Concealed Weapons choices

[Samurai]

I have trained with some great Krav Maga instructors. Their weapons system is pretty basic (that is a good thing). The weapons are divided into:
1.) Weapons like a club
2.) Weapons like a shield
3.) Weapons like a rock
4.) Weapons like sling (all projectiles and distance weapons, firearms are here)
5.) Weapons like a sword (or knife)
6.) Weapons like a chain (flexible weapons)

When you divorce your mind of "techniques" you can see everything around you as a weapon.

As the OP, I was not asking "How do I defend a door?" or "Can I smash in someone's head with a bat or shoot them with a gun". My question is pretty basic....I can have a gun, I have training with a handgun, I DON'T want to use a handgun in 95% of situations. What are some other options?

I carry a handgun in my car. That is fine, but if I am not in my car it does me little good.
I carry a hand on my person, I want other options.
Thanks
Jeremy Bays

 

[drop bear]

If your art(s) don't teach empty hand weapons defense, I would agree.

I don't know that I am mistaken. I expect that most people who carry a knife or gun do so because they intend to use it. And that it will be a very prominent thing in their minds if they get in what they perceive is a dangerous situation.

How confident in empty hand vs weapon are you though?

Because if you mess it up getting stabbed looks like it sucks.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I don't know that I am mistaken. I expect that most people who carry a knife or gun do so because they intend to use it. And that it will be a very prominent thing in their minds if they get in what they perceive is a dangerous situation.

I believe you are mistaken. I carry on a daily basis, and have for many many years. Half of my family also carries daily. I have many friends and acquaintances who also carry regularly.
None of them carry with the intent to use. While I am sure there are examples of people who carry with the intent to use, I would say these people are a tiny minority of those who carry.

 

[drop bear]

I believe you are mistaken. I carry on a daily basis, and have for many many years. Half of my family also carries daily. I have many friends and acquaintances who also carry regularly.
None of them carry with the intent to use. While I am sure there are examples of people who carry with the intent to use, I would say these people are a tiny minority of those who carry.

There has to be some intent to use it. Or why carry it?

 

[Charlemagne]

I certainly think it is a good idea to train empty hand versus weapon. Having a plan based upon solid techniques and tactics for applying those techniques is FAR better than not having the same. However, anyone who thinks that training this, particularly in martial arts that don't emphasize realistic weapons in the first place, has somehow equaled the odds against a person wielding a weapon is deluding themselves. Anyone who is teaching that in the name of self defense is a fraud.

 

[Dirty Dog]

There has to be some intent to use it. Or why carry it?

Deterrent, first and fore most. And I see a difference between a willingness to use it if absolutely necessary and an intent to use it.

 

[drop bear]

Deterrent, first and fore most. And I see a difference between a willingness to use it if absolutely necessary and an intent to use it.

See i like intent because it means that it was premeditated.

And if i kill someone it should be a deliberate choice. Not some sort of i wonder how this happened.

I feel this is especially important for guns as they are carried to kill things.

 

[Justin Chang]

See i like intent because it means that it was premeditated.

And if i kill someone it should be a deliberate choice. Not some sort of i wonder how this happened.

I feel this is especially important for guns as they are carried to kill things.

So if someone was to defend themselves with a gun and happen to kill their attacker that is premeditated murder?

 

[drop bear]

So if someone was to defend themselves with a gun and happen to kill their attacker that is premeditated murder?

No it would be pre meditated killing in self defence.

It would be murder if the killing was done illegally.

 

[oftheherd1]

No. If they don't teach it well. And most do not, unless they happen to be martial arts that actually train the use of weapons, and not some esoteric weapon that farmers used 200 years ago, but weapons that are actually seen in use today.

You are wrong. I carry one on a daily basis, and I do so in the hope that I never, ever, have to use it.

I haven't fired a weapon in a long time, much less carried one. But I did for over 22 years. Not in my house unless I had just gotten home or was about to leave. But I never worried about using it. I carried it as part of my authorized escalation of force. If I used it, it was because someone else had done something to require me to do it. And I was armed for that eventuality. It then became a duty to use it and I would not have given it a second thought.

But I was speaking, as I thought the conversations were getting towards, of people who don't have the mind set, and the legal responsibility to sometimes use a weapon. Also, they probably don't have training in using a weapon. If you carry on a daily basis, I presume you are authorized and in fact, required to do so, and have been trained to do so.

EDIT: I meant to question your comment on a martial art not teaching a particular type of defense well. What kind of legitimate art would do that?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I feel this is especially important for guns as they are carried to kill things.

In the USA, a gun is used for self defense (or defense of another) roughly 3,000,000 times each year, according to a CDC study. The number of times someone is killed is a tiny percentage.
Personally, I carry all the time, and I've fired literally thousands of rounds without killing anyone.

