins, pilum, thrown darts (the Romans love'd 'em), francisca, throwing clubs (yes, clubs!), chackram,  musede, hunga munga, tomahawks (yes, 'hawks), spikes, "stars," shuriken, knives, Kylie, even freaking rocks (sling stones, anyone?).
> 
> Anyone claiming that thrown melee weapons have no place, at least historically speaking, is simply being deliberately ignorant.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



They have a place.  DELIBERATELY carrying a knife with the express intent to throw it in a self-defense scenario is delusional, stupid, and the person doing it is sick in the head.  That's my 2 cents.


----------



## drop bear

Bill Mattocks said:


> They have a place.  DELIBERATELY carrying a knife with the express intent to throw it in a self-defense scenario is delusional, stupid, and the person doing it is sick in the head.  That's my 2 cents.



And you don't have to. Plenty of knives throw.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

Bill Mattocks said:


> They have a place. DELIBERATELY carrying a knife with the express intent to throw it in a self-defense scenario is delusional, stupid, and the person doing it is sick in the head. That's my 2 cents.


 
They do have a place.
This isnt about carrying the knife with the express intent to throw it in a self-defense scenario.
And if it was that doesnt make it delusional, stupid, or the person sick in the head.
If proficient it could be a decent strategy (depending on the scenario), similar to deliberately carrying a gun with the express intent to shoot it in a self-defense scenario


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Christopher Adamchek said:


> They do have a place.
> This isnt about carrying the knife with the express intent to throw it in a self-defense scenario.
> And if it was that doesnt make it delusional, stupid, or the person sick in the head.
> If proficient it could be a decent strategy (depending on the scenario), similar to deliberately carrying a gun with the express intent to shoot it in a self-defense scenario



Nope. It's delusional, idiotic, immature, dangerous, and indicative of serious mental illness to carry around a knife with the intention of throwing it at someone. Vastly moronic.


----------



## Tez3

@CB Jones and everyone, do look up Stokes, his photos of wounded Veterans are amazing and a huge testament to their courage and strength of character in going from having life changing injuries to posing as stunning models for his photos, it's not just males, there's female Veterans as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nope. It's delusional, idiotic, immature, dangerous, and indicative of serious mental illness to carry around a knife with the intention of throwing it at someone. Vastly moronic.



Why? I think it's probably not the best way to protect yourself. But I carry a gun with the intention of shooting someone, if circumstances require it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dirty Dog said:


> Why? I think it's probably not the best way to protect yourself. But I carry a gun with the intention of shooting someone, if circumstances require it.


There are no circumstances which require throwing a knife at someone. This discussion reminds me of the one a few years back by the young person who insisted he kept his pockets full of dirt to throw into a bad guy''s eyes. Too many movies.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are no circumstances which require throwing a knife at someone. This discussion reminds me of the one a few years back by the young person who insisted he kept husband pockets full of dirt to throw into a bad guy''s eyes. Too many movies.



Many circumstances dont require certain types of responses, that doesnt make those responses null and void


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Many circumstances dont require certain types of responses, that doesnt make those responses null and void


Yes it really does. Horrifyingly bad decision making.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> I dont see how there could be legal ramifications there is no requirement to be within reach to use deadly force.  People utilize guns from outside of reach in self defense.


Agreed. I do wonder if - should it reach a jury trial - it would be easier for prosecution to convince a jury when a knife is thrown, by using exactly the approach that was mentioned.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are no circumstances which require throwing a knife at someone. This discussion reminds me of the one a few years back by the young person who insisted he kept his pockets full of dirt to throw into a bad guy''s eyes. Too many movies.



Im sorry every time someone mentions that i think of this and have to share it.   Not to degrade the topic but i literally cannot resist.


----------



## elder999

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are no circumstances which require throwing a knife at someone. This discussion reminds me of the one a few years back by the young person who insisted he kept his pockets full of dirt to throw into a bad guy''s eyes. Too many movies.



Years ago, in another life, I carried a handkerchief.

I practiced throwing it into someone's face as a distraction-even sewed ball bearings into the corners, so it would spread properly.

I had occasion to use it this way, and it worked.

Of course, I was 15 years old......


----------



## Deleted member 39746

elder999 said:


> Years ago, in another life, I carried a handkerchief.
> 
> I practiced throwing it into someone's face as a distraction-even sewed ball bearings into the corners, so it would spread properly.
> 
> I had occasion to use it this way, and it worked.
> 
> Of course, I was 15 years old......



Well its part of bartisu training, or something which they do. same with using a hat, there is also some depictions of using the hat as a shield.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

*Reminder to all MartialTalk members:*

This is the "friendly martial arts community". Let's keep it that way in our posts, please.
___________
Gerry Seymour
MartialTalk Moderator


----------



## Bill Mattocks

elder999 said:


> Years ago, in another life, I carried a handkerchief.
> 
> I practiced throwing it into someone's face as a distraction-even sewed ball bearings into the corners, so it would spread properly.
> 
> I had occasion to use it this way, and it worked.
> 
> Of course, I was 15 years old......


Exactly.


----------



## elder999

Rat said:


> Well its part of bartisu training, or something which they do. same with using a hat, there is also some depictions of using the hat as a shield.



I miss Don Cunningham, sometimes.....if you guys think I'm curmudgeonly, you should have seem this guy's posts!

Anyway, where do you suppose Barton-Wright got that little goodie?

Taiho-Jutsu


----------



## Deleted member 39746

elder999 said:


> I miss Don Cunningham, sometimes.....if you guys think I'm curmudgeonly, you should have seem this guy's posts!
> 
> Anyway, where do you suppose Barton-Wright got that little goodie?
> 
> Taiho-Jutsu



Probably just logical to throw your hat at someone attacking you.


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> Probably just logical to throw your hat at someone attacking you.



What odd jobs style?


----------



## elder999

Rat said:


> Probably just *as* logical to throw your hat at someone attacking you.



Fixed that for ya.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I have a rather ;large head.

I didn't wear a hat much when I was 15.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

Doug Marcaida has a excellent example video on using a baseball hat as a weapon, i can personally attest to practicing the usefulness and fun of these techniques


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Doug Marcaida has a excellent example video on using a baseball hat as a weapon, i can personally attest to practicing the usefulness and fun of these techniques


I like that, but in this area (and I think in surrounding states) that would be illegal - classified, I think, as a slungshot.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

gpseymour said:


> classified, I think, as a slungshot.



Oh, cause of the beads in the back?
gotcha
same tactics can be used without, i dont have any in mine


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Oh, cause of the beads in the back?
> gotcha
> same tactics can be used without, i dont have any in mine


Yes. And agreed - the same basic tactics work (with a slightly different effect) without them. I just saw that and wanted to point it out before someone decided it was a good idea to actually do. As always, folks need to check local laws before they do things like that. You couldn't even get into the courthouse I volunteer at with that hat on.


----------



## Brian King

@Christopher Adamchek 
Thanks for posting the clip.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## drop bear

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Doug Marcaida has a excellent example video on using a baseball hat as a weapon, i can personally attest to practicing the usefulness and fun of these techniques



When everything works in a drill.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

elder999 said:


> Fixed that for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a rather ;large head.
> 
> I didn't wear a hat much when I was 15.



Wait i thought the link at the bottom was part of your signature, pahahaha.     Yeah he did in essence just branch out to basically everything he thought was remotely good. 

There is a bicycle defence little snippet some people found  as well.  (not necessarily his but its the same period) 

anyway this is getting rambily.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. And agreed - the same basic tactics work (with a slightly different effect) without them. I just saw that and wanted to point it out before someone decided it was a good idea to actually do. As always, folks need to check local laws before they do things like that. You couldn't even get into the courthouse I volunteer at with that hat on.



Sap cap if anyone is looking to go all james bond.


----------



## Tez3

Anyone watch the television series 'Peaky Blinders'? It's a crime drama about a gang in post First World War Birmingham UK, they are called peaky blinders because of the razor blades sewn into the peaks of their flat caps, they used them to slash their enemies faces causing the blood to run down and blind them...….


