Knives, firearms, and distance

[Kevin Geaslin]

What is the "acceptable" distance to draw a sidearm from, if threatened with an edged weapon or truncheon? I've heard all kinds of different opinions on whether or not you should draw your pistol if he's within cutting range. Some say get control of his weapon first, then get distance and use your firearm. Some say draw and use the pistol as a bludgeoning weapon, and pop him if the opportunity presents itself while you're grappling; it's worth some nasty gashes across the forearms if you can put some rounds in him. And some say forget about the knife and pistol entirely, and focus on getting him off his feet, as knife wounds and small-caliber pistol wounds sometimes don't determine the victor in these situations.

[Hissho]

What is the "acceptable" distance to draw a sidearm from, if threatened with an edged weapon or truncheon? I've heard all kinds of different opinions on whether or not you should draw your pistol if he's within cutting range. .

You shouldn't. Its been tested to death, and if he has the blade out and you have to draw your weapon he will be all over you before you get the weapon out. He will probably prevent you from drawing a firearm.


Some say get control of his weapon first, then get distance and use your firearm. .

Or control his weapon - KEEP CONTROL OF IT - and finish him with empty hand/put him down. Or, control his weapon, prevent him from bringing it to bear on you through positioning, and prevent him from being able to do the same to you, and then draw and use your firearm at contact distance. Or get distance - run like hell - and don't worry about your gun until you are far enough away (as far as possible) that you can do so without his getting on you.




Some say draw and use the pistol as a bludgeoning weapon, and pop him if the opportunity presents itself while you're grappling;.

Well, we've already addressed getting the weapon out at such a close range. IF its out, you'll need to keep him from getting hold of it and averting your muzzle, and placing you in a weapon retention situation.

Using it as a bludgeon is not my first choice. You run the risk of inducing a malfunction, which you will now have to clear before being able to fire it. If we are speaking of semi-auto handguns.





it's worth some nasty gashes across the forearms if you can put some rounds in him. And some say forget about the knife and pistol entirely, and focus on getting him off his feet, as knife wounds and small-caliber pistol wounds sometimes don't determine the victor in these situations.

That is misguided thinking. Rather it should be thus:

1. Control the weapon arm. Keep Control. 2. Then attack the person. 3. Then get to a weapon when and if you can do so safely.

Never ignore or forget about the weapon.

It is true that knife wounds and small caliber (even larger caliber) handgun rounds will often not determine the victor if the person cut or shot, even seriously, is motivated. Always assume that you or your attacker will be able to continue if cut or shot. I know of cases of folks being stabbed in the heart and continuing to function, or shot 5 times in the chest with .45 and no vest and continuing to fight. It happens fairly commonly, actually.

If you are still around after getting shot or stabbed or slashed to think "I've been shot/stabbed/slashed! That hurt!" In my book you are still around to fight. If you aren't - well, you aren't!!

But you should not believe that accepting such wounds when they can be prevented is a viable alternative. Any of them COULD determine the victor and kill you right there in skilled or lucky hands.

[John Lindsey]

check out these videos from Die Less Often vol 1 and 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THW-c6E5nvs

They show how fast an attacker with a knife can not only be on you, but deliver multiple cuts.

[gcarson]

Hi all,

In my training (am an armed guard) the combat distances that we work with for armed assailants is 21ft (unarmed is 6ft and a different set of actions). If they are inside 21, its too late to go to our side arm, they can close the distance waaay to fast for an effective draw and discharge. While its nice to talk about it, fine muscle control goes in the toilet as soon as adrenaline gets into the bloodstream, so best to go with big muscle moves and disabiling techniques then the sidearm in tight against a knife/Asp etc.

A bad cut can make you drop your gun....then the bad guy gets to bring a knife and a gun to a gun fight. :)

[Samurai Jack]

This is an non-LEO's opinion.

I bare my ignorance, I have heard of both the Dog brothers and Suarez though I never really looked into them. Watching the vids, I was disturbed by the pixeling; indicating they want you to buy the DVD, making it hard to evaluate what they are teaching, or peddling. Because of that, I wondered if the post instructional attacks where not tanked by the attackers for the benefit of making a commercial DVD. I always wonder that about all commercial instructional DVDs.

Knifes in the hands of those who train in blade arts, and prisoners (which I call the shanking arts) are a dangerous situation to have to face for anyone unarmed and or with an holstered firearm. I have seen a lot of footage of shanking. Of the footage I have seen, I didn't see anyone defend successfully against a shanking. Not saying there isn't, and I am very interested to see it. I have seen several police training videos for officers on how to defend themselves against knife attacks. The people used as attackers where trained and not trained in the blade arts.

I think being a LEO, you are in the most difficult situation when facing a knife. I think the most vulnerable position is a person taken by surprise by a knife or a shank; trained in not blade arts or not. Therefore, I am not sure if I would put the money down for the DVD to learn moves from. In fact, a DVD maybe the worse thing to learn moves from if you don't have good experience in self-defense or martial arts training.

I remember a blade arts guy come into our class once. One of the elder students said that the art we were learning could defend against a knife. The blades art guy took that as a challenge, he was smaller and lighter then the elder student. The blades arts guy used his demo knifes and did moves I didn't see on the vid excepts. No matter what the elder student did the blades guy marked him for a cut. The end result was the blades guy chasing the elder student around the dojo. The elder student was back peddling, getting cut on the hands, forearms, upper arms. I have no doubt the blades art guy could have easily make fatal cuts or stabs. But, he was playing with the elder student. That day was a greatest lesson for me about the limitations of my art, what I lacked and what I needed to learn. The static methods for disarming a knife that I learned in class became an exercise in futility.The elder student being an ex-LEO and training LEOs in such situations, I doubt if he had time to draw his weapon. Is there really a good defense against the blade or shank arts?

