Knife Defense: Best strategies in your opinion?

[Tgace]

If that's what you need to believe to trivialize the effectiveness of a firearm that's your affair.

Instead of rewriting stuff over and over again, the middle of this post addressees weapon deployment while being attacked.

http://tgace.com/2011/04/11/of-knives-guns-and-21-feet/

And even though this is a "gun" video..it's a good illustration of a point. If the bad guy had a knife, how the officer reacted is still an example of how you deploy a weapon in a fight. He gained position then used the tools that were available to him.

http://www.heaven666.org/trooper-shooting-motorist-1761.php

Depending on any one tool is somthing I call the excalibur syndrome...but that syndrome is far from denying the advantage of having a weapon.

http://tgace.com/2008/12/16/excalibur-syndrome/

Thinking your martial arts is your "excalibur" is the same as counting on any single tool. The fact is...a weapon is a force multiplier...if your culture allows them is a political concern, not a tactical truth. In a deadly force encounter you may have to use H2H techniques to be able to use your weapon. Thats not to say that H2H is therefore all you need to survive an armed encounter.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

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

This is where both Tgace and myself have the issue in this thread. Having a tool is going to help you immensely versus someone with a weapon who is attempting to attack you. The thought that you cannot arm yourself because then your attacker might well take it away from you is not really a smart way of looking at practical self-defense. I believe both Tgace and I would advise having layers of options. ie. firearm, knife, baton, OC spary, pen, empty hands, etc. We are not giving up the option to utilize empty hand technique but instead understanding their place in a hierarchy of options.

I understand that someone may not want to carry a weapon/tool and that is there personal decision. I also understand that in some countries you may be limited with what you can carry. When I travel I have to take that into account. Still I will always have something that I can use even if it is a heavy pen or belt, etc. Those would be low down the line in my every day carry but if I cannot carry a firearm, knife, baton, etc. then I will have to make do with what I can carry. However, if I was faced with a violent knife wielding thug I would much rather have a pen or a belt, etc. than facing them empty handed. Better yet I would rather deploy a firearm or knife as I can here where I live.

I respect someone's right to not carry just do not delude yourself into thinking that you are not at a huge disadvantage. An untrained adult with a knife or even a 12 year old with a knife would be a bear to deal with if they are committed to doing you harm. People need to understand just how dangerous weapons can be so that they do not underestimate someone who has one.

 

[Badger1777]

People need to understand just how dangerous weapons can be so that they do not underestimate someone who has one.

I agree 100%. That's why its better to have a culture where it is not considered normal to be armed in day to day life. A criminal also doesn't want underestimate his intended victim. If a mugger gets caught (here in the UK), there is a chance he is not going to jail, or if he is, it wont be for as long as it ought to be. Unless he is armed, because then he is an armed robber, and he is going to jail for a long time.

So, if that mugger lives in a culture where carrying a weapon is not the norm, then he is not so likely to be armed himself. Unless he is in one of the areas where the law is a bit lacking (some of the rougher inner city parts for example). In a setting where his victim might be armed, then the mugger is going to be armed, and as the old saying goes, in for a penny, in for a pound, if you're going to risk going down for armed robbery, you may as well do your robbery with a gun or at least a big knife. Armed robbery is armed robbery whether your weapon is a small pen knife, or a machine gun, so best equip one's self with the most terrifyingly lethal thing you can lay your hands on. So the criminal is armed with the most fearsome weapon he can acquire and conceal because he knows his victim might be armed. The criminal has the advantage that he knows who and when he is going to attack, and the criminal knows that whatever he does, he must do it decisively in order to prevent any chance of his victim bringing a weapon to bear on him.

Then what about innocent passers-by? With everyone going around carrying the most fearsome weaponry they can, just in case, what happens if a battle does break out in the middle of the street? Instead of being a typical scuffle, suddenly now there are blades being waved around, possibly gun shot going astray?

And what if the coppers turn up while this skirmish is in progress. If you're having an unarmed scuffle and the coppers turn up, you're going to be dragged and bundled into the back of a van until you calm down. If you're in the street fighting with a weapon, say hello to the armed response unit, who are not ordinary coppers, but trained marksmen.

