Blades for home defense?

[lemaymiami]

Read through the posts that followed mine... and realized I may have given the wrong impression... In short - use anything at hand to defend yourself in the moment..... and I do mean anything... There's a very good reason that cops are taught to secure any individual they're dealing with if he or she is on their home turf (inside their dwelling or next to their vehicle..) since there are always many places to conceal a weapon or just reach for some ordinary object that can be used as a weapon... In my own house I have a mental inventory of all the possible improvised weapons in each room (and by each doorway...). As I write this there's a nice stand of sharpened pencils for instance.... in my garage/shop there are at least five or more hammers, as well as five or more blades, at hand... You get the idea....

Planning in advance to use some means that you've seen in a movie - instead of something more decisive - is probably fantasy land - but each to his own....

Here's a true story to illustrate that point... In my town we had a double homicide (both victims in a waterbed were shot multiple times where they lay - and it was, to put it mildly - an awful mess with water on the floor all the way out into the hallway as a result..). Combine the water, various bodily fluids and a house without air conditioning in summer - and you have the kind of scene where the young officers wait outside for the Crime Scene and detectives.... As usual many homicides don't involve innocents and the "man of the house" had a drug history as well as a fair number of firearms nearby - but not within his ready reach ---- His nearest gun was a riot gun concealed behind a free standing mirror about ten feet from his bed... and that was entirely too far when the deal went down.... All of this was in south Florida in the eighties when drug killings were a weekly occurrence - even in suburban areas outside of Miami.... The male victim in this case had good reason to believe that he might need to defend himself - but his preparation for that possibility was seriously lacking (among other failings there were open windows in the house that night since their A/C was off...).

Now for a "true nightmare" scenario -involving a big knife... In those same years we had a pants burglar - who was also a serial rapist and murderer... In short he was one of those rare cat burglars that deliberately crawled into houses at night where people were sleeping to do his thing... He only entered houses late at night - and avoided any house that had a dog... His first act once inside the house was to crawl on hands and knees to the kitchen and arm himself with one of butcher knives you can find in most kitchens - then, still on hands and knees, crawl back into the bedrooms -knife in hand... His stated purpose was to find the father's pants then steal the wallet and car keys, then leave - taking the car... If he found a woman at home alone he'd rape - then stab her to death... If the man awoke while he was there he'd stab him then flee... Like I said a real-life nightmare... When we caught him he'd already killed seven that we knew of in two states....

Given that you can never know what kind of threat is headed your way - being reasonably prepared isn't a bad idea. Yes, there are places and circumstances where you can't have a firearm so you do what you can - but choosing to use a lesser weapon isn't anything I'd be signing up for....

The vast majority of us will never face a life threatening encounter (thank heavens... ) but that once in a lifetime terrible moment is something you always need to consider planning for since you and your family will be at risk if it ever occurs. Me, I'm still hoping to live out the rest of my life without ever raising my hand to another man... but that doesn't mean I haven't done a bit of advance planning if it ever does come my way again....

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I understand the concern about appearance, but really, lethal force is lethal force guys. If it is legal to use a shotgun, it is legal to use a sword or a chainsaw, for that matter. If you go to court for using force to defend yourself, the court is going to be concerned with whether lethal force was justified, not primarily with the type of weapon that was used.

 

[Speedo66]

Don't discount women too much. A mother will fight to the end to defend her cubs.

I saw a film, true story, during an annual requal-training session about a female officer who was attacked by several assailants as she pulled up and parked in her driveway. She was shot several times but stayed in the fight and managed to shoot and either kill or disable all of her attackers. She was "the last 'man' standing".

Maybe not typical, but certainly possible. I have a feeling had she had a knife the results would have been similar, she was one tough lady.

 

[Browning]

I saw a film, true story, during an annual requal-training session about a female officer who was attacked by several assailants as she pulled up and parked in her driveway. She was shot several times but stayed in the fight and managed to shoot and either kill or disable all of her attackers. She was "the last 'man' standing".

Maybe not typical, but certainly possible. I have a feeling had she had a knife the results would have been similar, she was one tough lady.

So you saw a film, a true story about a woman (a police officer) prevailing with a gun?