[John Lindsey]

Jack, I bought vol 1 after spending 5 days training with Gabe. Yes, I think they cut out the scenes showing the dog catcher. The seminar I did with Gabe was mostly shooting, but we spent time learning the dog catcher and some other parts of his knife curriculum. The DC works well and it is the once technique I would teach someone if they didn't have time to learn more. Gabe is from the Show Me State of mind. I found him very open and he doesn't teach anything he does not believe in or tested out in FTF training. He could tell that I was a martial artist, but was more interested in my experiences in Iraq. He even asked if I would share my experiences with the class during the "fighting from a vehicle" portion. His technique is constantly evolving and his early books don't represent was he is currently teaching. The DVDs do.

I cold tell that Gabe had some Japanese martial art experience because of how he moved. Turns out he studied Shotokan in his early years.

Gabe's whole point during the knife defense training was that we tend to underestimate what a knife can do at close range. Japanese martial arts are very limited in this aspect, especially when facing something like constant ice pick type jabs.

[Aozora]

The number one thing I've ever heard about/seen/experienced with knife fighting is 'you're going to get cut.' I don't think there's an effective way around it except to accept that you're going to, don't fear it and devastate the opponent with something that's going to stop them from stabbing you.

The most effective techniques I've seen, which I didn't see much of in those videos, is making an evasion the first thing. Evade the first attack and then either control the side with the knife on it, or do something ugly, like poke the guy's eye out.

On another, related tangent, after a recent class to that effect, I HIGHLY recommend for females a knife (after checking with local laws on the ins and outs of its legality). Extensive training with said knife is best, but short of that, I'd offer the simple advice of if you're attacked, cut whatever comes out at you. Within ten minutes, one our students turned from meek to cutting machine with not much more than that advice, even against those of us using knife disarms, etc.

[Woody]

Good informative thread. Thanks everybody. Looking forward to more.:)

[Hissho]

A knife is just another tool. I would not place any greater or lesser confidence in it than I would another self defense tool. I carry one all the time, but have seen and heard of far too many instances where the knife was not the fight ender that some seem to think even the mere display of one will be.

I must say that "poking the guy's eye out" will be easier said than done, and even if accomplished, may not appreciably alter the result of the fight depending on the attacker.

In knife defense, it simply cannot be overstated: control the blade hand at the earliest opportunity. Keep control of it. Use alternative striking (head butts, elbows, knees, driving the blade into the ground, or driving the blade into the attacker) while maintaining hold of the weapon arm. Be aware of switches behind the back and from hand to hand. Martial artists tend not to do this, but start doing free-for-all knife defense with relatively untrained yet violent and competitive people and they will do this all the time.

Many reading this have been offered knife defense in the form of "one step sparring" type moves. Overly committed lunge, kote gaeshi, and he goes down. Not bloody likely against a motivated attacker.

Or, there seems to be a new fad of basically ignoring the weapon arm and "attacking the man." This is the quickest route to being cut, repeatedly, as you see all sorts of gyrations and articulations attempting to evade the blade while the defender remains in striking range. Believe this at your own peril. You are being taught a fantasy that will get you killed against anyone with even a modicum of actual skill or committed violent intent.

John mentioned the Japanese martial arts as being limited in the context of knife defense. I would extend that to ALL martial arts. The only workable stuff I have seen knife defense wise has been Tanswell's STAB, and Jerry Wetzel's Red Zone. Both explode common knife defense myths and emphasize control of the blade arm and relentless pressure on the attacker after the blade is controlled. They are nowhere near as flashy and sexy as many martial arts knife moves are, even those allegedly specializing in edged weapons and geared toward "professionals."

This may be blunt, but "professional courtesy" to other martial artists and "respect for all martial arts" no longer applies for me in terms of knife defense and firearms stuff. I for one am frankly tired of seeing people offer "knife defense" that is poor to ridiculous in concept and approach, while glossing the fact that it is a potentially lethal situation for which they are ostensibly training their students.

[Hissho]

I want to clarify my initial statement in the last post.

Knives certainly should be viewed as instruments of lethal force. A trend that I find baffling among some martial artists and systems with more dojo knife arts training than practical training and experience is the idea that the knife can be graduated down to a "less lethal" tool, and that it is actually more liability conscious to do so.

The ONLY way a knife can be a less lethal tool is if you are using a closed folding knife (actually a decent fist load, and a step along force escalation if it is prudent to do so...).

MAYBE the pommel of a fixed blade, but if I were to do that specifically with less lethal purposes in mind, I would keep it sheathed.

Which brings me to the point - regardless of whether the (bare blade) knife actually kills, and many times it won't, it remains a lethal weapon. Just like a firearm. Indeed in certain combative configurations you may be better off with a blade than a firearm.

So I would say what I always say - don't expect the knife to have the effect you think it will, especially if you are just slashing/cutting at someone's hands and arms as they try to grab you or hit you. It may very well accomplish your goal. If it does, good to go. But don't lose a vital step in the engagement process by being surprised that the guy took a full on cut, maybe even lost a finger or something, or has the knife sticking out of his chest, and he continues to come after you.

Likewise don't expect him to curl up in a ball if he takes a few rounds center mass.

[Aozora]

I must say that "poking the guy's eye out" will be easier said than done, and even if accomplished, may not appreciably alter the result of the fight depending on the attacker.

Any martial art technique is easier said than done. I could say the same thing about "controlling the weapon hand." I agree that that is the right thing to do, but getting there without getting cut is a different matter.

As to the rest, I'm not sure if you're replying to my post or making a general statement, but as you say later, the knife is a leathal weapon, as well as a potent force mutliplier. In the hands of someone less strong/large/trained, it can even things up quite well. I also think it is very useful as a self-defence tool for women (and men at that), because it can be easy to carry around and laws are less restictive on knives vs. guns, especially smaller knives. I would further distinguish the self-defence situations women find themselves in from those of a more combative persepctive where more lethal weapons are the norm.