I've never been to the US, so I can't possibly understand the culture of love of and need for weapons, so I'm in no position to judge, but suffice to say that I'll never agree that we should all walk around armed in public, and I know that those that endorse such will never agree with me. That's cool. We're not causing each other problems, so lets just respect each other's opinions even if we don't agree, and move on.

 

[Tgace]

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?

Using bar brawls as your example/barometer is a non-starter. Being in a drunken bar brawl is an issue all its own...

http://tgace.com/2012/02/27/self-defense-magic-formula/

Again. Whatever makes you feel better about letting the bad guys be the ones with weapons...and letting them decide what they will or won't do to you....

Funny how the ones who "want to move on" are the ones who want to have the last word about "lack of confidence" and Americans and their "love of weapons". Nice passive aggressiveness there....

I don't love any inanimate object. But I won't be made subject to another man because he has a tool I'm not allowed...or because he's simply larger/stronger than me.

 

[K-man]

This is where both Tgace and myself have the issue in this thread. Having a tool is going to help you immensely versus someone with a weapon who is attempting to attack you. The thought that you cannot arm yourself because then your attacker might well take it away from you is not really a smart way of looking at practical self-defense. I believe both Tgace and I would advise having layers of options. ie. firearm, knife, baton, OC spary, pen, empty hands, etc. We are not giving up the option to utilize empty hand technique but instead understanding their place in a hierarchy of options.

I understand that someone may not want to carry a weapon/tool and that is there personal decision. I also understand that in some countries you may be limited with what you can carry. When I travel I have to take that into account. Still I will always have something that I can use even if it is a heavy pen or belt, etc. Those would be low down the line in my every day carry but if I cannot carry a firearm, knife, baton, etc. then I will have to make do with what I can carry. However, if I was faced with a violent knife wielding thug I would much rather have a pen or a belt, etc. than facing them empty handed. Better yet I would rather deploy a firearm or knife as I can here where I live.

I respect someone's right to not carry just do not delude yourself into thinking that you are not at a huge disadvantage. An untrained adult with a knife or even a 12 year old with a knife would be a bear to deal with if they are committed to doing you harm. People need to understand just how dangerous weapons can be so that they do not underestimate someone who has one.

And this is exactly my position. I agree 100% with every thing you have written, right down to the improvised weapons. An interesting question, and I will raise it in a separate thread, is how many people train to utilise improvised weapons?
:asian:

 

[Tgace]

This is where both Tgace and myself have the issue in this thread. Having a tool is going to help you immensely versus someone with a weapon who is attempting to attack you. The thought that you cannot arm yourself because then your attacker might well take it away from you is not really a smart way of looking at practical self-defense. I believe both Tgace and I would advise having layers of options. ie. firearm, knife, baton, OC spary, pen, empty hands, etc. We are not giving up the option to utilize empty hand technique but instead understanding their place in a hierarchy of options.

I understand that someone may not want to carry a weapon/tool and that is there personal decision. I also understand that in some countries you may be limited with what you can carry. When I travel I have to take that into account. Still I will always have something that I can use even if it is a heavy pen or belt, etc. Those would be low down the line in my every day carry but if I cannot carry a firearm, knife, baton, etc. then I will have to make do with what I can carry. However, if I was faced with a violent knife wielding thug I would much rather have a pen or a belt, etc. than facing them empty handed. Better yet I would rather deploy a firearm or knife as I can here where I live.

I respect someone's right to not carry just do not delude yourself into thinking that you are not at a huge disadvantage. An untrained adult with a knife or even a 12 year old with a knife would be a bear to deal with if they are committed to doing you harm. People need to understand just how dangerous weapons can be so that they do not underestimate someone who has one.

Great post Brian.

The only thing I would ask is, are we really talking about ones RIGHT not to carry a weapon. Or the legal inability?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Well certainly one has the right not to carry and make that their choice. Then or course in some countries it is harder to carry certain weapons. I think they are in some cases interrelated. If you or I were living in the UK our ability to carry a firearm would be restricted as well as a knife, etc. Yet, knowing our perspectives we would carry some thing legally that we were allowed to for personal protection. You or I would not be carrying nothing for personal protection even if we lived in the UK based on our backgrounds. Badger1777 has decided not to carry a weapon/tool for personal protection based on his posting. That would be a right he is exercising. He is not totally in able to carry a tool for his personal protection. He could certainly carry an innocuous umbrella, pen, etc. legally in the UK. I am with you in total disagreement that this is a wise choice. Where I find it troubling the most and I believe you feel the same way is the thought that being unarmed against a weapon is a better choice. We know this not to be the case. Each of us having witnessed some violence first hand through work or in personal life understand that a force amplifier of any kind and especially a knife or firearm is a huge advantage. So much so that an untrained person more than likely will be successful even against a very well trained person in empty hand martial skills.

