One point on the earlier prevalence of throwing weapons--we should also remember, as Andre the Giant tried to teach us in The Princess bride, that group tactics and individual tactics are different. That's part of the reason; e.g., archers make sense with infantry but less sense in the complete absence thereof. But I fundamentally agree--they've been used because they work, and these people fought to survive more often than we do.
Weapon Retention
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
PoolMan
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 2
That is exactly what I am talking about "lklawson". The "Thorn" Or "Spear" style of knife throwing. Here is a clip of Ralph Thorn's video from Paladin Press.
He's using the half-turn method. It's fine for what he's doing but I don't think it's optimal for "combat" throwing. I agree with "PoolMan" in that the "spear" style is more appropriate for this. Assuming, that is, that he and I are talking the same thing. I recall seeing it as any number of terms. I like the "Direct Hit" method for a name.
(http://www.secrets-of-shuriken.com.au/principles.htm)
Of course there are the half turn, multiple turns, etc. But I think this is the best for what we're talking about.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Last edited by a moderator:
WC_lun
Senior Master
If you have a throwing weapon and know how to use it and the effect it will likely have on an attacker, then I got no problem with it. As an excercise that might be an eye opening experience, have a training partner come at you the moment you go for your throwing knife. Remember, if you throw before threatened you will be the aggressor and probably charged with assault. See how long it takes to complete the motion and how close your training partner can get before you can complete the throwing motion. Try this at different ranges. If you haven't done this excercise when training with thrown weapons, you are not prepared to use those weapons in real combat. Yes, thrown weapons can be effective, but not if thier use is based upon false training or fantastical stories, not that any of the proponents of thrown weapons here fit those descriptors.
The throwing knife is one of many 暗器(An Qi) that used in the ancient time. 暗(An) is dark and 器(Qi) is tool. The "dark tool" means you should use only when your opponent cannot see it. Invisibility is the key.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
所謂暗器，是指那種便於在暗中實施突襲的兵器。暗器大多是武林中人創造出來的，它們體積小，重量輕，便於攜帶，大多有尖有刃，可以擲出十幾米乃至幾十米之遠，速度快，隱蔽性強，等於常規兵刃的大幅度延伸，具有較大威力。
| The so-called "Anqi" refers to that kind of makes it easier to carry out raids in secret weapons. Anqi is mostly created by man in the martial arts, their small size, light weight, easy to carry, most have sharp cutting edges, can be thrown out a dozen or even dozens of meters away, speed, invisibility is strong, substantial extension of the conventional blade, with larger power. |
If you have not had affair with a woman in her house when her husband is home, you are not prepared to have real affair. Sorry! It's just a joke. Don't take it serious. But you may get my point from this joke.
Last edited:
I don't want to be seen as insulting any particular style. I admit my first reaction to the notion of people carrying around throwing knives for the purpose of self-defense in today's society was to laugh. I apologize for that.
However, I would like to point something out. In terms of legal self-defense in the United States, I do not believe throwing knives have a place used as such.
Why?
Because unlike a gun, or a knife as a stabbing/slashing weapon, a throwing knife must be thrown. To do that, there must be distance between the assailant and the victim who is doing the throwing.
The notion has been expressed in this thread that this is exactly what a person armed with throwing knives does in self-defense; they break contact and create distance, then chuck knives at the assailant.
And this is where, I believe, the notion of LEGAL self-defense breaks down, at least as applied in the USA.
One of our basic notions about self-defense is that it is legal when a person is in great bodily danger. Some states require a victim to attempt to leave first; others do not require it ('stand your ground' laws, etc). But in every case I can think of, if you create the necessary distance between yourself and your assailant before you begin whipping knives at him, you are no longer in the same danger you were in prior to creating that distance.
In other words, if you can run away far enough to throw knives at him, you can just keep running instead.
Personally, I have never heard of someone in the US defending themselves with throwing knives. I guess that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but frankly, I think the entire notion is in the realm of fantasy. I'm not saying a person can't throw knives accurately, or that it's not an established part of some martial arts, so I am not putting it down; I'm just saying that I don't think it would fly as an appropriate response to an attack in a real-life self-defense situation in the USA.