As to the attackers reaction, I don't think you should expect anything period. However, in the vast majority of situations, "lopping fingers off" or eye gouging or even just a cut IS going to take the attack out from <b>most </b>assailants. The horror stories of attackers continuing to attack do happen, but they are certainly not the norm, nor should they keep people quelled into thinking that unless you're an uber self-defence nut that you can't defend yourself.

Further, as I stated, carrying as a knife is no substitute for extensive training. Short of that, a force multiplier is much better to have than not.

[Hissho]

Neil

LOL, good point on the "controlling the weapon hand."

I think the "horror stories" are far more normal than you might think. Seriously, they happen all the time. One must also consider that a large percentage of the persons violently attacking people are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol when they do so.

Agreed with the knife as a force multiplier as well - but its use involves a major decision and willingness as far as doing harm to another person that many people fail to make under duress - in short it becomes a magical talisman that people think will save them from the reality of a close quarters encounter, much as a firearm does. People fall in love with the blade and the power it represents, little realizing that it may not mean much, depending on the circumstances.

As for the encounters with which women may use them, they will probably be hindered in the use of the blade without concomitant close quarters fighting skills in conjunction with the knife. In these areas it may be a liability, if skill and willpower are lacking, as it may be taken from them and used against them. I'm all for anyone using them, and firearms, just so long as they take their use seriously enough to maximize their application, versus thinking "I've got a knife - no one could grab/handle/grapple/take me down/rape me because I'd just cut 'em."

If I had a nickel for the officers who blithely state "I've got a gun, I'd just shoot 'em" but can't fight their way out of a paper bag - and in being so, often won't be able to effectively employ their weapon.

Hope that's making sense. I may seem too negative towards the effectiveness of a blade, or firearm, but as I said, the "horror stories" are more common than you might think when the stakes are really high.

The question is what kind of encounter are we really training for?

[Samurai Jack]

If I understand what is being said correctly in the last couple of posts is, basically, a knife isn't all cracked up to its legendry. This is based on the individual who is wheeling it. Lack of confidence, under duress, under the influence of drugs all contribute to the effectiveness of using a knife to attack or defend. Essentially, there can be a window of opportunity to successfully defend against an attack?


Or are people not taking the seriousness of being attacked with a knife, i.e. cops relying on guns. Or there don't understand the power of a knife in a self-defense situation.


I am not sure then how this will fit. As it was said by a well known military combat knife expert the knife is the most dangerous close quarters weapon. This I believe is true, but that is based on someone with some training to expert training in using a knife. That is based on some then who has confidence and skill. But, what about the unskilled wheeling a knife. I think they are the most unpredicatable, or the hardest to determine what they can and will do.

I haven't got to see Gabe and company's DVDs, though I have seen other knife arts experts. In all cases, most of what I seen and learned is the environment is the same during instruction, that is there is an open space with a determined distance of space, "the gap." The environment is devoid of structures and objects, which occuring in most seminars. Training takes place in an empty room, on even, smooth ground. This environment is usually what a traffic officer might encounter when they, for example have a suspect out of the car pull a knife. I would say this is one situation that should be trained for by traffic cops or any officer ever dealing with suspects in a large open space. This situation is what most knife training exists for most of us. It is not ideal for all situational training though, as not everyone is a cop who will face a knife. Also, not every knife attack happens is a large spacious area. Ye, because this situational training of being attacked at close range in a large spacious area is the most common, we then think along these lines when dealing with knife attacks. You assume you will be in a large empty space to deal with a knife attack every time.

I think training in knife attacks; you need to train for different situations. When teaching close quarter defenses against a knife it must be considered what is in your environment, yea, it sounds a little like OODA. Your environment and what is in it, is dynamic and changes as you move in relation to the attacker and the objects, people and barriers around you. Not all environments are the same, each has a different topography. Each environment has a different relation in being an advantage or disadvantage with each situation. You may be at a convenience store paying for stuff at the counter and be attacked. You may be a bouncer, like I was, walking across a crowded dance floor and be attacked. You may be in your home in your kitchen or getting out of the car and be attacked.

Each environment is different leading to a different situation and a different response to a knife attack. With many of situations in close contact environments are filled with objects etc, that can work toward success of defeating a knife attack. This is where over-all martial arts training could come in handy, though it is my opinion that most martial arts teach static and narrow defenses against a knife. Then there is the condition of the environment and the attacker. The last component in situational approach is the skill of the knife attacker. The skill and handling of a knife of the attack play in with the environment and the success of defending and controlling an attack.

I think what you train for is from a situational approach and not situation approach. You train in a dynamic, train in many different conditions, in all possible environments both from a micro and macro approach. You don’t only train for one environment, one situation, one condition. I think this gives you a better chance to keep the attacker out of your OODA stuff. There by lessening the attacker’s success of his attack, increasing your rate of success in controlling not only the knife, but the attack and attacker holistically in most cases. That is my experience, and thoughts as a suggestion on how to train FWIW.

[Hissho]

I think I follow you Jack. Your points about training are good ones. I should note I am personally rarely without a knife myself.

The thing is, many people rely on a tool to take care of the problem when it is how the tool is used. Training is not necessarily a good thing, if the training is not reflective of /adaptive to reality.

When people 1) carry the knife but 2) are not trained, or not realistically trained and 3) do not have a database of actual events to refer to as to what makes that training realistic; then they are probably not well prepared to either face a blade or use one in what will usually be extreme conditions.

Lots of people get cut to ribbons with knives and keep functioning. Many of them run away, after they realize they have been cut. Another very common thing to see is people getting stabbed, sometimes repeatedly and not realizing they were stabbed until they see blood.

But some do not run. The latter, while indeed perhaps horror stories (they are inspirational when viewed in another light), are not rare by any means.

In short, my belief is that we should not rely on the assumption of our assailant giving up, regardless of weapon, as the yardstick for our survival skills. Because often enough they won't, even after taking damage that "would have stopped any normal person."

[Aozora]

Neil

LOL, good point on the "controlling the weapon hand."

