Defensive Knives?


PDA






Cosmoline
October 18, 2013, 06:54 PM
What's the thinking behind using a short blade for self defense? I was under the impression they were pretty poor at actually stopping an attack until you get to the short sword level.

I answer the door with the knife open, but out of sight. Also use a Buck Model 105 Pathfinder in that role

How will that help? If they push the door in, you're stuck behind it. If they shoot you, you're shot. It seems to me the knife is giving you a false sense of security. Shouldn't answer the door anyway.

If you enjoyed reading about "Defensive Knives?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lone Star
October 18, 2013, 07:19 PM
Re the post about short knives, Rex Applegate told me that a six-inch blade will reach most vital zones on most people. I think he had the background to know that. Rex trained most OSS and many CIA agents, and studied their combat reports. R.W. Loveless said that his "serious" customers ordered knives with six or seven inch blades.

I gather that I know how to use a knife against people better than you do. And I don't stand where the door will get me behind it. And I get a gun instead of a knife if the circumstances are especially suspicious, in which case I usually DON'T answer the door. If it gets bashed in, someone is going to get shot. (The door chain is mainly there to show evidence that a safeguard was forced.)

A really long knife is actually more difficult to use well, and is not needed, if you know what you're doing.

Sam Cade
October 18, 2013, 07:43 PM
What's the thinking behind using a short blade for self defense? I was under the impression they were pretty poor at actually stopping an attack until you get to the short sword level.

That is a complex issue.

Even a short blade capable of inflicting gruesome fight ending injuries.

Knife wound to face. Gore. Not for the squeamish.:uhoh:
http://www.columbianeurosurgery.org/wp-content/2009/11/nl_1_lg.jpg

Cuts to the hands or forearms can sever tendons.

A snap cut to the neck can be fatal.


By way of anecdote, a few years ago the town drunk in my hometown shuffled out of his mortal coil after being poked with with a 3-blade stockman. DRT.


January 21, 2009 Issue
Two Cumberland County men were found dead at a residence on Judio Road last Wednesday night, January 14. Cumberland County Dispatch notified Kentucky State Police at around 10 p.m. of a possible homicide at 3951 Judio Road, the home of Kenneth Spears. Upon arrival, two individuals were observed inside the residence and appeared to be unreponsive. Kenneth Spears, 38, and Timmy Medlin, 45, both of Burkesville, had been stabbed multiple times. Both men were pronounced dead at the scene by the Cumberland County Coroner Gary White. Carl Spears, 57, of Burkesville, was arrested and charged with one count of murder.

hso
October 18, 2013, 07:59 PM
What's the thinking behind using a short blade for self defense? I was under the impression they were pretty poor at actually stopping an attack until you get to the short sword level.

Completely wrong.

Any knife greater than 4" will reach vital organs when used in a fight. While you have greater reach with a sword you aren't fighting swordsmen with that same reach.

herrwalther
October 18, 2013, 08:52 PM
When going over knife choice you will have the same give and take compromising relationship you have with firearms. You can conceal a smaller knife easier but will have less damage potential: shorter blade and probably shorter handle. Can a trained person do some damage with a sword? Yes. Can he carry it as well as a 4" folder? Probably not.

rcmodel
October 18, 2013, 09:17 PM
I agree with the above.

A serrated 3" Spyderco Delica or 4" Rescue folder could / would cut someone's arm tendons half off in one swipe.
Or juggler vein or femoral or biracial artery.

Either one to the temple or eye socket would result in almost instant DRT.

Most assailants would go find an emergency room if they could, after they found their strong right arm no longer functioned, and/or they were instantly bleeding to death from their crotch on your front porch.

As the wise man once said.
It's not the size of the tool, it's how you slice & dice with it.

Or something like that?? :confused:

rc

Cosmoline
October 18, 2013, 09:20 PM
Even a short blade capable of inflicting gruesome fight ending injuries.

I've seen some really nasty cuts in cases over the years. But they don't reliably seem to *end* fights quickly enough. Even if they're later fatal. And doesn't even the best knife attack require you to expose your own body to counter-attack? Whether from a knife, gun or just grappling. The OSS guys trained to use them as a backup because they weren't always going to be able to have rifles or handguns. And of course they also essentially trained to kill people with them in circumstances that had nothing to do with self defense.

I gather that I know how to use a knife against people better than you do.

What is it you think you'd be able to do with that knife to prevent someone from attacking or shooting you when you open the door?

While you have greater reach with a sword you aren't fighting swordsmen with that same reach.

He has arms, so he has your same reach. Heck if we're reduced to non-firearms then I want a spear at least. Surely the goal is to be where he can't grab you or tackle you but you can stop him.

rcmodel
October 18, 2013, 09:32 PM
Any knife greater than 4" will reach vital organs when used in a fight.While I agree with that.

There are several vital organs just below the skin, under the arm pits, crotch, and head.

You just have to know where they are to be deadly lethal with a small folder.

While not always easy to reach in a struggle?
You can't usually draw and swing a sword in a lot of hand to hand struggles either!

Even a bayonet is too long in many cases when it gets to a bad breath range fight for your life.

rc

Cosmoline
October 18, 2013, 09:35 PM
Well true, but I thought that's why we train to put distance between us and the threat. Grappling is just bad all around.

Sam Cade
October 18, 2013, 09:52 PM
I've seen some really nasty cuts in cases over the years. But they don't reliably seem to *end* fights quickly enough.


Have you ever boxed?

If so, imagine that every fast jab has 2" of blade in it and could gouge out an eye, slice off a nose, or at bare minimum, open your assailant up to the bone.


Knife fights are ugly, messy business.

RussellC
October 18, 2013, 09:53 PM
While a long blade may be required to reach major organs, I dont see the absolute need for that ability in a defensive situation. I carry 3 different knives, (not at the same time!) all automatic. A very flat cheapie is the Boker Kalashnikov Auto, which not what I prefer wouldnt be so painful to loose at 35 bucks or so delivered. Its blade is Razor sharp, I carry it when wearing a suit.

The other, which is in my pocket now, is a Rex Applegate/Fairourn Gerber Covert Auto. Blade is 3 7/8 length. Positive fast action, slender and more of a "poking knife" than a slasher, but it is honed razor sharp, and has a serrated section on the blade.

All time favorite is the Benchmade Adamus automatic. It has a blade a full 1/8 inch+ thick, extreme positve lock and a blade 1/2 serated/ 1/2 sharp edge and a strong large easy to grip handle. It is very strong and extremely sharp. A great defensive knife for fending off attempted strikes. If you swing hard at me and punch this blade, it will split the hand in half to the wrist. Shorter than the aformentioned 6-7 inches, it can inflict horrific injury through coat, shirt, etc.
A forearm could be filleted to the bone. A quick slash across the forehead is quite blinding.....as are a few hacked off fingers from a grab attempt.

I am not in the military on patrol having to dispatch sentry, etc. I would only seek to defend from attack, and if that can be accomplished without death,
Good. I think these blades are plenty good in length for these purposes. Otherwise, while not very concealable, I have always like the Kabar Marine Corps Fighting Knife. I think it is 7 inches on the blade. I dont need one that long, I could defend myself with a box cutter if necessary!

Russellc

Cosmoline
October 18, 2013, 09:54 PM
Knife fights are ugly, messy business.

Yeah, which is why it seems like a better idea to never get into one. While you're doing all that to him, he can do it to you or worse. And he won't just be standing there taking it. It seems to me that a knife fight is one of the most difficult of all fights to survive, let alone win. In entering one you've given up all advantages of distance and exposed yourself to whatever he can dish out.

RussellC
October 18, 2013, 10:15 PM
Yeah, which is why it seems like a better idea to never get into one. While you're doing all that to him, he can do it to you or worse. And he won't just be standing there taking it. It seems to me that a knife fight is one of the most difficult of all fights to survive, let alone win. In entering one you've given up all advantages of distance and exposed yourself to whatever he can dish out.
Sometimes you may have no choice. I have no intention of squaring off in a knife fight.
It is a quick surprise weapon. You shouldnt be ripping into anyone unless seriously threatened to the point a reasonable person would be in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury. I f they are intent on seriously hurting you, some good knife technique can be a life saver. I never, ever leave my personal safety to the "good nature" of someone intent on doing me harm, robbing me, etc. I would hate to have a situation like that come up with no knife or anything. There are many places I cant go with weapons, most of my work is in Court Houses, so that is impossible....but I really hate not being armed, preferably with firearm....but in a pinch a knife isnt bad.

Russellc

RussellC
October 18, 2013, 10:18 PM
Yes, knives are graphically messy and bloody for sure....ever see the result of a headshot from a large caliber firearm?

Russellc

hso
October 19, 2013, 12:54 AM
Heck if we're reduced to non-firearms then I want a spear at least.

So do I, but the difference between fantasy and reality in the here and now is that you won't have a spear or a sword and all that matters is what you have on you all the time. At least one or both of you will have gun, club, or knife, but neither of you will have fantasy medieval weapons. Dealing with the real world means not getting caught up with what might have been optimal 500 years ago. A knife with a typical blade length of 4 inches is what you will have or deal with. We don't have to face a guy with a spear or sword regardless of how much our medieval counterparts would want one.