 

[oftheherd1]

Here is a question. Do your blocks always work? No sometimes you get hit. Now take into account a disarm is far more difficult. Both my arts teach empty hand disarms AND weapons. Kali out of the gate with weapons, Wing Chun later. Again there is a reason Martial Arts include weapons. Even Hapkido has weapons eventually for the reasons I posted earlier

As for the last, shenanigans. First I carry a knife for utility as well. It can be used for self-defense yes BUT part of self defense training should be an understand of appropriate use of force. To use your logic is akin to saying if a martial arts teaches throat shots (lethal force) it will be prominent in their minds.

I don't think your logic works out. I was taught techniques that could be lethal. More than one technique for more than one defense; not just one weapon or defense. Nor is carrying a knife for utility but oh, I have a knife if I need it for defense.

 

[oftheherd1]

But you try to keep it a bit in theme with the thread. So if a guy wants weapons. Then you help with weapon choices.

If a guy is constantly cracking dudes in the head with that maglight. Then suggest deescalation.

Otherwise you are basically patronising someone if they want weapons and the only advice you can give is avoid fights.

Actually, points well taken.

 

[oftheherd1]

How confident in empty hand vs weapon are you though?

Because if you mess it up getting stabbed looks like it sucks.

Frankly, it took a while, but I became confident as time went on. Some I didn't like as well, but again, after I got more and more competence, I got more confident. Luckily I guess, I never had to use any of those defenses in real life, so I can't promise you I was as competent as I felt I was. But I think so.

 

[drop bear]

In the USA, a gun is used for self defense (or defense of another) roughly 3,000,000 times each year, according to a CDC study. The number of times someone is killed is a tiny percentage.
Personally, I carry all the time, and I've fired literally thousands of rounds without killing anyone.

Yeah. personally I am not a fan of that line of reasoning. If I was going to carry a gun for self defence then I would carry the responsibility that I would kill someone with it.

But I think that is a cultural difference. we are very serious about gun use.

 

[drop bear]

Frankly, it took a while, but I became confident as time went on. Some I didn't like as well, but again, after I got more and more competence, I got more confident. Luckily I guess, I never had to use any of those defenses in real life, so I can't promise you I was as competent as I felt I was. But I think so.

Ok. I have de knifed three guys and pretty much got away scott free. done heaps of bottles. and even a packet of cigarettes by mistake.

But I have also seen guys crippled. And am becoming considerably less inclined to go hand to hand with a knifey guy.

It would want to be over something important.

 

[oftheherd1]

I believe you are mistaken. I carry on a daily basis, and have for many many years. Half of my family also carries daily. I have many friends and acquaintances who also carry regularly.
None of them carry with the intent to use. While I am sure there are examples of people who carry with the intent to use, I would say these people are a tiny minority of those who carry.

You can disagree all you want. Maybe you are even correct. But I wonder if you aren't (as is human), deciding that you are doing what you think is right, and so all people must be doing that? Or that circle of family and friends of yours do it, so all people must do it?

 

[oftheherd1]

Deterrent, first and fore most. And I see a difference between a willingness to use it if absolutely necessary and an intent to use it.

I just wasn't taught to use a firearm as a deterrent. If it was time to use it, it was to be pulled and if circumstances didn't change immediately, use it. I guess there is a little room for deterrence there, but the intent of pulling a weapon was to use it, not hope for deterrence.

As to a difference between wiliness and intent ... I believe I understand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. To me, carrying should indeed come with a willingness to use. Pulling a weapon should come with an intent to use. My reasoning on the latter is that if I pull a weapon hoping it will be a deterrent, and it is not, I better have intended to use it before I pulled it, because I have no other options at that point.

I hope I am explaining that well. Does it make any sense to you?

 

[Juany118]

I don't think your logic works out. I was taught techniques that could be lethal. More than one technique for more than one defense; not just one weapon or defense. Nor is carrying a knife for utility but oh, I have a knife if I need it for defense.

The last part makes no sense and you keep dodging the lack of logic in your argument and you even avoided my first argument that points it out.

You learned disarms in an art that also teaches weapons. Why do the arts have disarms? Not because you don't need weapons but because the arts are designed knowing that weapons are more effective and you need at least a chance of taking out of the equation or you will lose. However disarms are even less of a sure thing that simply blocking a punch.

Also regarding the "willingness vs intent" argument above you did not get it. You argument was in carrying a weapon it will essentially become a person's default defense (which is not true.). The argument being made in response is that there is a difference between carrying and being willing to use a weapon if ABSOLUTELY necessary and carrying a weapon and intending to use it regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Juany118]

So if someone was to defend themselves with a gun and happen to kill their attacker that is premeditated murder?

The law says intent can be formed in seconds, so if someone is simply trying to punch you and you double tap them, depending on the circumstances it could be treated as such.