What weapons are Taekwondo?

[skribs]

What do they die from?

I'm going to assume you're being facetious, but also rephrase:

Most gunshot wounds do not result in death.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm going to assume you're being facetious, but also rephrase:

Most gunshot wounds do not result in death.

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Modern medicine does manage to save a lot of people from wounds that would have been lethal even a generation or two ago, nevermind a couple centuries ago. But it is pretty safe to say that if those wounds were left untreated, there is a good chance of infections and complications that would eventually be lethal.

When people get shot, they need medical treatment. People don’t just shake off a gunshot wound and go home to sleep it off and feel better in the morning.

If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter.

I would say this holds true for wounds from knives, swords, axes, spears, staffs, etc. as well. That stuff can be nasty, result in heavy bleeding, severed tendons and muscle, get infected, result in concussions or broken bones, all stuff that needs medical treatment or you may not recover at all, and recovery can be lengthy.

People shouldn’t kid themselves over the seriousness of this stuff.

 

[skribs]

Well, it depends on how you look at it.

Modern medicine does manage to save a lot of people from wounds that would have been lethal even a generation or two ago, nevermind a couple centuries ago. But it is pretty safe to say that if those wounds were left untreated, there is a good chance of infections and complications that would eventually be lethal.

When people get shot, they need medical treatment. People don’t just shake off a gunshot wound and go home to sleep it off and feel better in the morning.

If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter.

I would say this holds true for wounds from knives, swords, axes, spears, staffs, etc. as well. That stuff can be nasty, result in heavy bleeding, severed tendons and muscle, get infected, result in concussions or broken bones, all stuff that needs medical treatment or you may not recover at all, and recovery can be lengthy.

People shouldn’t kid themselves over the seriousness of this stuff.

First off:
Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds – PR News

2/3 of those with gunshot wounds survived, and over 90% of those with stab wounds survived. So I'm not just talking about a possibility, but something likely to happen.

Second:
I'm looking at it from the other side. Don't assume that just because you shoot someone that they're down. One shot might not be enough to stop them. Even someone who is shot in the heart can potentially continue the attack for 10-15 seconds. It just depends on their state of mind (determination, willpower and/or substance abuse). It's only when they cannot physically move from damage to their body, or from lack of oxygenated blood in the brain, that they are guaranteed to stop.

If someone shoots you or stabs you, that doesn't mean you're out. Look at how many times in sports someone suffers a gruesome injury and keeps going.

Carson Wentz got hurt, then ran 4 more plays that ended with a TD

Plus, players used to play through concussions all the time.

I'm not saying it's likely you'll win in that case, but to assume that just because a sharp bit touched you that you're out of the fight is to underestimate the indomitable human spirit.

 

[Flying Crane]

First off:
Survival Rates Similar for Gunshot, Stabbing Victims Whether Brought to the Hospital by Police or EMS, Penn Medicine Study Finds – PR News

2/3 of those with gunshot wounds survived, and over 90% of those with stab wounds survived. So I'm not just talking about a possibility, but something likely to happen.

Second:
I'm looking at it from the other side. Don't assume that just because you shoot someone that they're down. One shot might not be enough to stop them. Even someone who is shot in the heart can potentially continue the attack for 10-15 seconds. It just depends on their state of mind (determination, willpower and/or substance abuse). It's only when they cannot physically move from damage to their body, or from lack of oxygenated blood in the brain, that they are guaranteed to stop.

If someone shoots you or stabs you, that doesn't mean you're out. Look at how many times in sports someone suffers a gruesome injury and keeps going.

Carson Wentz got hurt, then ran 4 more plays that ended with a TD

Plus, players used to play through concussions all the time.

I'm not saying it's likely you'll win in that case, but to assume that just because a sharp bit touched you that you're out of the fight is to underestimate the indomitable human spirit.

Ok, that first article you linked, did you read it?

It compares survival rates of people transported to trauma centers by police, vs. transported by EMS. These are all people who got treatment in a trauma center. This in no way suggests a survival rate by those who do not get treatment. This completely supports what I said in my previous post: more people survive because of the capabilities of modern medicine.

If you want to hang on to the fantasy notions of an unarmed person’s chances against someone armed with these weapons we’ve been discussing, be my guest. You have every right to your opinion. I am hereby giving up all attempts to talk sense into you.

 

[pdg]

If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter

That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...

In this hypothetical situation you could get winged (still shot), even a few times, and still be the one to walk away and have the opportunity to seek medical assistance.