----------



## lklawson

CB Jones said:


> Link or info on this case.


It was from an "Ayoob Files" article in a print magazine back in the 90's.  Wish I had a link to it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Bill Mattocks said:


> There are no circumstances which require throwing a knife at someone. This discussion reminds me of the one a few years back by the young person who insisted he kept his pockets full of dirt to throw into a bad guy''s eyes. Too many movies.


I can give you references for people carrying ground red pepper in their pockets to throw in the faces of attackers and victims.  Whether or not you like it, it's happened and was effective.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

elder999 said:


> I miss Don Cunningham, sometimes.....if you guys think I'm curmudgeonly, you should have seem this guy's posts!
> 
> Anyway, where do you suppose Barton-Wright got that little goodie?
> 
> Taiho-Jutsu


Barton-Wright mentioned it but it was also known from something called, imms, "Uncle Frank's Hat Trick."  That said, the concept predates Barton-Wright by a few centuries.  I recall seeing a Rapier play where the defender flings his cloak at the attacker.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Doug Marcaida has a excellent example video on using a baseball hat as a weapon, i can personally attest to practicing the usefulness and fun of these techniques


IMS, Fairbairn taught the Camp-X recruits to sew razor blades into the bills of their caps.  Not sure where he learned it.  Probably Shanghai.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson

gpseymour said:


> I like that, but in this area (and I think in surrounding states) that would be illegal - classified, I think, as a slungshot.


Slungshots are not illegal everywhere.  Just most states.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## pgsmith

Just to add a tidbit to the conversation, the Kage ryu (who use tremendously huge swords!) have taught their proponents to accurately throw their short sword in order to give them time to draw their long sword since the mid 1600's.


----------



## Tez3

lklawson said:


> IMS, Fairbairn taught the Camp-X recruits to sew razor blades into the bills of their caps.  Not sure where he learned it.  Probably Shanghai.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Most likely Birmingham. The television series is a drama based on real Victorian gangs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

lklawson said:


> I can give you references for people carrying ground red pepper in their pockets to throw in the faces of attackers and victims.  Whether or not you like it, it's happened and was effective.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



And I could give you my opinion of such behavior, but friendliness forbids it.


----------



## Flying Crane

I heard about a member of the Chinese Martial arts community in San Francisco who would carry glass dust in his shirt pocket, to throw in people’s eyes.  

I don’t know if he ever actually did that to someone.

It seems very “pre-meditated” to me.  More like he is looking for trouble, or expects to find trouble based on his habitual activities, then out of actual mindful self-defense considerations.

If he found himself being prosecuted, I think he would have a hard time justifying it.


----------



## lklawson

Bill Mattocks said:


> And I could give you my opinion of such behavior, but friendliness forbids it.


It was used successfully.  I can give you the reference if you like, but I would prefer to do it privately because I'm using the information for a book that I'm working on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

lklawson said:


> It was used successfully.  I can give you the reference if you like, but I would prefer to do it privately because I'm using the information for a book that I'm working on.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I don't doubt it was used successfully. My opinion if I were to share it would be of a person who felt compelled to carry around pockets full of ground red pepper, again, for the express purpose of being ready to throw it into the eyes of an attacker, should one hove into view.

I'm sorry. I can't help it, I'm laughing. Are we all 15 years old here?


----------



## Dirty Dog

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't doubt it was used successfully. My opinion if I were to share it would be of a person who felt compelled to carry around pockets full of ground red pepper, again, for the express purpose of being ready to throw it into the eyes of an attacker, should one hove into view.
> 
> I'm sorry. I can't help it, I'm laughing. Are we all 15 years old here?



You have yet to explain how doing so differs in any meaningful way from the person who carries a gun, for the express purpose of protection.
Maybe Mr Chili Powder lives someplace where a more effective weapon isn't legal.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I know! I'm going to fill my pockets with ball bearings, to scatter in the path of mustache-twirling baddies, so they'll slip and fall when they try to abscond with my valuables. My pants will look like I'm smuggling chipmunks, but that's the price for safety!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dirty Dog said:


> You have yet to explain how doing so differs in any meaningful way from the person who carries a gun, for the express purpose of protection.
> Maybe Mr Chili Powder lives someplace where a more effective weapon isn't legal.


What's to explain? It's ludicrous on the face of it.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> You have yet to explain how doing so differs in any meaningful way from the person who carries a gun, for the express purpose of protection.
> Maybe Mr Chili Powder lives someplace where a more effective weapon isn't legal.



Basically the concept behind pepper spray.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's to explain? It's ludicrous on the face of it.


Unless it works. Then it's not ludicrous.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

drop bear said:


> Basically the concept behind pepper spray.



Exactly, the concept of pepper spray had been used hundreds of years ago in the middle east as warrior would carry small loosely tied bags of pepper powders


----------



## lklawson

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's to explain? It's ludicrous on the face of it.


Because you say so?  It's certainly not "ludicrous on the face of it" based on actual use or effectiveness.  You just don't like it.  That's OK.  You don't have to use it or recommend it.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in someone else' context.  We're not all you.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's to explain? It's ludicrous on the face of it.


----------



## pgsmith

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't doubt it was used successfully. My opinion if I were to share it would be of a person who felt compelled to carry around pockets full of ground red pepper, again, for the express purpose of being ready to throw it into the eyes of an attacker, should one hove into view.
> 
> I'm sorry. I can't help it, I'm laughing. Are we all 15 years old here?



  Hmmmmm .... I know a number of individuals, none of whom are 15 by the way, that always carry pepper spray with them. For that matter, many police forces have their officers carry pepper spray. Pepper spray IS the modern version of a pocketful of ground red pepper, so I'm not really sure why you seem so dismissive of it.


----------



## CB Jones

Wait.....if you carry ground red pepper in your pocket....if you pocket gets wet and it soaks through to your nether regions....


----------



## pgsmith

CB Jones said:


> Wait.....if you carry ground red pepper in your pocket....if you pocket gets wet and it soaks through to your nether regions....


  Then it's just like using the urinal after cutting up habanero peppers! (a friend of mine did that, made a great story!)


----------



## Dirty Dog

pgsmith said:


> Then it's just like using the urinal after cutting up habanero peppers! (a friend of mine did that, made a great story!)



Or peeing on an electric fence?


----------



## Bill Mattocks

pgsmith said:


> Hmmmmm .... I know a number of individuals, none of whom are 15 by the way, that always carry pepper spray with them. For that matter, many police forces have their officers carry pepper spray. Pepper spray IS the modern version of a pocketful of ground red pepper, so I'm not really sure why you seem so dismissive of it.


If you cannot discern the difference between carrying a can of pepper spray and stuffing your pockets with red pepper, I don't know what else to say. 

Somebody took "The Anarchists Cookbook" way too seriously is what.

What's next, throwing shoes? Carrying self defense bullwhips? I know, blow cigarette smoke at them. Second hand smoke is deadly, after all.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

gpseymour said:


> Unless it works. Then it's not ludicrous.



Yes, it really is. It's silly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

lklawson said:


> Because you say so?  It's certainly not "ludicrous on the face of it" based on actual use or effectiveness.  You just don't like it.  That's OK.  You don't have to use it or recommend it.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in someone else' context.  We're not all you.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Thank goodness for that!


----------



## lklawson

Bill Mattocks said:


> What's next, throwing shoes? Carrying self defense bullwhips? I know, blow cigarette smoke at them. Second hand smoke is deadly, after all.


You may mock it, but there are definitely people who carry a sjambok (a kind of whip) as a self-defense tool. From what I've read, they have been known to loop it through their belt loops on their pants or run it through the sleeves and across their back of their shirt.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you cannot discern the difference between carrying a can of pepper spray and stuffing your pockets with red pepper, I don't know what else to say.
> 
> Somebody took "The Anarchists Cookbook" way too seriously is what.
> 
> What's next, throwing shoes? Carrying self defense bullwhips? I know, blow cigarette smoke at them. Second hand smoke is deadly, after all.


