Weapon reliance - academic discussion

[pdg]

I might be wrong, but I haven't seen this discussed in any depth. So, in an attempt to restrict the topic somewhat, here goes...

Can/does carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defence possibly instill an over reliance on said weapon? At what point does it become a hindrance?

Allegedly, potentially violent "street" confrontations don't usually happen at range, it's up close and personal.

Is having a concealed weapon with associated time to deploy a disadvantage in none/few/some/many cases - i.e. does knowing you have that knife/gun buried somewhere about your person shift your concentration from 'instant defend' to 'once I get this out, then I can defend'?

 

[oftheherd1]

When I was carrying as part of my job, I thought that many of my colleagues seemed to think there was something special about carrying a weapon, in that they seemed to think they had a edge. Of course in a way they did. But I used to tell them they shouldn't be too quick to consider pulling a weapon as a good methold; firstly I told them it was my belief that if you needed a weapon you needed one in your hand, not on your waist and trying a quick draw while a bad guy was trying to do something to you. Secondly, once you pull a weapon, what is you next move? You really have cut down your options to using that weapon either to shoot someone or club them. Using a gun as a threat comes and goes in departmental rules or jurisdictional laws.

I don't know if I ever convinced anyone. I did get some contemplative looks, but mostly 'deer in the headlight' looks or looks of disbelief that I would say something that sounded so stupid to them.

Just my thoughts and experiences. Nobody else is required to agree.

 

[drop bear]

Depends what sort of fights. For me pulling out a weapon was never really a good idea. It was just too much escalation for the task.

Most fights I got in to were unarmed or stupid weapons. (I got attacked with a muffler once)

So my concern with a weapon was either it would fall out of a pocket mid fight. Or the police would find it. So I tended to put anything like that away before I engaged someone.

Otherwise I don't really want to cripple people anyway. It just becomes drama I don't need.

 

[pdg]

Aiming to leave the legal and social ramifications to the myriad other threads on those particular subjects...

it was my belief that if you needed a weapon you needed one in your hand, not on your waist

Kind of like that, but not an open carry for work - more a civilian with a knife in a pocket, or a gun in a waistband or ankle, or either in a bag...

Quick draw from the hip, is that the 18/21/30 foot rule? What's the distance if it's under layers of clothing or otherwise not immediately in your hand?

I suppose I'm pondering whether having the psychology of holding detracts from empty hand defences.

As a civilian, what's the likelihood you'll know that a mugger (or similar) is what they are before they're right in your face?

 

[pdg]

Depends what sort of fights. For me pulling out a weapon was never really a good idea. It was just too much escalation for the task.

Most fights I got in to were unarmed or stupid weapons. (I got attacked with a muffler once)

So my concern with a weapon was either it would fall out of a pocket mid fight. Or the police would find it. So I tended to put anything like that away before I engaged someone.

Otherwise I don't really want to cripple people anyway. It just becomes drama I don't need.

See that's quite interesting, you actively avoided any possible weaponry, assumedly having confidence in the weapons biologically attached to your torso

 

[Anarax]

Can/does carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defence possibly instill an over reliance on said weapon? At what point does it become a hindrance?

I see your point. Relying on the weapon alone and not on the proficiency you have with said weapon is definitely a problem. Regardless of what weapon you carry you must train on how to use them.

Allegedly, potentially violent "street" confrontations don't usually happen at range, it's up close and personal.

True, but part of weapon training should be threat dedication/situational awareness.

Is having a concealed weapon with associated time to deploy a disadvantage in none/few/some/many cases - i.e. does knowing you have that knife/gun buried somewhere about your person shift your concentration from 'instant defend' to 'once I get this out, then I can defend'?

IMO, it's a bit of both. I should at the very least be able to defend myself long enough to create an opening in which I can deploy my weapon. I also need to place it on myself in a manner that I'm familiar with and have trained to deploy it from.

 

[pdg]

True, but part of weapon training should be threat dedication/situational awareness.

That should be a big part of any defence training really.

Relying on the weapon alone and not on the proficiency you have with said weapon is definitely a problem. Regardless of what weapon you carry you must train on how to use them.