Sorry, but I could not keep pretending that this kind of fantasy has any place in reality. My apologies if I am offending anyone, I'm not trying to.
However, I would like to point something out. In terms of legal self-defense in the United States, I do not believe throwing knives have a place used as such.
Why?
Because unlike a gun, or a knife as a stabbing/slashing weapon, a throwing knife must be thrown. To do that, there must be distance between the assailant and the victim who is doing the throwing.
The notion has been expressed in this thread that this is exactly what a person armed with throwing knives does in self-defense; they break contact and create distance, then chuck knives at the assailant.
And this is where, I believe, the notion of LEGAL self-defense breaks down, at least as applied in the USA.
One of our basic notions about self-defense is that it is legal when a person is in great bodily danger. Some states require a victim to attempt to leave first; others do not require it ('stand your ground' laws, etc). But in every case I can think of, if you create the necessary distance between yourself and your assailant before you begin whipping knives at him, you are no longer in the same danger you were in prior to creating that distance.
In other words, if you can run away far enough to throw knives at him, you can just keep running instead.
Personally, I have never heard of someone in the US defending themselves with throwing knives. I guess that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but frankly, I think the entire notion is in the realm of fantasy. I'm not saying a person can't throw knives accurately, or that it's not an established part of some martial arts, so I am not putting it down; I'm just saying that I don't think it would fly as an appropriate response to an attack in a real-life self-defense situation in the USA.
Sorry, but I could not keep pretending that this kind of fantasy has any place in reality. My apologies if I am offending anyone, I'm not trying to.
I agree, as most do not have a hole large enough for my fingers. And secondly, those who know small joint locks and strips will break your finger and or hand. So I guess it is who are you training against for retention and the skill set you a re looking for.
There are many out there, and it is a trainer so it will get damaged. I have the Emerson Wave Trainer as I also have a couple of Emerson Wave knives. See how I got the trainer that matched what I would carry or use, so I could practice as if I had my real blade. That being said the Emersn Trainers are about the same price as the blades which is over $100 which puts it out of the question for most people.
1) What do you plan to carry or use?
2) Find something as close as possible to that so your training will be appropriate
3) Look for similar thumb opening devices as your preferred blade.
4) Be willing to recognize that what you bought does not meet your needs and look for other options.
Good Luck.
*** Edit: I was not able to find the Emerson Trainer in a quick search, maybe they have stopped making them. ***
Last edited:
He's using the half-turn method. It's fine for what he's doing but I don't think it's optimal for "combat" throwing. I agree with "PoolMan" in that the "spear" style is more appropriate for this. Assuming, that is, that he and I are talking the same thing. I recall seeing it as any number of terms. I like the "Direct Hit" method for a name.
(http://www.secrets-of-shuriken.com.au/principles.htm)
Of course there are the half turn, multiple turns, etc. But I think this is the best for what we're talking about.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I was in New Zealand for work in 1999 and practicing my dart throwing with techniques like this also for blades and such. Others had no clue and it was a way to practice something in the garage area without getting any attention.
WC_lun
Senior Master
If you have not had affair with a woman in her house when her husband is home, you are not prepared to have real affair. Sorry! It's just a joke. Don't take it serious. But you may get my point from this joke.
I'm not upset about your comment, but I don't understand it either. I wasn't saying to actually throw knives at someone. Maybe its just a miscommunication thing
Have you trained with some focus on using the different ranges with the weapon? If not, then it would be just as useless as someone training kicks only at kicking range, never having to adjust for a moving and/or aggresive opponent. You may have powerful kicks, but do them in the incorrect range and it will negate thier effectiveness. Many students mistakenly believe that just the presence of a weapon in thier hands is an "I win button." While it is certainly true that a weapon changes things in an encounter, a weapon does not change the basics of fighting as in range, timing, force, structure, etc are still applicable. The difference is that if you mess up, the resulting harm is going to be much greater.