 

[JohnKSa]

I understand the concern about appearance, but really, lethal force is lethal force guys. If it is legal to use a shotgun, it is legal to use a sword or a chainsaw, for that matter. If you go to court for using force to defend yourself, the court is going to be concerned with whether lethal force was justified, not primarily with the type of weapon that was used.

All true, up to a point. If people start to get the idea that the defender had an unusual desire to use a particular weapon, that introduces the possibility that the defender could have let that desire push them to use it when it wasn't really necessary.

I agree 100% with the people who say to use whatever is at hand, my comments relate to what a person chooses to have at hand--not to using what is readily available. If all you have by your bed is a sword--USE IT!. But before you CHOOSE to put a sword by your bed instead of a gun, maybe read my post and think about it.

As far as resisting when there is very little chance of success, that's a personal decision and one that should be made based on the circumstances of the situation. Statistics say that resisting by means other than using a firearm actually increases the chances of being injured over choosing to be compliant. I'm not telling people to be compliant rather than to resist with an edged weapon or by screaming or physically fighting back, but it's worthwhile to understand that, on average, if you choose to resist with those methods, you're more likely to be injured than if you immediately comply.

The statistics indicate that the best chances for being injured in a violent encounter (the worst chances for remaining uninjured) came when using a knife. The BEST chance for remaining uninjured came when using a firearm.

Don't discount women too much. A mother will fight to the end to defend her cubs.

Agreed. The woman in the video fought until she was totally unable to resist. In an interview, she stated that she also did so silently (as confirmed by the audio in the original video)--refusing to scream so that her children wouldn't also scream and be targeted. That shows tremendous resolve. However, in the end, her resistance was totally ineffective and the only thing it bought her was a worse beating.

Again, I'm not advocating compliance, but people should think about this from a realistic perspective. There is a time for resistance. There is also a time to look around and realize that, based on the circumstances, compliance might make more sense. In the case of the video, her resistance changed absolutely nothing for the better. The attacker was able to neutralize her repeatedly with very little effort and she was totally unable to do anything to stop him from doing whatever he wanted.

Just to be clear, I'm agreeing that women can resist with every bit as much resolve and determination as a man. My comments about compliance and the chances of remaining uninjured are not at all related to the sex of the defender.

 

[Speedo66]

So you saw a film, a true story about a woman (a police officer) prevailing with a gun?

Yep, a female police officer who prevailed against multiple assailants after being shot several times. My point was women were discounted here and shouldn't be. No big deal I guess 'cause she was armed with a gun.

Personally, with her mind set, I'd probably be hesitant to face her if she was carrying a toothpick.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It's not that I begrudge anyone their right to self defense, but I try to deal in reality. What will actually work.

Regardless of gender or weapon people should get some training. However most women are at a disadvantage already in size, upper body strength, experience in physical confrontations and in mindset. Giving the average woman a knife who has no training in a reality based martial arts program and expecting them to be able to punch holes in a home invaders chest, neck, eyes, abdomen and back in an instant is asking a little too much. Going from breast feeding to stabbing predators who enter their homes is a bit too far of a leap.

Are there some women who can make that leap and who are trained in the use of a knife? Sure, but it's certainly not the norm.

A giant can of bear spray and a taser would be way better if they can't or won't use a gun.

Indeed.

But the fact is that the vast majority of humanity is not trained in combat. These are people who are only seeking to live their lives, go to work, and raise their families. Hand weapons of ANY kind are their hope for defense against the aggressors who would do them harm, whether they have training or not.

We can ALL use some training...and for those of us who have training, we can use MORE training. This is inarguable, of course. And we all balance our perceived need for such training with everything else in our lives. For the majority of the masses, this kind of stuff ranks low compared to what else they seek in life...right or wrong.

In the end, we all need to be able to use whatever may be at hand in an attack, whatever it may be and however effective we can make it.

A knife is still a dangerous weapon, even if in the hands of someone not trained. It would certainly lend more defensive credibility than being empty handed, given the choice, and would certainly make an attacker think twice over an unarmed victim. (Drugs and nut cases notwithstanding.)

