Citizens with guns

OB1Shinobi wrote: 9 out of 10 its not going to be an issue of which weapon is better but an issue of which person is more determined to cause serious harm to the other

discussions about weapon match ups have a way of getting silly, and turning into something that basically amounts to an argument about stats and load outs in a role playing game

the point that i wanted to make is that a person with a knife, if they are standing within about spitting distance - or at least peeing distance depending on how genetically fortunate you are, is perfectly capable of inflicting a fatal wound, regardless of whatever weapon you might have, EVEN A GUN - EVEN A BAT

my post was meant to stress the idea that if youre facing someone with a knife, if it is at all possible to increase the distance between them and you, then generally speaking thats what i would advise you to do

to the idea of using a bo - i was on the same line of thought except that i was not restricting to what a person might realistically carry - so i was imagining a medieval spear

one of the best weapons against a knife is actually another knife, at the end of really big stick lol

Well if we are talking a melee weapons that is, because a boom stick trumps knife and spear if distance is given. If the person is within 21 feet and you are not drawn or drawing already then you are better off using empty handed skills to " fight to the gun".

But you are right its usually determination that will win a fight. Though training is a great help. You are one of the first people I have heard recognize that fact so thank you.

When people find out I practice weapon based martial arts they frequently ask me questions regarding which weapon is better. It is very difficult to get some people to understand that the person holding it is almost always more important than what they're holding. You could give me a fountain pen and I'd still win against many untrained people with a baseball bat or even a sword. (not bragging, just proving a point)

To me it seems that people have begun to put more faith in objects than in themselves. They feel a need to believe that the object can make them better than they are, that it isn't themselves that's the determining factor. I find that kind of sad. Like people have no faith in themselves or that they don't want to have to work for it and are looking for an easy way to be better. Both are sad. One analogy I like to use is that if you put Eddie Van Halen's guitar in my hands I still won't be able to play it, but you can put a child's toy guitar in his hands and chances are he'll sound good.

MadHatter, I'm glad you brought up the 21 foot rule. Many people forget that. That's why many concealed carry instructors also recommend at least some level of hand-to-hand combat skills.

according to some, its actually the 45 ft rule now

but its important to remember that this is specifically contextualized to police officers with a side holstered pistol

OB1Shinobi wrote: according to some, its actually the 45 ft rule now

but its important to remember that this is specifically contextualized to police officers with a side holstered pistol

But why is that important to remember. The difference between a side holstered pistol and an inside the waist band holster is very minimal in draw time. Im not sure what you were trying to say with that one. Not bashing just confused.

well what i was thinking was that the idea behind the original test was different from what a civilian might face

first because cops carry open at the wast and not every civilian is going to do that, or do it all the time

and also because as police, they are likely on a call when they meet the suspect

in the link i posted they say "Now consider that the officers on the Calibre tape knew where the suspect was, what he was armed with, and that he was about to charge. On the tape, the suspect begins to move and the officer begins to draw. That eliminates the real-world delays of perceiving the threat and then making the decision to defend with gunfire."

for a civilian, a much more likely scenario is going to be that youre already in arms reach when you see the knife

actually you may even be trading punches with someone and realize theyve been holding a knife the whole time

so when i made that comment, i was trying to stress that research needs to be understood more as revealing basic principles to help us establish a context from which to draw our own conclusions about how different things might play out for us personally, rather than to be taken as some kind of "one size fits all "RULE"

which i wasnt implying that its being taken that way here in this discussion either, i just wanted to put that out there

OB1Shinobi wrote: well what i was thinking was that the idea behind the original test was different from what a civilian might face

first because cops carry open at the wast and not every civilian is going to do that

and also because as police, they are likely on a call when they meet the suspect

in the link i posted they say "Now consider that the officers on the Calibre tape knew where the suspect was, what he was armed with, and that he was about to charge. On the tape, the suspect begins to move and the officer begins to draw. That eliminates the real-world delays of perceiving the threat and then making the decision to defend with gunfire."

for a civilian, a much more likely scenario is going to be that youre already in arms reach when you see the knife

actually you may even be trading punches with someone and realize theyve been holding a knife the whole time

so when i made that comment, i was trying to stress that research needs to be understood more as revealing basic principles to help us establish a context from which to draw our own conclusions about how different things might pay out for us personally, rather than to be taken as some kind of "one size fits all "RULE"

which i wasnt implying that its being taken that way here in this discussion either, i just wanted to put that out there

Oh ok makes sense. And is realistic. Though I always took it as a rule of thumb that at distances of 21 feet or less you must realize your limits. However as you stated the OODA loop may mean that we need even more space and even more focus on being able to "fight to the gun" in the average situation.

MadHatter wrote:

6h057 wrote: My money will always go to the person whose weapon gives them the longest reach. A bat vs a knife, I will go with the bat. Unless you have an untrained fighter with a bat against a trained fighter with a knife. Two trained fighters, bat vs knife, the person with the bat is going to take up a defensive perspective and attack the knife fighters limbs. Nullifying the attackers ability to use their weapon. One decent defensive strike is going to break an arm. Assuming the knife fighter uses their dominant hand, they've not lost their advantage.

