Knife Defense: Best strategies in your opinion?

[Badger1777]

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

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

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

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

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

 

[PhotonGuy]

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

Shoot him, or run.

 

[Tez3]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

 

[Tez3]

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

 

[Tez3]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[K-man]

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

Systema instructer murdered

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

They were not shootings.

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tgace]

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

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

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

 

[Badger1777]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

2 slayings weren't shootings as first thought, autopsy finds - Chicago Tribune

They were not shootings.

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

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

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

Food for thought?