I will be up front and say that I'm not trained in the use of knives, either offensively or defensively. But I'll happily go at it with kitchen cutlery in both hands to defend myself and my family if that's what it takes.

 

[JohnKSa]

Personally, with her mind set, I'd probably be hesitant to face her if she was carrying a toothpick.

She prevailed because she had the proper mind set AND a gun. Had she resisted with a toothpick she would have been killed. There is no question that mind set is critical. There is also no question that the means a person uses to resist has a significant effect on the outcome.

 

[Browning]

Yep, a female police officer who prevailed against multiple assailants after being shot several times. My point was women were discounted here and shouldn't be. No big deal I guess 'cause she was armed with a gun.

Personally, with her mind set, I'd probably be hesitant to face her if she was carrying a toothpick.

No, it is a big deal.

*This* thread is about knives though and then that discussion turned to women with knives as the result of a comment.

Not sure how your post has much to do with it unless we're going to have yet another shift in topic and talk about willpower (in which case I'll readily concede that women have as much willpower as men).

 

[theotherwaldo]

I was raised to view every object as a potential weapon at need.
By preference, I collect weapons of almost every sort.
If, in a time of need, a knife, sword, bat, golf club, or frying pan is at hand to defend me and mine, that knife, sword, bat, golf club, or frying pan will be used until I can reach something more effective or the time of need is over.
It's a "judged by twelve or carried by six" situation.
That's why God tolerates lawyers.

 

[glistam]

I currently keep a mukura-yari (a short Japanese spear designed centuries ago for this exact purpose) at my beside, directly next to a shotgun and a canister of pepper-spray (stream pattern). I like to have options.

While I have a gun and it would be my first choice most of the time, I also live in an area where there is a high risk of stray shots harming innocent bystanders. Using the gun would generally require a situation where I wake up hearing an intruder before they are in the room and have reasonable time to position myself facing the door from across the room, so that any misses will go into a field.

It is important to understand the most likely scenario for oneself when planning defense. Many "tough guys" on forums like this have some kind of image of a professional hitman or a assassin breaking in with the sole intent of killing them with a firearm of their own. This is probably the least likely scenario and would make even less sense for me, based on my work and lifestyle. The most likely scenario in my case is a drunk and/or mentally unstable homeless person who is either unarmed or has only a knife, is more interested in taking food or valuables, and isn't very likely to look for my bedroom given my home's unusual layout.

I chose the short spear as a secondary because a) there is ample historical basis for this use and b) I train in martial arts that include the use of knives, spears and swords, and the spear makes the most sense. It requires very little training to use effectively, gives good reach and despite misconceptions, can be wielded in doors quite well. I actually practiced with in the room when no one is home against a target, and I don't even scuff the paint. As an added bonus, there is a case of a homeowner actually used a short spear successfully in home defense, and not only repelled his attacker, but was found justified.

That gets something I'm seeing in this thread that's irking me a bit. I'm seeing all kinds of unsourced, unqualified claims that if you use a hand weapon instead of a firearm, the "DA" will paint you as a lunatic and that this will somehow hurt your ability to justifiably use force. Yet nobody's actually given a plausible example of this. Well I have three that show the opposite. All three resulted in the defender being questioned, but never arrested or charged due to responding officer's opinion that it was justifiable use of force.

The first one is probably the most well known to the public. A student at Johns Hopkins used a katana against an unarmed intruder with an extensive criminal record. The student was cornered at the time and clearly holding a sword, but the perp for some unknown reason thought he could take this kid empty handed. The student gave him a single downward stroke, nearly severing his right hand as well as his carotid artery, killing him a seconds.

The second was a man in Texas who kept a short spear by his bed. He had a decent bit of martial arts experience as well, including how to use spears. An unarmed man broke into his small home and while details of the confrontation are hazy, the result was the burglar getting stabbed several times before fleeing out the door. Though wounded, he survived, and was arrested quickly afterwards.