But the misconception that a knife with a 4" blade won't reach vital organs when in a real fight is simply based off the misunderstanding of anatomy. When you punch someone their flesh collapses a surprising amount. Even the ribcage itself flexes. That means a forcefully delivered slash or thrust compresses as well as rends flesh and that improves the reach of weapons. I've trained off and of for years and a lot of people don't understand that it doesn't take more than a 4" knife to penetrate a lung or the heart. Sure you won't be lopping off heads or arms, but you can end most fights without needing a boat anchor's worth of steel .

rcmodel
October 19, 2013, 01:16 AM
Yes, knives are graphically messy and bloody for sure....ever see the result of a headshot from a large caliber firearm?Have you?

Knife fights are nothing at all like a shooting.

The aftermath of a shooting is a mess, for sure.

The aftermath of a knife fight is total carnage.

With only one survivor, if one of the participants is very very lucky.

A deep knife wound, or several, from a very sharp knife is less survivable then a gunshot wound.

Both combatants will be bleeding like a fountain, and there is very little a first response team can do to stop it.

rc

JohnKSa
October 19, 2013, 01:33 AM
...doesn't even the best knife attack require you to expose your own body to counter-attack?First of all, I think that when considering a knife as a self-defense weapon, people tend to focus too heavily on the knife-vs-knife scenario--and in particular the skilled knifefighter-vs-skilled knifefighter scenario.

My guess is that the latter is so vanishingly rare that it's really not worth considering at all and even the former is going to be pretty uncommon. I suspect that knives are most often deployed in self-defense against unarmed attackers or attackers armed with contact weapons other than knives.

Second, I think that most self-defense weapon use is against attackers who were hoping for unarmed victims, not against attackers who went in expecting encounter armed resistance and with a plan to deal with said obstacle.

I'm not saying we should PLAN for our attackers to give up at the least sign of resistance. I'm just saying that we shouldn't allow the worst-case scenario to dissuade us from potentially useful tactics.Heck if we're reduced to non-firearms then I want a spear at least.I generally have a decent sized folder on my person and I wouldn't hesitate to use it in self-defense if that were all that I had available. Not because it's as effective as a spear or sword but because I can carry it where ever I go and it beats teeth and fingernails by a long shot.

If carrying a spear or sword were remotely feasible, I'd do that instead. But since it's not the comparison is pointless. I might as well compare the effectiveness of my knife to the ability to use telekinesis to disable my attacker. The telekinesis would definitely be superior, but in the world I live in, it's just as impossible as carrying a spear or a sword around.

CA Raider
October 19, 2013, 01:39 AM
like some peopel have said - the value of the short blade is in the damage it can do to his fists, forearms and biceps. if he's throwing punches at you, he will be impaled on the blade.

CA R

9mmepiphany
October 19, 2013, 02:19 AM
I was under the impression they were pretty poor at actually stopping an attack until you get to the short sword level..
How did you arrive at that impression?

Was it through training, witnessing an attack, movies, or reading?

My experience and training has left me with a healthy respect for a knife wielder.

What's the thinking behind using a short blade for self defense?
There are two kinds of stops, psychological and physical, a short bladed knife (<4") is capable of both

The physical stop is accoplished by disabling the arms and legs...whatever they offer you as a target...by severing connective tissue and major muscle groups. A 3" blade can cut any muscle in the arms or legs to the bone and put your attacker on the ground. As in using a gun, the objective isn't to kill, but to stop.

And doesn't even the best knife attack require you to expose your own body to counter-attack?
You shouldn't be attacking, you should be defending and allowing the attack to enter your area of control. Attacks by any but professionals usually means they are off-balance, that is the point where you take whatever target you are being offered.

but I thought that's why we train to put distance between us and the threat.
It depends on which weapons are involved. If you are at CQB distances (bad breath range) and they have a longer range weapon than you do (club, gun, longer arms) creating distance isn't to your advantage

DT Guy
October 19, 2013, 08:30 AM
Someone better than me at math once calculated the tissue disruption caused by a through-and-through 9MM shot versus a Filipino 'there and back' torso cut with a 4" blade, and the cut was FAR more disruptive, to more tissue, than the gunshot.

Watch a good knife guy 'defang the snake' (usually a cut at the inner wrist to 'open' the hand, a cut at the inner elbow (just below it, actually) to 'open' the elbow, up through the shoulder to 'open' the arm and a return cut across the carotid, and you'll probably change your opinion about knife size and the danger they represent, IMHO.

Larry

CA Raider
October 19, 2013, 10:15 AM
DT Guy

very true.
you don't want to get cut by a pro' with a knife because of the overkill factor - any sequence of moves he does has several cuts worked into it, all of which do a lot of damage.

definitely, I would avoid engaging with someone who I thought had good training with a knife. defeat them some other way, or avoid them.

CA R

JShirley
October 19, 2013, 06:12 PM
The knife Sam and I designed for Spyderco, the ARK, is a dedicated self-defense knife with a sub-2" blade. It would be silly to go looking for a fight with one, but if a fight breaks out in your shower stall, that little knife may make the difference going back to your hooch safely, or being medevaced out.

ugaarguy has one of the all-metal prototypes. Ask him what such a knife might do to an assailant's arms.

Cosmo, in my case, the thinking is that a small, rustproof knife in your shower is more effective against a would-be rapist than the so-called combat knife in your B hut or tent.

John

CA Raider
October 19, 2013, 06:45 PM
john - i agree. the small back-up knife is an excellent idea. and as you pointed out - it can be carried almost anywhere. that is very important.

one nice thing about the backup knife is that it IS going to draw blood on the peratrator. and that means that forensic evidence will be left behind. it is very hard for them to clean up all of the blood stains. so the chances that the attacker will go to jail are pretty good.

CA R

JShirley
October 19, 2013, 06:51 PM
Well, if you're talking about a military deployment, who knows what might happen? But the blood trail should be easy to follow.

In the US, absolutely. Is a small knife *ideal* for defense? Only at very close range, but IN that range, it can be a literal lifesaver. Hopefully we will all always be able to keep threats further away.

John

lemaymiami
October 19, 2013, 09:51 PM
Some points to consider about bladework (as opposed to waving one around and hoping to intimidate an opponent into retreating...).... When the real thing happens most witnesses never saw the knife being used -but they sure notice all the blood on the ground afterwards...

To put it as bluntly as possible - in a close quarters attack, if you have a blade available you should do your best not to reveal it until it's in use and the offender finds out the hard way.... No this is not a "polite topic" of conversation but in some circumstances it might be the difference when things get really bad.... I've always thought that a small really sharp blade used for cutting is far more damaging than a bigger blade used to stab with, but that's just me....

rcmodel
October 19, 2013, 10:08 PM
Witness bad, bad Leroy Brown, and the Straight-Razor in his Shoe!!

A single-edge 3" blade, with no point at all.

But a lot of folks didn't survive being cut with one long enough to make it to the hospital!!
While trying to pick up their intestines off the ground and stuff them back in, while quickly bleeding to death.

It was the preferred weapon in certain circles for over a century at least.

rc

hso
October 20, 2013, 12:05 AM
Cop buddy described a similar wound he saw delivered with a "linoleum knife".
http://www.irwin.com/uploads/products/thumbnail/linoleum-knife-1106.jpg

Bix
October 20, 2013, 10:15 PM
What's the thinking behind using a short blade for self defense?


Janich does a pretty good job of articulating the concepts behind using small blades (i.e. folders) defensively in his MBC program:

http://www.martialbladeconcepts.com/Home.aspx

Dirty Bob
October 21, 2013, 01:01 AM
In many of the accounts I've read of violence involving knives, only one party had a knife, and the other party didn't know about it until they saw the blood. Imagine an attacker who wants to control you to do something to you right there, or to control you to take you to the secondary crime scene (the one where most victims don't survive).

I like mercop's take on this. According to his ideas, the human body presents three upside-down Vs that guide you into useful targets for a knife. A knife held edge-up in the fist can be used for slashing or for stab-then-rip-out strikes.

Applied to the upper thigh/groin of an attacker, even a 2-3 inch blade would likely have a serious effect on the attacker. A small knife, used quickly and with commitment, may give you the element of surprise and may deliver a very serious wound in a moment's time.

I hope I've done justice to mercop's approach. Edge-up for grappling distance makes sense to me. If it's true that many fights end up at this distance, a small knife can be an ugly surprise for somebody. I have a little Boker US-made, all-stainless fixed blade with a short, broad, flat-ground blade. I like it very much, and it's logged a lot of miles in my pants pocket.

Respectfully submitted,
Dirty Bob

9mmepiphany
October 21, 2013, 01:01 AM
Janich does a pretty good job of articulating the concepts behind using small blades (i.e. folders) defensively in his MBC program:

http://www.martialbladeconcepts.com/Home.aspx
He certainly convinced me

Mp7
October 21, 2013, 04:01 AM
a sharp mind, and some martial arts practice are the best knife.

That said. Id hate to go up against i.e. a brand new Mora knife.

Tejicano Loco
October 21, 2013, 04:33 AM
"in a close quarters attack, if you have a blade available you should do your best not to reveal it until it's in use and the offender finds out the hard way"

If it has come down to me having to rely on a short blade to get out alive I will play that to it's furthest advantage. Surprise has to be part of that method. Depending on how my opponent is armed, relative sizes, etc. my responses will vary but the constant is to keep it as hidden as possble until it is biting flesh. At that point it needs to make the biggest wound possible because there is no guarantee that I get another chance. I would not do this unless I was offered no other possible path - my ruthlessness would have to be justified.

I have had this discussion with a few veterans who actually have used blades in combat situations. The methods I gleaned from them would turn most people's stomachs to hear.

kBob
October 21, 2013, 07:31 AM
hso,

I once had a hard day at work because of a linoleum knife. One of the two other guys that worked there was in jail for a bit and the other was in the hospital with 40 plus stitches...... so yes.