I'd call that win - maybe not like 1-0, but 5-3 is still a win

People shouldn’t kid themselves over the seriousness of this stuff

Oh, it's absolutely serious, no doubt about it.

I've had a couple of injuries myself that had I ignored them would have had the possibility (via infection if nothing else) of being fatal.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...

In this hypothetical situation you could get winged (still shot), even a few times, and still be the one to walk away and have the opportunity to seek medical assistance.

I'd call that win - maybe not like 1-0, but 5-3 is still a win



Oh, it's absolutely serious, no doubt about it.

I've had a couple of injuries myself that had I ignored them would have had the possibility (via infection if nothing else) of being fatal.

Yeah, it can be a mutual loss as well. Nobody has a good day.

 

[pdg]

This in no way suggests a survival rate by those who do not get treatment.

Personally, I never even made reference to treatment or lack thereof (until my previous post).

If two unarmed people get into it, there's still a chance the winner will need to treat wounds...

Post altercation care wasn't part of my initial consideration.

 

[pdg]

Yeah, it can be a mutual loss as well. Nobody has a good day.

A good day is any one you live to remember



Doesn't make it good at the time



And yeah, they could both fail to survive the encounter - that's very much within the realms of possibility.

 

[skribs]

This completely supports what I said in my previous post: more people survive because of the capabilities of modern medicine.

If you want to hang on to the fantasy notions of an unarmed person’s chances against someone armed with these weapons we’ve been discussing, be my guest. You have every right to your opinion. I am hereby giving up all attempts to talk sense into you.

You're starting to remind me of a math joke:

A physicist is working on an experiment and comes up with a formula to help him analyze his data. He asks a math professor to look over the formula for him. After a week, the professor comes back and tells the physicist that his formula doesn't work. However, the physicist has been getting good results with the formula, so he asks the professor to recheck the work. A week later the math professor comes up to him and says "well, okay, your formula works, but only in the specific circumstances that the datapoints are real and positive."

"More people survive because of modern medicine." Unless I'm getting in a time machine for this fight, I don't really see what the point is of making whether or not modern medicine exists a factor in self defense.

You're talking about fantasy notions, and yet you're the one who has this fight take place outside of the modern world.

 

[Flying Crane]

Personally, I never even made reference to treatment or lack thereof (until my previous post).

If two unarmed people get into it, there's still a chance the winner will need to treat wounds...

Post altercation care wasn't part of my initial consideration.

I don’t disagree.

However, if one is armed and the other is not, well it’s a pretty predictable outcome as to what is in store.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...

Sorry, I should have commented on this earlier. I disagree with this statement. A hit with a fist, gloved or not, has a lot less chance of being lethal or otherwise “decisive” than a hit with a few inches or a few feet of sharp steel, or a heavy stick, especially when that weapon increases the reach so that the one being hit with it cannot effectively hit back.

Now I do understand that a punch can be lethal, especially if the victim falls and hits his head on the concrete. Sure, I get that. But the chance of that, especially if it is in the context of a boxing match, is far far far far less than if someone is hit with a weapon designed to be lethal.

Comparing these two is like apples to airplanes.

 

[Flying Crane]

You're starting to remind me of a math joke:

A physicist is working on an experiment and comes up with a formula to help him analyze his data. He asks a math professor to look over the formula for him. After a week, the professor comes back and tells the physicist that his formula doesn't work. However, the physicist has been getting good results with the formula, so he asks the professor to recheck the work. A week later the math professor comes up to him and says "well, okay, your formula works, but only in the specific circumstances that the datapoints are real and positive."

"More people survive because of modern medicine." Unless I'm getting in a time machine for this fight, I don't really see what the point is of making whether or not modern medicine exists a factor in self defense.

You're talking about fantasy notions, and yet you're the one who has this fight take place outside of the modern world.

Ok, what was the point you were trying to make by Linking to that article? I am honestly confused.

Regarding your last statement, I only initiated this line of discussion because oftheherd stated in an earlier post that learning the weapon should include learn to defend against it, and that was in the context of your list of archaic weapons like katana, staff, nunchaku, and three-section staff. So I gave my thoughts and observations, based on my own experiences with all of those weapons.

So what I think you are saying here is, if an unarmed person is gutted by a Tae Kwon do blackbelt with a katana from 5 feet away, and this person is picked up in Pennsylvania by either a police officer or an EMT and rushed to a trauma center for treatment, where he may or may not survive, that those chances of survival do not statistically change if it is the police officer vs if it is the EMT who gets him there, then he successfully defended himself against the katana.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[skribs]

Ok, what was the point you were trying to make by Linking to that article? I am honestly confused.