You just seem to be saying the same thing over and over, Bill. You say it's different, but haven't said how you see that difference.


----------



## pgsmith

Dirty Dog said:


> Or peeing on an electric fence?



  That wasn't funny ... not funny at all!   



Bill Mattocks said:


> If you cannot discern the difference between carrying a can of pepper spray and stuffing your pockets with red pepper, I don't know what else to say.
> 
> Somebody took "The Anarchists Cookbook" way too seriously is what.
> 
> What's next, throwing shoes? Carrying self defense bullwhips? I know, blow cigarette smoke at them. Second hand smoke is deadly, after all.



 Please point out where anyone mentioned "stuffing their pockets with red pepper". Exaggerate much? I know people right now that live in areas where pepper spray should be carried, but can't afford to buy it themselves. 

  You are welcome to beat the drum of your suburban existence, but there is a very wide world out there with a great many societies where things you consider "ludicrous"  may actually be necessary survival skills. It may be ludicrous for *you*, but I've been in a number of areas here in the good old USA where any sort of minor advantage can mean the difference between living and dying.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Why would you voluntarily disarm yourself?


I just saw this post and I thought the same thing.  Why would I throw my knife?  This is especially true if I'm already at close range.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can throw the Baoding ball and cause as much damage as your throwing knife.


ha ha ha..  Again we think a like.  This is my weapon of choice when weapons aren't allowed.  I use the stone because they are solid.  So when someone ask. What are these for.  I just stay Stress Balls, used to help relieve stress. I guess I'm not the only one that thinks like this.. Awesome


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> This is my weapon of choice when weapons aren't allowed.  I use the stone because they are solid.  So when someone ask. What are these for.  I just stay Stress Balls, used to help relieve stress. I guess I'm not the only one that thinks like this.. Awesome


An 80 years old man walks on the street with 2 Baoding balls in his hand. A 20 years old robber tries to grab the watch from the old man. The old man throws his Baoding ball and cracks the young man's skull.

In the court, the old man says, "This young guy tries to take my watch. My Baoding ball came out of my hand and hit on his head. His death was 100% accident.

The nice thing about the Baoding ball are:

- It's legal to carry.
- There will be no prove that you have intention to use it to hurt anybody.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

JowGaWolf said:


> I just saw this post and I thought the same thing. Why would I throw my knife? This is especially true if I'm already at close range



Except i did give some solid reasons for this range whether they are liked or not it can still be useful. 

In other regards to voluntary disarming yourself.  I teach my students "when your weapon becomes a hindrance, abandon it."  As people can often fight for control of something that isn't helpful. Let go and continue the fight, or go for their weapon instead.


----------



## wanderingstudent

What's next said:
			
		

> Many of my Latino friends were disciplined by shoes/slippers, by their grandmothers.  The Italian ones, got the wooden spoon or hand.  But again, why would you disarm yourself?


----------



## lklawson

Kung Fu Wang said:


> An 80 years old man walks on the street with 2 Baoding balls in his hand. A 20 years old robber tries to grab the watch from the old man. The old man throws his Baoding ball and cracks the young man's skull.
> 
> In the court, the old man says, "This young guy tries to take my watch. My Baoding ball came out of my hand and hit on his head. His death was 100% accident.


 Please do not try this defense. The actual defense is "he was threatening my life." If he wasn't threatening your life then do not use deadly force against him. It really is that simple.



> The nice thing about the Baoding ball are:
> 
> - It's legal to carry.
> - There will be no prove that you have intention to use it to hurt anybody.


 MartialTalk seems to be a terrible place to get legal advice. Particularly about self-defense. 75% of what I see here is wrong, and appears to be based on popular myth and hearsay.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Except i did give some solid reasons for this range whether they are liked or not it can still be useful.
> 
> In other regards to voluntary disarming yourself.  I teach my students "when your weapon becomes a hindrance, abandon it."  As people can often fight for control of something that isn't helpful. Let go and continue the fight, or go for their weapon instead.


I've been taught that a weapon only becomes a hindrance in two situations

When the person is not skilled enough
When the attacker is more skilled with dealing with the weapon
When a weapon is being used outside of it's range

I'm not sure how your knife will become a hindrance at close range if you know how to use it.  Releasing a knife, for example, dropping it and catching it in the other hand that's free, is not the same as throwing it at your target.  

2 people fighting with knifes.  At which point does it become a good idea to throw your knife?





Releasing a weapon is not the same as throwing one.


----------



## JowGaWolf

lklawson said:


> MartialTalk seems to be a terrible place to get legal advice. Particularly about self-defense. 75% of what I see here is wrong, and appears to be based on popular myth and hearsay.


There is no law against having massage balls, healing chrystals, or baoding balls.  100% legal in the US.

Proving intention would be impossible to deny.  If it's thrown at someone then the intent is to hurt,  If you drop it in a sock then the intent is to hurt someone. The intent isn't the problem here in a legal defense.  The reasoning behind the intent.    If I am attacked and I feel as if I was in enough danger to where I felt it was necessary, then I would own the intent.  I would actually have to own it in order to claim self-defense.

What would  be really difficult is prove that you are using picking baoding balls as a weapon of choice or are you actually using them as a calming tool.  This is difficult because it can be both  When a person is not attacked it is used as a calming tool.  When a person is attacked then it's used as "the next best thing"  no different than being stabbed with a sharp pencil, choked out with a belt, or piece of clothing.  

My legal defense shouldn't be based on if I intended to hurt my attacker.  It should be,  I hurt my attacker because he was attacking me.  Intent to kill is something totally different and has it's own legal definitions to meet. 

The chances that throwing a rock  that's the size of a massage ball at a person would kill them is not highly likely.  What it will do is give you an opportunity to is increase distance or decrease your attacking range while the person is trying to avoid the rock..  Aiming at the head will cause the most disorientation, but is not always the easiest target to hit.  Can it crack the skull?  only if you have enough weight in the stone and enough power in the throw.  Moving the head can be the difference between solid hit and glance.

The chances of me killing someone with one is realistically very slim.   Even when Wang stated it I had my doubts about the killing part.  Can it happen?  yeah if a 1% chance is a possibility.     While I wouldn't take legal advice from MT,  one take comfort that being killed with a baoding ball would be very slim. It will hurt if get hit with one in the face, or head, but it's probably the least of your troubles, if the thrower decides to follow up on the throw with some strikes. Or another boading ball.

I've been hit in the face with a lacrosse ball and impacts like that turn off the light for a few seconds and it's very disorienting. Killing risk? no.  Concussion risk? definitely yes.


----------



## CB Jones

Posting and telling people that you carry baoding balls to use as weapons seems to imply intent to use baoding balls as weapons.


----------



## Flying Crane

Legal advice offered here:  defending yourself from prosecution for seriously injuring or killing someone, if the DA feels you acted unreasonably, even if you feel you acted in legitimate self defense, can become a very difficult, expensive, scary, and stressful endeavor.  Nothing is simple or cut-and-dried.

So, tread with extreme caution.  And don’t assume anything in your favor.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> Posting and telling people that you carry baoding balls to use as weapons seems to imply intent to use baoding balls as weapons.


But there is nothing wrong with that.  It's not a weapon until it's used as one. I could say the same thing about carrying a pencil or wearing a necktie.

People carry guns for the purpose of using it as a weapon.  The biggest difference is that a baoding ball is not classified as weapon.  It's not a weapon until you use it as one. If I throw an object at someone with the intent to harm then, then I have just used it as a weapon regardless of what I admit in public or not and that's what the courts will look at as well.  