Bill's post is excellent in his pointing out the laws here in the States. These things must be thought about when addressing weapon use. A person has a right to defend themselves, but there is a line that can be crossed easily where it is no longer self defense. A student needs to understand that intimately or face criminal charges when his self defense situation changes to assault. Teaching a student weapon use without knowing the repurcussions is irresponsable of an instructor, in my opinion.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Pretty much like using a gun. Guns are "distance weapons" too. While they can be used at "contact range" they are distance weapons and that's what they're best at. Similarly, a "throwing knife" is just a knife that, by physical design, is well suited for throwing. However, it can also be used at "contact range."
Not necessarily. Distance weapons are for using "at distance." It doesn't matter if they are used pre-contact or post-contact.
There are any number of times when a distance weapon can be legally deployed. "Contact" is not required, only the reasonable belief that the assailant intends to do immediate great bodily harm to the victim or an innocent third party. One very simple way of fulfilling this requirement is if the assailant deploys his own distance weapon (gun?). Another would be if the assailant were making verbal threats and then deployed (or reasonably appeared to be in the process of deploying) a weapon while advancing toward the defender. Several others, but you get the idea.
Unless you can't run for some reason. Maybe I'm trapped. Maybe I'm outnumbered and can't escape. Maybe I have innocent third parties to be concerned about (family?). Maybe I just can't run faster for whatever reason. Further, I should point out that most of these "combat throwing" techniques are actually pretty close range; well under the 21' Tueller Drill distance.
Me neither. But I know of several self defense experts that teach it, including at least one (retired) LEO.
Personally, I'd rather have a gun. They're easier to operate, and tend to be more effective at stopping attacks. That said, there are any number of places that I can't carry a gun but I can carry a knife that, while not optimally suited to throwing, I can make work well enough at sub-21' ranges.
I think it's a valid potential study for self defense. I just don't think it should be high on the list of "study this first" items.
Nah. It has its place. It's not fantasy. It's just that it should be, in my opinion, a secondary study, maybe tertiary.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Last edited:
lklawson
Grandmaster
I disagree.
If you're going to engage in self defense, either unarmed or with ANY weapon at all, the rules just don't change. Your actions must pass the "Reasonable Man" sniff-test. It doesn't matter with what or how you defend yourself, if you're using Deadly Force, then then a "Reasonable Man" must believe that you were in fear of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or an innocent third party. Once the justification for Deadly Force is established, it doesn't matter (legally) one whit what method was used to employ Deadly Force. It could be a knife, stick, gun, or improvised weapon. That's what matters.
For every one of my students, whether we're discussing weapons or unarmed, I tell them that if they are going to employ Deadly Force then it must be justified and then I describe, briefly, what "justified" means. Seriously, if you're teaching deadly force (chokes? throws that land on top of the head?) then it doesn't matter if it's with weapons or not. Deadly Force is Deadly Force. That's why courts recognize "Disparity of Force" as a justification for employing Deadly Force (Disparity of Force = think of a mob attack against an individual or the classic Linebacker Vs. Old Lady). Remember, the most common way of dieing from a general brawl is falling (or being thrown/tripped) and hitting the head on a hard surface (concrete?).
At some point you either recognize that everything you teach could potentially be deadly and you have to trust your students or you have frequent and reoccurring lectures about Justifiable Deadly Force.
So, really, it doesn't matter if you defend yourself with a thrown knife, a gun, or your raw awesomeness (like me.
) As long as it's Justified, you're in the clear.Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Yes, I agree that a 'throwing knife' can be used as a stabbing or cutting weapon. The person who brought it up did so in reference carrying a bunch of them around and hurling them at an assailant, and it is that I am responding to.
Yes, it really does, in terms of legal self-defense. Imagine a person with a pistol carried for self defense. He is attacked, and runs fifty feet away, takes aim, and shoots his attacker. Unless the attacker is likewise armed with a firearm and still represents a threat to him, he is NOT in danger of immediate death or serious bodily injury, and he does NOT have the legal right to employ deadly force in self-defense in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. By removing himself from the threat of being cut, stabbed, punched, clubbed, or etc, he is no longer in imminent danger. If the attacker has a firearm, of course, that may be different. But then I would question what kind of person would attack a man with a gun by throwing knives at him.