 

[Buka]

I can't even wrap my mind around the concept of "someone might take the weapon away from you."

 

[Badger1777]

I can't even wrap my mind around the concept of "someone might take the weapon away from you."

You must be more skilled than these guys then. Particularly relevant from 3:45

Royal Marine Commandos- HAND TO HAND COMBAT - YouTube

 

[drop bear]

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?

No a third reason. If you are in an area that you are likely to get attacked. You are more likely to carry a weapon.

 

[drop bear]

I can't even wrap my mind around the concept of "someone might take the weapon away from you."

Man charged with assaulting guard, officer and woman - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...st-at-proserpine/story-e6freon6-1225730000476

 

[Buka]

You must be more skilled than these guys then. Particularly relevant from 3:45

Royal Marine Commandos- HAND TO HAND COMBAT - YouTube

I was speaking more about attitude. Specifically, you can't have the attitude that your weapon will be taken away and used against you. Sure, it can happen, but proper training in both weapon retention and weapon disarming (which, if not BOTH trained, IMO, does little good) makes that worry a moot point.

And, yes, I am more skilled than those guys, but I'm older and have been training in everything shown there longer than they've been alive. Been doing those kinds of demos longer as well. I like some of what was there, and really appreciate their showmanship to the public - which is different than if they were doing it to other members of military (all these kind of demos are audience specific) - but don't agree with any of their knife defenses, nor their sentry removal approaches. Specifically the ones they do while standing and approaching. I don't have any experience with the crawling ones, so know nothing about that.

 

[Balrog]

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?

A 12 gauge. If that's not available, run like hell.

 

[Paul_D]

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

On the contrary, if your training predominantly consists of being unarmed, then abandoning your training and now trying to fight with a weapon in which you have little or no training puts you at a disadvantage.

 

[Paul_D]

Wow..what a sterling example of "if that idea makes you feel better". .

No at all, it's quite correct. Have you not heard the phrase "A stabber rarely shows and a shower rarely stabs"?

Generally speaking if someone shows you a knife it is to intimidate you into giving them want they want (Phone, wallet, etc) Give them what they want they go away. Not in every case no but in the majority yes, so K-Man is correct, statistically if you comply and you won't be harmed.

If they wanted to kill you they wouldn't face you and show you the knife, the first you would know about it would be when the knife was sticking in your back.

 

[geezer]

:lol:

On the contrary, if your training predominantly consists of being unarmed, then abandoning your training and now trying to fight with a weapon in which you have little or no training puts you at a disadvantage.

Hmmm. I don't think so. I have very little experience with guns. Oh sure I hunted deer and birds (successfully) and shot trap and skeet as a youth, and have been out shooting a few times with my gun nut brother. Years ago. But I really don't even know how to properly hold or operate most pistols. But if I had one and could figure out how to get the safety off (if it even has one) and fire it, I'd sure rather have it over nothing if I had to defend myself against a deadly assault on myself or my family.

Same goes for holding a shovel, axe-handle, baseball bat, machete, chair, ....dang, almost anything I can get my hands on as a force equalizer. Haven't you ever heard that being able to quickly assimilate tool use is one thing that made Homo-sapiens the dominant species on this planet (at least for the moment).


"...put's you at a disadvantage". Ha. that's crazy talk! :lol:

 

[Badger1777]

"...put's you at a disadvantage". Ha. that's crazy talk! :lol:

There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

That is just silly Badger1777. Firearms are not unreliable at close range when deployed.

 

[Tgace]

There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/chinese-police-guns_n_5186952.html

 

[jks9199]

There is an elite arm of the Chinese police that don't use firearms at all, because they can work faster and more effectively with knives. If an elite force tells me guns are too slow and unreliable in close range combat, who am I too argue.

Sorry -- you need to prove this statement. Knives certainly have a place, but I'm skeptical that there's a police force using knives over guns.