The last one was a friend of a friend in New York. The homeowner was an retired Army ranger, and it's unclear if he had other weapons, but in this case for whatever reason (perhaps his guns were in a safe), he grabbed a wakizashi to confront a young hoodlum going through his dresser. This was a smart choice, as the shorter sword was preferred indoors since the days of samurai. In this case the sight of the somewhat heavyset man wielding a small sword screaming "Wrong house, mother----er!" was enough to make the intruder leave an intruder-shaped hole in his screen door. He was apprehended shortly therefore with numerous cuts and bruises sustained in his mad scramble to get away.

 

[Browning]

A hit man? Seriously?

No. It isn't likely to be a homeless person either.

Most likely someone breaking into a home is going to fall into a couple categories :
• Committing property crimes to support a drug habit.
• A career criminal.

The video I posted was of a career criminal, not an assassin.

Most home invasions (as opposed to simple burglaries) on the other hand are usually drug related brought about because of the victims lifestyle or because the armed robbers received a tip that the home owner has a large gun collection, owns a pharmacy, is a bank/cash store manager or keeps large quantities of cash or jewelry in the home.

There are serial rapists that selectively target women and/or serial killers that target couples (I.E. Israel Keyes), but statistically that's somewhere next to the possibility of being struck by lightening.

I'm pretty sure that most have a pretty good idea of the type of criminal who would break into their home.

 

[Jack B.]

My dad had a Viking fighting axe that he used to keep nearby for home defense. Then he got to thinking how bloody things would get if he had used it. So he went out and bought a GP100 in .357 magnum. Now he says he won't get so much blood on himself, hopefully only the bad guy gets bloody.

 

[entropy]

What kind of Viking worries about blood on himself?
There's a T-shirt that has a Viking with a sword and axe crossed over shield behind him that says "I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood, and I don't mind going out that way."

 

[Jack B.]

What kind of Viking worries about blood on himself?
There's a T-shirt that has a Viking with a sword and axe crossed over shield behind him that says "I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood, and I don't mind going out that way."

That's kind of what I said to my father after he bought the pistol. He said the axe is still his backup weapon.

 

[theotherwaldo]

What kind of Viking worries about blood on himself?
There's a T-shirt that has a Viking with a sword and axe crossed over shield behind him that says "I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood, and I don't mind going out that way."

Spoken like a true Asatru!

 

[GEM]

I understand the concern about appearance, but really, lethal force is lethal force guys. If it is legal to use a shotgun, it is legal to use a sword or a chainsaw, for that matter. If you go to court for using force to defend yourself, the court is going to be concerned with whether lethal force was justified, not primarily with the type of weapon that was used.

We have discussed the issue of whether it is a 'good shoot' or now a 'good slice and dice' endless. The quoted post is just incorrect. Our readers can search for this on this site and many, many others. It is not worth replaying here yet again. So disagree and it is your choice for weapons to use and the jury's choice if you go to jail.

 

[Yo Mama]

Since I'm a filthy Yankee, can I substitute a one handed Claymore?
View attachment 805969

Hahaha!!!!

 

[JohnKSa]

Well I have three that show the opposite. All three resulted in the defender being questioned, but never arrested or charged due to responding officer's opinion that it was justifiable use of force.

First of all, I'm not saying that using a sword vs. a gun would automatically change the justifiability of the use of deadly force. There can be a tendency to want to focus on clearcut cases of self-defense and forget that it's not always so obvious what is going on.

Your three examples are all cases of pretty clear-cut self-defense, and/or, for one reason or another are situations where the use of something other than a gun is highly unlikely to be questioned. Most people probably wouldn't even question why someone in New York, or a college student might use an edged weapon over a gun. And in TX, if someone breaks into your house while you're in it, the state, assuming it can muster the motivation (which it VERY rarely does), has the burden of proof to show that your use of deadly force wasn't justified--it's a tough row to hoe for the DA and not at all good for their chances of getting re-elected.

We all like to think that deadly force only gets used in very obviously justifiable situations--a stranger with a criminal record breaks into an occupied house, and the occupant is clearly in danger of death or serious injury. But it's not always like that.

Sometimes it's one family member killing another who became dangerous due to mental illness or substance abuse. Sometimes the intruder has entered by mistake due to some sort of impairment.

It's a mistake to pretend that the world is black and white and to use that model as a basis for making decisions. It's often much more valuable to think about situations that are more gray than black and white and to consider how one's decisions might play in that kind of scenario.