The thing I wouldn't do is try to play innocent that a baoding ball somehow slipped from my possession and accidentally cracked someone's skull.  You would be better of just being honest and say that you threw it at your attacker in hopes to create distance or to stun or delay the attacker long enough to escape or cause the attacker to stop attacking.  The fact that it cracked his skull and he died is a fluke and misfortune.  You could actually prove this in court and with medical records of people who were struck in the head with rocks that were thrown who didn't die. You could not only prove it that way but you could actually show how difficult it is to do such a thing and be successful at it.  

People who were hit in the face with something traveling faster than most people could throw a baoding ball.  If you had one, then this is the idea effect that you hope for.  If you land a good shot on your attacker then consider your self lucky, that his arms didn't get in the way and that he was unable to dodge it or deflect it.





Playing innocent would most likely put you in more legal troubles because now you are trying to hide something.  If someone is really attacking you at the point where you fear for your life, then let that be the answer.   In court you want to show that your actions were "last resort" actions in defense of the safety of your life or well being.    To hit a guy in the face with a baoding ball just because you are arguing will get you thrown in jail.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Legal advice offered here:  defending yourself from prosecution for seriously injuring or killing someone, if the DA feels you acted unreasonably, even if you feel you acted in legitimate self defense, can become a very difficult, expensive, scary, and stressful endeavor.  Nothing is simple or cut-and-dried.
> 
> So, tread with extreme caution.  And don’t assume anything in your favor.


The only thing I wouldn't want to post is me training with the weapon that I might use lol.  If I'm in court I don't want to be seen as some highly skilled weapon fighter.  I wouldn't put a video of me killing rabbits and flying birds with a  massage ball. lol.  I would always want that skill and ability to be in question.  I would want the "Kung Fu Master" defense (talk a lot about being expert fighter but can't actually fight) lol.

While you can't assume that something is in your favor you can always position yourself for a better outcome.  If I'm 80's years old and cracked and attackers skull with a baoding ball, then I'm going for the "age defense"  How long does someone actually think an 80 year old person will last in a physical attack from someone who is 30-50 years younger..  Damn right I threw baoding ball.  I would have been crazy not to. lol


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> The only thing I wouldn't want to post is me training with the weapon that I might use lol.  If I'm in court I don't want to be seen as some highly skilled weapon fighter.  I wouldn't put a video of me killing rabbits and flying birds with a  massage ball. lol.  I would always want that skill and ability to be in question.  I would want the "Kung Fu Master" defense (talk a lot about being expert fighter but can't actually fight) lol.
> 
> While you can't assume that something is in your favor you can always position yourself for a better outcome.  If I'm 80's years old and cracked and attackers skull with a baoding ball, then I'm going for the "age defense"  How long does someone actually think an 80 year old person will last in a physical attack from someone who is 30-50 years younger..  Damn right I threw baoding ball.  I would have been crazy not to. lol


Agreed.  These things on the internet, they have a way of being found.

Making statements like “ I would just crack his skull with a baoding ball and then claim self defense because I’m old” have a way of coming back to haunt a person.


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> The biggest difference is that a baoding ball is not classified as weapon. It's not a weapon until you use it as one. If I throw an object at someone with the intent to harm then, then I have just used it as a weapon regardless of what I admit in public or not and that's what the courts will look at as well.



That's not necessarily true.

If you carry an object with the primary intent on using it as a weapon then in the eyes of many courts it can be defined as a weapon even before it is used as one.

That does not necessarily make it illegal but just something to be aware of.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

JowGaWolf said:


> I've been taught that a weapon only becomes a hindrance in two situations
> 
> When the person is not skilled enough
> When the attacker is more skilled with dealing with the weapon
> When a weapon is being used outside of it's range



Thats three, but all reasonable.  And the third one can happen fairly often regardless of skill, and reasons why warrior would have secondary weapons such a knives, or grappling skills - in the instance of sword fighting for example that gets too tangled as close range.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure how your knife will become a hindrance at close range if you know how to use it. Releasing a knife, for example, dropping it and catching it in the other hand that's free, is not the same as throwing it at your target.



Also my weapon hindrance and voluntary disarmment was separate from the technique in this video (as i stated with "in other regards")

And ive already explained reasons, such as not quite being at the close range needed to make contact with the knife on the opponent, this could help close that gap.  I did list multiple examples if you want to read my other comments.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> If you carry an object with the primary intent on using it as a weapon then in the eyes of many courts it can be defined as a weapon even before it is used as one.


I think people really get stuck on the intent to use as a weapon too much.   If I have not attacked you or threaten to attack you  you with the baoding ball then there is no way or reason I would be in court for baoding balls or massage balls.

If I have threaten to hit you, or attack you with baoding balls then it becomes a legal matter that I need to be concerned with.  For example, I have already made it clear that I sometimes carry stone massage balls for the purpose of a weapon.  No police or law enforcement in the U.S. is going to arrest me for it. There's not law in the U.S. against it.  

Baoding balls and stone massage balls are not classified as weapons which is why you can walk in schools, churches, and government buildings with them.  There is no law against it.  Pardon my the pun but I could play with those things right in plain site of a police officer and nothing will happen.  Not one court date.

However, the moment I use one as a weapon is the exact moment I better have valid reason for using one as a weapon.  Just because I have a pair of Baoding balls with me that day, doesn't mean that my reason for them carrying them that day was to use it as a weapon.    Now if I leave a trail of bodies on the ground with skulls cracked by a baoding ball then yes, now you put me under the jail and take my statement that I carry them as weapon as something to arrest me by.

Other than that what you are looking at is
1.  The probability that I'm attacked on a day I have my baoding ball
2.  The probability that I was able to get a clean shot where I could throw it hard enough to crack someone's skull and then have them die.
3.  The reality in which I would throw a rock at someone.  What was the situation.  Did my attacker have a knife?  What my attacker significantly larger and stronger than me.
4.  What was the likely hood of me being able to defend myself considering my fitness and age.
5.  Did I attack the person or did the person attack me?
6.  Did I throw the baoding ball with the intent to kill? or was I just defending myself?
7.  What happened after I threw the baoding ball.  Did the attacker continue to attack?

There is just so many things that unless you are a criminal ninja who has perfected the art of killing others with a baoding ball who attacked someone out of the blue.   The fact that a massage ball or baoding ball was in my possession and my intent for having it is just totally irrelevant.  

If I threw it at my attacker then by nature of use, my intent was to use it as a weapon regardless or why I originally had it.  Which is why I wouldn't use the "Oh it slipped out of my pants pocket and broke my attacker's skull bad enough to where he died." defense.

Had I not been attacked and in fear for my well being then I would have never used it as a weapon.  But since I was attacked  "It was the next best thing" to aid me in my self preservation.  Especially if my attacker has a knife.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Christopher Adamchek said:


> Thats three, but all reasonable.


Yeah long work week.  I can't count.  That's my 4th week..  Your honor I only hit him twice  I don't remember hitting him 10 times lol.   



Christopher Adamchek said:


> And the third one can happen fairly often regardless of skill, and reasons why warrior would have secondary weapons such a knives, or grappling skills - in the instance of sword fighting for example that gets too tangled as close range.


 I used to think the same thing about long weapons, but a few years ago I learned that the staff has short range striking techniques. Someone who knows how to use a staff would be able to beat you close range just as easily.

Staff has short range and grappling techniques which are deployed when the person is too close for the long strikes.  I tried to train those techniques at school and what I discovered was that we had to go really slow because the staff was hitting us within milliseconds. The harder the struggle the more power will be added into the strike.  The close quarter staff strikes are much quicker.  

Depending on the sword, the sword will also have close range fighting techniques as well. The cutting edge of a combat sword is long, it's not just at the tip.  You also have the hilt. 





Here you can see jow ga double sword and you can tell when strikes are close range and when they are long range.





this is sigle broad sword. If you get hit with this close range then you'll be ok, right up until the point where the user pulls the sword across your body. Here the cuts are similar to how paper cuts work.  It's not the initial impact that cuts you, It's the pulling of the edge across the surface of the body.





Usually the curved blades will mess you up even at close range.