I think surprise is a major factor. I was once at an event where a regionally well know stick guy and cop was demonstrating how his tagalogish two stick system was the be all and end all. He handed me a rubber knife and promised not to hurt me badly when I did as he asked and attacked him with the knife. He knew the rubber knife was coming. But I dropped the knife behind my thigh and reversed the blade from what he was apearently expecting. He used the fact that his own defense caused the first "cut" and set him up for the stab that followed as a teaching tool very smoothly. Just the surprise of how the knife was used was enough.

A friend had an interesting evening when one young man accosted him with a knife up close while another brandished at a bit further off. His own blade came out and went into the close guy and came out about a foot away before the attacker knew he even had a knife. Attack over and attackers brother and back up ran away at the sight of things spilling out of skewered little brother. Friend almost did not get Commissioned because of the event even though it was self defense and very clearly so. That was a Buck Ranger BTW in one of those 1980 or so auto opening carriers and that was one of the issues as to whether that and the rig was a "common folding knife."

-kBob

Cosmoline
October 21, 2013, 01:22 PM
If you are at CQB distances (bad breath range) and they have a longer range weapon than you do (club, gun, longer arms) creating distance isn't to your advantage

If someone has a club and you have only a tiny bladed knife, you run and use C&C to avoid getting killed. Distance negates the club. With a hand gun it's less certain, but every yard makes you a harder target. To charge into the arms of someone with a superior weapon just makes it easier for them to kill you, and if you're spry enough to do it why not leap around behind cover and just get out of there?

You shouldn't be attacking, you should be defending and allowing the attack to enter your area of control.

And you will never get cut doing that? Or shot? Again, if you have time to wait for him to attack a la a knife on knife duel, why not split?

The physical stop is accoplished by disabling the arms and legs...whatever they offer you as a target...by severing connective tissue and major muscle groups. A 3" blade can cut any muscle in the arms or legs to the bone and put your attacker on the ground. As in using a gun, the objective isn't to kill, but to stop.


The objective should be to run away. Let's assume he has only an equally small knife, and that he isn't wearing heavy padded or loose clothing that will make your knife gum up. Even assuming these things, he is surely going to be trying to gut you just as you're trying to isolate and negate each arm and leg. It just seems absurd outside of a sparring ring. And why would you choose that when you have so many other options available?

If carrying a spear or sword were remotely feasible,

Well maybe not a full spear, but you can carry a walking stick and keep a spear head handy to jam on the top in a pinch. Or just the stick, which at least keeps you some distance from an attack and gives you a chance for a jab-and-run.

Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed as heck with the knife fighting techniques and I think it's a really neat martial art. But to actually carry a blade as your defensive tool when other choices are available seems like courting disaster.

Hmmmm. Pocket spear head. I love these debates, because they give me insane new ideas to hurt myself with LOL

hso
October 21, 2013, 01:35 PM
Cosmoline,

You might want to look at some videos on FMA. The techniques aren't done in a vacuum and like any hand to hand would depend upon what your attacker was doing. What Janich, and other FMA practitioners, teach is based on a real culture of blade use out of the Philippines and SE Asia where fights with knives are part of the day to day life there.

Sam Cade
October 21, 2013, 01:39 PM
To charge into the arms of someone with a handgun just makes it easier for them to kill you, and if you're spry enough to do it why not leap around behind cover and just get out of there?



The objective should be to run away.


See also Utya island massacre.

Appropriate tactics are situational.

Sam Cade
October 21, 2013, 01:44 PM
. But to actually carry a blade as your defensive tool when other choices are available seems like courting disaster.


I don't think anyone here is advocating carrying a knife as a primary defensive weapon in lieu of a firearm.

Cosmoline
October 21, 2013, 01:49 PM
See also Utya island massacre.

And a knife would have helped? There were hundreds of people on the island who didn't get killed or shot. Those who died were primarily killed with head shots. So again the best defense is to not be there, and if you are there to get away.

Sam Cade
October 21, 2013, 02:11 PM
And a knife would have helped?

Most of those who died were killed as they fled or executed as they cowered.

In any case, Proper Tactics Are Situational.

Sometimes fighting back is the superior tactical choice. Fighting back with a knife is preferable to fighting with an empty hand.

Zoogster
October 21, 2013, 02:59 PM
cosmoline said: The OSS guys trained to use them as a backup because they weren't always going to be able to have rifles or handguns. And of course they also essentially trained to kill people with them in circumstances that had nothing to do with self defense.


I think that is an important distinction.
Knives are highly effective if the target does not see it coming, or if the target is not well armed and the attacker knows what they are doing with the knife. A knife against an unnarmed person or person with thier armament holstered or slung can be highly effective. This is most of the use OSS and CIA type covert agents would have for such things. Killing the guy not expecting to suddenly be attacked with a knife.
Certainly they would train to actually fight with it too, but actually fighting would be avoided in favor of killing the unsuspecting.
However such circumstances have very little to do with lawful self defense.

In most circumstances that will actually justify legal lethal force the assailant is armed with a lethal weapon. It is this lethal weapon that typically makes them a lethal threat and makes use of lethal force against them lawful.
That is a game changer, because you are no longer talking about how to disable or injure someone with a knife that is just attacking you, but someone that will be using thier own weapon at the same time.
They also are likely initiating the violence, and so are already aware of the impending fight, removing some of the element of surprise and making overwhelming and devastating use of the knife more difficult for the defender.
I am aware of many of the knife fighting techniques, and they can look quite impressive demonstrated by someone in a controlled setting.
However it is very likely both will get cut in a real fight if the attacker has already committed to attack, even if one does more effective damage.
Furthermore the fact that you are on more equal footing, and if the opponent regains control can turn the tides and kill you means keeping the momentum of success is far more important in a knife fight. If you give a good attack and then stop and they get back into the fight you may still lose even though the option to control the outcome had been held by you. If you continue the attack after they are temporarily stopped it may be seen as excessive force to continue, as the threat is momentarily stopped.
Judged by jury members, investigators, etc after the fact used to applying firearm defense logic many of the acts that may be required in using a knife and prevailing may seem more excessive.
With a gun you stop the threat, and then have the luxury of standing at the ready with a ranged weapon with a clear advantage over the downed individual and can refrain from using additional force unless needed without much additional risk to yourself. Then if they choose to get back into the fight you can shoot again if necessary before they have much chance of turning the tides on you.
That is not true if you are holding a knife and you give them the luxury of deciding they want to try again. How disabled they are is much more important when fighting with a knife.
The level of force required may be well in excess of the simple shot required from a firearm, and the extensiveness of the knife wounds even less survivable and seen as more excessive. Imagine being in court and hearing a dozen stab wounds slowly counted by a prosecutor pausing a second between each one. It would sound excessive even if they were all delivered rapidly during a grapple.
You as a result are far more likely to end up in prison if you defend yourself with a knife than with a gun.
Additionally use of a knife seems more gruesome. The housewife on the jury may relate to pulling a trigger against something she is scared of posing a lethal threat, but probably won't relate to systematically taking apart a person with a knife. This may mean guilty instead of not guilty.

It can still be a valuable skill. I myself sometimes carry a knife for defense. However it is a far from ideal tool. Both in use and in the likely aftermath.

Sam Cade
October 21, 2013, 03:25 PM
You as a result are far more likely to end up in prison if you defend yourself with a knife than with a gun.

Can you back that up with statistics?

Cosmoline
October 21, 2013, 04:52 PM
I doubt there are stats kept with that level of detail. But can you point out instances where knives were used for self defense? I know two people personally who shot and killed criminals in self defense and know of many other local incidents. I've never even heard of someone using a knife to do so other than Gene Moe vs. the brown bear sow. And it seems to me it would look a lot like a knife fight to any officer, and therefore mutual combat. Which is legal with the bear, but not with humans.

Put it another way--cops shoot people. They don't stab them. Whereas criminals use knives all the time. Sometimes in preference to firearms. They're a very good offensive tool. So if you're standing there with a stabbed guy on the ground, well it's not going to look good.

Sam Cade
October 21, 2013, 05:24 PM
But can you point out instances where knives were used for self defense?

Anecdotally, several.

If you wanted to you could poke around the DOJ and find the (tiny) figures for justifiable homicides by weapon type, but that won't tell us anything about the prevalence of non-lethal, legal uses of knives as defensive weapons.


So if you're standing there with a stabbed guy on the ground, well it's not going to look good.

So what exactly are you arguing here again? People should never use a knife as a layer in their defense of self? :scrutiny:

zhyla
October 21, 2013, 05:59 PM
What are we really arguing about? Everybody here agrees if you can run from a fight you run. If you have to fight most people's non-firearm options are:

1. Your hands.
2. A mid-size folder.

I base this list on every person I've ever met. I've seen a couple guys carrying fixed blades, but it's really rare.

Even untrained hands can do a lot more surface damage with a small knife than their fists. Also, every part of the opponent's body becomes much more vulnerable. There's not a lot you can do to my bicep in a fist fight but stick a 3" piece of steel into it and I may need to leave you alone.

The problem with folders is deployment. The few seconds to get a knife out of your pocket is an eternity. And when you need to draw a knife there may be a lot going on.

Anyhow, I've forgotten the point I was going to make. If you need to stab somebody, stab him 100 times, that's my main advice.

Dirty Bob
October 21, 2013, 10:23 PM
I base this list on every person I've ever met. I've seen a couple guys carrying fixed blades, but it's really rare.

Some of us live in strange places, like San Antonio, TX, where small fixed blades are legal, but locking folders are banned, and the law is enforced selectively.


