Defensive Knives?

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

Any defensive skill requires this to remain proficient

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

All weapons are more effective in the offensive role and stealth only makes them more effective

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

Perhaps because carrying a knife was commonly accepted at the time and there was not a need to state it.

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

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.

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?

 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

 

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.

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

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

 

From the pathologist's study of the wound pattern and the consistency of statements with the physical evidence such as blood spatter

What is the basis of the opinion?
Have you defended any cases with these elements?
Did you win?

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

No, I'm assuming only that he's not using gun. Perhaps a knife, a club, or maybe even his bare hands.

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.

If he has a knife and you don't, how does that make you better off than if you DO have a knife?

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.