...

So what I think you are saying here is, if an unarmed person is gutted by a Tae Kwon do blackbelt with a katana from 5 feet away, and this person is picked up in Pennsylvania by either a police officer or an EMT and rushed to a trauma center for treatment, where he may or may not survive, that those chances of survival do not statistically change if it is the police officer vs if it is the EMT who gets him there, then he successfully defended himself against the katana.

Is that what you are saying?

The article was simply an example to show that just because you are shot or stabbed, it doesn't mean you're dead. Because there seems to be a myth in this thread that as soon as a knife, stick, or bullet touches you, you are dead. That myth is clearly not true.

I guess I could have linked more examples of articles talking about the large majority of gun/knife victims surviving the ordeal, but I thought my comments below the link were sufficient to follow my train of thought.

Regarding your last statement, I only initiated this line of discussion because oftheherd stated in an earlier post that learning the weapon should include learn to defend against it, and that was in the context of your list of archaic weapons like katana, staff, nunchaku, and three-section staff. So I gave my thoughts and observations, based on my own experiences with all of those weapons.

I have a katana, and another sword. I have several nunchaku and staves, both full and 3-section. Some are for show, some are weapons. Knives follow a similar idea as a sword (cutting weapon) and are very common today, in the form of box cutters, kitchen knives, utility knives, etc.

I've also got a ton of makeshift maces, between the wrenches and hammers in my toolbox, baseball bats, golf clubs, tire irons. I've got other things that could be used as such in a pinch, such as my sports trophies, candlesticks, and I guess a pistol whip counts as a mace. Oh, I also have an asp, which is a modern collapsible mace, and I have my kali sticks.

So, why must a sword, mace, or staff exist only in some fantasy land or in the 10th century? They exist today. While a sword or staff are less likely to be encountered, a baseball bat, wrench, or knife can be very common weapons to encounter. More common than a rifle, if I remember right.

So to say it must be a fantasy is to ignore reality.

 

[pdg]

Excuse the jumbled nature of my reply...

Sorry, I should have commented on this earlier. I disagree with this statement. A hit with a fist, gloved or not, has a lot less chance of being lethal or otherwise “decisive” than a hit with a few inches or a few feet of sharp steel, or a heavy stick, especially when that weapon increases the reach so that the one being hit with it cannot effectively hit back.

Now I do understand that a punch can be lethal, especially if the victim falls and hits his head on the concrete. Sure, I get that. But the chance of that, especially if it is in the context of a boxing match, is far far far far less than if someone is hit with a weapon designed to be lethal.

Comparing these two is like apples to airplanes.

It doesn't have to be lethal to win or lose - unless that was a specification of the encounter I missed...


This response:

That's quite a lot like saying the first person to land a punch in a boxing match wins...

Was directly in relation to:

If you get shot, even if not immediately lethal, you lost the encounter.

Which is plainly not the case.

If I got 'shot' in the arm with a .22, chances are good that I'm not out, neither is that arm. Chances of still being 'in' and able to use that arm decrease as calibre increases.

Likewise, if I get stabbed in a non essential location, I'm not out. I actually have a valid frame of reference for this - when I was about 14 I was cutting the grip off a motorcycle handlebar, (very stupidly) using my thigh as a brace... The stanley knife (box cutter?) slipped and said hello to my leg... Full depth of the blade, a bit of twist - 16 stitches. But when I did it I could still walk, swear, shout, throw the 'bars across the garden in a temper, etc. before going in and asking my dad for a lift to hospital

Heavy stick? That's what I call a conditioning tool - unless you really know what you're doing (but unskilled, remember?) I'll be inside that range. I might get a bruise...



Just as you said one punch doesn't mean you're not out, neither does one weapon contact - unskilled, remember?

Quite honestly, taking 'unskilled' into account, out of the so far listed weapons the sword (used as a generic term for any blade over about 18") is the thing that would give me most pause.

 

[skribs]

Sorry, I should have commented on this earlier. I disagree with this statement. A hit with a fist, gloved or not, has a lot less chance of being lethal or otherwise “decisive” than a hit with a few inches or a few feet of sharp steel, or a heavy stick, especially when that weapon increases the reach so that the one being hit with it cannot effectively hit back.

To clarify - this is why I linked the article. Because your notion that just because a pointy object touched you that you are instantly dead is complete lunacy.