Anyhow, I've forgotten the point I was going to make. If you need to stab somebody, stab him 100 times, that's my main advice.

I don't agree with your "advice," although I hope it was sarcasm. ;)
I think we both agree that you do whatever you need to, until that moment when you can escape, and then you get away and call the police, right?

Regards,
Dirty Bob

bubba in ca
October 21, 2013, 11:45 PM
If I were going into combat, I would want a knife in the 6-7 inch range, kabars and Gerber mark 2"s come to mind among the classics.
But I am not going into combat, so I have a bunch of knifes, mostly with 5 inch blades, in places where I constantly use them for other things and they would be a whole lot better than nothing in an emergency, especially because I could conceal them. In a defensive situation, I really look at a knife as a stealth weapon: the bad guy doesn`t know I have a knife until he has been cut. In fact, I am currently looking for a 4 inch stainless for both normal and emergency use.

As far as effectiveness, it is a matter of target selection, just like with firearms, except the targets are smaller and you would have to push harder.

Needless to say, other than being concealable, my knifes are not often my best option. When I work in the yard I have access to garden spades, machetes, and other tools that would be more effective.

For street carry, legalities often force one to go for folders, although I would much prefer a 4 inch fixed to a folder. In the woods, sheath knives are often legal or tolerated in places where firearms are illegal.

JohnKSa
October 22, 2013, 12:45 AM
...keep a spear head handy to jam on the top in a pinchNot legal here unless the spear head has only a single edge. Double-edged knives/weapons are illegal to carry.

zhyla
October 22, 2013, 01:48 AM
I don't agree with your "advice," although I hope it was sarcasm. ;)
I think we both agree that you do whatever you need to, until that moment when you can escape, and then you get away and call the police, right?


No, I don't think we agree. Ending a threat with a knife is tricky business. It's hard to know for sure the threat is neutralized and as soon as you stop doing what you're doing and turn to run you're now a few inches from someone who seconds ago was a serious threat to your life and is now of merely questionable threat. You also don't know what all he's got in his pockets.

Of course every situation is different, and if you can jab somebody and that opens up a good escape route, and you're sure you can outrun the threat, then yeah, I'd opt for the escape. But I think it often doesn't play out that way and the bad guy may be hurting you long after you've delivered some serious wounds.

If you're worried about legal consequences, well, I don't know how it is in your jurisdiction but in California you've got no requirement to pause to evaluate whether the situation has transitioned from lethal-force-justified to lethal-force-not-justified. Doesn't really matter though: you're not stabbing someone because it's justified, you're stabbing him because you think you're about to die.

JShirley
October 22, 2013, 11:22 AM
I have gone into combat, and I didn't have the space or even desire to carry a 6-7" bladed knife, when I had firearms. Even a nonfunctional carbine is still a more effective weapon than a blade shorter than a sword.

Stabbing someone 100 times is psychotic. On the other hand, it would be easy to find expert witnesses who can testify that a "continuous cut" that inflicted 4-5 cuts and stabs with a small blade was perfectly reasonable to ensure a deadly threat was stopped in the least time possible.

John

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 02:03 PM
People should never use a knife as a layer in their defense of self?

Pretty much, yeah. From what I can see:

1. They require very extensive and constant training to use well.

2. Even with the best of training, you must get close enough to your enemy to be within range of his attacks as well.

3. They are useless unless you can close distance (which itself raises legal troubles)

4. They are far better as offensive stealth weapons, and are customarily used that way.

5. They have a terrible rep with law enforcement and juries for that very reason.

6. There is no right to keep and bear knives in the eyes of the law, and as noted many jurisdictions that are pro-gun still have strange and arbitrary anti-knife rules in place that restrict blade length and prohibit the long-bladed double edged daggers that have a fair chance of stopping an attack as well as a bullet. So you're stuck with what amount to fancied up whittling knives.

7. The tactics assume that the attacker won't be wearing layers of loose or bulky clothing, and that he'll behave as a sparring partner instead of a sneaky criminal.

8. The tactics assume the criminal won't just run backwards while shooting at you.

9. The tactics assume that a nasty cut will stop the attack quickly enough.

10. Big guys. 4" of fat will negate a short blade's stopping power pretty well. He may die of infection later but he prob. wont' even notice if he's angry and fighting. I've had my back slashed open in a workplace accident and didn't know it till I rode the bus home and my mom screamed at my bloody shirt. Still have the scar, but never felt a thing. And most cops can tell you stories of men with blades jabbed right into their heads or chests who still kept fighting and seemed not even to notice the wound. We're evolved to take slashing and cutting attacks. We are not evolved to take bullets. Also the training drills I've seen do a lot of assuming about how easy it is to slash tendons and such. Training on a pig carcass would be better, but even then the thing isn't moving and fighting back.

11. Small girls. Even very small people can withstand a lot of cutting damage. A tragic case locally was a high school girl who was attacked by her ex (a crazy dude) who stabbed her over and over again with a folding blade until the blade bent, basically making her into a pincushion. But she survived pretty handily and was still able to protect herself to some extent.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 02:19 PM
1. Your hands.
2. A mid-size folder.

Well there's also your feet. Personally I'd prefer a system using kicks and evasion to keep out of a face-to-face entanglement. Barring that disarming methods would seem a better choice than trying to go mano-a-mano with a short blade.

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 02:55 PM
Having read your assumptions about using a knife as a defensive tool, I can better understand your original impression the usefulness of a knife of shorter than sword length.

I'm also given the impression that your understanding of attacks and CQ Combat, in an urban as opposed to a battle setting, is a bit limited

Pretty much, yeah. From what I can see:

1. They require very extensive and constant training to use well.
Any defensive skill requires this to remain proficient

2. Even with the best of training, you must get close enough to your enemy to be within range of his attacks as well.

3. They are useless unless you can close distance
Yes, this is by definition what CQ combat is. You're already close when the fight starts. Unless your experience is a lot different than mine, BGs don't line up and charge from a distance after issuing a challenge

4. They are far better as offensive stealth weapons, and are customarily used that way.
All weapons are more effective in the offensive role and stealth only makes them more effective

5. They have a terrible rep with law enforcement and juries for that very reason.
That may have been your experience, but it is certainly not universal. There is a greater instilled fear of knives, that many believe stems from a mother's admonition of being careful not to "get cut."...at least that is what they taught us in the academy

6. There is no right to keep and bear knives in the eyes of the law
Perhaps because carrying a knife was commonly accepted at the time and there was not a need to state it.

7. The tactics assume that the attacker won't be wearing layers of loose or bulky clothing, and that he'll behave as a sparring partner instead of a sneaky criminal.
I'm not sure where this comes from. None of my training was based on a lightly dressed assailant...well, to be completely honest, it did address that the tactics taught were an evolution following the discontinuation of the common wearing of suits of armour...hence, slashing attacks, rather than stabbing attacks.

All training is first taught against a sparring partner. That is how you instill recognition and reaction. Different attacks require different responses. In actual use, it is up to the defender to determine which attack is occuring and how response is needed

8. The tactics assume the criminal won't just run backwards while shooting at you.
I can only say that in 28 years in LE, I have never seen a criminal shoot while running backwards. I've seen officers do it. It is the difference between being an attacker and a defender.

9. The tactics assume that a nasty cut will stop the attack quickly enough.
I've seen it work if the right muscles/connective tissue has been severed. I don't think you have a lot of choice but to drop a weapon when you lose the ability to grip, or keep standing when your thigh muscles are no longer working

Have you ever considered attending a class to test your belief in the ineffectiveness of a short blade?

JohnKSa
October 22, 2013, 03:05 PM
1. They require very extensive and constant training to use well.But they can be effective, depending on the circumstances even without training. Becoming skilled with a knife is similar to becoming a skilled unarmed fighter. It takes a lot of work and a lot of training. But it's instructive to remember that untrained people still defend themselves with their bare hands at times. It's not ideal, but it's not impossible either.
2. Even with the best of training, you must get close enough to your enemy to be within range of his attacks as well.

3. They are useless unless you can close distance (which itself raises legal troubles)Both moot points if your enemy has already closed the range and is attacking you.

This is really off-the-wall reasoning. Trying to turn that around to say that a knife is of questionable use because the DEFENDER has to close the distance completely misses the point. The attacker is the one trying to close the distance to use his weapon. The idea is that it might be very valuable to have something other than your bare hands to keep him back far enough to keep him from using his weapon effectively. 4. They are far better as offensive stealth weapons, and are customarily used that way.Assuming we accept this as a valid point, how does that make it better to be unarmed than armed with a knife when being attacked?5. They have a terrible rep with law enforcement and juries for that very reason. I believe this to be true. If you have to use a knife in self-defense the aftermath probably won't be a slam-dunk.6. There is no right to keep and bear knives in the eyes of the law, and as noted many jurisdictions that are pro-gun still have strange and arbitrary anti-knife rules in place that restrict blade length and prohibit the long-bladed double edged daggers that have a fair chance of stopping an attack as well as a bullet. So you're stuck with what amount to fancied up whittling knives.You were doing fine right up until the last sentence.