No, that is absolutely untrue. Reasonable belief has to be grounded in reality, and it is not up to the victim to decide what 'reasonable' is. From a distance, a person cannot punch, slice, stab, or club you. He can perhaps shoot you - in which case you would absolutely reasonable in believing your life was in imminent danger. But again, chucking knives at a man who is armed with a gun and trying to shoot you? While legal, probably not as wise as trying very hard to escape might be.
Interesting scenarios. Have any of these ever resulted in a person defending themselves by throwing knives at an assailant? I get your point (no pun intended), but it seems so far-fetched as to strain credulity.
If you pay me enough, I'll teach it too. Doesn't make it a valid self-defense technique.
Just me personally - I would never, never, throw a weapon at a person. The chances they would then use it on me are too frightening to even contemplate.
The person who brought this up stated it as his normal method (years ago, as he said) of carry for self-defense weaponry. That does indeed strike me as bizarre, fantasy, outlandish, odd, potentially illegal, and probably foolish. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but come on. We get the occasional person on MT who talks about carrying around eggs full of ground up glass and pockets full of sand and so on. All are rightly pointed out to be fantasy nonsense in terms of practical, real-life, self-defense situations. At a certain point, although I respect all martial arts traditions, I have to say woah up there pardner, that's just crazy talk. If everything is OK, then nothing is NOT OK. And carrying around a brace of throwing knives as self-defense? Not OK. Sorry, I have to say that.
WC_lun
Senior Master
lk, I assume that you teach some sort of responsibilty in your hand to hand combat. Your students probably understand because they train with other people and probably get to know on some level the repurcussions of both employing thier skills correctly and when they fail to do so on some level. For example, if I drop my hands in an engagement, I am probably gonna take one to the noggin. With many, many, instructors who teach martial weapons, that very important training is lacking. It is understandable, since weapons can be so dangerous. However, the student does not experience what happens when they do stuff correctly or not. The result is that these students do not have a realistic understanding of the weapon work itself, nor the repurcussions of employing a weapon, even if everything happens perfectly. It is one thing to train in knife use in a nice safe enviroment where no one gets injured or arrested, but quite another to see a bloody mess because you actually did your technique correctly. It is also eye opening to sit in the back of a cop car handcuffed, when you were the one who was attacked. It is very important that students understand the reality of thier actions. Weapon work has repurcussions that a student needs to know if taking up that kind of training. This type of escalated violence is NOT the same as what TV shows and movies potray.
I agree with that. My belief is that if you can extricate yourself and run far enough away to create the distance necessary to throw knives at your assailant, you are most likely (unless the opponent is shooting at your or threatening to) no longer inside that 'reasonable man' test realm.
For every one of my students, whether we're discussing weapons or unarmed, I tell them that if they are going to employ Deadly Force then it must be justified and then I describe, briefly, what "justified" means. Seriously, if you're teaching deadly force (chokes? throws that land on top of the head?) then it doesn't matter if it's with weapons or not. Deadly Force is Deadly Force. That's why courts recognize "Disparity of Force" as a justification for employing Deadly Force (Disparity of Force = think of a mob attack against an individual or the classic Linebacker Vs. Old Lady). Remember, the most common way of dieing from a general brawl is falling (or being thrown/tripped) and hitting the head on a hard surface (concrete?).
At some point you either recognize that everything you teach could potentially be deadly and you have to trust your students or you have frequent and reoccurring lectures about Justifiable Deadly Force.
So, really, it doesn't matter if you defend yourself with a thrown knife, a gun, or your raw awesomeness (like me.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
As long as it is justified, yes. I just don't see that happening in many circumstances where one has the ability to run away, then turn and throw knives from a distance. Although I can create such scenarios in my mind, I have to believe that in real life, it just doesn't happen. Going about armed with a bandoleer of throwing knives as a primary self-defense weapon is just...wrong...to my way of thinking.