Look, the point isn't that using an edged weapon for self-defense when you could very easily choose a firearm instead, means you're a lunatic. But it is not a conventional choice and it could look strange. As I mentioned earlier, having thought about reasons for that choice--reasons that will make sense to someone who isn't a blade aficionado is very wise. You have obviously done that and even provided one of the reasons I mentioned as an example.

 

[lemaymiami]

Out on the street, where I went to school for 22 years... nothing's clear cut (well, almost never...). The guy with the gun in his hand turns out to be the good guy. The old man pointing a gun at me (it was at dusk, but I was still in full uniform in his backyard...) couldn't see well enough to know he was pointing a firearm at a cop... The "murder victim" was actually the assailant... it just goes on and on.

The old man and the young man wrestling on the ground? The young guy went to jail - even though when I got there the old man had a small folding knife in his hand while his yellowed teeth were sunk into the young man's arm.... (thank heavens all the witnesses said that the old guy was minding his own business sitting down inside the Greyhound station when the young guy with no warning began kicking and punching him..). and just to make it clear -the old man was black and the bad guy was a young white guy....

The young man inside your house at 2Am - is actually your daughter's boyfriend... and so it goes.

Pray you never have to fire on a live target - because it never quite works out the way you thought it would (and that's from personal experience....). The outcome of any armed encounter can be so random that you wouldn't believe it - if you saw it in your next action movie thriller...

On top of it all -just because you've hit your target when it counted -doesn't mean you've ended the threat since you just can't predict how someone will react to being shot - and if they're close enough you may end up finding out the hard way....

Protect yourself and your family as you choose but if I were only using a blade or 'hawk (or hammer) you can bet that for one reason or other I just couldn't get to something much, much more decisive....

 

[hso]

not a conventional choice

I'm not sure this opinion is absolutely accurate. The FBI UCR homicide data indicates that more bladed weapons are used than any long gun (shotguns/rifles). While I haven't seen a parsing of the data for justifiable homicides, the nationwide use of blades in homicides exceeds shotguns. It may be that they are at least as conventional in actual use as the trusty shotgun. That said, the intentional selection of a large blade or hammer might simply be because of the cost of any reliable firearm exceeding the ability of the homeowner to pay. Baseball bats and drywall hammers are less expensive than even a cheap shotgun and are pretty conventional.

The endless argument about whether or not an LEO or a DA would look at the use of a spear or axe differently than a shotgun or handgun isn't something that is going to be substantiated since no one is going to go to the effort to research case law.

 

[DannyLandrum]

Take a look-see:




I practiced law for many years, and I agree with MTMilitiaman - I am highly skeptical of the idea that juries are generally more horrified and therefore more likely to convict in a marginal case with a bladed claim of self-defense, vs. a gun used in self-defense. Either it's justified .... or it ain't. And yes, it is often a question of whether *each shot*, analyzed in a vacuum is justified (such as in the presently-in-the-news Laquan McDonald case), as it should be, and it's a lot more common to see a bunch of extra shots sent into the attacker than extra swings of the sword, I think. So if anything, I think the opposite is true.

Remember, people on juries who are hoplophobes and thus leftists (who might tend to improperly base a decision on emotion rather than the law) have a maslow's heirarchy of fear... and Guns are scarier than knives are scarier than clubs... just like they have a victimhood culture heirarchy (skin tone > sexual orientation > gender).

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm not sure opinion this is accurate. The FBI UCR homicide data indicates that more bladed weapons are used than any long gun (shotguns/rifles).

I'm sure this is correct. Bladed weapons are ubiquitous--every kitchen has at least one large one, far less regulated than firearms--anyone can buy one, and much less expensive--everyone can afford one. It certainly stands to reason that they would used far more often than firearms.

However, that aside, let's get back to my comment.

...the point isn't that using an edged weapon for self-defense when you could very easily choose a firearm instead, means you're a lunatic. But it is not a conventional choice...

Choosing to use a bladed weapon when the most effective weapon to hand is a bladed weapon is a very conventional choice. Choosing to use a bladed weapon "when you could very easily choose a firearm instead" is "not a conventional choice".

