The Use Of Weapons In Self Defense

[MJS]

In another thread, the use of weapons came up. A member made the comment that the use of weapons today, is mainly for sport purposes and using one today, to defend yourself, you would most likely find yourself in jail.

Now, I don't agree with that 100% and I chalk that comment up to the simple fact that a) this is coming from a person who trains a non-weapon based art and b) someone who is not all that familiar with the many uses of simple weapons. For clarification, when I say non weapon based art, I'm talking about an art that does not focus all or the majority of training on the use of weapons. Many arts have weapons forms, weapons disarms, but that is not their sole focus. An art like Arnis, Kali, or similar type arts, focus a great deal on weapons.

So, this brings up my question: If you were in a self defense situation, would you use a weapon? Of course, depending on the situation, the weapon of choice should vary. I mean, I don't think drawing a gun is suited for every SD scenario. Of course, some may think otherwise, and thats their choice.

I get the impression that some people may hear "Weapon" and assume it means to attack the other person just with that weapon. Kinda like when people hear grappling, they assume it means rolling on the ground. A pen or kubaton are 2 small weapons, yet they can inflict alot of pain, if used properly. Both, for the most part, are perfectly legal to carry. A cane is another. A cane, much like a pen, can be carried anywhere. In a bar, restaurant, a plane, a boat, a train, you name it. Yet we see many effective moves with short sticks, and they dont always involve beating someone with it, although that is an option.

A knife....well, that may be frowned upon, depending on the situation, however, if in a life and death situation, and I had a blade available to me, yes, I would consider using it. Just like I wouldn't think twice about any other weapons, such as an ashtray, bottle or bat. Again, situation depending of course.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In most self-defense situations that I am aware of, the introduction of a weapon by the victim also introduces the requirements for a deadly force claim.

The use of deadly force has a higher standard in most jurisdictions than does a simple self-defense claim.

To the law, nunchaku and handguns are alike - capable of inflicting deadly force. It does not matter that one is 'more capable' than the other - the definition is generally only 'deadly force' and 'other than deadly force'.

I would not hesitate to use a weapon in a self-defense situation if I felt my life was in danger, regardless of what standard I might have to reach later. 'Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six,' and so on. But I am aware that my actions might be held to a higher standard once I use a weapon.

As to the use of specific martial arts weapons, my dojo trains in some of them, specifically sai, tonfa, and bo. I don't anticipate carrying any of them outside the dojo at any time in the future, but I might find skills with them applicable to a weapon of opportunity I might pick up when needed.

 

[Flying Crane]

I suspect there is a psychological impact connected to the use of a weapon that most people are not emotionally prepared to accept. It's easy to talk about their use and one's willingness to "do what it takes" to defend oneself, but I suspect when push comes to shove, most people would be reluctant to use a deadly weapon. I also think this reluctance would be greater with some weapons than with others. A bludgeoning weapon like a baseball bat might be psychologically easier for someone to use than a knife. With a baseball bat you've got some distance, and the damage done might not be as obvious. But with a knife, you gotta get really close, and stabs and cuts are gruesome and messy, and it's very unlikely to make a quick and decisive end to the situation. I just don't believe that most people are prepared to handle the emotional reality of that kind of engagement.

How about an improvised weapon like sticking a ballpoint pen thru someone's eyeball? Again, up close in your face, gruesome. Sure it's an option, but I doubt most people would really go for it. Most of us just don't prepare ourselves for this kind of combat, and most of us will never need to do it either so it reamains very hypothetical.

 

[still learning]

Hello, NOT sure if refering to carrying things like, Nunchaks, short sticks, bo, and other weapons use in training?

Even Bruce Lee once mention in a street fight? ...he would use what ever around him as a weapon to fight back.

Chairs,beer bottles..everything can be use as defensive and offensive weapons...the first to use or grab one...will have the advantages..

When fighting for your life? ....better be looking for things (weapons) to gain the advantages...OR the other guy will do it first!

Da "club" first weapons use by the Caveman....extra large-possible Oak?
hand polish came later...but after the stone add for weigh and impact..

even a caveman can do it!