Christopher Adamchek said:


> Also my weapon hindrance and voluntary disarmment was separate from the technique in this video (as i stated with "in other regards")


 Sorry didn't see that part




JowGaWolf said:


> Had I not been attacked and in fear for my well being then I would have never used it as a weapon. But since I was attacked "It was the next best thing" to aid me in my self preservation. Especially if my attacker has a knife.


I'll go back and read your additional comments.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

JowGaWolf said:


> Staff has short range and grappling techniques which are deployed when the person is too close for the long strikes



I agree and practice and teach that as well. But i can also be advantageous to transition to empty hand strikes or grappling, go for thier primary weapon, go for yours or thier secondary weapon.  Or some combination of these.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people really get stuck on the intent to use as a weapon too much.


This is why the self-defense people don't want to talk about "weapon training". Even if you may say that you train how to use a weapon for self-defense, people won't believe you.

If you train

- Guan Dao, you intend to cut your enemy's head off.
- Spear, you intend to drill a hole through your enemy's chest.

You have the ability to do something, it doesn't mean that you will do it, or you have to do it. There is nothing wrong to be honest to yourself.


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people really get stuck on the intent to use as a weapon too much. If I have not attacked you or threaten to attack you you with the baoding ball then there is no way or reason I would be in court for baoding balls or massage balls.
> 
> If I have threaten to hit you, or attack you with baoding balls then it becomes a legal matter that I need to be concerned with. For example, I have already made it clear that I sometimes carry stone massage balls for the purpose of a weapon. No police or law enforcement in the U.S. is going to arrest me for it. There's not law in the U.S. against it.



Incorrect.

Intent is an important part of the law..  If you are carrying an object you intend to use as a weapon then it meets the definition of a weapon and as such is governed by laws regulating the carrying of those weapons.  So it is important to know your local and state laws on the carrying of weapons.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Intent is an important part of the law.. If you are carrying an object you intend to use as a weapon then it meets the definition of a weapon and as such is governed by laws regulating the carrying of those weapons. So it is important to know your local and state laws on the carrying of weapons.


If I hit you in the head with a rock, then the intent is clear that my intent is to use it as a weapon.

If I carry a massage ball in my pocket and hit no one, then how do you prove my intent?  How am I in legal jeopardy for having in rock that is also used for massage in my pocket that I do not use?  How do I get arrested for that?  You couldn't even prove that I wanted to attack someone with it unless I state or post that I'm going to go bash some people in the head with a baoding ball.  If you state that you can use it as a weapon then guess what?  You can use a neck tie as a weapon and you can wear a neck tie for the purpose of using it as a weapon. But guess what.  a police officer would be hard press to come to my job and arrest me for wearing a necktie just because I say I wear it because I can use it as weapon. 

I could be in an argument and not use the baoding ball.  So where is the intent to use it as weapon if I don't use it in an heated argument?  I can even choose not to use it if the person punches at me.  Where is my intent to use it as a weapon even if a person punches at me but I don't use it?


If I fear for my life, then yes I'm going to use it.  If someone has a knife then yes, I'm going to use it.  So while intent is important in law, it only comes into play when it's used.
I cannot get arrested for a baoding ball as a weapon if I punch and kick the attacker unconscious.  You couldn't even arrest me for attacking someone with it if I don't use it in a fist fight.  It wouldn't even come into legal play, there wouldn't even be a legal question about it because it wasn't used.  I may be in trouble for  punching and kicking a guy but I won't be in trouble for my intent of carrying a baoding ball as a weapon.  On what legal grounds would I be charged for that as it's not a weapon.

There is a big different between something that is classified as a weapon and something that could be used as a weapon.  I cold easily pick up dirt and throw into an attackers eyes.  Was it my intent to use the dirt as a weapon, Hell yeah.  that's why threw the dirt, for self-defense.  Is dirt classified as a weapon?  No.  

The legal definition of intent is not so broad that it takes things out of context and consideration of use.

When it comes to classified weapons then it becomes a little more difficult to say "I didn't intend to"  which is where a lot of this intent stuff comes into play where someone didn't intend for the death of another to happen vs the intent to use something as a weapon.


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> how do you prove my intent?



By your own admission....

If you say I'm am carrying this object to use as a weapon...then your intent for that object is for it to be a weapon and it is classified as such.

If the object is something that is reasonably used as a weapon and it is probable that the intent of you carrying it as a weapon then it can also be classified as a weapon.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Intent is an important part of the law..  If you are carrying an object you intend to use as a weapon then it meets the definition of a weapon and as such is governed by laws regulating the carrying of those weapons.  So it is important to know your local and state laws on the carrying of weapons.


By the way I definitely agree with the know  your local state laws on the carrying of weapons


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> By the way I definitely agree with the know  your local state laws on the carrying of weapons




Also realize that different jurisdictions could be stricter with their interpretation of the law.

For example, the law in my state:

 Illegal carrying of weapons is:

(1)  The intentional concealment of any firearm, or *other instrumentality* customarily used *or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon*, on one's person; 


Some jurisdictions can be stricter in their interpretation of this than others.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> By your own admission....


By my own admission I also use the same object for managing stress and anxiety.   So by my own admission it's not a weapon, which brings us back to the question.  I've used the massage ball on more than 100 occasions for managing stress and anxiety.  I've used it zero times as a weapon.  Zero times for attacking someone. So regardless of what I stated it's clear that I'm not running around nailing people in the face or head with it.

Just because I have it doesn't mean that my primary reason for carrying it that day is to use it as a weapon.  So once again.  How do you know when I'm carrying it for Primary use as a weapon or Primary use for managing stress and anxiety?  How would you prove that in a court of law?  And if I not attacking anyone with it, then how are you going to get me in the court of law on the possibility that the massage ball that I have is a weapon?  It's not a illegal to carry them, so on what grounds am I being arrested for?  On what grounds would I be in legal jeopardy?

If I do use it as a weapon then I'm not going to try to hide that I used it as weapon, simply for the fact that would be very clear that it was use as a weapon.  



CB Jones said:


> If you say I'm am carrying this object to use as a weapon...then your intent for that object is for it to be a weapon and it is classified as such.


Even if I don't say I'm carrying it for a use of a weapon and I use it for a weapon, the intent would still be clear.  I used it for a weapon regardless of why I was carrying it around.  

You could be in the same room with an aggressive person who starts to get violent and threatens to attack you.  You pick up a near by lamp post to defend yourself.  You hit the attacker with the lamp and cracks his skull.   Did you carry the lamp post around as weapon? No  Did you tell someone you would use a lamp post as a weapon if you had to? No.   Did intend to use the lamp post as a weapon when you cracked the skull of your attacker? OF COURSE YOU DID. That's why you picked it up and not the chair because you believed that the lamp would be a better weapon to defend yourself than the chair.   If that lamp stays where it is during the fight, then how are they going to say that your intent was to use the lamp to strike person.

Now in terms of intent.  If you hit your attacker with the lamp it cracks his skull and then he dies,  Then the question becomes did you intent to kill the person that was attacking you?   Did you know that the lamp would kill the person as you were defending yourself.  Did you hit the person with the lamp and then repeated struck the person while he was unconscious..  At this point intent is going to be a big focus.  






If I have been convicted of a federal crime  and served my time in prison and upon release,  does that mean that I can't wear shoes if I say that I wear them as a weapon?  Does it mean that I can't wear a tie?  Does it mean that I can't carry pencils or pens?  Or carry a rock, keys, or walk with a waking stick?  Does it mean that I can't have this floor lamp in my house because I said I would use it as as a weapon?  Does it mean I can't carry a heavy flashlight?  Does it mean that I can't walk around with plastic shin guards?  Because now that I've said I wear shin guards to be used as weapons that the shin guards are now a weapon.  Does that apply if I tell someone that wear loose shirts so I can take them off and choke someone.  So I get in legal trouble for that?