The fact that knife laws can be arbitrary and restrictive doesn't, in most cases, limit people to carrying only "fancied up whittling knives". A large folder may not match up well against a gun, sword or spear, but it provides more reach, far more deterrent and far more wounding potential than bare hands.7. The tactics assume that the attacker won't be wearing layers of loose or bulky clothing, and that he'll behave as a sparring partner instead of a sneaky criminal.Even if he's sneaky and duded up in loose and bulky clothing, how would that make it worse to have a knife than to not have a knife?8. The tactics assume the criminal won't just run backwards while shooting at you.I think we all grasp that a knife-wielder is SIGNIFICANTLY handicapped compared to a person with a gun. Nobody would choose a knife over a gun if given the free choice. What you're saying is that people shouldn't even consider having a knife for self-defense. If the guy runs backwards while shooting at me, I'm in EXACTLY as much trouble if I have a knife as if I don't.9. The tactics assume that a nasty cut will stop the attack quickly enough.

10. Big guys. 4" of fat will negate a short blade's stopping power pretty well. He may die of infection later but he prob. wont' even notice if he's angry and fighting. I've had my back slashed open in a workplace accident and didn't know it till I rode the bus home and my mom screamed at my bloody shirt. Still have the scar, but never felt a thing. And most cops can tell you stories of men with blades jabbed right into their heads or chests who still kept fighting and seemed not even to notice the wound. We're evolved to take slashing and cutting attacks. We are not evolved to take bullets. Also the training drills I've seen do a lot of assuming about how easy it is to slash tendons and such. Training on a pig carcass would be better, but even then the thing isn't moving and fighting back.

11. Small girls. Even very small people can withstand a lot of cutting damage. A tragic case locally was a high school girl who was attacked by her ex (a crazy dude) who stabbed her over and over again with a folding blade until the blade bent, basically making her into a pincushion. But she survived pretty handily and was still able to protect herself to some extent.That's all well and good, but you're saying NOT having a knife for self-defense is better than having one. Even if it's only very marginally more effective than using bare hands for self-defense, it's still much better to have one than to not have one.Well there's also your feet. Personally I'd prefer a system using kicks and evasion to keep out of a face-to-face entanglement. Barring that disarming methods would seem a better choice than trying to go mano-a-mano with a short blade.How does having a knife keep you from using a system of kicks and evasion or from using disarming methods?

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 04:07 PM
Even if he's sneaky and duded up in loose and bulky clothing, how would that make it worse to have a knife than to not have a knife?

The problem, as I see it, is that by having a knife you'll try to use it. Whereas if you don't, you will use more effective means to get away rather than trying to cut him up.

I can only say that in 28 years in LE, I have never seen a criminal shoot while running backwards

Ever chased one with a knife as an LEO? I'm trying to think of any law enforcement officers who use a knife in that manner, and I'm coming up blank. Maybe that tells us something.

Have you ever considered attending a class to test your belief in the ineffectiveness of a short blade?

I've been doing longsword training, which has really made me rethink any of these things as practical weapons. A sword is limited and difficult to use enough. A knife is even more difficult to use. Plus it violates too many principals of good self defense. You don't go in, you get out.

Plus there's another problem. Knives are absolutely deadly force. You CANNOT use them AT ALL unless faced with imminent unlawful deadly force. So they would only ever come into play if you're faced with the gravest extreme. And in that situation I do not want my life depending on a few inches of expertly-wielded steel. I'll run away or barring that use the firearm. I don't even want to be tempted to go INTO the trouble.

I'll illustrate with a few hypos:

--Criminal threatens with a knife from a few feet away. Do you draw your knife and lunge in?

--Criminal grabs you from behind. Do you deploy deadly force (the knife) right then and there?

--Criminal stabs you from behind. Do you turn and engage with your own small blade or do you try to kick him down and flee?

--Criminal punches and grapples you. You're losing the fight but he's displayed no weapon. Do you cut him?

--Criminal draws a firearm. You're boned.

I'm having a hard time imagining any circumstances in real life where a defensive knife would be legally appropriate or effective.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 04:18 PM
The attacker is the one trying to close the distance to use his weapon. The idea is that it might be very valuable to have something other than your bare hands to keep him back far enough to keep him from using his weapon effectively.

Aren't you assuming a knife-on-knife fight or something equivalent? He draws, you draw, you go at it? That's getting dangerously close to mutual combat, and when the blood is flowing both ways I think you're going to have a tough time proving a case.

And if it is a knife-on-knife fight, how do you keep from getting cut up just as much as him, without constant training and luck?

How does having a knife keep you from using a system of kicks and evasion or from using disarming methods?

Because if you train to use the knife, as you must, you will fight as you've trained. With the knife. Which means a bloody melee that's both tactically very dangerous and legally ambiguous.

If we're ruling out guns, then I would absolutely prefer the walking stick to a knife. Something to keep him away. I don't want to go in there, and if he starts out in a grapple or stab, I want to push him away not try to cut some specific artery or tendon.

Think of it this way. I've shot and killed things. Many of us have. We know how the bullets work on mammals of human size, even if we've never shot a person. Have you ever gone nose-to-nose with a pig and tried to disable it by cutting its tendons? Of course not. You'd use a spear or at least a hunting sword. And even then it's a heck of a challenge.

Sam Cade
October 22, 2013, 05:21 PM
Cosmo, you wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? You seem as though you are arguing a thesis (Knives suck as a tool for self defense) and are using the Plate of Spaghetti rhetorical device to defend said thesis.

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 05:37 PM
Ever chased one with a knife as an LEO? I'm trying to think of any law enforcement officers who use a knife in that manner, and I'm coming up blank. Maybe that tells us something.
You either missing the point or ignoring it. If BGs don't shoot, while running backwards, at other people armed with guns, or even unarmed, what makes you think they'd shoot at someone with a knife while doing the same. Running backwards takes a lot of practice to do with any kind of speed or balance, trying to shoot while doing that would only make it harder.

But I have seen BGs with knives chase people...even people with guns. The guy running away did not turn and shoot at his pursuer armed with the knife.

I've been doing longsword training, which has really made me rethink any of these things as practical weapons. A sword is limited and difficult to use enough. A knife is even more difficult to use. Plus it violates too many principals of good self defense. You don't go in, you get out.
The technique of the short blade is very different to that of the sword. As mentioned earlier the Filipino and Indonesian martial arts are especially adaptable to this.

If you were looking for something a bit more modern, Janich's MBC seminars are also very instructive...and a bit more practical


I'll illustrate with a few hypos:

--Criminal threatens with a knife from a few feet away. Do you draw your knife and lunge in?

--Criminal grabs you from behind. Do you deploy deadly force (the knife) right then and there?

--Criminal stabs you from behind. Do you turn and engage with your own small blade or do you try to kick him down and flee?

--Criminal punches and grapples you. You're losing the fight but he's displayed no weapon. Do you cut him?

--Criminal draws a firearm. You're boned.

I'm having a hard time imagining any circumstances in real life where a defensive knife would be legally appropriate or effective.
As I said earlier, your understanding, and apparently your imagination, of the utilization of a small blade appears to be a bit limited.

While I wouldn't draw a knife in response to a drawn gun, using a knife in the other instances you've offered can be justified.

1. I wouldn't lunge in, but I'd be prepared to defend if escape wasn't available.
2. Depends on the circumstances. There can be circumstances where it would be appropriate to cut yourself out of a grab if it was a prelude to grave bodily harm, the first overt action to carry out a deadly threat, part of an action in concert with others who mean you harm...the list goes on.
3. Depends on the room you have. You already know he is very close to you if he has already cut you, there might not be room to kick, but there might be room to just a knife to cut your way out.
4. Yes, he doesn't need to have/use a weapon for me to justify the use of deadly force

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 05:39 PM
I'm just having trouble seeing how this works in a practical sense. I've read about and heard about many defensive *shootings* so I've got a good handle on those. But so much of the knife stuff seems sports-related or sparring-related. Are there any real-world examples of how a defensive knife use has played out? In particular I wonder how it would work with unarmed attacker vs. knife-armed defender or gun-armed attacker vs. knife-armed defender.

If BGs don't shoot, while running backwards, at other people armed with guns, or even unarmed, what makes you think they'd shoot at someone with a knife while doing the same.

Because you have a knife and they don't want to get cut. But it's a minor point in any case. And I agree it's not typical.

he doesn't need to have/use a weapon for me to justify the use of deadly force

Well that's a bit of a problem. If you're cutting up an unarmed man I would not want to have to be your lawyer afterwards. There are a lot of things discussed on THR that fall into the category of paranoia. Handloads for example. Having a chopped up fellow moaning or dead with no weapon and claiming self defense--that's a real nightmare. It would be better, in my opinion, to focus on martial arts to get out of binds and run away rather than trying to cut tendons or stab organs.

I wouldn't lunge in, but I'd be prepared to defend if escape wasn't available.

So you're both there with the knives? Now you may know that he lunged first and you were defensive, but assuming you win, how will you prove you weren't the aggressor or co-aggressor?

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 06:03 PM
Also, I'm being repeatedly told I have a poor understanding. Fine. But have any of you actually, in real life, sliced a major tendon with a small blade? I still have the scar from a slash across my wrist when I was young (not suicide, just stupid antics). It bled like crazy but didn't do a thing to the tendons. They were right there, all working good. The blade went through the skin easily but just glided off them. So all these drills where you play-act drawing a small blade across a joint seem a little unrealistic. Are you truly thinking that action is going to be enough to pop a major tendon and disable the attacker? Those things are tough. They're evolved to keep from being cut, with slippery tissues and fluid. And I've seen instances of horrible neck wounds in cases, but the tendons remain intact. Something about the skin's design seems to take that first slice very effectively. I think it was designed for it. Large animal claws are about 3-6" long.