I think the "horror stories" are far more normal than you might think. Seriously, they happen all the time. One must also consider that a large percentage of the persons violently attacking people are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol when they do so.

I do agree that they happen. Being prepared for anything is your best bet beyond what any tool or tools can give you. I won't argue this point any further than to say I'd like to see a study on it with a number of variables taken into consideration.


Agreed with the knife as a force multiplier as well - but its use involves a major decision and willingness as far as doing harm to another person that many people fail to make under duress - in short it becomes a magical talisman that people think will save them from the reality of a close quarters encounter, much as a firearm does. People fall in love with the blade and the power it represents, little realizing that it may not mean much, depending on the circumstances.

I'm with you there. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you'll agree, the same thing holds true for most systems, whether it's Fluffy Bunny Aiki Ryu or Billy's Super Uber Real No Nonsense Street Fighting System, too many place too much confidence in some sort of magic technique their system teaches, rather than in constant training to adapt to a wide variety of circumstances.


As for the encounters with which women may use them, they will probably be hindered in the use of the blade without concomitant close quarters fighting skills in conjunction with the knife. In these areas it may be a liability, if skill and willpower are lacking, as it may be taken from them and used against them. I'm all for anyone using them, and firearms, just so long as they take their use seriously enough to maximize their application, versus thinking "I've got a knife - no one could grab/handle/grapple/take me down/rape me because I'd just cut 'em."

I agree. I should have been more specific in my post, which ran along the line of "it's better than nothing." And for women, especially, they have a much better chance of defending themselves with a knife than without. But all of that is with the qualification they'd be better off training in self defense witht he sober knoweldge it might have to be used some day. Also, I think, women have more cause to use a knife in the self-defense situations than men, because I'd think they'd be more likely to be assaulted without a weapon than with. This is pure speculation on my part, and again, I'd like to see some stats on it.



If I had a nickel for the officers who blithely state "I've got a gun, I'd just shoot 'em" but can't fight their way out of a paper bag - and in being so, often won't be able to effectively employ their weapon.


Tell me about it. I'v had to learn the hard way not to tell anyone about the fact that I do martial arts, because they all want to test it or get insecure and state how they'd just shoot me. Early on in my judo career, I was talking about what I'd learned in class the previous night and someone overhearing said they'd just go to their car and get their gun and shoot me. They became irate when I calmly pointed out that 1) I was between him and the door and there was one exit, 2) I have my judo on me right now and 3) I've got a gun, too and am not ignorant in its use, nor the fact that firearms exist in modern society. He wound up complaining to my manager about me being 'uppity' and 'threatening' (to which I was told to leave the old bastard alone, even though he butted into my conversation). The point is I agree.



Hope that's making sense. I may seem too negative towards the effectiveness of a blade, or firearm, but as I said, the "horror stories" are more common than you might think when the stakes are really high.

The question is what kind of encounter are we really training for?

Makes sense and I agree with you in large part.

[Samurai Jack]

Kit,

Yea, it's true. We don't talk much about how someone survived, or the possibility of survival. Not every cut or stab is fatal. Good point again.

[Hissho]

I do agree that they happen. Being prepared for anything is your best bet beyond what any tool or tools can give you. I won't argue this point any further than to say I'd like to see a study on it with a number of variables taken into consideration. .

I don't know of any studies, all I can go on is my own experience, and the experience of many, many other LEOs who have related accounts of this sort of thing, as well as the regular Saturday night police blotter locally and in the natinal and international news. Youtube and other video sites are a gold mine for people getting shot, stabbed, and having all manner of other horrible things happen to them and still functioning in a way that could definitely be channeled combatively.

I've made similar statements before regarding people being shot, for example, and been told how "not likely" such things were, but I can think of multiple situations: involving people shot multiple times center mass with .45, or through and through with .45, with no vest protection, and continuing to fight/function quite effectively.

I work with two different men who have responded to different calls involving people who literally blew the lower halves of their faces off with shotguns in botched suicide attempts, were able to call 911, and answer the door when officers responded.

I know of two people walking around the area where I work who were stabbed in the heart during multiple attacker assaults and were able to make their own way to the hospital. Another had a steak knife stuck straight into his chest in a domestic violence incident and was calmly conversing with officers on arrival, and another in a similar situation smoking a cigarette on arrival. I could go on and on with accounts of the same sorts of things.

I know of two different cases of literal seppuku not just cuts or nice stab wounds, but guts actually trailing out and tangled up in the feet - and these two men were combative with police officers attempting to give them aid.

And that's just where I work.

Expanding that to people from various other agencies and areas, and detailed debriefs of OIS's and details of other incidents that are not released to the public, where suspects took multiple rounds, even sometimes fatal wounds, and continued fighting for moments or longer afterwards, you tend to get a little jaded as to what people say will "end a fight."

So no studies, but just constantly seeing and hearing of cases like this, you tend to come to some conclusions. Perhaps the issue is exposure to it. The vast majority of the public simply doesn't see a tenth of this stuff, so there isn't the experiential base to draw conclusions from. They go with what they hear in the dojo.



I'm with you there. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you'll agree, the same thing holds true for most systems, whether it's Fluffy Bunny Aiki Ryu or Billy's Super Uber Real No Nonsense Street Fighting System, too many place too much confidence in some sort of magic technique their system teaches, rather than in constant training to adapt to a wide variety of circumstances. .

Oh absolutely with you there. An excellent observation. What tend to go along with it is also a) overreaction and hypervigilance against low level threats and b) underreaction and underappreciation of higher level threats, as what I describe above, due to a skewed belief in those magic techniques and how effective they are. I am astonished sometimes what people think something like a pressure point or an eye gouge is capable of doing to motivated attacker - let alone a motivated attacker who is all cranked up! It almost is a belief in magic - probably because the truth is far less comfortable to consider.