I am highly skeptical of the idea that juries are generally more horrified and therefore more likely to convict in a marginal case with a bladed claim of self-defense, vs. a gun used in self-defense.

Somehow we have managed to get two parallel discussions going in this thread. One of them is related to the OP's question about picking a bladed weapon when a gun is just as readily available, the second is a more generic argument about guns vs bladed weapons.

Trying to maintain two discussions in parallel can be done as long as the participants of both discussions clearly see the divide and don't pretend the two discussions are actually the same.

The endless argument about whether or not an LEO or a DA would look at the use of a spear or axe differently than a shotgun or handgun isn't something that is going to be substantiated since no one is going to go to the effort to research case law.

To be clear, I'm not saying that an LEO or DA would look at the use of a spear or axe differently than the use of a shotgun or handgun--in a vacuum. But the thread isn't just about using a spear or axe; the OP's question was specifically about using a bladed weapon in a situation where firearms are just as readily available.

My point is that the typical person tends to see bladed weapons as harder to use, less effective and more risky to use than a firearm--we've all heard the old saw about taking a knife to a gunfight--and therefore it is not any kind of a stretch to assert that the typical person would wonder why someone chose a bladed weapon when they could have easily picked a gun.

As an analogy, imagine a situation where a person needs to go for help in an emergency and chooses a bicycle when a car is readily available. That is a choice that would be expected to generate some questions because it is not a conventional one. It's not that bicycles are uncommon, or that choosing to ride bicycles is unconventional, or that bicycles aren't effective transportation, or even that the use of bicycles will horrify typical members of the general public. In fact, in certain circumstances (e.g. heavy traffic) they may even be superior to cars. However, if a bicycle is chosen over a car in a situation that may come under scrutiny for some reason, it would be wise to be able to provide a good answer for the question that is bound to come up.

Back to using bladed weapons when guns are just as easily available. There are some good reasons for making such a choice. I've listed a couple and even stated that I have made such a choice for at least one situation/scenario. All I'm saying is that I would want to have a ready answer that makes sense to a typical person for when/if the question arises.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

the OP's question was specifically about using a bladed weapon in a situation where firearms are just as readily available.

Yes it was and I can't imagine why anyone would but to each his own.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Out on the street, where I went to school for 22 years... nothing's clear cut (well, almost never...). The guy with the gun in his hand turns out to be the good guy. The old man pointing a gun at me (it was at dusk, but I was still in full uniform in his backyard...) couldn't see well enough to know he was pointing a firearm at a cop... The "murder victim" was actually the assailant... it just goes on and on.

The old man and the young man wrestling on the ground? The young guy went to jail - even though when I got there the old man had a small folding knife in his hand while his yellowed teeth were sunk into the young man's arm.... (thank heavens all the witnesses said that the old guy was minding his own business sitting down inside the Greyhound station when the young guy with no warning began kicking and punching him..). and just to make it clear -the old man was black and the bad guy was a young white guy....

The young man inside your house at 2Am - is actually your daughter's boyfriend... and so it goes.

Pray you never have to fire on a live target - because it never quite works out the way you thought it would (and that's from personal experience....). The outcome of any armed encounter can be so random that you wouldn't believe it - if you saw it in your next action movie thriller...

On top of it all -just because you've hit your target when it counted -doesn't mean you've ended the threat since you just can't predict how someone will react to being shot - and if they're close enough you may end up finding out the hard way....

Protect yourself and your family as you choose but if I were only using a blade or 'hawk (or hammer) you can bet that for one reason or other I just couldn't get to something much, much more decisive....

^^^^

Absolute words of wisdom, here.

Many of us, myself included, tend to think of various scenarios as "cut-and-dry". But in the real world, they more often are anything BUT cut-and-dry.

We've ALL made assumptions and taken actions which have turned out to be wrong. Sometimes they were so wrong they just couldn't be any more wrong.

Use deadly force when your assumptions and actions are wrong, and you're gonna be in a world of hurt.

Make no mistake...even if it IS cut-and-dry, you're very likely to be in a world of hurt anyway by the time it's all said and done. And that's in the best case.

Protect yourself and your family...but be RIGHT about it.