In fact I've cut myself so many times I probably should never be trusted with tools of any kind. Yet in spite of the blood there has rarely been any significant pain until minutes later. I can't say the same about getting shot. I've never been shot, but I'm told it gets your attention really quickly. Based on personal experience, if I were trying to stop an attack by delivering pain, I'd want to crack a tooth or break a nose. Those will get your attention, esp. the tooth. But a slash? He may not even feel it.

And if the goal here is to disable rather than kill, you're taking a heck of a chance using a deadly weapon to merely disable. It's akin to trying to shoot kneecaps out, isn't it?

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 06:12 PM
So you're both there with the knives? Now you may know that he lunged first and you were defensive, but assuming you win, how will you prove you weren't the aggressor or co-aggressor?
From the pathologist's study of the wound pattern and the consistency of statements with the physical evidence such as blood spatter

Well that's a bit of a problem. If you're cutting up an unarmed man I would not want to have to be your lawyer afterwards.
What is the basis of the opinion?
Have you defended any cases with these elements?
Did you win?

It would be better, in my opinion, to focus on martial arts to get out of binds and run away rather than trying to cut tendons or stab organs.
What does it matter how you escape?

Is it somehow more honorable in your mind to go hand-to-hand rather than use a tool; do you feel the same way about the use of guns?

Defensively speaking, while gunshot wounds are statistically more survivable than serious knife wounds, it is easier to defend the knife's use. Also for a non-LE person, who can't (in most places) use a gun to threaten, a knife is also more versatile without inflicting mortal wounds

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 06:14 PM
Why this emphasis on non-mortal wounds? Aren't you using a lethal weapon as a non-lethal one, and isn't that a huge no-no?

If I were told I had to defend my life, and could only use a knife, I'd want a dagger and I'd go for a heart strike. That's it. If my life is on the line, I'm going to use deadly force. I'm not going to putz around trying to cut a wrist or knee while he's trying to murder me. So why not go for the kill, if you're using deadly force?

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 06:17 PM
Also, I'm being repeatedly told I have a poor understanding.

And if the goal here is to disable rather than kill, you're taking a heck of a chance using a deadly weapon to merely disable. It's akin to trying to shoot kneecaps out, isn't it?
The goal is never to kill or disable. If those are your goals, I can see why you'd run into legal problems.

The goal is always to stop the attack.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 06:19 PM
The goal is always to stop the attack.

If you are armed with a knife, what's going to stop the attack more reliably and quicker--a slash to his wrist or a stab right into his beating heart?

You shoot COM, so why don't you stab there?

These drills look like fun sport, but seriously? If my life is on the line, I'm going to go for the surest way to stop his body from moving AT ALL. That's what deadly force is about. And if you can afford to spend time cutting on wrists and the back of knees, maybe deadly force isn't even called for.

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 06:22 PM
The slash to his wrist...remember you said reliable

...actually I slash a bit further up....especially if it is the wrist holding the weapon and the slash causes them to drop their weapon. You'd them follow that with a slash to the tricep to disable the arm as you sidestep and take out the quad as you step through to drop them.

You have to remember that they offer you their arm as they attack...I just take what is offered...remember, I'm defending

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 06:27 PM
Seriously? Because my own wrist has actually been cut open, and it didn't do much other than make me worried about my parents reaction to this blood pouring out. I felt no pain, and my hand remained fully functional. If anything it gripped tighter.

Historical knife fighting--back when this stuff was very real--focused on killing blows. Yet the modern techniques seem to be all about peripheral cutting with no martial intent. That gives rise to the legal problem of using deadly weapons as non-deadly ones.

glistam
October 22, 2013, 06:28 PM
I have researched several real-world cases where an edged weapon was used defensively. 6 come to mind most prominently.

These cases all involve a person who was the clear "aggressor" and a "defender" armed with an edged weapon, usually a small knife. As of this writing I have not found a documented "less-than-lethal" usage of a knife defensively. The aggressor died in all cases. In 5 of them the aggressor was unarmed, while in one he had a folding knife.

2 cases resulted in a murder conviction for the "defender," while 4 resulted in acquittal or no charges filed. This is not a "representative sample" of knife cases, just ones that I happen to know about.

Both cases that resulted in a murder conviction were unarmed aggressors who initiated combat with the defender, the motive being general belligerence. In these two cases, the defender had a clear route of escape, but chose to engage anyway.

In the cases where the defender was acquitted, the common factor is the defender had no route reasonable route of escape. In two, the defender was supine and being stood over by the aggressor. In a third, he had his back to a wall. In the fourth, the aggressor had his own knife and defender only drew his knife after shoving the aggressor back (some call it a "panic push") that bought him just enough time to get his own knife out, and this defender was stabbed in the subsequent exchange, nearly dying himself. He had no practical route of escape because he was alone at night and the aggressor was a fast, athletic fellow who was already on him and had a knife he could have easily stabbed him in the back with should the defender have tried to run away.

JohnKSa
October 22, 2013, 06:28 PM
The problem, as I see it, is that by having a knife you'll try to use it.I'm sure that some people might take that approach, but that's a problem of tactics, not a problem with what weapon they have available. If a person tries to use a weapon just because that's what they have, they're going to find themselves in trouble no matter what weapon they have.

Besides, this thread is about DEFENSE, according to the title and the OP, and if someone chooses to engage when they could evade, then that is no longer defense.

If you want to talk about offense--about choosing to try to cut someone up or stab them when it's not necessary--then perhaps that would be better addressed in another thread with that title and an appropriate OP. If this is supposed to be about "defensive" knives, then offensive techniques and tactics aren't really relevant.Aren't you assuming a knife-on-knife fight or something equivalent?No, I'm assuming only that he's not using gun. Perhaps a knife, a club, or maybe even his bare hands.That's getting dangerously close to mutual combat, and when the blood is flowing both ways I think you're going to have a tough time proving a case.Well, in one sense, anytime someone defends himself with a weapon against someone else with a weapon, it's "dangerously close to mutual combat".

Of course that's not the end of the story by a long shot because we all understand (as does the legal system) that there's a HUGE difference between being forced to defend yourself with deadly force and engaging in mutual combat. If he attacks and you can't get away then it's not mutual combat, it's self defense.And if it is a knife-on-knife fight, how do you keep from getting cut up just as much as him, without constant training and luck?If he has a knife and you don't, how does that make you better off than if you DO have a knife?Because if you train to use the knife, as you must, you will fight as you've trained.This assumes:
1. That the person has trained with a knife. Obviously most people do not train with knives.
2. That the person has never considered the possibility that evasion, when reasonably possible, is superior to engagement. Since that's a basic concept in self-defense and in the legality surrounding the use of deadly force, it's a stretch to assume that this hypothetical person can't think of anything to do other than to engage with a knife because that's what he has in his pocket.If we're ruling out guns...Well, I thought we were, but you just brought up the idea of an "attacker" running backwards and shooting at the same time. Can we agree to dispense with the idea that ANYONE is arguing that a knife is superior to a gun and leave them out of this thread from now on?...I would absolutely prefer the walking stick to a knife.I'd prefer just about ANYTHING to a knife, but I do not agree with your premise that it's better to be weaponless than to be armed with a knife. Having a knife doesn't mean you have to use it.

If you are forced to defend yourself (and that is really the only circumstance that can be legally defined as truly being self-defense), it's hard to imagine a scenario where having the option to resort to a knife is going to be worse than not having the option.Because my own wrist has actually been cut open...Are you saying that any cut in a given location causes equal damage regardless of its depth?

Clearly not every cut does damage to the underlying structure of the body, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. It just means that not all cuts are administered with the same amount of force, with the same technique, or with identical cutting instruments.Historical knife fighting--back when this stuff was very real--focused on killing blows. Yet the modern techniques seem to be all about peripheral cutting with no martial intent. I see that as a monumental weakness to the system as a means of self defense.I think that there are two reasons that historical knife fighting was more focused on lethality.

1. Mutual combat was legal and acceptable if you go back far enough and the goals of mutual combat are different from those of legal self-defense.
2. Historical knife fighting was also more focused on the offensive than the defensive and the goals of offensive knife use are different from those of legal self-defense.

As far as modern knife techniques being not sufficently "martial" for your tastes, that's probably more a commentary on you than on the appropriateness of modern knife techniques. The fact is that "martial" and "effective for self-defense" are not at all synonymous. The idea that a defender must be focused on killing his attacker to be effective is not only fallacious but it is also legally problematic.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 06:42 PM
I'd prefer just about ANYTHING to a knife, but I do not agree with your premise that it's better to be weaponless than to be armed with a knife. Having a knife doesn't mean you have to use it.

Fair enough.

Are you saying that any cut in a given location causes equal damage regardless of its depth?

I'm saying that tendons on a living thing are harder to cut than some of these drills I've watched appear to imagine. The skin can be flayed open--often is--with no substantive damage to anything important. I'm pretty sure that's by design. So I"m skeptical when I see drills showing the instructor running a short blade over someone's wrist or elbow and the student/attacker just dropping the tire iron. Surgeons have to use extremely sharp blades to make any progress on adult tendon and sinew.

It just means that not all cuts are administered with the same amount of force.

And there's the length and velocity factor. I think when you're talking about what I would consider a proper blade--of dagger or sword length--you can deliver much more effective blows and thrusts that get to core tissues. The little ones just seem to get caught up in cloth and skin too much. Thankfully so considering how many times I've slashed and jabbed my long-suffering body with them LOL

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 06:42 PM
Historical knife fighting--back when this stuff was very real--focused on killing blows.
I'm not talking about knife fighting and I don't think folks should make the mistake that we are.