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> By my own admission I also use the same object for managing stress and anxiety



Again...if you say.....I carry this for self defense......then that implies that your intent is to use it as a weapon and it can be classified as a weapon.

If you say I carry these for stress or hand strengthening that does not imply intent to use as a weapon and technically it is not a weapon until your intent changes.

If it is reasonable that you have an object that could be used as a weapon for a reasonable purpose then there is no problem....if you have an object that you state its purpose is as a weapon.....then it is classified as a weapon.

A Hammer is a legal tool.  It is reasonable for a carpenter to have a hammer concealed in a pouch while working.  It is not reasonable for the same carpenter to have the hammer concealed in his jacket at a bar after hours.  That tool is now considered to be intended as a weapon.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

CB Jones said:


> Again...if you say.....I carry this for self defense......then that implies that your intent is to use it as a weapon and it can be classified as a weapon.


In a street fight, you hurt your opponent. The judge asks you:

A: Why do you train MA?
B: I train MA for SD (you are a bad guy).
C: I train MA for health (you are an average guy).
D: I train MA for self-cultivation and inner peace (you are a good guy),

Do you think judge will treat you any difference if your answer is B, C, or D?


----------



## CB Jones

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In a street fight, you hurt your opponent. The judge asks you:
> 
> A: Why do you train MA?
> B: I train MA for SD (you are a bad guy).
> C: I train MA for health (you are an average guy).
> D: I train MA for self-cultivation and inner peace (you are a good guy),
> 
> Do you think judge will treat you any difference if your answer is B, C, or D?



No there is no law against knowing how to defend yourself....but your defense has to be reasonable and you must stop once the threat is no longer there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> (1) The intentional concealment of any firearm, or *other instrumentality* customarily used *or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon*, on one's person;


1. Baoding balls are not a firearm so we can count that out.
2. Baoding balls are not instrumentality customarily used as a dangerous weapon nor are they designed or made for intended use of a probable use as a dangerous weapon.

This is why you don't get put in jail for having Baoding balls in your pocket.. Because under law it's not a weapon.  I can go to any police station have in my pocket take it out of my pocket play with them and I won't be arrested.   However, the same can not be said with concealed knives, guns, hatchets, blades, with the exception in some states for pocket knives. Zip guns, concealed swords, bowie knives.  Those would be considered an illegal weapon if they are concealed regardless of your intent.  Even if you are just transferring them to someone elses house, you will be breaking the law for having it concealed in your pocket.

The same is not true for Baoding balls in your pocket.  I can't be pulled over, searched and then arrested for having Baoding Balls in my pocket. You would more likely be in trouble for walking around with this thing than you would a baoding ball.  

This is clearly intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon.   










This however is not as clear cut




Nor is these. which do not fit as an instrument that is customarily used as a dangerous weapon.  It also does not fit the definition of other instrument that is customarily intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon.  *other instrumentality* customarily used *or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon*, on one's person





In terms of probable use as a weapon.  That would be everything from sewing needles, to iron nails, to having a fist in your pocket or having a toy spinner.   But having these things in your pocket are not considered illegal weapons nor are they considered concealed weapons.  The ring however would match the definition easily. On only has to look at it to determine that it was created and intended for probable use as a weapon.

This is why I say the intent doesn't matter for hitting someone with a baoding ball because once you use it to cause injury to another then the intent is clear that you wanted to use it as a weapon.  I can't do the same with a knife.  I can't just walk around with a knive in my pocket and say that I wasn't intending to use it as a weapon.  I could get in trouble regardless of intent for having a knife in my pocket.   In georgia pocket knives are legal until the blade reaches a certain length.  

Typically stuff like this





but not stuff like this. Even if the blade is well within the length for a pocket knife.  The design tells a different story which would probably get a person in hot water.  After a certain length the knife has to be worn in plain sight.  For example, I can walk down the street with a bowie knife on my possession and not be in trouble, but as soon as it slips under some clothing, then I'll be in big trouble.  if I wanted to put this knife in my pocket then I would need to get a concealed weapons permit.  Baoding balls do not require such a permit.


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> This however is not as clear cut



Maybe not clear cut but when you say I carry these for self defense it allows for them to possible be classified as such.



JowGaWolf said:


> It also does not fit the definition of other instrument that is customarily intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon. *other instrumentality* customarily used *or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon*, on one's person



You are reading that wrong.

It means other instrumentality:
     a) customarily used
*or*
     b) intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon

you added the customarily incorrectly to the 2nd part.

Knives have exceptions written into the law that allows them to be carried....as long as they fit within the parameters of the law they are covered by the exceptions.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The reason it's called Baoding ball because it is famous in Baoding, China. The ball has a small ball inside. It's like a bell that can make noise. This ball is used to put inside of a square bag along with other filling material. When you throw the square bag to your opponent, the ball will make noise to inform your opponent that a square bag is thrown toward him (for safety reason).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In a street fight, you hurt your opponent. The judge asks you:
> 
> A: Why do you train MA?
> B: I train MA for SD (you are a bad guy).
> C: I train MA for health (you are an average guy).
> D: I train MA for self-cultivation and inner peace (you are a good guy),
> 
> Do you think judge will treat you any difference if your answer is B, C, or D?


Depends on how it turns out.

For B.  it's very possible that the judge will say.  "I guess that self-defense training paid off, or that martial arts training pays off"  If you do it the right way then you won't be on trial.  You'll be the one talking to the police and pressing charges.

For C.  You'll probably just get your butt kicked unless you know some other fighting system or if you are just a natural fighter.   If all you do is train for health then you'll may make it to court or you may be dead or in the hospital.  However if you were the one who started the fight, you would still go to jail when the other person presses charges.

For D.  He'll probably say,  I guess you suck at inner peace because you got into a fight.

In court cases the cleaner your legal record the better it will be for you when self-defense is used, especially if your attacker as a criminal record for attacking others.  For me personally, I would pick B. I train MA for SD and I would also use my past post to highlight that most of my effort was to be a good representative of Jow Ga Kung Fu, not to be in street fights.  At least for me, the truth would be the better way to go.  I could also claim, B,C, D.  as well because I get that as a benefit as well.  It's like if you can do an exercise where you get one benefit or do one where you can get multiple benefits,  which one would you choose?

Besides it's already proven that Kung Fu practioners can't fight and that it doesn't work, that's why you don't see it in MMA.


----------



## lklawson

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people really get stuck on the intent to use as a weapon too much.   If I have not attacked you or threaten to attack you  you with the baoding ball then there is no way or reason I would be in court for baoding balls or massage balls.
> 
> If I have threaten to hit you, or attack you with baoding balls then it becomes a legal matter that I need to be concerned with.  For example, I have already made it clear that I sometimes carry stone massage balls for the purpose of a weapon.  No police or law enforcement in the U.S. is going to arrest me for it. There's not law in the U.S. against it.
> 
> Baoding balls and stone massage balls are not classified as weapons which is why you can walk in schools, churches, and government buildings with them.  There is no law against it.  Pardon my the pun but I could play with those things right in plain site of a police officer and nothing will happen.  Not one court date.
> 
> However, the moment I use one as a weapon is the exact moment I better have valid reason for using one as a weapon.  Just because I have a pair of Baoding balls with me that day, doesn't mean that my reason for them carrying them that day was to use it as a weapon.    Now if I leave a trail of bodies on the ground with skulls cracked by a baoding ball then yes, now you put me under the jail and take my statement that I carry them as weapon as something to arrest me by.
> 
> Other than that what you are looking at is
> 1.  The probability that I'm attacked on a day I have my baoding ball
> 2.  The probability that I was able to get a clean shot where I could throw it hard enough to crack someone's skull and then have them die.
> 3.  The reality in which I would throw a rock at someone.  What was the situation.  Did my attacker have a knife?  What my attacker significantly larger and stronger than me.
> 4.  What was the likely hood of me being able to defend myself considering my fitness and age.
> 5.  Did I attack the person or did the person attack me?
> 6.  Did I throw the baoding ball with the intent to kill? or was I just defending myself?
> 7.  What happened after I threw the baoding ball.  Did the attacker continue to attack?
> 
> There is just so many things that unless you are a criminal ninja who has perfected the art of killing others with a baoding ball who attacked someone out of the blue.   The fact that a massage ball or baoding ball was in my possession and my intent for having it is just totally irrelevant.
> 
> If I threw it at my attacker then by nature of use, my intent was to use it as a weapon regardless or why I originally had it.  Which is why I wouldn't use the "Oh it slipped out of my pants pocket and broke my attacker's skull bad enough to where he died." defense.
> 
> Had I not been attacked and in fear for my well being then I would have never used it as a weapon.  But since I was attacked  "It was the next best thing" to aid me in my self preservation.  Especially if my attacker has a knife.