I agree. I should have been more specific in my post, which ran along the line of "it's better than nothing." And for women, especially, they have a much better chance of defending themselves with a knife than without. But all of that is with the qualification they'd be better off training in self defense witht he sober knoweldge it might have to be used some day. Also, I think, women have more cause to use a knife in the self-defense situations than men, because I'd think they'd be more likely to be assaulted without a weapon than with. This is pure speculation on my part, and again, I'd like to see some stats on it..

Probably a mis-type that I am reading here. "more cause to use a knife because they'd be more likley to be assaulted without a weapon than with" actually doesn't make sense to me.

I view it differently (or perhaps the same, I think we are probably on the same wavelength).

I agree that a knife is a great tool for the woman mentally prepared and trained to use it.

But because of who their attacker will be, and what he may have in store. In many ways, whether or not that attacker is armed will be immaterial.

Leaving domestic violence out of it (that's a whole different discussion), a woman assaulted by a stranger may have been targeted for violence more serious than simple assault.

The strength deficit alone that most women will face in such cases justifies the use of a weapon. When you add surprise attack, being forced the ground, being held down (sometimes by more than one attacker), and rape (and possible later murder) you are already at serious bodily injury... right there she is absolutely justified in using lethal force and needs to do so without hesitation in order to have the most effect and better her chances.

The key is in properly preparing a woman to face that kind of encounter, to deal with the assault not when she's had an inkling and been able to palm her folder, but when she is suddenly blitzed from behind, held face down between two cars with limited movement (or in a bed when she is woken in the middle of the night, or, when she's had too much to drink and that "frisky" guy who has her pinned on her friend's couch decides he wants more than she is willing to give right now....)

And she feels her pants being ripped down and use to help pin her legs/thighs, and the attacker slams a hadaka jime on her or punches her in the face while he tells her what he is about to do....

NOW she needs to draw her folder or fixed blade from the pocket or purse it's in, be able to orient herself to some kind of position where she can use it effectively, all the while preventing the attacker from disarming her... a tall order but very realistic circumstances.



Tell me about it. I'v had to learn the hard way not to tell anyone about the fact that I do martial arts, because they all want to test it or get insecure and state how they'd just shoot me. Early on in my judo career, I was talking about what I'd learned in class the previous night and someone overhearing said they'd just go to their car and get their gun and shoot me. They became irate when I calmly pointed out that 1) I was between him and the door and there was one exit, 2) I have my judo on me right now and 3) I've got a gun, too and am not ignorant in its use, nor the fact that firearms exist in modern society. He wound up complaining to my manager about me being 'uppity' and 'threatening' (to which I was told to leave the old bastard alone, even though he butted into my conversation). The point is I agree.

Makes sense and I agree with you in large part.

Nicely done. I am sure it is no surprise to you how difficult it is trying to get through to people like that. Far too many people don't even consider that getting to that gun they rely on for protection, even on their person, may take a higher level of close quarters fighting skill than they are prepared for, based on circumstances. But again, if you are relying on the tool as a magical talisman, things like that are uncomfortable to think about.

Good discussion.

[Aozora]

I don't know of any studies, all I can go on is my own experience,


I hear you. My point is, I'd like to see something on the number of attacks successfully defended against vs. the ones in the cases as you describe. Such a study would be huge in scope and the definintion of the variables would be a nightmare.

However, I think the overarching point you're trying to make is that just because you punch/throw/stab/shoot someone, they aren't necessarily going to go down. I agree. I think that's certainly more true among those with martial or military training than the average joe, although drugs/alcohol certainly seem to mitigate the stopping power of self-defence tools.

There are techniques that can render people physically incapable of continuing to fight, but it has been my experience that they are executed by people with a great deal of training, especially relative to their assailant.

Again, I am not discounting your experiences at all--I think they're both very real and bear careful consideration. I think any form of training should instill the idea that the fight should continue until it's done--"it ain't over til its over." Ironically, one person who has perpertuated the myth of instant killing with a knife, Fairbain, was doing it precisely to instill confidence in his soldiers so that they would aggressively take down their opponents during combat. His chart of atemi targets and the death from blood loss schedules was completely made up in order to make his soldiers feel like they were going to be able to best the enemy. Unfortunately, too many people (whether from Fairbain or not) have this idea that you stick the knife in and death immediately results. That's only for us sword guys. ;)


Probably a mis-type that I am reading here. "more cause to use a knife because they'd be more likley to be assaulted without a weapon than with" actually doesn't make sense to me.

My point there was women are more likely to be assaulted by attackers without weapons, such as in the scenario you describe here. Sorry for the confusion.

[Hissho]

Oh, okay, I think I see the disconnect, if there was actually any...

I don't mean to imply that attacks where bad guys didn't go down right away, or were not immediately incapacited, were not "successfully defended." Neil is clearly immersed in combatives/self defense studies, and thanks to you for providing an opportunity for clarification that I missed.

I am not trying to be a "scare monger" and tell people "its hopeless to defend yourself - committed attackers are like zombies - you can't put them down!!!"

Rather, people need to be MORE committed than their attackers, and not let down their guard by assuming they have ended an encounter before they have actually ended an encounter. I know we are clearly tracking the same now.

And recognizing that certain training approaches and training attitudes, and attitudes about weapons, actually create a situation where the guard may be dropped prematurely because of what they have been conditioned to in training.

Fascinating re: Fairbairn, I'd never heard that.

[Aozora]

I've been trying to find a link to my source on Fairbain. A buddy of mine has a book he leant me a few weeks ago, and it exploded Fairbain's position with fairly extensive research.

As to the rest, I didn't take it as scaremongering--it's a necessary cold dash of water well needed in many dojo/training halls. Even if my fantasy study is conducted and finds 1% of self-defense situations involve an attacker who is not phased by seemingly lethal wounds, it would still behoove martial artist and combatives to prepare for that 1% (FWIW, I don't doubt the percentage would be much higher than that).

