Lies about knife fighting.

[rEVOLVEr VII]

I've read some peoples questions about self defense knife fighting and what techniques to use and discovered this site, it's pretty informative and in ways makes you rethink whether you would want to use a knife for self defense. Check it out.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html

 

[blarby]

Great info.

He needs an editor.

 

[sidheshooter]

MacYoung is a very well known name around here.

 

[glistam]

Probably one of my favorite articles on the subject.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I always thought there was only one truth...

about knife fights: you will get cut.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The only thing worse than being in a knife fight is being in a knife fight without a knife.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

There is a psychology of steel. People do not WANT to get cut. Steel can be more frightening to some than a gun.

My wife knows this well. She likes knives, but carries a gun. The worst of her knife scars came from her cop days. That guy died of a .357 bullet (the world has one less child-raping monster, remind me to be sad). I'm a big proponent of taking a gun to the other guy's knife fight. I'm a former EMT, rural, but I've seen some ER images of guys who ran into knives. Don't want ANYthing to do with it.

If he's got a knife, by the time I get my folder out, he's cut me up. Better to try for some distance and use my gun.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think he overemphasizes the idea that cutting someone to dissuade them from killing you is going to be seen as using deadly force to wound and therefore will be automatically branded as unjustified.

The fact is that if cutting an attacker is the only way or the only reasonable way to fend off a potentially deadly attack, then it's legally justified even if it turns out, in the final analysis, to have inflicted only survivable or even non-serious wounds.

 

[conw]

MacYoung is often right but that doesn't mean he should be a Primary Source for those of us interested in self defense. I think I benefited in my early 20s from reading some of his work - it DOES do a decent job of dispelling some silly fantasies. In that sense I think it does a pretty good job at penetrating the testosterone fog and keeping guys from doing something stupid.

However I have noticed a trend in MacYoung's work, THR, and elsewhere, where "legal advice" (from non-lawyers, at that) supplants tactical advice. The two are separate. Sound tactics by definition are as well within the law as possible, but simply being within the law is not a guarantee of sound tactics. Trying to frighten the crap out of people with legal hypotheticals does not make them sound tacticians, and in fact can do the opposite.

I have discovered through personal experience that rather than dwell in the eventualities of legal morasses, it's best to fill that void with some real, genuine, quality tactical training, that puts you on the right side of the law. If you do that there is very little need, past knowing your state's laws, to play armchair lawyer.

No offense is intended to those who have a genuine passion for the legal side of self-defense; however, I DO put forth that it consumes some people's thoughts to the extent that they feel "legal actions" and "good tactics" are synonymous. Witness the number of threads (video or news story analysis) that get replies about the legality, lack of legality, jury-friendliness, etc, of a shooting or self-defense scenario. These often outnumber replies focusing on survival tactics.

If we are to entertain the anecdotes of some police officers, the fact that a shooting (as an officer) can = career suicide can make it harder to act decisively in a lethal force scenario, because the cognitive machinery is burdened with worry. I find this plausible, and think that reading too much of MacYoung's website (oddly, the book of his I have, Street E&E, isn't much like this at all) could have the same effect.

 

[timothy75]

Are you saying the best response from a legal standpoint isnt always the best from a survival standpoint?

 

[conw]

Acknowledging that self-defense scenarios are extremely complex, let's look at it more from a perspective of what we have near total control over: our own training, mental exercises, self-talk, etc.

I believe that the person whose analysis of (let's say for example) a potentially justified homicide takes place primarily, and first, from a legal point of view, is approaching the situation backward. Your tactics should be as legally sound as possible, but should be focused on survival, which I am NOT pitting against legality in some sort of dichotomy, but am rather saying that when you factor in the dozens of split second decisions that must be made either primarily in light of legality, or survival, I feel that legality should not be the first lens you use.

Again: genuinely good training will help keep you on the right side of the law, but with a minimum of analysis. I believe untrained individuals often pick up some working knowledge of the legal system and feel they understand some essential truths of self-defense, when in reality, they are overlooking other more important ways of seeing the situation.

The "legal mind" says: that shooting was justified, because of...whereas if such-and-such had happened, it wouldn't have been.

The "tactical mind" says: that shooting was justified, but deciding that is only the beginning; I need to figure out the way I would have handled that to ensure maximum survivability for myself in the face of those odds and with the tools and skills I have.

The "legal mind" says: that shooting was unjustified, what an idiot. He's going to jail. Plus he was carrying a ____ that made him dead meat in front of a jury.

The "tactical mind" says: why did that person end up on the wrong side of the law? What factors in his decision making process led to that? How can I avoid that? What would a better alternative have been? Did his _____ he was carrying outweigh the legal risks, or were the legal risks greater than the potential positive outcome?