You are still missing the fact that in many locations they have specific laws against "going forth with the intent to be armed," regardless of whether or not it was designed specifically as a weapon.


----------



## CB Jones

My background:   I have 20 years in law enforcement of which 14 of those are in investigations.  I also work a week long street crime operation in which one of the things we target is the illegal carrying of weapons.  Due to that we go over this specifically with our legal department, the District Attorney, and a Retired Appellate Judge who now teaches legal updates for LEO.

Any object can be defined as a weapon if there is proof that they are carrying it for the intended purpose of using it as a weapon or it is probable that it is intended as a weapon.

Again you don't have to have a permit to carry a hammer, but if you are carrying it concealed in a setting that it is probable that it is intended as a weapon....then it can be classified as a weapon.



Carry what you want but be careful what you advise people is legal to carry because you are getting into a very gray area of the law.


----------



## lklawson

Christopher Adamchek said:


> I agree and practice and teach that as well. But i can also be advantageous to transition to empty hand strikes or grappling, go for thier primary weapon, go for yours or thier secondary weapon.  Or some combination of these.


That is kind of standard for every system, crossing continents and cultures. Everyone that has a weapon system has a subset that includes what happens when you are within the range and into short-range and how to use it with grappling and win to go to hand technique.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)


----------



## CB Jones

@JowGaWolf 

And I'm not saying you can't carry Baoding Balls concealed.....but just be careful about claiming you carry them for the purpose of Self Defense.

Instead you carry them for Stress Management and hand strengthening but you recognize that they could be used for self defense if you were endanger.


Example:

If you were stopped and frisked and the officer asks you what the Baoding Balls were for and you reply for self defense....you open the door for an illegal carry charge due to the admission to your intent for them.

But if you say...for stress relief then you are probably ok.


Personally, my unit and I wouldn't have a problem with them unless we had reason to believe you were looking for trouble.....but you never know when you are going to come across that agency that interprets that law much stricter.


----------



## CB Jones

Looking back...the Baoding Balls is a weird example of an object being interpreted as a weapon.

Thats why I like the hammer example better.

Its a tool that is legal to possess in many circumstances but carried in the right circumstances becomes a weapon in the eyes of the law.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> Maybe not clear cut but when you say I carry these for self defense it allows for them to possible be classified as such


I'll see if I can ask a lawyer my way.  When I read the definition it didn't read that way to me, because anything could be classified as a weapon regardless of declared intent.  It's not a weapon "because I say so"  If what you say is true, then I would also be in trouble for saying that I carry a drinking straw as a weapon.  I fold it and then use I would use it to stab out an attacker's eyes.   Or I could say I carry quarters and silver dollars around so I can throw them at my attacker's head and crack his skull,   Now I'm in trouble for having quarters and silver dollars as a concealed only because I say that I carry them as weapons.  

Based on how you are reading it paper would be an illegal concealed weapon if I carry a sheet of paper for self-defense so I can quickly roll it up and strike the eyes of my attacker.  Now I'm going to jail because the paper is now considered a weapon only because I say so.  Not because I did what I stated "I can do"  but only because I said that I carry paper as a weapon.  So from now on when I have paper in my pocket I can be arrested.  When I read it like that it doesn't make sense.  But when I read it to apply to objects that are commonly used or intended for use as a dangerous weapon then that makes more sense to me in terms of concealed weapons which is what you posted.  

In terms of actually using a ream of paper to attack someone.  It would be considered a weapon because that's what you used to attack someone, regardless if it's self-defense or criminal assault.  If it's used to cause harm then it's going to be said it was used as a weapon

This is a toilet paper shank.  It would fall under that definition of *"other instrumentality intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon" *put this in your pocket and you'll most likely go to jail for a conceal weapon.  Here it is clear to see the intended or probable use as a dangerous weapon.  There is no other reason why someone would have this on their persons for any other use besides, show a friend, give to a friend, or use as self-defense.  The first 2 reason can be easily proven.  Simply call the friend and ask. Now the person is in trouble for lying to the police and carrying  a conceal weapon.   Here intended and probable use as a dangerous weapon is clear.  Even if you say that you just made it as art, I would still watch someone who had something that looks like this especially if it's looks sturdy.


----------



## CB Jones

JowGaWolf said:


> I'll see if I can ask a lawyer my way. When I read the definition it didn't read that way to me, because anything could be classified as a weapon regardless of declared intent.



Good luck with that then.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek

lklawson said:


> That is kind of standard for every system, crossing continents and cultures. Everyone that has a weapon system has a subset that includes what happens when you are within the range and into short-range and how to use it with grappling and win to go to hand



True


lklawson said:


> That is kind of standard for every system, crossing continents and cultures. Everyone that has a weapon system has a subset that includes what happens when you are within the range and into short-range and how to use it with grappling and win to go to hand technique.
> 
> Peace favor your sword (mobile)



True, unfortunately ive seen a decent few modern dojos that don't utilize and teach such things.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> Also realize that different jurisdictions could be stricter with their interpretation of the law.
> 
> For example, the law in my state:
> 
> Illegal carrying of weapons is:
> 
> (1)  The intentional concealment of any firearm, or *other instrumentality* customarily used *or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon*, on one's person;
> 
> 
> Some jurisdictions can be stricter in their interpretation of this than others.



Yeah the old put a ball in with that baseball bat in the car.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> And I'm not saying you can't carry Baoding Balls concealed.....but just be careful about claiming you carry them for the purpose of Self Defense.


I understand what you about taking care.  People carry a lot of things for self-defense, some things are strickly for self-defense and others are pretty much "the next best thing" if even that.  Breaking a skull with a Baoding or a stone Massage ball would be really difficult.  You can probably break some facial bone with it but the skull is really hard.  And I'm not sure if I could "wind up my throw" with enough force to actually crack someone's skull.  I would be happy with them ducking because that delays the attack. and will most likely give them a big blind spot i could take advantage of as they turn their head or cover their head to avoid being hit in the head.

As a kid my friends and I used to throw stuff at each other so the natural response is to cover the head when you think someone is throwing something at it.   Unless you can throw a rock unexpectedly then it's really difficult to land a hit on the head.  You can tag the body all day long and be a champ but it's really easy to take cover from the small stuff.

Here's a video of a man with rock (I guess it still qualifies a rock at that size) vs a guy with a knife.  There's a couple of things happening here,  That I'll leave room for comments





I thought it was an excellent throw, It wouldn't have been the throw I would have made but to throw a rock that size with that type of accuracy is impressive.  If someone is coming at you with a rock then that's what you want. It didn't kill him but it would have stopped the attack. The only legal problem is that the guy wasn't attacking at that point.
Not sure if the guy in the shirt was stabbed.

The biggest risk to throwing a rock is that if you miss then you have just pissed off the attacker even more, You no longer have an object to keep that person at bay.  Hitting the body will hurt but it definitely won't stop an attacker.  If the attacker has a knife then it's "the next best thing"






notice in this video the thrown rock did nothing and that's the risk. cracking skulls and K.O ing so someone with a rock is easier said than done.  In other words, if that's what you think is going to happen then you are using the wrong tool.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> If you were stopped and frisked and the officer asks you what the Baoding Balls were for and you reply for self defense


 Thanks for looking out. you are are right about that.