Idle speculation on my part at lunch, but I'm thinking that the reason this attitude of "instant kill" is due in part to our society moving further and further away from violent encounters wiht an assailant as an eventuality in daily life. While those eventualities may be very real for police or military personnel, for the average citizen and even the average martial artist, those situations simply do not crop up. Information on violence comes more from television and movies than from actual encounters or even from those who have had violent encounters they've successfully mitigated, ie, their martial art teachers. It's a situation that breeds ignorance and is very difficult to overcome. The lessons will be learned by some that do encounter violence, and probably the hard way.

Again, it behooves us to study all aspects of violent encounters to best prepare for them mentally as well as physically, with or without force multiplying tools, which I believe is the crux of your argument, Kit. Good, thought provoking discussion here--thank you for your thoughts and experiences.

[Joseph Svinth]

Kit --

If you are out looking for documentation, here's one for ya, from 19th century Canada. Guy got shot in the stomach, with a musket, at a range of 1 yard. Not only did he survive, but doctors used him to discover how the bowels worked. Go to Google Books, and look up "The physiology of digestion considered with relation to the principles of ..." by Andrew Combe, Edinburgh: 1849. The case is that of Alexis St Martin. Or, go to Wikipedia, and get the short version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_St._Martin .

See also "Medical Record," George Frederick Shrady, Thomas Lathrop Stedman, Joseph Meredith Toner Collection (Library of Congress), 1885 (also at Google Books). One case describes abdominal wounds made with a dirk, blade six inches in length. The intestines were hanging out several feet, and the guy was on the floor, but four weeks later, he was out of the hospital. Amazing what one can do with some Listerine and water. The other fellow was hit by a coupling link of a railroad car. It went in all the way. He waited until the locomotive pulled the link out, then he walked up to the caboose, a couple car lengths away. The other trainmen put him on a cot, and then he was transported 26 miles to the hospital. The hole in the abdominal cavity was big enough to insert one's arm and hand, but "there was very little shock." A little morphine, a little cat's gut, some stitching, and liquid food. Three months later, he was back to work as a brakeman. This article is neat because it includes pictures.

Obviously, Workers Comp was still several decades in the future for both these cases, but you get the idea.

In more famous fellows, during the Bull Moose presidential campaign of October 1912, Teddy Roosevelt was shot in the right chest. The Colonel went on to deliver an abbreviated version of his speech (he was scheduled for 90 minutes, but in the event, he spoke for just 50 minutes before telling the crowd that perhaps he should go see a doctor).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9804E4DD133CE633A25756C1A9669D946396D6CF

And, finally, let's not forget Andrew Jackson. A Maryland horsebreeder named Dickinson annoyed Jackson by saying rude things about Mrs. Jackson. So, the two men had a duel. Dickinson fired first. Jackson just stood there. Then, he took careful aim, but his pistol misfired. By the rules, this ended the duel, but Ol' Hickory wasn't having any of that. He reset the hammer, aimed again, and fired. Dickinson died a few days later. Jackson then called the doctor, and told him that he had been shot. The reason Jackson hadn't called the doctor sooner was that he did not want Dickinson to die thinking that he had hit Jackson with that first shot. Instead, he wanted him to go to his grave thinking that he had missed. Jackson's reputation took a bit of a hit for this (it wasn't considered too sporting to re-cock and all), but on the other hand, I am not aware that people said bad things about Mrs. Jackson again.

http://www.law.gwu.edu/Burns/rarebooks/exhibits/duel_american.htm

[Hissho]

Good ones, Joe!

[Musubi Dojo]

I've been trying to find a link to my source on Fairbain. A buddy of mine has a book he leant me a few weeks ago, and it exploded Fairbain's position with fairly extensive research.

As to the rest, I didn't take it as scaremongering--it's a necessary cold dash of water well needed in many dojo/training halls.

Any luck finding this info? I've been surfing around the net but can't anything. I'd be really interested to hear more.

Cheers
c

[Mark Murray]

Some might find this site interesting:
http://www.albokalisilat.org/aks.html

There is a section on videos. Make sure to check out all 3 in the folding knife series. Might take some time to load the vids, though.

[Aozora]

Any luck finding this info? I've been surfing around the net but can't anything. I'd be really interested to hear more.

Cheers
c


Yes, it's CONTEMPORARY KNIFE TARGETING: Modern Science vs. W.E. Fairbairn's Timetable of Death by Christopher and Michael D. Janich Grosz.

The first part of the book is dedicated exclusively to busting Fairbairn's timetable in favor of it taking much longer for people to die from wounds. The second part of it are self-defense applications that have a few good pointers, but IMHO, you'd be better off doing jujutsu/aikido/etc. Their postures are.... off balance. Still, a very informative book that I'd recommend, despite it being from Paladin Press. ;)

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/CONTEMPORARY-KNIFE-TARGETING-Fairbairns-Timetable/dp/1581605560/ref=sr_1_9/104-5105784-3303939?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194277130&sr=1-9

[Musubi Dojo]

Many thanks Neil! :)
c

[westernmass]

I have always been told that you should try to obtain control of your opponent's weapon (s) before trying to get into a close combative situation with them , if it is possible. I have also been told that if it is impossible for you to get control of their weapon that using your sidearm is actually a good idea for your own personal safety.

Robynne Legault

[Jitsumania]

It was mentioned before that a safe distance to draw a sidearm against a knife weilding assailant is 21 ft. My Sensei who is a Lt. in the local Sheriffs dept assigned to gangs (also a defensive tactics instructor) would tend to agree, only he would add another 2-3 ft for margin of safety to that. He also carries 3 blades strategically placed on his person just in case) We have proven time and time again in Kali practice that under that range an assailant can close the gap and cut you bad. Some systems rely on prearranged movements for knife defense which condition you in a very limited way which open the door for Mr. Murphy to walk right in and make you bleed. Defenses against knives/edged weapons has always been a sticky issue of debate. Best rule of thumb is to learn proper basics (blocks, counters, deflections, traps and disarms) then train, train, train and then train some more. The more realistic you train, the more adept you become increasing your chances of survival. Most knife weilding assailaints have little to no training in edged weapons but this does not make them any less dangerous. I have my students do an interesting set of drills to prepare for MR. Murphy.