Aloha,

 

[tallgeese]

Use of weapon does mean that you're going to have to justify it's employment. However, lots of people get too caught up with this and worry over it excessively.

Are you in fear for your life? Would another reasonable person be in fear for their life (or great bodily harm)? Can you articulate the factors that lead you to believe that?

If you can rightfully come up with these answers, they in all likelihood you'll be fine. You do have to deal with the legality of carrying a weapon, that will vary greatly depending on your location.

Personally, I recommend to people carrying the highest level of weapon that they are a) trained to carry and use b) comfortable and proficient with, and c) legally authorized to carry. To each their own, however.

I think that when we talk about the integration of weapons for sd, then we really need to focus on the training of knives, clubs, and guns in the modern era. I think that traditional kobudo weapons have relatively little place in the discussion of sd. However, the three that I mentioned above are common to have access to, or used against you.

I do agree that psycologically one must prepare for the reality of using these weapons, and that it's often overlooked. However, I'd also look that actual response to real violence from this standpoint is often overlooked in a lot of unarmed systems as well. This sort of prep should be part of the learning and training process, espicially for weapons.

Further, any weapons training needs to cover use of force laws, conceilment of the weapon, and access/deployment under dynamic conditions as well.

If it sounds like a big task- it is. But it's part of a complete response pattern in your arsenal.

 

[MJS]

Regarding the carrying of weapons. It seemed, upon initial read, that the person who made that comment, was talking about traditional weapons, but I couldn't help but think that he was also talking about ANY weapon, not just a set of chuks, sais, etc.

Of course, as I hinted at in my OP, there are other 'weapons' that we can use, that are perfectly legit to carry, but still serve a devastating purpose.

 

[MJS]

I suspect there is a psychological impact connected to the use of a weapon that most people are not emotionally prepared to accept. It's easy to talk about their use and one's willingness to "do what it takes" to defend oneself, but I suspect when push comes to shove, most people would be reluctant to use a deadly weapon. I also think this reluctance would be greater with some weapons than with others. A bludgeoning weapon like a baseball bat might be psychologically easier for someone to use than a knife. With a baseball bat you've got some distance, and the damage done might not be as obvious. But with a knife, you gotta get really close, and stabs and cuts are gruesome and messy, and it's very unlikely to make a quick and decisive end to the situation. I just don't believe that most people are prepared to handle the emotional reality of that kind of engagement.

How about an improvised weapon like sticking a ballpoint pen thru someone's eyeball? Again, up close in your face, gruesome. Sure it's an option, but I doubt most people would really go for it. Most of us just don't prepare ourselves for this kind of combat, and most of us will never need to do it either so it reamains very hypothetical.

Of course, but we could also apply that to empty hand fighting as well. I mean, think about some of the nasty things we do with our hands as weapons....punching someone in the face, with the good chance of breaking the other guys nose or knocking out a few teeth, elbowing someone in the head/face...the list can go on and on. Yet we all still train. Additionally, while people may go their entire life without using their training, I would say alot comes down to the following....where do you live? If you live in a bad part of town, where the crime rate is high, your odds just went up. The same can be applied to where you work. Do you have to work late and walk to a large, dark parking lot after? The chances of getting carjacked or mugged are high. Do you go to bars or clubs? Anywhere alcohol is served, the odds for a confrontation are higher than if none was. *Note..when I say "You" I dont mean you per se, just a figure of speech.

So, when the badguy grabs onto the woman, pulls her behind the bushes and starts to rape her, is she thinking about defending herself by any means possible or is she thinking how gross it is to stick her fingers into his eyes, bite him or grab a nearby rock and slam it into his head?

 

[MJS]

In most self-defense situations that I am aware of, the introduction of a weapon by the victim also introduces the requirements for a deadly force claim.

The use of deadly force has a higher standard in most jurisdictions than does a simple self-defense claim.

To the law, nunchaku and handguns are alike - capable of inflicting deadly force. It does not matter that one is 'more capable' than the other - the definition is generally only 'deadly force' and 'other than deadly force'.