 

[skribs]

If I got 'shot' in the arm with a .22, chances are good that I'm not out, neither is that arm. Chances of still being 'in' and able to use that arm decrease as calibre increases.

Likewise, if I get stabbed in a non essential location, I'm not out. I actually have a valid frame of reference for this - when I was about 14 I was cutting the grip off a motorcycle handlebar, (very stupidly) using my thigh as a brace... The stanley knife (box cutter?) slipped and said hello to my leg... Full depth of the blade, a bit of twist - 16 stitches. But when I did it I could still walk, swear, shout, throw the 'bars across the garden in a temper, etc. before going in and asking my dad for a lift to hospital

Heavy stick? That's what I call a conditioning tool - unless you really know what you're doing (but unskilled, remember?) I'll be inside that range. I might get a bruise...



Just as you said one punch doesn't mean you're not out, neither does one weapon contact - unskilled, remember?

Quite honestly, taking 'unskilled' into account, out of the so far listed weapons the sword (used as a generic term for any blade over about 18") is the thing that would give me most pause.

I'm curious if part of the problem is an assumption that a "hit" with a weapon means a successfully damaging hit?

You can be cut and just have a superficial bloody wound, in which case you're probably easily capable of continuing the fight. You can be hit in the arm with a quick hit from a stick (not a power swing) and be bruised, but not broken.

However, if you take a full-power blow to the arm, yes your arm is probably broken. If you take a full-power blow to the head, your skull is probably caved in. If you are disemboweled or dismembered by a sword strike, then yes, you will probably lose and die real fast.

Maybe part of the disagreement here is on the likelihood of a strike being a quick jab type of a strike vs. a full power swing?

 

[pdg]

However, if you take a full-power blow to the arm, yes your arm is probably broken. If you take a full-power blow to the head, your skull is probably caved in.

I think this is the point of most contention.

If I'm engaged (i.e. it's not a sucker hit), I stand a fair chance of not taking that full power blow squarely.

An unskilled person (which is what I thought we've been dealing with from the start) isn't going to have the technique to accelerate a stick, they're likely to be going for the double handed overhead death swing or the baseball style attack. Sure, just stand there and you won't be standing for long, but it'll probably be telegraphed so much they might as well give you written notification of their intentions...

 

[Metal]

Wow... this turned into a pretty long discussion.

I wonder how someone even gets to ask "Which weapons are Taekwondo?". I mean, once you start looking beyond the training of the dojang you train at, you should immediately realize that there are no weapons in the Taekwondo curriculum. In Kukkiwon as well as in the ITFs or so called 'traditional' Taekwondo.

I would ask: Are weapons as part of the Taekwondo curriculum or Taekwondo belt test a sign of a McDojo (or McDojang)?

 

[skribs]

Wow... this turned into a pretty long discussion.

I wonder how someone even gets to ask "Which weapons are Taekwondo?". I mean, once you start looking beyond the training of the dojang you train at, you should immediately realize that there are no weapons in the Taekwondo curriculum. In Kukkiwon as well as in the ITFs or so called 'traditional' Taekwondo.

Weapons are part of our curriculum after black belt, to include bo staff, eskrima sticks, knife, sword, and nunchaku. We are registered with KKW and I have my dan certificates and ID cards from KKW.

My understanding is that you cannot take away from the KKW curriculum (i.e. you couldn't not teach Koryo and Keumgang) but you can add to it. There's a lot in our curriculum that - to my knowledge - isn't required tested material by KKW. For example, defense drills, hand grabs and body grabs, and the weapon skills.

However, someone else from my school might not know what the requirements are from KKW or the requirements from other schools. So they might assume that because we're in KKW, and we do weapons, that KKW has weapons, and therefore these weapons are part of the TKD curriculum.

I would ask: Are weapons as part of the Taekwondo curriculum or Taekwondo belt test a sign of a McDojo (or McDojang)?

How would ADDING material to a belt test make it a McDojo?

 

[CB Jones]

Wow... this turned into a pretty long discussion.

I wonder how someone even gets to ask "Which weapons are Taekwondo?". I mean, once you start looking beyond the training of the dojang you train at, you should immediately realize that there are no weapons in the Taekwondo curriculum. In Kukkiwon as well as in the ITFs or so called 'traditional' Taekwondo.

I would ask: Are weapons as part of the Taekwondo curriculum or Taekwondo belt test a sign of a McDojo (or McDojang)?

Just because a school is not part of KKW or ITF and chooses to add weapons training to their curriculum does not make them a McDojo.