Drill one: Tool- rubber knives with blue chalk rubbed on blade, Head gear with safety glasses or protective shield, Arena-4 bo's placed in the form of square for closed quarter combat effect, directive- Stay alive. Fatal cut or stab and your out!
We do this empty hand vs weapon or weapon vs. weapon

Drill 2: Same tools, arena- workout area, objective- use the enviornment and the tools in it for defense. Same rule -fatal cut or stab and your out.

You can DISCUSS this all day long and read all the literature and view DVD's till the cows come home, but in order to understand you MUST DO!
Mind you I am not against print and visual media for information and comparison (lots of great stuff out there) but when its all said and done and the adrenaline is pumping what will you do? will you do a mental recall of what you read or saw or will you DO what is muscle memory embedded (kinesthetic memory) in you.
Train like you fight and fight like you train!

Best rule of thumb is to prevent or avoid these conflicts when possible because the mind is the strongest weapon of all.

Oh yeah- running is also an option :)

[Hissho]

Rick's post brings up some good point.

Folks should not misunderstand 21 feet as the "safe" distance when facing someone with a knife. The "21 Foot Rule" has been misapplied and misunderstood in much the same way that Force Continuum's have, including being placed into policy. They are nothing of the sort, they are rough guidelines only.

The 21 Foot Rule comes from the Tueller drill, which was intended as a test of officer reaction time. It showed that within 21 feet, a knife armed assailant can get up on an officer with his sidearm holstered before that officer can draw and fire his weapon.

21 feet does not then become the "magic distance" at which someone is/is not shootable in a gun vs. knife encounter - though in many officers minds that is exactly what it translates to - "if he's 22 feet away, and I am challenging him, he's not shootable, but once he takes one step and is now within 21 feet - DING! He's shootable!!!"

So many other factors go into the decision to shoot. He may be 30 feet away and charging and be dropped before he ever gets within 21 feet, a perfectly reasonable shooting. He may be within ten feet, but circumstances lead to a non-shoot. Such "rules of thumb," or "force illustrations" should not be the primary basis for a use of force decision. They have become such in many minds.


The Importance of a Force on Force Progression

Rick's second point, and an excellent one, is about training it. You cannot simply talk it. You cannot simply rote drill it. You must do it under force on force conditions (the knifer actually trying to stab/cut you (with a training blade, of course!)) to achieve the greatest level of preparation.


To paraphrase: The greatest training is in force on force, all else is supplemental.

The reason why most MA and combatives knife defense works is because it is a cooperative endeavor. The bad guy is not actually trying to defeat the efforts of defender. He may be a "good uke," and give realistic attacks, but he is doing so within the confines of an accepted technical response from the good guy. Whether it is done in rote drill (knifer does A, defender does B), or slow motion, or what have you, such methods are only building blocks to the real prepation, which is force on force.

Many, many training methods, and trainers, stop before there. They work the majority of the time, or even all of the time, in the building block phase and rarely or never in the practicalization phase.

The difference is uncertainty, which creates a spike in adrenalin. Increasing research is being done showing that adrenal stress training is superior to any other in terms of eliciting proper responses when under the stress of a real event - the key is you are training under stress. This results in better control of, and more familiarization with, physiologic response, physical skills, and psychological dynamics of the stress response and thus better performance and even more relaxation under the actual stress.

Training in the absence of uncertainty and stress does NOT accomplish the same goal.

Anyone who has ever witnessed most "range" shooters undergo their first experience with intensive force on force training, including experienced tactical and military personnel, will note that the range and sometimes even real world experience has not prepared them for efficient functioning under stress - even when the bullets aren't real!

Watch those same guys after progressive, but rapid, "stress inoculation" with more and more challenging, and more open ended/uncertain training drills, and you will see a marked improvement in their combative functioning.

Because they have inculcated skills under stress.

By all means, you need to do rote drills, on the range, in DT. You need to train slow at low levels, and re-visit such training to check technique.

But this is low level training, and unless specifically working on certain dynamics or bio-mechanics, should not be a majority of the time spent in a training session. Rather, increasing speed to "live" speed should be the primary training focus, and then open-ended stress based (either goal-competitive drills and/or scenario based decision making) training should be at least a quarter to a third of training time.

Frankly, Jigoro Kano had it right. Not a surprise that he was an educator. He had principles illustrated in rote exercises. He "broke" those exercises with uchi-komi, which is practiced anywhere from one step sparring dynamics to full on randori dynamics, and then you totally open up and add uncertainty with goal-competitive exercises.

The same progression should be followed for ALL combatives, armed and unarmed, knife defense and otherwise. And it describes a single training session, for the newest beginner (after certain safety criteria have been established) to the most experienced expert, not a progression over years of time.

[Jay Vail]

This is an non-LEO's opinion.

I bare my ignorance, I have heard of both the Dog brothers and Suarez though I never really looked into them. Watching the vids, I was disturbed by the pixeling; indicating they want you to buy the DVD, making it hard to evaluate what they are teaching, or peddling. Because of that, I wondered if the post instructional attacks where not tanked by the attackers for the benefit of making a commercial DVD. I always wonder that about all commercial instructional DVDs.

Knifes in the hands of those who train in blade arts, and prisoners (which I call the shanking arts) are a dangerous situation to have to face for anyone unarmed and or with an holstered firearm. I have seen a lot of footage of shanking. Of the footage I have seen, I didn't see anyone defend successfully against a shanking. Not saying there isn't, and I am very interested to see it. I have seen several police training videos for officers on how to defend themselves against knife attacks. The people used as attackers where trained and not trained in the blade arts.

I think being a LEO, you are in the most difficult situation when facing a knife. I think the most vulnerable position is a person taken by surprise by a knife or a shank; trained in not blade arts or not. Therefore, I am not sure if I would put the money down for the DVD to learn moves from. In fact, a DVD maybe the worse thing to learn moves from if you don't have good experience in self-defense or martial arts training.