If we look at this from a different angle, you may not want to throw knife at your opponent, but you can't prevent your opponent from throwing knife at you. In Fu Su-Nan's book "Father and son in Jang Hu",
http://www.amazon.cn/~/dp/B007A6Y2LA
his father got into a fight against many guys. When those guys started to throw rocks at his father, his father ended in hostipal. His father told his friends who visted him, "My TCMA teacher didn't teach me how to dodge rocks throwing."
When I was in high school, after the TCMA training, we liked to play a game. We drew a circle on the ground. One guy stood in that circle, 4 guys threw tennis balls at him. If any tennis ball hit him, he was out. That was the way I learned how to dodge "rock (or knife) throwing". Do people still train such skill today, I have not seen any.
http://www.amazon.cn/~/dp/B007A6Y2LA
his father got into a fight against many guys. When those guys started to throw rocks at his father, his father ended in hostipal. His father told his friends who visted him, "My TCMA teacher didn't teach me how to dodge rocks throwing."
When I was in high school, after the TCMA training, we liked to play a game. We drew a circle on the ground. One guy stood in that circle, 4 guys threw tennis balls at him. If any tennis ball hit him, he was out. That was the way I learned how to dodge "rock (or knife) throwing". Do people still train such skill today, I have not seen any.
Last edited:
I guess it has happened, but I sincerely doubt that it happens much in self-defense situations:
http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/d...-scanner-traffic-notes-from-morning-of-may-9/
In any case, I have a little trouble imagining a modern-day self-defense news item that would involve both the assailant and the victim tossing knives at each other. Anything could happen, I remember reading somewhere about a man who defended himself from a home invader with a spear gun he kept for spearfishing. But I doubt I would train to use a spear gun on the off chance I might find myself needing to use one for self-defense.
As far as the game you described, the only thing I can think of that is similar to it is the childhood game of 'Dodgeball'. But it's done with inflated rubber balls, not rocks or knives. In our dojo, the kids are sometimes allowed to play a version of it which involves tennis-ball sized soft fluffy balls that cannot hurt anyone; it allows them to work off excess energy and builds teamwork and teaches balance and coordination and even strategy to some extent. Again, not something we do often, and doesn't involve rocks or knives.
But we train with serious weapons in our dojo. We do train with bo and tonfa and sai. But we don't carry them around on the street with us for self-defense purposes. Some of the skills might be useful in self-defense, but we don't throw any of our weapons, either.
When the hot weapon had replaced the cold weapon, many things had changed. In 21th centry, should we still train:
- short weapon such as single edge knife, double edge sword, ...?
- long weapon such as staff, spear, Guan Dao, ...?
- throwing weapons?
- dodge throwing weapons?
- 1 against many fights?
- many against many fight?
- ...
If we don't train those skills, it will be lost in the future generation. If we do, it may not have much usage in the modern world.
I used to have a 2 sections staff that one part is longer than the other. When your opponent uses his shield to block it, the short section will go over the shield and still hit on his head. It's excellent weapon to be used to against a shield. Does it have any place in the modern world? May be not!
http://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/asianwave/ms070318a1.html
I understand the concept of training with obsolete weapons. I do it myself as a student. I just don't think I would wander the streets with a pair of sai tucked into my belt.
lklawson
Grandmaster
No, it really doesn't. Remember, I said, "Distance weapons are for using "at distance." It doesn't matter if they are used pre-contact or post-contact." That was in response to your statement that if the attacker is pushed back or breaks contact for some reason then the attack is no longer there. This may be true in some cases but is also not true in many others. Direct physical contact is often broken in altercations when one party is pushed back or decides to gain a little space. The attacker may very well still be a threat even though he does not have a grasp on the victim.