Does increased proficiency with a weapon increase reliance on it though?



Scenario: walking down a street and a guy approaches while looking around (ooh, alarm bell), asks directions (alarm deactivated), while thinking about said directions he pulls a knife.

He's close (talking distance), knife is right there...

Would having your own knife and proficiency in it's use influence whether you make space and run as opposed to engage in blade sparring?

 

[pdg]

Bear with me btw, sometime I might figure out how to word stuff

 

[pdg]

I'm going to add a bit of clarification and context of my thought process...

I'm not thinking of the sort of situation that say a cop might face (called into a violent confrontation or something) or the type of attack where someone has the primary goal of maiming or killing. More the sort of thing I described above where it's a seemingly innocent approach as a segue into a threatening and potentially violent situation.

Also, looking at the weapon the 'victim' has as a tool - my brother in law is a mechanic and I regularly do stuff to my car (and my wife's, and my mother's) just outside my house that he wouldn't contemplate without a powered lift and fully equipped garage. Some things he's openly stated aren't possible with the facilities I have available... Over reliance on tools? It doesn't make him less capable, but less adaptable maybe.

So that's what I was trying to get toward - the possibility of putting a gun in your wife's purse might inadvertently remove the 'scratch his eyes out' response that could be more effective, or that carrying a knife you've trained with could maybe stop you doing 'wrist grab, twist, knee, elbow, run away' because you're subconsciously focused on deploying...


I'm not saying training defensive weapon tactics are bad, but can only training them sometimes do more harm than good (especially if only trained superficially)?

 

[Anarax]

That should be a big part of any defence training really.

Yes, it should be, but it is overlooked quite a bit

Does increased proficiency with a weapon increase reliance on it though?

Not necessarily, but I can only speak from experience. In Kali we cover weapons and empty hand, but that doesn't mean we solely rely on the weapons. The weapon training is their but it's only one part of the training. We're taught how to defend ourselves empty-handed and are taught weapon deployment/retention.

Scenario: walking down a street and a guy approaches while looking around (ooh, alarm bell), asks directions (alarm deactivated), while thinking about said directions he pulls a knife.

He's close (talking distance), knife is right there...

My alarm wouldn't have stopped until the guy walked far away. In that scenario my hand would've been on my knife side, just in case. I'm not planning on deploying, just limiting the distance between my hand and my weapon in case he pulls a weapon of his own. If people approach me on the street and they look like they're going to get too close I extend my arm before they do. I use that as both a defensive measure and a means to gauge the threat.

Would having your own knife and proficiency in it's use influence whether you make space and run as opposed to engage in blade sparring?

That's hard to say considering the situational parameters. It's not knife sparring though, regardless if I run or engage, it's still survival. Scenarios where I couldn't run away; with my family or loved ones, knife attack already coming at me, have flip flops on/loose or wet ground or no immediate exits. Not saying running isn't a viable option, but it's not always available.

I think it's more so a matter of an inflated view of one's abilities rather than weapon training. If someone believes they are more capable than they actually are, they are more likely to put themselves in more dangerous situations.

 

[Buka]

Some great points being made here.

 

[pdg]

If people approach me on the street and they look like they're going to get too close I extend my arm before they do. I use that as both a defensive measure and a means to gauge the threat.

Personally (and I'm not saying either of us are right or wrong), I don't like that 'move'.

Extending your arm could look overly defensive, or worse aggressive - plus you've just given them a handy lever...

My preference is more of a closed guard sort of stance - one hand up near neck/chin/opposite shoulder/bicep, other hand loosely cupping opposite elbow, nothing tense or particularly obvious but both free to move or use. I only recently realised I've been doing that for years without noticing.

Of course, I've never been bothered about someone getting close and I've never had to think about deploying a weapon (because I don't carry one).


But, one bit:

In that scenario my hand would've been on my knife side, just in case

is a very loose example of my premise - you've taken one arm partially out of commission. Would you also position yourself (slightly or more) with your weapon side (and I presume your dominant hand/arm) turned away?

 

[hoshin1600]

@pdg
what you are asking is a deeper level of analysis. but to really do this you need more context and it is the context that matters.
example.
is the sky blue?