We're talking about defending oneself with a knife when you don't have other weapons available and you don't have a means of escape

Sam Cade
October 22, 2013, 07:13 PM
So I"m skeptical when I see drills showing the instructor running a short blade over someone's wrist or elbow and the student/attacker just dropping the tire iron. Surgeons have to use extremely sharp blades to make any progress on adult tendon and sinew.


Don't be, people are soft and mushy.
I've seen tendons cut when folks misslick with a fillet knife, close their folder on a finger or hit the back of their hand working up a deer.

Bix
October 22, 2013, 07:47 PM
Man - this thread's all over the place.

Straying into the validity of biomechanical cutting is just going to make this thread longer than it needs to be.

Defensive knife use stops fights. In the real world. Sometimes against unarmed attackers, even:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZZ7oVI72Mg

http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.com/2011/07/cops-assailant-stabbed-during-attack.html

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2011/09/no-charges-self-defense-in-the-stabbing-death-of-eduardo-guillen-tellez/

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-08/news/chi-man-stabbed-during-fight-along-riverwalk-downtown-20131008_1_riverwalk-good-condition-older-man

http://www.chicagotribune.com/wgnam-doctor-prevent-sex-assault-063009,0,6009958.story

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-05/news/chi-cops-burglar-who-loses-knife-fight-after-taking-residents-tv-xbox-20111205_1_knife-fight-burglar-xbox-video-game-system

These are just a couple stories from my area over the last couple years. It's not hard to find similar stories in other locations.

In addition to my earlier Janich recommendation, I'll strongly recommend Shivworks (and associated guys like Paul Sharp) for instruction in (i) the context of criminal assaults and (ii) the use of tools - including small blades - within that context.

JShirley
October 22, 2013, 08:26 PM
Cosmoline,

Along with a variety of false and sometimes silly assumptions, you completely ignored my description of a relatively common attack on deployed service members, against which a knife like the ARK is the only reasonable weapon of defense. I have at least hundreds of hours of stick practice, but cannot reasonably fit a cane in my pocket.

I have also had two wrist punctures. One of them, I had to keep firm direct pressure on all the way to the doctor.

John

hso
October 22, 2013, 08:36 PM
Surgeons have to use extremely sharp blades to make any progress on adult tendon and sinew.

They use scalpels to make careful good clean precise cuts with proximal edges that can heal well, while in a fight you're making hard slashing rending cuts that rip and tear as well as cutting. There's a greater relationship with dressing game than surgery. You can't equate the two beyond there's a blade and it is sharp and it is cutting.

I've worked with all sorts of simulants and with livestock and you can not only cut flesh, but sever tendons and ligaments with the normal force of defensive knife use.

Don't knock it until you've tried it.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 09:06 PM
It's not hard to find similar stories in other locations.

Thank you for those, they are interesting. Maybe there are some regional differences at work here. In the Chi you can't exactly pack heat I hear. But notice how many of the wounded suspects are still at large after having been slashed and even had a knife to the chest? I don't find that reassuring. If the guy has the energy to run off, he could still continue the attack. The knives appear to be serving as a form of physical persuasion.

DT Guy
October 22, 2013, 09:19 PM
Cosmoline, I have to admit, I disagree with almost everything you wrote. :)

Look up 'compression cutting' to see about small blades, and (just like with firearms) 'placement' is everything when you calculate how much cutting someone can stand; touch a blood filled organ, the aorta, carotid or similar, and you've got about twenty seconds of daylight left.

As far as whether a knife is a 'good' defensive tool in the eyes of law enforcement, I would submit that survival trumps appearances in that case; do what's necessary, moral and legal and you will deal with the rest afterward.

Honestly, the difference between a trained knife guy and an untrained knife guy is far, far greater than a trained and untrained shooter.

Larry

Cosmoline
October 22, 2013, 09:31 PM
I think we 100% agree on that last bit. From what I can see, the knife related arts are the most difficult of all martial arts applicable to the real world. You need to have phenomenal coordination and reflexes, and stay aware of imminent counter-threats that can come from any direction. I would say it's considerably harder than sword fighting--which is itself very difficult.

I figure my best bet would be to buy the nicest ivory-stocked custom blade I could, and if someone was threatening me I'd give the knife to them and escape while they admired its beauty.

with livestock and you can not only cut flesh, but sever tendons and ligaments with the normal force of defensive knife use.

Living or dead?

touch a blood filled organ, the aorta, carotid or similar, and you've got about twenty seconds of daylight left.

OK, but how do you reach those with a small blade? And I'm hearing from others that the goal is not to go in for a kill strike to the heart or head, but to focus on extremities. If you show me a knife fighting method that seeks to plunge daggers quickly into the heart of the foe, then I'm much more interested in them. Because if I don't need to do that, then I don't really need to draw any knife or gun.

People get mixed up about the "intent to kill" business a lot. If you don't intend to kill, don't stab or shoot. Knives and firearms are not "stopping" weapons. They're deadly weapons. Only ever use them in the absolute gravest extreme when you're facing imminent unlawful deadly force--that is if you are just about to be MURDERED. And if you are, use the biggest baddest weapon you can. Because otherwise you'll die. If the threat ceases your defense must cease--that is what is meant by "shoot to stop". And of course if the threat is not sufficiently grave or imminent, you should not use deadly force. But people have somehow turned that around into a matter of subjective intent--what they intend inside their heart. SD turns on objective circumstances and whether the belief of imminent deadly threat was objectively reasonable.

bubba in ca
October 22, 2013, 10:28 PM
Deadly force is deadly force. While i might cut somebody in the wrist if that was the only target available, I would aim for the biggest artery available, a heart or throat stab. If I happened to have a short knife, like the 4 incher in the post, all the more important to use if forcefully where it will get maximum benefit. At close distances implied by using a small knife, there is no time for fancy carving that would take far more skill than stabbing where it counts.

Hypothetical situation: I`m working in my yard in the morning and some goon jumps the fence and picks up a piece of firewood to brain me, presumably in a robbery attempt.

1) legitament self defense.
2) Not a hint of mutual combat (in the legal sense of the term).
3) The knife is a tool that in this case gets pressed into service as a weapon.
4) a knife is far better than bare knuckles.

I am well aware that there are better weapons. In the above example I might just pick up a bigger piece of firewood! But if the knife was the available choice, I`d go for it.

If you need some bedtime reading, try this guy-- http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html, but don`t read all his footnotes or you will go crazy!

JohnKSa
October 22, 2013, 10:39 PM
And there's the length and velocity factor.Actually, and I'm wandering into pure opinion, here, I would say that it has a lot more to do with the blade style than with the length/velocity. A hooked knife or a very sharp and aggressively serrated knife or one with a very sharp point would be pretty destructive if applied properly (as a ripping or stabbing cut) to an area with tendons or blood vessels near the surface regardless of the size or velocity of the cut. On the other hand, I would think a plain edged knife with a more conventional profile, being used as a slicing weapon would be less likely to bite deeply into structures (like tendons/ligaments) that are slick and yielding unless the force/velocity was pretty impressive.And I'm hearing from others that the goal is not to go in for a kill strike to the heart or head, but to focus on extremities.If this is an option, it's necessary to stop the attack, and offers the best or a very good chance of stopping the attack, AND you can do it without getting killed or seriously injured then go for it. It's not that the defender should be concerned about the life of the attacker and actively working toward perserving it.

It IS important to remember that killing the attacker isn't the goal and if you get caught up in the thought process that you can't succeed without killing the attacker it will not only screw up your priorities, it could look bad in the aftermath if the evidence shows that you were more focused on killing than on stopping the attack.

More to the point, making lethal cuts & stabs generally exposes the defender to serious danger. If the defender can disable the attacker and stop the attack without exposing himself to serious danger, so much the better. If a defender can disable an attacker's arm or hand, or cut his forehead so blood runs down in his eyes he may end the attack just as effectively, with less exposure to danger and potentially more rapidly than if he had killed him.People get mixed up about the "intent to kill" business a lot.Yes they do. The easiest way to avoid getting mixed up is to keep in mind WHY deadly force is legal in some instances.

It is declared to be legal so that citizens can preserve their own life in the face of a violent attack without fear of prosecution. it is not declared to be legal as a rapid means of capital punishment for attackers or as a means of taking criminals off the street. In short, self-defense laws are about preserving life, not about taking life.

It is certainly true that the legal use of deadly force may result in the death of the attacker, but that is not the goal, it is merely an acceptable consequence. The goal is to preserve innocent life.Knives and firearms are not "stopping" weapons. They're deadly weapons. They are both, and only a very minimal amount of study will demonstrate the absolutely incontrovertible truth of this statement. It's clear that they are deadly weapons, both by legal definition and the obvious evidence surrounding deaths resulting from the use of knives and guns. But, it's just as clear, from self-defense gun uses, that in 9 out of 10 successful defenses, the attacker is not even harmed.

You talked about the potential for trouble if a defender used a knife to injure an attacker even when escape was possible, so you clearly understand the principle of not using force when it's not necessary. The same basic principle says you don't use any more force than is reasonably necessary to stop the attack.

As stated before, that doesn't mean you have to try to save the attacker's life, but it does mean that when the attack ends, the justification for the use of force ends and that is true even if the attacker is still alive. Even if the attacker is completely uninjured. The idea that we must try to kill the attacker is not only tactically unsound, it is not consistent with the basic intent of self-defense laws.SD turns on objective circumstances and whether the belief of imminent deadly threat was objectively reasonable.That is correct. But having the wrong goal is a problem for two reasons. If it becomes apparent that you were trying to kill when it wasn't necessary to do so (based on the objective circumstances of the situation) it will not go well for you. Second, as you have correctly pointed out more than once on this thread, going in for the kill (a lethal cut or stab) can expose you to unnecessary danger.