Why would I imagine that? It doesn't match anything I've suggested to now. Might as well imagine the attacker runs 100 yards away. It has no bearing on my points. Just because the attacker has been backed up some, doesn't mean the attack is no longer imminent. Standard Self Defense and LEO dogma suggests that a person is a valid threat up to 21 feet and sometimes beyond, even when they have no distance weapon and is commonly represented in the oft cited Tueller Drill. This is just a fact of life. I'm not sure where the idea of 50 feet came from.
I agree. The question is, "how far away is 'removed'?" I'm suggesting that it's a lot farther than you seem realize, though maybe not since I think it's probably a lot closer than 50 feet. Nevertheless, back to my points, there can still be a valid threat of immediate bodily harm 1) before contact is made, 2) after contact has been broken 3) and even at some small distance.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The point is, of course I agree (as I've already said) a firearm is a superior tool for distance self defense. But there are any number of reasons why a victim might not have a firearm and, in those cases, using a thrown weapon of some sort is a darn sight better than peeing my pants and crying like a little girl.
Yes, actually, it is quite legal. Perhaps, at this point, we are having a difficulty with terminology. When I write "reasonable," I am referring to the legal construct known as a "Reasonable Man." It is a fictitious person that a Jury or some other group develops from their legal advice and personal experience to compare actions against. The question is always, "Would a 'Reasonable Man' have believed what the Defendant says he believed with the same information and would that 'Reasonable Man' have been justified in taking the same actions?" "Reasonable" in this case automatically assumes that the Defendant is not suffering from delusions and is otherwise grounded in reality.
Now, again, we are faced with the "from a distance" issue. Again, I point out that it is a well established fact of our legal system that an attacker can, indeed, be a valid threat, under the Reasonable Man construct, even from a distance. Exactly what that distance is is up to the Attorney General, Grand Jury, and/or Jury to decide. While I agree that it is probably less than 50 feet, there is also significant precedent that it is also greater than nose-to-nose. Ayoob and other authors have written extensively on the subject. I recall him writing one piece about a female officer who failed to fire on a suspect who was more than 20 feet away from her because he was "so far away" and "only" armed with a knife. It nearly cost her life. He was obviously a justifiable threat but the officer had the same mind set as it appears you are suggesting. I hope I'm wrong here.
Yes. I saw some video the other day of a defender chucking a knife (and a lot of other stuff) at a person(s) attacking with knives. Is it common? Not that I'm aware of.
Let me be clear, again, I am not suggesting that this is a common occurrence nor that this is a "must have" skill in every person's arsenal who is interested in self defense. I am merely saying that it is not solely the reserve of fantasy and that its use is legally justifiable in any case where the use of a firearm would also be legally justified.
If my attacker has time to pick up a thrown weapon and "use it against" me then my tactics really need tweaking. He should be too busy worrying about defending against my other self defense related attacks as I close range or wondering if he can catch me as I "shoot and scoot."
I understand that it sounds far fetched, particularly in U.S. society where the role of distance weapon is better filled for most by firearms. However, again, as a self defense tool (where legal), there is no legal difference in using one weapon instead of any other potential weapon. If Deadly Force is justified then Deadly Force is justified and it doesn't matter what "force" was used to accomplish it. Again, a thrown knife is justified in the same circumstances as a fired bullet.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Last edited:
lklawson
Grandmaster
Again, there are many, many circumstances in which distance is involved, great enough where if a knife were used for self defense, it must be thrown, yet are still valid threats to life and limb. Happens pretty regularly, actually.
Do you read the NRA's "Armed Citizen" accounts? Many of those have the attacker being shot from a distance. From what records I can find, non-LEO shooting ranges are up to 15 or 20 feet. While some are "contact" many are at greater than arms length. Any of these self defense shootings that are greater than a few feet away would be no less justified if the defender used a thrown knife (for whatever reason). While I still believe that would be unusual and more than noteworthy, it is neither illegal nor insane. As for carrying multiple throwing knives, again, this sounds weirder than it actually is. No one carries a single shot handgun for self defense. If one were restricted to knives why wouldn't one want to be able to 'reload'? I know it sounds weird, but try to look at it unemotionally.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