1. yes the sky is blue
2. well not always sometimes it is gray or red or even pink.
3. the atmosphere is not really colored. space is black. light waves reflect off of the ocean and bounce back into the atmosphere and reflect to us as a perceived blue.

the question your asking is going to be based on the individual and what their day to day reality is. you would also have to begin to define between a bar fight (competitive dominance) VS pure malevolence where this person just wants to destroy you because you exist or violence as a means to attain your possessions and how much the individual values his stuff. it opens up a lot of contextual questions that need to be answered first.


simple answer , if you train properly you have trained to know when to use it and when to retain it and go with hand to hand or deescalation.

 

[pdg]

@hoshin1600 - that level of situational discussion wasn't my initial intent.

It was more:

Take person A, confront them. Not in a direct "I stab your face" way, but a possible threat that may escalate (like a mugger showing a weapon, not hiding it with the immediate intent to cause damage).

How much does giving person A a concealed weapon influence their reaction, and can that influence be detrimental?

 

[wab25]

A weapon is a tool. Just because you have a phillips head screw driver, doesn't mean that every problem you encounter will be a phillips head screw. You should have many tools in your bag, and be proficient in as many as possible. Most importantly, know which tool to use and in which order.

Most people I know, that responsibly carry a knife or gun, actually use that as an excuse to try even harder to stay out of trouble. A defense attorney was at a gun disarming class I attended... (this guy had experience defending people who used guns for self defense) he said, 10 years ago, that in a perfect self defense shoot, open and shut clear case of self defense... if it goes to court, the minimum cost for the defendant would $10,000 - $15,000. Since no case is perfect like that... its going to cost a bunch of money. People who responsibly carry, understand that there will be a ton of paperwork, lots of process and potentially a lot money, even if you use it correctly. So they take the extra step to make sure that they don't need to.

Others, don't carry responsibly, and feel that they are invincible because they carry. This is a problem. But I have seen the same thing when people train martial arts... after playing patty cake with buddies for 6 months and taking that rubber knife away from the guy actively not stabbing them, they think they are invincible.

I think the best you can do, is realize that it is just another tool. It can accomplish certain things, but it has a cost to use, as does any tool. (if you want to punch the bad guy in the head, you better train so you can deliver power and not break your hand... though you still might break your hand... its a cost to use) Understand the ramifications of the tools you intend to use, and train to use them. Also, try to decide before hand, when to use each. Is the $20 in your wallet worth the court costs, after you successfully defended yourself with your weapon?

 

[hoshin1600]

@hoshin1600 - that level of situational discussion wasn't my initial intent.

It was more:

Take person A, confront them. Not in a direct "I stab your face" way, but a possible threat that may escalate (like a mugger showing a weapon, not hiding it with the immediate intent to cause damage).

How much does giving person A a concealed weapon influence their reaction, and can that influence be detrimental?

maybe we are missing each others point.
my simple answer is that it all comes down to the individual and a multitude of factors that apply to that one person under that specific situation.

you post here says person A confronts person B....with a possible threat. but then you add on "like a mugging showing a weapon" well those two statements are incompatible. a mugging with a weapon IS a threat,, not a possible threat. and its a lethal threat.
like i said before anyone with good training will evaluate the situation they are in and react accordingly. to draw a knife or a gun should have with it the intent of using deadly force. in my opinion you should not draw a weapon as a threat of force or for intimidation . the only time to draw a gun (as a civilian) is when you need to pull that trigger to stop an eminent threat of deadly lethal force.

if a person is untrained and carries a knife because its cool. then gets into an argument over a parking spot, when he pulls that knife due to fear in hopes of intimidating the other person, that person is now open to criminal charges in my mind.

my comment on the depth of analysis was because if you dig a little deeper into the subject your question kind of answers itself. what i think your proposing should not happen to a trained individual.

 

[hoshin1600]

How much does giving person A a concealed weapon influence their reaction, and can that influence be detrimental?

depends on the individual.
how much weapons training do they have? do they have hand to hand skill? the lower the H2H skills they have or inverse the greater the perceived threat, the quicker that person will be to rely on the weapon.
or conversely if they dont have H2H skills and they dont have a weapon how quickly will they rely on compliance and how fast will they be a victim?