Again I'm going off forums and MacYoung's website. I think a lot of the bluster comes from not having a good training background that allows for dynamic decision making, thus, embracing the realities of the legal system rather than the realities of the street.

 

[9mmforMe]

Conwict: Many good points espoused most certainly. It seems that a mindful individual would take both legalities and tacticality into consideration regarding their defensive training, thus finding a "middle road." If we dwell in any position that allows for a singular, polar view, often times we will find oursleves at a disadvantage.

 

[hso]

there is just not enough time. He won't show his weapon* before he attacks. That's because those who are foolish enough to brandish weapons* in places where weapons are common don't live long themselves.

Been my experience. Training to survive a knife attack first depends on surviving the initial attack with your hands empty.

 

[TimboKhan]

Are you saying the best response from a legal standpoint isnt always the best from a survival standpoint?

Unfortunately, yes. I don't want to put words in Conwicts mouth, but your basic synopsis is correct. People who do things, justifiably or not, to survive attacks go to jail every day. I once read that shooting someone in self defense is going to cost you at least $50,000. Now, I have no way of proving that is the case, but it makes sense. You shoot (or stab or bludgeon or whatever) someone justifiably and are clear from any persecution legally. Civil court does not operate on the premise or result of your legal case, and it is likely you will be going to civil court. Hey, look at OJ. Rightly or wrongly, he was exonerated of the charges of being a murderer, but he got taken to the cleaners in civil court.

I don't believe in knife fighting and have said so several times. Not that it isn't worth the time to train for (although I admittedly don't think it's worth MY time), and not that it isn't effective at times. It's that it is bloody, hard, and if your facing an opponent with any degree of aggression, you stand an excellent chance of getting your own knife rammed into you repeatedly. Obviously, I think having a gun is better, but I personally think that if your going to learn combat up close and personal, the knife fighting aspect should be a small part of an overall fighting system, not the focal point. Honestly, with a couple of caveats, the same thing could be said about carrying a gun.

Just my opinions, and I stress that I am NOT an expert on the topic of close combat. I am also not in any way denigrating those who opt to study combat with a knife. Again, just my personal opinion.

 

[PRM]

In all the times I have been assaulted with knives, only once was I able to pull my own weapon

Lot of first hand stories coming out. I did not realize knife fighting was that common? Must be an internet thing. I've always believed I could draw a gun in a SD situation as fast as I could get a knife out. Although I've never timed either.

Maybe some folks should re-evaluate where and who they are hanging out with.

 

[sidheshooter]

...the best response from a legal standpoint isnt always the best from a survival standpoint?

I would agree with this. In fact, this is often the case, and conwict brings up some excellent points. That said, I do believe that the prudent person takes both sides into account, with all the compromise that this entails.

I'd be happier with a bagwell bowie on my hip, an 11" slapjack in my pocket, and a 14-inch Border Patrol shotgun under my coat so far as tool considerations go, but I'm not willing to stray that far from the legal to do so. I admit that this is an overly simplified example. Point being that we really want the best tactics/tools that will fit within the law. How much flex one gives that is an individual choice; just so long as one understands the pros/cons and risks.

 

[rEVOLVEr VII]

I always imagined carrying a SD knife would be more of a problem down the road (in court) if you did have to use it for SD, over carrying and using a pistol. It just seems to be more of a sinister weapon imo, and the jury may see it as such over a pistol. With that being said I'm not book smart like some people in this thread when it comes to law, but I can't imagine carrying a SD knife, for the simple reason of I don't want to be that close to somebody to have to use it. Plus that age old saying comes into account here, Don't bring a knife to a gun fight..and what if the BG has a gun?

Lot of first hand stories coming out. I did not realize knife fighting was that common? Must be an internet thing. I've always believed I could draw a gun in a SD situation as fast as I could get a knife out. Although I've never timed either.

Check out my thread on the clinch pick, I think you will find it interesting if your worried about draw speed for a knife.

 

[PRM]

if your worried about draw speed for a knife.

I'm really not concerned about that. I use a knife for cutting things, tightening screws and storing my tooth-pick. Draw time on a SAK probably will never be an issue.

 

[glistam]

I always imagined carrying a SD knife would be more of a problem down the road (in court) if you did have to use it for SD, over carrying and using a pistol. It just seems to be more of a sinister weapon imo, and the jury may see it as such over a pistol. With that being said I'm not book smart like some people in this thread when it comes to law, but I can't imagine carrying a SD knife, for the simple reason of I don't want to be that close to somebody to have to use it. Plus that age old saying comes into account here, Don't bring a knife to a gun fight..and what if the BG has a gun?

Truth be told, I wobble back and forth on the subject a lot. I learned "knife fighting" from some older European lines (Spain and Italy), but I freely admit they were about duels and honor. Not self-defense.