Already been there when I was in my 20's.  Traveling through the airport after 9/11.   I emptied my pockets and I had the massage ball there.  They asked me what was it.  I told them the truth.

1. It's a cats eye massage ball used to manage stress and anxiety.  It's just like the stress balls that you squeeze but it's suppose to be healthier because it's natural and the minerals that's in your hand is good for the health of the hand and body.  "word for word"  Honest truth. both in the event that happened and my response.

2. The agent gave me the ball back and I got on the plane.  Landed in Australia and no one asked about it.  Landed in the U.S. on the return trip and no one asked about it.

It wasn't on the list of things I couldn't have, it wasn't and still isn't illegal so I just told the truth. No one was attacked with a massage ball.  To help me deal with anxiety and stress was a legit as when I fly for long periods of times, the descent makes it feel like blood vessels are bursting in my brain (causing sharp pains and worry).  To this day I still worry about it.  Recently went on a plane flight to Detroit and forgot that I have this problem, until I was on the plane.  I didn't have my stress ball so I tore pieces of a napkin and prayed that my head wouldn't hurt upon decent.

From a legal point of view, if I'm asked by law enforcement what is something then I tell them the truth.  It's a massage ball.  Because that's what it is.  you can look it up on line and you'll see healing stones, and healing crystals.   With the law, you have to answer the question and not answer beyond that.

1. What is it?  Massage ball
2. What do you use if for?  Manage stress and anxiety.  blah blah blah
3. Why don't you use one of those rubber ones you can squeeze?  You can squeeze this, it just won't collapse.  it lasts longer and it's healthier, because you don't get the toxins that you would get from dyes and synthetic materials.  In addition the firmness allows you work out tight muscles that are tense which you can't do with a rubber squeeze toy.

All of this is true so there's no lie to keep up with.  There can be more than one truth to why you have something or what you use things for.  Pick the truth that keeps you out of trouble.  Don't play the police officer for a fool because they will pick that up.  That uneasiness that some people get when talking to police officers. (I had a few friends and family members who were police officers, security guards, etc).  Being in a police officer gave them the advantage of knowing when someone was uncomfortable talking to them and that usually occurred when someone was lying.  



CB Jones said:


> Personally, my unit and I wouldn't have a problem with them unless we had reason to believe you were looking for trouble.....but you never know when you are going to come across that agency that interprets that law much stricter.


Most people wouldn't be bothered by it it.  It's not a first weapon of choice for anyone.  I'm sure as hell not going to attack someone who has a gun with it lol.  It's not really dangerous until it's put into something like a sock. I would be more worried about that than someone throwing it at me. 

having it in a sock or some kind of sleeve that can be spun around basically turn it into this thing but on a shorter rope.


----------



## JowGaWolf

CB Jones said:


> Thats why I like the hammer example better.


Yep hammer is definitely a better example.


----------



## lklawson

JowGaWolf said:


> having it in a sock or some kind of sleeve that can be spun around basically turn it into this thing but on a shorter rope.


In the US it is called a "slungshot" and it is illegal in more states than not to carry, sometimes to even own, particularly blue states.


----------



## JowGaWolf

lklawson said:


> In the US it is called a "slungshot" and it is illegal in more states than not to carry, sometimes to even own, particularly blue states.


  Thanks.  I learned something new today.

Then I went to enjoy this.  Good thing it didn't hit his spine.


----------



## lklawson

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks.  I learned something new today.
> 
> Then I went to enjoy this.  Good thing it didn't hit his spine.


The Slungshot was a common weapon in the 19th and early 20th Century.  Probably the most famous reference is through Abraham Lincoln who, while still a lawyer, defended a family friend accused of murdering someone with a slungshot.

Today, when the term specifically appears in law, it is often mistaken for a misspelling of "sling shot," the rubber-band strung, y shaped propeller of pellets.  Truthfully, the item was spelled many different ways, historically, using spaces, hyphens, and even with an "i" instead of a "u."  Thus the old documents (newspapers, court records, etc.) must be read for context.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Kung Fu Wang said:


> An 80 years old man walks on the street with 2 Baoding balls in his hand. A 20 years old robber tries to grab the watch from the old man. The old man throws his Baoding ball and cracks the young man's skull.
> 
> In the court, the old man says, "This young guy tries to take my watch. My Baoding ball came out of my hand and hit on his head. His death was 100% accident.
> 
> The nice thing about the Baoding ball are:
> 
> - It's legal to carry.
> - There will be no prove that you have intention to use it to hurt anybody.


Stop giving legal advice if you are not an attorney.  FYI, you are incorrect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people really get stuck on the intent to use as a weapon too much.   If I have not attacked you or threaten to attack you  you with the baoding ball then there is no way or reason I would be in court for baoding balls or massage balls.
> 
> If I have threaten to hit you, or attack you with baoding balls then it becomes a legal matter that I need to be concerned with.  For example, I have already made it clear that I sometimes carry stone massage balls for the purpose of a weapon.  No police or law enforcement in the U.S. is going to arrest me for it. There's not law in the U.S. against it.
> 
> Baoding balls and stone massage balls are not classified as weapons which is why you can walk in schools, churches, and government buildings with them.  There is no law against it.  Pardon my the pun but I could play with those things right in plain site of a police officer and nothing will happen.  Not one court date.
> 
> However, the moment I use one as a weapon is the exact moment I better have valid reason for using one as a weapon.  Just because I have a pair of Baoding balls with me that day, doesn't mean that my reason for them carrying them that day was to use it as a weapon.    Now if I leave a trail of bodies on the ground with skulls cracked by a baoding ball then yes, now you put me under the jail and take my statement that I carry them as weapon as something to arrest me by.
> 
> Other than that what you are looking at is
> 1.  The probability that I'm attacked on a day I have my baoding ball
> 2.  The probability that I was able to get a clean shot where I could throw it hard enough to crack someone's skull and then have them die.
> 3.  The reality in which I would throw a rock at someone.  What was the situation.  Did my attacker have a knife?  What my attacker significantly larger and stronger than me.
> 4.  What was the likely hood of me being able to defend myself considering my fitness and age.
> 5.  Did I attack the person or did the person attack me?
> 6.  Did I throw the baoding ball with the intent to kill? or was I just defending myself?
> 7.  What happened after I threw the baoding ball.  Did the attacker continue to attack?
> 
> There is just so many things that unless you are a criminal ninja who has perfected the art of killing others with a baoding ball who attacked someone out of the blue.   The fact that a massage ball or baoding ball was in my possession and my intent for having it is just totally irrelevant.
> 
> If I threw it at my attacker then by nature of use, my intent was to use it as a weapon regardless or why I originally had it.  Which is why I wouldn't use the "Oh it slipped out of my pants pocket and broke my attacker's skull bad enough to where he died." defense.
> 
> Had I not been attacked and in fear for my well being then I would have never used it as a weapon.  But since I was attacked  "It was the next best thing" to aid me in my self preservation.  Especially if my attacker has a knife.



Your statements about what is and is not a weapon are incorrect.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

gpseymour said:


> You just seem to be saying the same thing over and over, Bill. You say it's different, but haven't said how you see that difference.



If you can't see the difference, I am not sure how I can make it clear without repeating myself as you said, so I'll just say yeah fine whatever man.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bill Mattocks said:


> Stop giving legal advice if you are not an attorney.  FYI, you are incorrect.


 had to erase post jumped on me. Responded to the wrong thing


----------



## Finlay

Weapon law change radically from country to country.

In the Uk I believe you have to prove that you have reason to carry anything that could be used as a weapon. 

For example, if I am found carrying a hammer while walking down the street, I have to prove I had reason to be carrying the hammer.

As a person who has lived in a number of dofferent countries, som with very questionable law enforcement. I usually find it easier not to carry or use weapons of oppurtunity. Which could be anything from a brick to dog poop.


----------