 

[skribs]

I might be wrong, but I haven't seen this discussed in any depth. So, in an attempt to restrict the topic somewhat, here goes...

Can/does carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defence possibly instill an over reliance on said weapon? At what point does it become a hindrance?

Allegedly, potentially violent "street" confrontations don't usually happen at range, it's up close and personal.

Is having a concealed weapon with associated time to deploy a disadvantage in none/few/some/many cases - i.e. does knowing you have that knife/gun buried somewhere about your person shift your concentration from 'instant defend' to 'once I get this out, then I can defend'?

My view is that your martial arts skills are what will protect you for the first few seconds of the encounter. Once the guy misses or you've made a successful throw or escape, at that point you have a few seconds to draw your weapon.

It does change the dynamic, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If my goal is to create a few seconds of space or control with which I can draw my gun, then it's a lot easier than if I need to try to win a fight without points.

 

[mrt2]

A weapon is a tool. Just because you have a phillips head screw driver, doesn't mean that every problem you encounter will be a phillips head screw. You should have many tools in your bag, and be proficient in as many as possible. Most importantly, know which tool to use and in which order.

Most people I know, that responsibly carry a knife or gun, actually use that as an excuse to try even harder to stay out of trouble. A defense attorney was at a gun disarming class I attended... (this guy had experience defending people who used guns for self defense) he said, 10 years ago, that in a perfect self defense shoot, open and shut clear case of self defense... if it goes to court, the minimum cost for the defendant would $10,000 - $15,000. Since no case is perfect like that... its going to cost a bunch of money. People who responsibly carry, understand that there will be a ton of paperwork, lots of process and potentially a lot money, even if you use it correctly. So they take the extra step to make sure that they don't need to.

Others, don't carry responsibly, and feel that they are invincible because they carry. This is a problem. But I have seen the same thing when people train martial arts... after playing patty cake with buddies for 6 months and taking that rubber knife away from the guy actively not stabbing them, they think they are invincible.

I think the best you can do, is realize that it is just another tool. It can accomplish certain things, but it has a cost to use, as does any tool. (if you want to punch the bad guy in the head, you better train so you can deliver power and not break your hand... though you still might break your hand... its a cost to use) Understand the ramifications of the tools you intend to use, and train to use them. Also, try to decide before hand, when to use each. Is the $20 in your wallet worth the court costs, after you successfully defended yourself with your weapon?

He is right. I am a defense attorney and that sounds about right. Moreover, many people don't really understand what self defense is legally, and may, in fact, not be entitled to the jury instruction at trial.

And if that happens, you are looking at a felony conviction and if the injury was significant or, god forbid fatal, then you are looking at prison time. Not guaranteed, but how many people really want to put their future in the hands of, potentially, the 12 dumbest people who happened to answer their jury summons that week.

 

[mrt2]

When I was carrying as part of my job, I thought that many of my colleagues seemed to think there was something special about carrying a weapon, in that they seemed to think they had a edge. Of course in a way they did. But I used to tell them they shouldn't be too quick to consider pulling a weapon as a good methold; firstly I told them it was my belief that if you needed a weapon you needed one in your hand, not on your waist and trying a quick draw while a bad guy was trying to do something to you. Secondly, once you pull a weapon, what is you next move? You really have cut down your options to using that weapon either to shoot someone or club them. Using a gun as a threat comes and goes in departmental rules or jurisdictional laws.

I don't know if I ever convinced anyone. I did get some contemplative looks, but mostly 'deer in the headlight' looks or looks of disbelief that I would say something that sounded so stupid to them.

Just my thoughts and experiences. Nobody else is required to agree.

This is a really good point. Especially if you are in a non deadly confrontation, if you pull out a gun, in your mind, you need to be willing to use it. And that is a potential problem, morally and legally. You could find yourself having to defend yourself legally if you use the gun and the person you shot wasn't armed. And morally, you need to ask yourself if you could live with yourself if you shot and kill someone. That is a tough one that I wonder how many folks think through.