I also read a lot of court records to find out just how knife-related cases go, and from the ones I have read, the odds do not sound very good. I have only found one case were the knife-user defending himself was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. Many others got light sentences because the were acting in defense, but deadly force was not justified because the defendant had somewhat reasonable avenues of escape rather than engaging the attacker. 5 years is not as bad as murder one, but 5 years in prison is no laughing matter.

In all these cases, it is worth noting something that most people do not realize but is well documented in criminology: Everyone knew exactly who there attacker was. Most violence is between people who know each other. I just feel like when a lot of people talk about self-defense, they think of a goblin that lurks in dark alleys and pounces on you without provocation when you happen to be walking by. When you add the stats up, it's far more likely to be your own significant other, neighbor, tenant, sibling, parent, classmate or coworker.

Example:
http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/11/16/news/doc4ec430b0e98db182112301.txt

 

[1911Tuner]

in a knife fight, you will get cut.

Indeed. In a knife fight, everybody gets cut.

The problem with defending against a knife...unless your attacker is a rank amateur or a drunken idiot...your first hint of being under attack is when you get cut. Seasoned blade men are adept at concealing their intent until they're within strike distance...and a good one can cut you to ribbons in about 10 seconds.

 

[furiousbeen]

I've been involved in martial arts, boxing and self defense since I was just a boy. Began my edged weapons training at the age of 15, 30 years ago. There are as many different knife fighting stylesas there are different martial arts styles. They all have their own knife preferences, stances, slashes, parries,, etc..etc..IMHO, the military knife fighting course was one of the finest I've ever attended. Sometimes LESS is MORE. One important aspect I've noticed many knife"styles" don't cover is WHERE to take a cut IF you have to.. and you most likely WILL be cut in a knife altercation.
The old master always said, "it's better to lose your fingers than your life".

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I've never liked the expression "bringing a knife to a gunfight," as if the knife were somehow a disadvantage. The knife's only limiting factor over a gun is that one has to get close enough. Even a small blade, in the hands of someone with the skill and mindset, can produce some pretty horrific wounds. Another misconception is that a knife is an intermediate level or deescalation of force from a gun. LEOs shoot knife-armed attackers (instead of trying to take them down with batons or tasers), and so should you.

 

[glistam]

I've never liked the expression "bringing a knife to a gunfight." The knife's only limiting factor over a gun is that one has to get close enough. Even a small blade, in the hands of someone with the skill and mindset, can produce some pretty horrific wounds. Another misconception is that a knife is an intermediate level or deescalation of force from a gun. LEOs shoot knife-armed attackers (instead of trying to take them down with batons or tasers), and so should you.

+1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

 

[rEVOLVEr VII]

I've never liked the expression "bringing a knife to a gunfight," as if the knife were somehow a disadvantage. The knife's only limiting factor over a gun is that one has to get close enough.

I would say that's a pretty big disadvantage considering I can drop somebody yards away if their coming at me with a knife, so yeah..the knife sort of is in a disadvantage against a firearm. Were talking life or death here, I wouldn't consider a knifes distance just a "limiting factor"..

 

[Fred Fuller]

Problem is, someone who knows what they are doing and wants to threaten or actually hurt you with a knife is NOT going to start out like the scimitar dude in the Indiana Jones movie.

It'll be the guy on the street who comes up to ask for a light or some change or the time, and while your brain is fumbling for a way to deal with him he'll have the point of a knife under your ear or your ribs, telling you to give up your wallet. Or if he wants to hurt you he'll stroll past you and take you from behind, or in a jailhouse rush, stabbing like a sewing machine.

Old Memphis cop Tom Givens puts it like this:

These same guys will be the victims of violent crime, because the criminal targets the inattentive, the complacent, the lazy, the distracted, the preoccupied. Why? Because the criminal wants to get to him, get what he wants from him, and get away from him, without being hurt or caught. Who would be the easiest person to do that to? Someone in Condition White. I'm sure you've seen or read about the Miranda card police officers carry. From it they read off a suspect's rights before questioning him. Dedicated victims carry a similar card in their pockets. If they are still alive when the police arrive, they take this card out of their pockets and read from it, as follows:
" Geez, it all happened so fast.
He materialized right next to me.
I never saw him." -- http://www.teddytactical.com/SharpenBladeArticle/4_States of Awareness.htm

Reality is not Scimitar Dude vs. Indiana Jones. Better get a grip on the idea that a knife brought to bear inside the arc of your drawstroke really is more deadly than the gun you cannot bring to bear. Because no matter how good anyone's situational awareness is, it isn't perfect 100% of the time. Everyone gets distracted sometimes. As Southnarc puts it, his teachings and tactics are for "... when your awareness fails." He didn't say IF. He said WHEN. And he's the dude who came up with the Clinch Pick you started the thread about, remember? Reckon why he designed that knife in the first place??

Reality sux sometimes...