In any endeavor, it is important to keep the true goal in mind. That goal is to survive with as little injury as possible.

And if you are, use the biggest baddest weapon you can.This is not something that you would say if you were reasonably familiar with self-defense law.

Parity of force is a clear legal principle. You are allowed to do what is reasonably necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to unleash the "biggest baddest weapon you can" on an attacker unless that's the only reasonable way to defend yourself.

hso
October 22, 2013, 10:40 PM
Cosmoline,

You've been given multiple examples, multiple explanations from martial arts practitioners, multiple explanations from law enforcement, even examples from the guys who show up on the scene to walk through the gore and try to keep the combatants and victims alive long enough to make the ER and even though you have no relevant experience you continue to hold to the mistaken belief that knives aren't effective as weapons. I personally know of two local women with essentially no training that used small folders to make attackers break off and flee. I know two knife makers who've defended themselves with their knives and and I know of more who've done the same. They're not martial artists. You don't need to be a skilled martial artist or prison yard fighter to use a knife to stop an attacker. Notice I didn't say kill, but stop. That's because people who are defending themselves are not intent upon killing, but upon stopping their attacker. You do have to have the mindset that you're not going to roll up in a ball and quit and that you're going to fight back with complete commitment to stop your attacker. Just because you've been learning to use a large western style doesn't mean that there's a real understanding of edged weapons. I've spent most of my adult life messing around with knives and training with people who are expert with them and I've shown both martial artists and law enforcement officers what can be done with a knife defensively to their surprise. Years of study and experience have taught me what a knife can do defensively and I've been able to share that with a few. John can tell you I'm no impressive figure, unless you're impressed with radial symmetry, but he and I both know and have shared with others what can be done with a remarkably small blade.

That said, the smaller the blade the greater the skill required to achieve many of the results with a big blade, but at some point the size of the blade starts to become a hinderance to speed and movement and the techniques you use have to change to using the greater reach of the big blade to keep your attacker at a distance. I also sport fenced in college. I also studied "real" sword work with Maestro Eddie Floyd. I studied FMA knife and sword and Chinese Tai Chi sword. So from small blades to larger, from Filipino to Chinese to European cut and thrust, to being taught prison yard knife work by a max prison guard I've studied how blades of different sizes can be used defensively and offensively. They worked for thousands of years and they still work today, but like anything they're no guarantee of stopping an attack immediately. Even in ambush. But then nothing is 100%. Is the knife the ideal defensive tool, no. I'd rather have a cane or escrima stick since that gives me more options and I can actually carry one in plain sight and in my hand, but then I've trained with those and will say they can require as much skill and more to use effectively in defense.


If it this was from anyone else we'd have to assume you were just acting as a troll after all the information provide by some of us who have real experiences shared, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree since you're basically alone in your beliefs on this.

9mmepiphany
October 22, 2013, 10:56 PM
OK, but how do you reach those with a small blade? And I'm hearing from others that the goal is not to go in for a kill strike to the heart or head, but to focus on extremities. If you show me a knife fighting method that seeks to plunge daggers quickly into the heart of the foe, then I'm much more interested in them. Because if I don't need to do that, then I don't really need to draw any knife or gun.
You're still trying to apply large blade techniques to smaller blades, that's like trying to compare the techniques needed to drive a truck on the road to driving a Motocross bike on a purpose built track. You've admitted that you don't have any experience with small blade techniques, yet you continue to argue that they are somehow lacking. How can you continue to argue something you don't to understand?

You started with a question on the technique to efficiently use a small bladed knife for self defense, but you refuse to listen to, and continue to disparage, any explanation that is offered.

BTW: it doesn't take any training to be extremely dangerous with a small blade. Part of the justification for using deadly force (gunfire) against a person armed with a common small knife...as taught in LE academies...the inherent natural ability to employ it effectively. We've all seen kids who haven't been taught to fight who will flail both arms over their heads at another. Imagine the damage, both cutting and stabbing, that can be done if you put a knife, in the ice-pick hold, in just one on those hands. The natural instinct is to raise an arm to fend off the blows...all the recruits do it...and that is the beginning of losing the engagement

JShirley
October 22, 2013, 11:47 PM
Cosmoline,

Your posts in this thread lead me to believe you also don't understand firearm wounding mechanics.

Further, "use the biggest, baddest weapon you can" is absolute NONSENSE, and not at all the type of rigorous thinking I would hope a lawyer would display. The "biggest, baddest" firearms, such as a .460 or .454, are not actually usually most effective at stopping deadly human threats, only heavy dangerous game. Good luck with neck carrying a sword.

John

Bix
October 23, 2013, 12:38 AM
Quote:
It's not hard to find similar stories in other locations.
Thank you for those, they are interesting. Maybe there are some regional differences at work here. In the Chi you can't exactly pack heat I hear. But notice how many of the wounded suspects are still at large after having been slashed and even had a knife to the chest? I don't find that reassuring. If the guy has the energy to run off, he could still continue the attack. The knives appear to be serving as a form of physical persuasion.

Dude - they stopped the fight. We don't know why the attackers broke off and we don't know what would have happened if they hadn't. What we do know, is that the folks in the stories I posted used small blades effectively as self defense tools.

We don't expect instant incapacitation from anything we can reasonably carry concealed. One of my favorite Farnam quotes goes something like: "And what should we expect our attacker to do after we shoot him? Exactly what he was doing right before we shot him." I can dig up a bunch of other accounts involving criminals absorbing a scad of handgun rounds and still having 'the energy to run off'.

Cosmoline - you've been around for a long time and I ordinarily would not give this much attention to this sort of conversation. There's a rising chorus here, man - maybe have a listen. :D

ugaarguy
October 23, 2013, 12:46 AM
Cosmoline, take a look at the Ka-Bar TDI knives. Those were designed to be used by LE with no knife training. Functionally they're similar to a push knife without being a push knife, so they're legal almost everywhere. Anyone who can throw a punch can use one effectively. Put one in the hands of a boxer or even a low level empty hand martial artist and you effectively multiply his skill level. All of the conventional empty hand defense techniques go out the window when the adversary is throwing punches with a blade.

As for the Shirley-Owens ARK knife, yeah, it's nasty. A short blade with a decent sized handle can also be used with punching techniques, or slightly modified punching techniques. I have very little formal martial arts training but that little blade makes me much more effective. I'll take any sturdy blade over going empty hand.

Cosmoline
October 23, 2013, 02:41 AM
Those do look pretty wicked.

There's a rising chorus here, man - maybe have a listen

I am. I like to stoke the fire to read better.

This is not something that you would say if you were reasonably familiar with self-defense law.

Parity of force is a clear legal principle. You are allowed to do what is reasonably necessary to defend yourself. You are not allowed to unleash the "biggest baddest weapon you can" on an attacker unless that's the only reasonable way to defend yourself.

I'm pretty familiar with it. Maybe you can show me the code or decision that distinguishes between deadly force and EXTRA deadly force. Once you are using deadly force--and you surely are with a blade--there is no further parity of force analysis. In other words, no American state I am aware of forces you to match blade for blade or gun for gun. If he draws a blade, you can draw a cannon. If there is such a restriction please share it. The law is concerned with the life being protected at that point. And once it is a life in imminent peril, then there's really no greater threat is there?

Where you can get yourself into real trouble is by using deadly force as non-deadly force. That is by shooting a leg or stabbing a hand. If you are facing imminent unlawful deadly force, then such lesser application of force may be insufficient. And if you are not facing that level of force, you ought not to be using deadly force in self defense. I understand the masters of knife work can use those blades for the full range of defense. I'm not at all sure the courts would share that view. So if for example you stab the hand of an unarmed junkie who accosts you, and he subsequently dies of the infection, you may be in real trouble.

JShirley
October 23, 2013, 08:35 AM
Lethal force is lethal force. (Really, it's potentially lethal force.)

Your examples seem trolling. "Shooting to maim" laws are obviously intended to address illegitimate use of a deadly weapon, such as criminals inflicting injury to make a point. Should a defender cut the hand of someone attempting an assault with a deadly weapon, and the attacker drops the weapon and screams "Don't hurt me", it would be illegal in most cases for the defender to then attempt a lethal strike.

You are dancing on the line of trolling, and since you blatantly admit it with your "stoking the fire" comment, I am going to publicly warn you to stop.

John

hso
October 23, 2013, 10:06 AM
I'll also add that "stoking the fire" does nothing to contribute to the discussion and does the others members a disservice. If you refuse to accept what's been presented simply say you reject it instead of toying with the members. Remember honest debate first require honesty, not sophistry.

Cosmoline
October 23, 2013, 01:22 PM
Well now I've been officially sanctioned for trolling. Sorry if folks misunderstood. I am putting points forward and arguing from a position. Seeing what holds up and what doesn't. I'm not doing this for fun, but to challenge my own possibly erroneous views about small knives in particular and knife defense in general. I guess it rubs people the wrong way. For me it's part of understanding the issues better and seeing what holds up and what doesn't. I take a position and argue it into the ground, then assess the merits.

For others who aren't argumentative, it seems rude I suppose. I apologize and will cease communications. Sorry about all this.

bikerdoc
October 23, 2013, 03:26 PM
Since the resident mods are involved in the thread I will take responsibility for closing this thread.
I will be also starting a new thread on the subject and welcome all to contribute.

If you enjoyed reading about "Defensive Knives?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!