Right up until the person with the bat over balances due to the heaver weight and slower speed and the knife fighter closes the distance. That is why I said COULD if you know how to use them. A bat is not a fast weapon and unless you know how to use it I guarantee a dodge will be all it takes to close the gap and make the club very hard to use if not end the fight right then and there. Frankly a staff using spear techniques would be better as the spear can be used at close ranges. But thats not the point. My point is that you never want to give people that chance. You do not meet your opponent on equal or near equal footing if you want to live.

Overswing? The average Ash bat weighs around 2.6lbs. Some small knives weigh that much. The difference in weight vs. reach is negligible. Again, the persons behind the weapons being equal and having some personal experience with HEMA. A bat used like a short sword will end an attacker with a knife. Especially considering the general rule here is reach and skill. Weight generally doesn't even factor in. Short swords and long swords weight 3.5-5lbs. One defensive strike to an attacker's attacking limb is all it would take to break the limb and send the knife flying. Especially considering most modern knives have no cross guard to speak of. Samurai were just as deadly with boken as they were with a sword. Again, speaking from experience. Range wins. That being said, I use a mini Karambit as my walking to my car PDW. Reflexive punches and blocks are generally enough to unzip someone, and they are small enough to not be noticed. And lets be honest. Most people in back alleys trying to rob people, use a weapon due to lack of confidence in their ability to put up a real fight.

6h057 wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

6h057 wrote: My money will always go to the person whose weapon gives them the longest reach. A bat vs a knife, I will go with the bat. Unless you have an untrained fighter with a bat against a trained fighter with a knife. Two trained fighters, bat vs knife, the person with the bat is going to take up a defensive perspective and attack the knife fighters limbs. Nullifying the attackers ability to use their weapon. One decent defensive strike is going to break an arm. Assuming the knife fighter uses their dominant hand, they've not lost their advantage.

Right up until the person with the bat over balances due to the heaver weight and slower speed and the knife fighter closes the distance. That is why I said COULD if you know how to use them. A bat is not a fast weapon and unless you know how to use it I guarantee a dodge will be all it takes to close the gap and make the club very hard to use if not end the fight right then and there. Frankly a staff using spear techniques would be better as the spear can be used at close ranges. But thats not the point. My point is that you never want to give people that chance. You do not meet your opponent on equal or near equal footing if you want to live.

Overswing? The average Ash bat weighs around 2.6lbs. Some small knives weigh that much. The difference in weight vs. reach is negligible. Again, the persons behind the weapons being equal and having some personal experience with HEMA. A bat used like a short sword will end an attacker with a knife. Especially considering the general rule here is reach and skill. Weight generally doesn't even factor in. Short swords and long swords weight 3.5-5lbs. One defensive strike to an attacker's attacking limb is all it would take to break the limb and send the knife flying. Especially considering most modern knives have no cross guard to speak of. Samurai were just as deadly with boken as they were with a sword. Again, speaking from experience. Range wins. That being said, I use a mini Karambit as my walking to my car PDW. Reflexive punches and blocks are generally enough to unzip someone, and they are small enough to not be noticed. And lets be honest. Most people in back alleys trying to rob people, use a weapon due to lack of confidence in their ability to put up a real fight.

No KNIFE not sword but KNIFE you will encounter on the street will wight even close to that. My seven inch KABAR is only 0.7 pounds (0.32 kg). Further the bat is end heavy with its weight distributed much more unevenly the a sword making sudden stops and changes in direction MUCH MUCH more difficult so your weight of bat vs sword is a nonfactor. And your statement about crossguards is pointless as you do not deflect with a knife you dodge or block with your free hand. In fact if the knife fighter is willing to take the hit while moving in and blocking with a free hand you can very very easily stab a person with a club before they refocus. Further most people that are not trained will not use a bat like a short sword they will use two hand limiting reach and increasing the odds of binding themselves up on an overswing. The fact is that we are not talking about two evenly "trained people" we are talking about your average joe schmoe on the street being robbed. Further if two people are equally skilled luck is a bigger factor then reach as a skilled fighter knows the limits of what he is facing and can adjust. A skilled knife fighter would dance at the very edge of a bats reach and let swings that look like they will connect but wont wear down the club wielder before letting a mistake or slow swing give them the ability to move in.

Why are we a world obsessed with weapons? If we were obsessed with peace instead perhaps we wouldn't need them..

Edan wrote: Why are we a world obsessed with weapons? If we were obsessed with peace instead perhaps we wouldn't need them..

There is always and will always be people willing to do violence to take from you or rule over you. Weapons are equalizers that can protect the innocent simple as that. Weapons can indeed keep the peace, frankly a governments ability to keep the peace stems from the weapons used to enforce the law. We can hope for peace all we want but it never hurts to be ready for war.
Further weapons training is great exercise be it mental or physical and a lot of fun when it comes to sparing to testing yourself