I remember a blade arts guy come into our class once. One of the elder students said that the art we were learning could defend against a knife. The blades art guy took that as a challenge, he was smaller and lighter then the elder student. The blades arts guy used his demo knifes and did moves I didn't see on the vid excepts. No matter what the elder student did the blades guy marked him for a cut. The end result was the blades guy chasing the elder student around the dojo. The elder student was back peddling, getting cut on the hands, forearms, upper arms. I have no doubt the blades art guy could have easily make fatal cuts or stabs. But, he was playing with the elder student. That day was a greatest lesson for me about the limitations of my art, what I lacked and what I needed to learn. The static methods for disarming a knife that I learned in class became an exercise in futility.The elder student being an ex-LEO and training LEOs in such situations, I doubt if he had time to draw his weapon. Is there really a good defense against the blade or shank arts?

I have seen that sort of thing -- a so called knife expert cutting up some martial arts guy. Its very easy to do. Paul Vunak has a vid on youtube showing the same thing and making the same tired argument that you can't defend against a knife attack because the attacker is just going to lay back and slice you to little bits.

Unfortunately, this sort of attack is not the sort of thing you're likely to face on the street.

These attacks are pretty representative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=J3HR2O2m068

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEjKU0p9JZw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2qa9FO7v7Q&feature=related

There are several common features to these attacks. First, there isn't any of that laying off cautious slicing away. The attacks are fully committed. Second, they are strong and unexpected. Third, they are repeated. Fourth, those that are defeated happen because the victim grabbed and controlled the weapon arm. (I personally know of people who have survived knife assaults by grabbing the weapon arm as well. It is, in fact, possible to do so when the attack is committed; it is not usually possible when the attack consists of cautious sniping and slicing.)

If you don't believe that these are representative, cruise youtube. There are a lot of knife vids posted there.

Most people who devise, practice and teach knife defense do not take into account the realities of how knives are actually used by real assailants. You have to be very careful in evaluating what people are teaching -- or what they tell you about the uselessness of knife defense techniques. A lot of it is garbage. But some of it is real.

For a useful source of good information, check out Hock Hochheim's "Unarmed Versus the Knife" and "Military Knife Combat." They're pretty sound.

[Jitsumania]

In response to the cop video:
Shoot dude Shoot.
That is precisely what Hissho and I talked about in our previous posts.
I don't believe those guys had any stress shooting training/inoculation, distance awareness,etc..
"Hesitation breeds meditation from a horizontal position"
I always feel so bad when I see/hear of Police officers getting hurt or killed in the line of Duty due to situations like this. I did a seminar with another practitioner for LEO and correctional officials a while ago. What surprized me during the seminar was the very limited amount of info they had regarding Knife defenses, gun retention and disarm strategies. The most versed was a highway patrolman from the Dept of Public Safety in Texas.
Videos are ok for acquiring concept but nothing replaces real life stress induced training.
Train, train, train then train some more!

[Richmond McClue]

a bit more on the Tueller drill, the original article "How Close is Too Close?"

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

[Jitsumania]

a bit more on the Tueller drill, the original article "How Close is Too Close?"

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

Thank you for posting the article.

[richard808]

How does, say, the Marine Corps accomplish what this thread is calling adrenalin/stress training, ie where the attack is real enough to evoke the adrenalin and stress in the real world?

[Jay Vail]

In response to the cop video:
Shoot dude Shoot.
That is precisely what Hissho and I talked about in our previous posts.
I don't believe those guys had any stress shooting training/inoculation, distance awareness,etc..
"Hesitation breeds meditation from a horizontal position"
I always feel so bad when I see/hear of Police officers getting hurt or killed in the line of Duty due to situations like this. I did a seminar with another practitioner for LEO and correctional officials a while ago. What surprized me during the seminar was the very limited amount of info they had regarding Knife defenses, gun retention and disarm strategies. The most versed was a highway patrolman from the Dept of Public Safety in Texas.
Videos are ok for acquiring concept but nothing replaces real life stress induced training.
Train, train, train then train some more!

Most of these guys don't want to train. In the past, I've had the opportunity to discuss defensive combatives with DOC corrections officers in my state. They all believe that the techniques (which we all know) work, but that they take practice. These guys often lament that most officers wouldn't put in the time in the gym to hone their skills.

[Jay Vail]

How does, say, the Marine Corps accomplish what this thread is calling adrenalin/stress training, ie where the attack is real enough to evoke the adrenalin and stress in the real world?


Check this out.

http://www.history.com/media.do?id=hw_mcma_moves_broadband&action=clip

[Jay Vail]

How does, say, the Marine Corps accomplish what this thread is calling adrenalin/stress training, ie where the attack is real enough to evoke the adrenalin and stress in the real world?

Here's another one.

http://www.history.com/media.do?id=hw_mcma_moves_broadband&action=clip

[richard808]

The second link was (at least for me) the same as the first; but anyway, I see what you mean. The first few seconds of the video show the milieu of realistic encounter, esp the Marine surprised from behind; and the Marine who drew his pistol in far less than a second after some superb unarmed-style moves to get the attacker off his back. Thanks for showing me that; from the History Channel.
Looks to me like the Marines have analyzed training by video, and got it right, or almost right. You have both cinema verite of fighting humans to get the feel of the adrenalin situation; and you have the analytical-but-still-real-time computer graphics dummies to make it crystal clear how to execute in real time. My feeling is that voiceovers screw this up by distracting the viewer; and that a text track does not; but I suspect that those movies with the "dummies" don't have a voiceover when the Marines are training.
One thing I've always noticed about the guys who teach real life defense is that in videos they APPEAR to be moving unhurriedly, like an optical illusion of slowness is taking place. Maybe it's because in these videos the attacker is moving like a madman (as I've seen attackers do in real life.) APPEARS to be moving unhurriedly; there's a strange contrast..