I would not hesitate to use a weapon in a self-defense situation if I felt my life was in danger, regardless of what standard I might have to reach later. 'Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six,' and so on. But I am aware that my actions might be held to a higher standard once I use a weapon.

Great points Bill. Its certainly important to know the law, which IMO, is something that anyone in the martial arts, should make a point of doing.

As to the use of specific martial arts weapons, my dojo trains in some of them, specifically sai, tonfa, and bo. I don't anticipate carrying any of them outside the dojo at any time in the future, but I might find skills with them applicable to a weapon of opportunity I might pick up when needed.

Another great point and one that I was hinting at in my OP.

 

[Flying Crane]

Of course, but we could also apply that to empty hand fighting as well. I mean, think about some of the nasty things we do with our hands as weapons....punching someone in the face, with the good chance of breaking the other guys nose or knocking out a few teeth, elbowing someone in the head/face...the list can go on and on. Yet we all still train.

yeah we can do nasty things with our hands, but it's usually not quite the same as seeing/feeling someone's guts pour out over your hands and onto the floor when you ripped him open with a knife. And then he starts shrieking and calling for his mother while he flops around and dies, blood and feces everywhere including on you. I think most people will tend toward punches and kicks with their bare hands. We pratice some nasty things with our hands, but I bet simple punches and strikes will be most common. Even poking your finger into someone's eye just doesn't carry the same gruesome weight. I think the psychological impact of ripping someone open with a knife is greater than punching him in the nose or even throat, even if you kill him doing it.

But yeah, we still can train it. I'm just wondering if most people will keep looking for the justification to NOT use the weapon, even when things are looking serious.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Your use of a weapon, or even just your hands and feet, will be judged by not only the police and grand jury, but maybe by 12 people at a trial.

Using force, or deadly force, will require explanation. And don't think you can just look around and walk off. Jails are full of people who 'thought' no one saw what happened (and in the day of the camera, there are more eyes than you can shake a stick at.)

In the U.S., the 50 states few the rules of self defense in many ways so you have to watch which state you are in.

Some force you to retreat, others allow you to stand your ground. Some allow you to pack a weapon without any permit, others prohibit any weapon being carried.

The law looks at the circumstances. It looks at any disparency of force (that is, how big you are .vs. them or how many of them or how they are armed .vs. you..) It looks at who started the argument (if it was not a robbery or such.) It looks at who was their illegally. Again, it looks at the totality of the circumstances.

An old lady defending herself against a young man will be treated much differently than a young strong man against an elderly attacker. An unarmed man against a pack of hoodlums will also be treated differently than the reverse.

Here in Texas we do have the castle doctrine. We also have a form of 'stand your ground' law. We also have a concealed handgun license (CHL) that is 'shall issue', that is if you have a clean record and meet the standards, you must be issued the perment. No 'reason' is needed to get the CHL.

If the shooting is what is called a 'good shoot', that is clear cut self defense, you have no fear about going to jail. BUT, you still need to talk to a lawyer just in case, BEFORE the police question you or ask for a statement.

Anyway, here in Texas, and many other states, just because you used a weapon does not automaticly mean you go to jail. There are many newspaper accounts that will prove this as an examination of Claton Cramers work will show.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Deaf

 

[Sukerkin]

That is one of the things I approve of most about the Texan interpretation of law :tup:.

For me, I will have a hard decsion to make if it ever comes to such a circumstance. I may be well trained (in times gone by at least) in empty-hand fighting but since my accident it is just not a 'winning' proposition. I might look fine to most casual observers but only my left arm has normal strength both in terms of being able to enact and withstand force.

So use of a weapon in a circumstance of defensive need would pretty much be manditory for me - yet I can see such being a 'hard sell' in legal terms.

Rock and a hard place for me, sad to say .

 

[Carol]

Unfortunately many people that have an opinion about weapons (pro or con) are people that have little/no training or knowledge of the law.

 

[elder999]

If you were in a self defense situation, would you use a weapon? Of course, depending on the situation, the weapon of choice should vary. I mean, I don't think drawing a gun is suited for every SD scenario. Of course, some may think otherwise, and thats their choice. .

I've said it before, I'll say it again:Mont Blanc Pen.

 

[MJS]

yeah we can do nasty things with our hands, but it's usually not quite the same as seeing/feeling someone's guts pour out over your hands and onto the floor when you ripped him open with a knife. And then he starts shrieking and calling for his mother while he flops around and dies, blood and feces everywhere including on you. I think most people will tend toward punches and kicks with their bare hands. We pratice some nasty things with our hands, but I bet simple punches and strikes will be most common. Even poking your finger into someone's eye just doesn't carry the same gruesome weight. I think the psychological impact of ripping someone open with a knife is greater than punching him in the nose or even throat, even if you kill him doing it.

But yeah, we still can train it. I'm just wondering if most people will keep looking for the justification to NOT use the weapon, even when things are looking serious.

I suppose the same thing can be said of a LEO. I mean, the first time that they're faced with a decision to shoot, they're holding that other persons life in their hands. I'm sure some will freeze and I'm sure some will not think twice. Hopefully, those that're faced with a real life and death situation, will not freeze.

 

[Big Don]

Would I? If one was handy. Have I? Not really, the two times I've had a firearm, once a shotgun and once a revolver, I brandished them, but, didn't fire. Does that count as use?

 

[MJS]

Hello, NOT sure if refering to carrying things like, Nunchaks, short sticks, bo, and other weapons use in training?

Even Bruce Lee once mention in a street fight? ...he would use what ever around him as a weapon to fight back.

Chairs,beer bottles..everything can be use as defensive and offensive weapons...the first to use or grab one...will have the advantages..

When fighting for your life? ....better be looking for things (weapons) to gain the advantages...OR the other guy will do it first!

Da "club" first weapons use by the Caveman....extra large-possible Oak?
hand polish came later...but after the stone add for weigh and impact..

even a caveman can do it!

Aloha,

As I said, the comment in question, was, IMO, pretty open to various interpretation. That being said, if we could look at this in a few different scenarios. Of course, walking down the road with a pair of sai tucked into your belt will probably land you in jail. Home with your wife and kids, and you hear a sound of glass breaking at 2am, I dont know about anyone else, but I'm grabbing the first thing I can, and if it were sais, then so be it. I do not know if the person or persons breaking in are armed, and I'm not assuming they are empty handed. Way too many home invasions happen, where the suspects are armed. People dont think twice about saying they'd grab a handgun, so seeing that I do not own one, I'm grabbing what tools I have available to me at the moment.

 

[MJS]

Would I? If one was handy. Have I? Not really, the two times I've had a firearm, once a shotgun and once a revolver, I brandished them, but, didn't fire. Does that count as use?

Sure, I'd say it counts.

 

[Flying Crane]

Would I? If one was handy. Have I? Not really, the two times I've had a firearm, once a shotgun and once a revolver, I brandished them, but, didn't fire. Does that count as use?

and yet you apparently found enough reason to NOT pull the trigger.

 

[MJS]

and yet you apparently found enough reason to NOT pull the trigger.

Perhaps the mere sight of it was enough of a deterrant. Kinda like a cop with a German Shepard. Funny how many times the badguy suddenly becomes the worlds biggest chicken, at the sight of the dog. Of course, there're those cases when they still have big stones and end up getting bit, or in this case with Don, shot.

 

[Flying Crane]

Perhaps the mere sight of it was enough of a deterrant. Kinda like a cop with a German Shepard. Funny how many times the badguy suddenly becomes the worlds biggest chicken, at the sight of the dog. Of course, there're those cases when they still have big stones and end up getting bit, or in this case with Don, shot.

Yes, theoretically this is all true and I obviously don't know what the situation was nor what was going on in the mind of the other parties involved.

But what sticks out in my mind is that Don found enough reason to NOT pull the trigger. He brandished the weapons so he must have felt the situation was getting seriously dangerous. Yet in spite of that, he found good enough reason to decide pulling the trigger was not necessary.

I think we'd all probably rather it end this way.